Ayn Rand saw clearly the danger posed by the resentful left. Full of hate and envy, they desire to destroy more than they desire to create. Radical progressivism is a terrifying confirmation.
She was certainly right about the 'new' left. It's more difficult to see how the old left (or at least its non-Marxist variant) was like this, especially in Britain--I have in mind the Christian socialism of William Morris, John Ruskin etc. as well as the early trade unions and even the Labour Party at and near its inception. There were similar currents of pre-Marxist socialism all over Europe, Australia and North America.
Is it necessary to point out that her blindspot was the role of her co-ethnics in the left? She seems to have sublimated any criticism she knew deep down was due to them in making all her heroes and heroines...very much *not* her co-ethnics.
I think a more penetrating criticism of Objectivism is that I've never seen a coherent Objectivist justification for family formation. Tree of Woe did a piece on the topic recently:
I've bounced off plenty of Ayn Rand articles over the last 5 years. Whilst they piqued my interest, none of them made the connection of this article. I now 'get' Ayn Rand and I now have a deeper understanding of the Left.
Governments issued Billions of acres of free Indian land to Europeans (by genocide and theft) in the New World, which was socialism. Capitalism went on steroids with free, abundant black labor; social capital was redirected to Caucasians, which maldistributed massive generational wealth and power to whites (a dominant group). Racism is an economic relationship between groups (a fundamental reality). Unregulated capitalism leads to significant problems.
"Many political observers were shocked by the left’s eruption of glee this past October 7th, but Rand, who understood the importance of ideas, would have been unsurprised." The trangressive nature of action by Hamas is the (biological) point to show formidability despite the perception of inferiority. The support for Hamas eg from Queers for Palestine has a like payoff. Atavistic.
“…Radical progressivism is a terrifying confirmation.”
Perhaps the author can clarify the difference between radical progressivism and progressivism. Personally, I think the only difference is in speed and earnestness. Ultimately, they are equally destructive—just like every other utopian ideology.
That's just pre-Internet propaganda, back when we could not check up on our media's lies. In fact, takeoff under Mao was faster than any in history:
From 1880-1914 Germany's GDP grew 33% per decade.
Japan from 1874-1929 was 43%.
The Soviet Union from 1928-58 hit 54%.
Mao's decadal rate was 64%.
“In the post-Mao era, it has become fashionable to bloviate about the blemishes of the historical record of the Mao era and to keep quiet about the achievements of the time. Far from being the era of economic stagnation that is now commonly perceived, Mao’s era was one of the greatest modernization in world history, comparable with the most intense industrialization in several major latecomers in modern times, such as Germany, Japan and Russia.” Maurice Meisner, Yale
Nobody starved to death after 1950, nor was anybody murdered. If you have a credible source that says otherwise, please share it.
If it was so easy to make enormous gains when starting from almost zero, why has no other country done what Mao did–for 25 years–under worldwide embargoes that make today's look mild?
Also, numbers out of Russia and China are misleading if not blatantly fraudulent.
Part of the death toll from the Great Leap Forward was due to underlings reporting what they thought their bosses wanted to hear, because of said bosses’ tendency to shoot the messenger. Xi Jinping is insulated from reality for the same reasons.
Hey Aporia, Personal reaction but I find this annoying: "Following the October 7th, 2023 massacre of over 1,000 Israeli civilians by Hamas, leftist groups across the US celebrated on university campuses, cheering this victory of the oppressed over their “colonizers.”" Because it leaves out what Israel did to those Palestinians afterwards and before because that seems a lot like "colonization" which many Zionists if not celebrate then pretend it is not really a thing and put it in scare quotes. It is a good example of leftist resentment. But supporting Israeli nationalism when most of them don't support our nationalism is cuckery.
"Because it leaves out what Israel did to those Palestinians afterwards .."
The fact that Leftists celebrated October 7th despite it being obvious what the response would is precisely what makes them nihilistic and insane. It's one thing to celebrate the death of the team you don't support, it's another thing to support the team you do support sticking their d**k in a blender for kicks.
Half the population of Israel are Mizrahi jews who are recently indigenous to the middle east and genetic evidence indicates that Ashkenazim can trace a substantial portion of their ancestry to the same region, albeit at a remove of many centuries, so whether these populations moving back to their ancestral homeland constitutes 'colonisation' is debatable. Some of the early Zionists phrased it that way, but plenty of them also expressed an earnest desire for peaceful co-existence prior to the war of '48.
Where places like Israel (or South Africa) are today is where a lot of other western nations could be going to be in 20, 30 or 40 years, so I really don't have a lot of patience with elements of the dissident right who affect to be deeply, awfully concerned with the plight of Palestinian jihadists that they would evict from their own homelands in a heartbeat.
I also didn't like the weepy support of Palestinians which is why my criticism is directly based upon a friend enemy distinction, "But supporting Israeli nationalism when most of them don't support our nationalism is cuckery"
The Palestinians _are_ losers. They support their kleptocratic leadership instead of demanding competent government. They wrecked Lebanon in 60s. None of the Arab countries will take them in, lest they destroy their relatively functional situations. It’s not that they are stupid. They are relentlessly tribal. They would rather rule a dung heap than allow others to prosper.
They are stupid and tribal. Cousin marriage does that.
Is their attitude any different than any other low IQ group. Do blacks run Detroit much better than Palestinians run Gaza?
Just the other day I watched black journalists on CNN etc and the black jurors from OJ Simpsons say they knew he was guilty but they just wanted a black guy to get away with killing two white people. How is that attitude different from the Palestinians?
The Palestinians are by nature smarter than blacks. If they had a culture that wasn't completely based on doing incredibly stupid shit to get revenge for the last time they did incredibly stupid shit and got pounded for it they could outperform Detroit blacks. Jordan isn't paradise, but it isn't that bad. Hell *the West Bank and Gaza themselves* weren't that bad 30 years ago.
Please show me where Rand advocated genocide. It’s telling how often her critics engage with ideas falsely attributed to her rather than with her actual ideas.
She was certainly right about the 'new' left. It's more difficult to see how the old left (or at least its non-Marxist variant) was like this, especially in Britain--I have in mind the Christian socialism of William Morris, John Ruskin etc. as well as the early trade unions and even the Labour Party at and near its inception. There were similar currents of pre-Marxist socialism all over Europe, Australia and North America.
Is it necessary to point out that her blindspot was the role of her co-ethnics in the left? She seems to have sublimated any criticism she knew deep down was due to them in making all her heroes and heroines...very much *not* her co-ethnics.
I think a more penetrating criticism of Objectivism is that I've never seen a coherent Objectivist justification for family formation. Tree of Woe did a piece on the topic recently:
https://treeofwoe.substack.com/p/the-errors-of-ayn-rand
It's a *further* criticism certainly. Many others could be made. But this article is about her critique if the left.
I read TOW's piece. It's a good one.
I've bounced off plenty of Ayn Rand articles over the last 5 years. Whilst they piqued my interest, none of them made the connection of this article. I now 'get' Ayn Rand and I now have a deeper understanding of the Left.
Yes she did get it right as did Hannah Arendt
The irony — She relied on Medicare (socialism) to treat her cancer and excruciating pain.
It would be foolish not to take advantage of a socialist program that you are forced to pay into as a capitalist.
So, she was a liar and a hypocrite just like you.
Governments issued Billions of acres of free Indian land to Europeans (by genocide and theft) in the New World, which was socialism. Capitalism went on steroids with free, abundant black labor; social capital was redirected to Caucasians, which maldistributed massive generational wealth and power to whites (a dominant group). Racism is an economic relationship between groups (a fundamental reality). Unregulated capitalism leads to significant problems.
"Many political observers were shocked by the left’s eruption of glee this past October 7th, but Rand, who understood the importance of ideas, would have been unsurprised." The trangressive nature of action by Hamas is the (biological) point to show formidability despite the perception of inferiority. The support for Hamas eg from Queers for Palestine has a like payoff. Atavistic.
That’s a very insightful point. Effectively saying we don’t fear you even if you can and do kill us.
“…Radical progressivism is a terrifying confirmation.”
Perhaps the author can clarify the difference between radical progressivism and progressivism. Personally, I think the only difference is in speed and earnestness. Ultimately, they are equally destructive—just like every other utopian ideology.
We will probably never recover from the damage Rand caused with that idiotic book.
Rand's thesis is confounded by China, a collectivist-socialist society and the most successful on earth.
Successful only after it gave up economic communism and embraced capitalism.
That's just pre-Internet propaganda, back when we could not check up on our media's lies. In fact, takeoff under Mao was faster than any in history:
From 1880-1914 Germany's GDP grew 33% per decade.
Japan from 1874-1929 was 43%.
The Soviet Union from 1928-58 hit 54%.
Mao's decadal rate was 64%.
“In the post-Mao era, it has become fashionable to bloviate about the blemishes of the historical record of the Mao era and to keep quiet about the achievements of the time. Far from being the era of economic stagnation that is now commonly perceived, Mao’s era was one of the greatest modernization in world history, comparable with the most intense industrialization in several major latecomers in modern times, such as Germany, Japan and Russia.” Maurice Meisner, Yale
At the cost of 40 to 60 million dead; starved and/or murdered.
It’s easy to make enormous gains when starting from almost zero. 20% of Russian households still don’t have indoor plumbing.
Nobody starved to death after 1950, nor was anybody murdered. If you have a credible source that says otherwise, please share it.
If it was so easy to make enormous gains when starting from almost zero, why has no other country done what Mao did–for 25 years–under worldwide embargoes that make today's look mild?
Also, numbers out of Russia and China are misleading if not blatantly fraudulent.
Part of the death toll from the Great Leap Forward was due to underlings reporting what they thought their bosses wanted to hear, because of said bosses’ tendency to shoot the messenger. Xi Jinping is insulated from reality for the same reasons.
Bob, you've been hornswoggled. None of that is true, nor is there the slightest evidence of it.
And progressives prate about gaslighting.
Do you have some evidence you can share with us, Bob?
Hey Aporia, Personal reaction but I find this annoying: "Following the October 7th, 2023 massacre of over 1,000 Israeli civilians by Hamas, leftist groups across the US celebrated on university campuses, cheering this victory of the oppressed over their “colonizers.”" Because it leaves out what Israel did to those Palestinians afterwards and before because that seems a lot like "colonization" which many Zionists if not celebrate then pretend it is not really a thing and put it in scare quotes. It is a good example of leftist resentment. But supporting Israeli nationalism when most of them don't support our nationalism is cuckery.
"Because it leaves out what Israel did to those Palestinians afterwards .."
The fact that Leftists celebrated October 7th despite it being obvious what the response would is precisely what makes them nihilistic and insane. It's one thing to celebrate the death of the team you don't support, it's another thing to support the team you do support sticking their d**k in a blender for kicks.
Half the population of Israel are Mizrahi jews who are recently indigenous to the middle east and genetic evidence indicates that Ashkenazim can trace a substantial portion of their ancestry to the same region, albeit at a remove of many centuries, so whether these populations moving back to their ancestral homeland constitutes 'colonisation' is debatable. Some of the early Zionists phrased it that way, but plenty of them also expressed an earnest desire for peaceful co-existence prior to the war of '48.
Where places like Israel (or South Africa) are today is where a lot of other western nations could be going to be in 20, 30 or 40 years, so I really don't have a lot of patience with elements of the dissident right who affect to be deeply, awfully concerned with the plight of Palestinian jihadists that they would evict from their own homelands in a heartbeat.
I also didn't like the weepy support of Palestinians which is why my criticism is directly based upon a friend enemy distinction, "But supporting Israeli nationalism when most of them don't support our nationalism is cuckery"
Fair enough.
It's worth noting Rand's disdain for the weak. The Palestinians. Native Americans. MLKs poor peoples crusade protesting the Moon Landing.
Losers. Weak losers. Worth genocoding even if it gives the strong the resources they need, go look up the quotes.
You know, there was a lot of talk trying to rationalize strength, but ultimately strength is its own rationalization.
The Palestinians _are_ losers. They support their kleptocratic leadership instead of demanding competent government. They wrecked Lebanon in 60s. None of the Arab countries will take them in, lest they destroy their relatively functional situations. It’s not that they are stupid. They are relentlessly tribal. They would rather rule a dung heap than allow others to prosper.
They are stupid and tribal. Cousin marriage does that.
Is their attitude any different than any other low IQ group. Do blacks run Detroit much better than Palestinians run Gaza?
Just the other day I watched black journalists on CNN etc and the black jurors from OJ Simpsons say they knew he was guilty but they just wanted a black guy to get away with killing two white people. How is that attitude different from the Palestinians?
The Palestinians are by nature smarter than blacks. If they had a culture that wasn't completely based on doing incredibly stupid shit to get revenge for the last time they did incredibly stupid shit and got pounded for it they could outperform Detroit blacks. Jordan isn't paradise, but it isn't that bad. Hell *the West Bank and Gaza themselves* weren't that bad 30 years ago.
Well, sure. There's always been a strong social-darwinist strain to free-market libertarianism.
A psychopathic philosophy by a Jewish psychopath for psychopaths who hate Jews. ✔️
Please show me where Rand advocated genocide. It’s telling how often her critics engage with ideas falsely attributed to her rather than with her actual ideas.
As far as her actual ideas are concerned, most of them are wrong: https://zerocontradictions.net/misc/critiquing-ayn-rands-objectivism
It's an interesting website and I appreciate the link, though I don't think I'll get around to reading it all soon.
1/4 of the way in, doesn't start out strong at all.
Please elaborate with specific examples and critiques.
Also recall that the essay's introduction and conclusion both specify that you're supposed to read the external links to fully understand everything.