Ayn Rand Really, Really Hated C.S. Lewis

Books • May 2013 • Views: 3,785

Ayn Rand was no fan of C.S. Lewis. She called the famous apologist an “abysmal bastard,” a “monstrosity,” a “cheap, awful, miserable, touchy, social-metaphysical mediocrity,” a “pickpocket of concepts,” and a “God-damn, beaten mystic.” (I suspect Lewis would have particularly relished the last of these.)

These insults and more can be found in her marginal notes on a copy of Lewis’ Abolition of Man, as printed in Ayn Rand’s Marginalia: Her critical comments on the writings of over 20 authors, edited by Robert Mayhew. Excerpts appear below, with Lewis’ writing (complete with Rand’s highlighting and underlining) on the left and Rand’s notes on the right.

You’ll need to go to the source to read her paragraph by paragraph attacks. The wingnuts aren’t going to like this one bit.

More: Ayn Rand Really, Really Hated C.S. Lewis » First Thoughts

C.S. Lewis Ayn Rand

Recent Pages by Skip Intro:
Trump Partner in Running for New FBI Building - ABC2News.com Plot to Kill Muslims in Kansas Was Foreseen in Report on Right-Wing Extremism That Politicians Slammed Donald Trump's Candidacy Is a Threat to American Democracy The Man Who Showed Donald Trump How to Exploit Power and Instill Fear Too Good to Be True? Dick Morris Might Join the Trump Campaign

Jump to bottom

42 comments

SidewaysQuark Fri, May 31, 2013 9:59:33am

Well, C.S. Lewis does have Ayn Rand to thank for only being the SECOND most overrated philosopher of the 20th century.

Romantic Heretic Fri, May 31, 2013 3:31:41pm

Can’t say I’m surprised. After all Lewis’s Narnia Chronicles was all about people learning about responsibility through self sacrifice. Blasphemy to the neo-Marxist that is Ayn Rand.

Dark_Falcon Fri, May 31, 2013 5:04:44pm

re: #2 Romantic Heretic

Can’t say I’m surprised. After all Lewis’s Narnia Chronicles was all about people learning about responsibility through self sacrifice. Blasphemy to the neo-Marxist that is Ayn Rand.

Rand wasn’t a Marxist, her Objectivism was very anti-collectivism. Rand was not a totalitarian, she was just very, VERY, wrong.

And the very fact that Rand saw fit to hate on Abolition of Man may be taken as a proof Lewis was getting some things right. The first evidence of quality is that the haters hate on it.

EPR-radar Fri, May 31, 2013 5:11:12pm

re: #3 Dark_Falcon

Rand wasn’t a Marxist, her Objectivism was very anti-collectivism. Rand was not a totalitarian, she was just very, VERY, wrong.

And the very fact that Rand saw fit to hate on Abolition of Man may be taken as a proof Lewis was getting some things right. The first evidence of quality is that the haters hate on it.

I’m not fond of Ayn Rand, but natural law arguments (as CS Lewis was apparently making in the Abolition of Man) aren’t really any better, in my view.

The claim of natural law to be objective is unpersuasive, and in practice it too often comes down to defending various odious features of traditional societies as being somehow natural.

Romantic Heretic Fri, May 31, 2013 7:23:37pm

re: #3 Dark_Falcon

Rand wasn’t a Marxist, her Objectivism was very anti-collectivism. Rand was not a totalitarian, she was just very, VERY, wrong.

In my opinion, she is a Marxist, or more correctly the Marxist equivalent of a Satanist. She accepted the Marxist worldview, but inverted it. Good became evil and evil, good.

Her works read like Soviet propaganda, save that the villains in Soviet works, the individualistic capitalists are the heroes in Rand’s.

I don’t accept the Marxist mythology no matter how it’s interpreted.

vidugavia Sat, Jun 1, 2013 12:31:45am

Marxist? Ayn Rands basic philosophical ideas, political goals and general worldview are in most cases totally different than those of marxists.

Marxists generally believe that morality is a historical phenomenon that changes as society changes. Concepts like good and evil are according to most marxists different in different societies.

Ayn Rand believe that there exists an unchanging absolute morality that transcends history. Good and evil are constants.

Most marxists have a rather organic view of history and society and analyses it as a result of acts by large collective forces of people.

Ayn Rand see society as shaped by the will of “great men”.

Individual prosperity is, from a marxist perspective, in no small part a result of societal forces beyond the control of the individual.

Individual prosperity are according to Rand a result of an individuals worth and will.

Both Rand and marxists meet at the notion that humans are free if the rule themselves but that is something they share with the majority of post-enlightenment western thinkers.

And no. Satanists, like Church of Satan, doesn’t accept the christian worldview. They are a rebellion against it that use some inverted christian concepts to mark their distance.

If Rand is a marxist because her thinking is a clear reaction against marxist thinking, then Thomas Paine is a monarchist.

vidugavia Sat, Jun 1, 2013 12:53:15am

Ayn Rand, the strange old bird. These notes gives an interesting peek into her confused hateful mind.

The most interesting thing is that she is largely misreading what Lewis wants to say. To busy insulting him.

Romantic Heretic Sat, Jun 1, 2013 4:39:32am

re: #6 vidugavia

You have your view and I have mine. Fortunately we live in a place where neither Marx nor Rand has any real power and we can both express that.

But, would you explain John Galt to me?

Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut Sat, Jun 1, 2013 5:58:36am

re: #1 SidewaysQuark

Well, C.S. Lewis does have Ayn Rand to thank for only being the SECOND most overrated philosopher of the 20th century.

I can’t remember who it was, but there was someone on LGF who got really upset when I said that Lewis wasn’t really taken seriously as a philosopher in the modern day.

Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut Sat, Jun 1, 2013 5:59:22am

re: #6 vidugavia

She’s an inverse Marxist, basically. I think the point RH was making was that her philosophy, rather than being determined by first principles, is largely formed from reactions to Marxist concepts, and assertion of the negation of them.

vidugavia Sat, Jun 1, 2013 8:34:24am

re: #8 Romantic Heretic

You have your view and I have mine. Fortunately we live in a place where neither Marx nor Rand has any real power and we can both express that.

But, would you explain John Galt to me?

Yes and I can produce arguments to support my views. Grounded in my knowledge of the history of ideas. While your arguments seems a bit lacking. I don’t care who John Galt is. The less that is said about him, the better.

vidugavia Sat, Jun 1, 2013 8:48:12am

re: #10 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut

She’s an inverse Marxist, basically. I think the point RH was making was that her philosophy, rather than being determined by first principles, is largely formed from reactions to Marxist concepts, and assertion of the negation of them.

Speaking of “first principles” shows a rather shallow understanding of how ideas are formed. All ideas are formed as some kind of reaction to our our surroundings. The history of ideas are a long discussion where different concepts compete, evolve and inspire. No one gets to have “first principles”.

Would you describe Thomas Paine as a inverse monarchist?

Bulworth Sat, Jun 1, 2013 1:43:57pm

The wingnuts aren’t going to like this one bit.

Lalalalalalalalalala—we can’t hear you—lalalalalalalalalalalallalalal

vidugavia Sat, Jun 1, 2013 2:07:50pm

I’m from Sweden and I’m usually rather confused about how the US right wing works. Does it really exist a significant amount of christian randians? People who somehow enjoy both her and Lewis views of the world?

I would say that Rands thinking is even more antithetical i relation to traditional christian morality that to marxism. Marxists generally preaches collective action for collective benefit while traditional christianity preaches modesty and self sacrifice, something that Rand totally hated.

Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut Sat, Jun 1, 2013 2:41:17pm

re: #12 vidugavia

Speaking of “first principles” shows a rather shallow understanding of how ideas are formed.

You’re a charmer.

All ideas are formed as some kind of reaction to our our surroundings. The history of ideas are a long discussion where different concepts compete, evolve and inspire. No one gets to have “first principles”.

It’s a well-known philosophical term.
en.wikipedia.org

Did you seriously not know that?

Would you describe Thomas Paine as a inverse monarchist?

No, mainly because ‘monarchist’ isn’t really much of a category. George III was not anywhere close to an absolute monarch; the British Empire was a constitutional monarchy. In creating our nation, we modeled many things on British law.

What is being said is that Ayn Rand’s ideas are all reactions to Marxism, and wind up oddly mirroring it with the heavy emphasis on a ‘correct’ interpretation of language, the idea that human nature is perfectible through an economic system, etc. etc.

Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut Sat, Jun 1, 2013 2:42:12pm

re: #14 vidugavia

A high number of the Ayn Rand fans in the US are deterministic Protestants, so they probably dislike C.S. Lewis for being a Catholic.

dragonath Sat, Jun 1, 2013 2:45:01pm

re: #14 vidugavia

I’m from Sweden and I’m usually rather confused about how the US right wing works. Does it really exist a significant amount of christian randians? People who somehow enjoy both her and Lewis views of the world?

Yes, actually. Look up “Prosperity Gospel”. In Virginia, the GOP nominee for Lieutenant Governor is a proponent. There are many more.

Romantic Heretic Sat, Jun 1, 2013 3:17:23pm

re: #15 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut

Thanks for the defence.

Thinking about this thread made me think about this article in America Conservative: Marxism of the Right.

wrenchwench Sat, Jun 1, 2013 4:13:26pm

re: #18 Romantic Heretic

Thanks for the defence.

Thinking about this thread made me think about this article in America Conservative: Marxism of the Right.

I didn’t expect to like something from that publication, but it’s from 2005. Maybe they weren’t nuts then. Favorite paragraph:

Empirically, most people don’t actually want absolute freedom, which is why democracies don’t elect libertarian governments. Irony of ironies, people don’t choose absolute freedom. But this refutes libertarianism by its own premise, as libertarianism defines the good as the freely chosen, yet people do not choose it. Paradoxically, people exercise their freedom not to be libertarians.

vidugavia Sat, Jun 1, 2013 5:00:16pm

re: #15 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut

You’re a charmer.

Not trying to be charming. Trying to use ideological categories that are useful beyond being a way to lump things we dislike together.

It’s a well-known philosophical term.
en.wikipedia.org

Yes. First principles as axioms is a well known concept for logical reasoning but it doesn’t learn us anything about the origin of the assumptions that we use as axioms. No assumptions develops from thin air. Each assumption regarding the world has a origin in a reaction to it. Ayn Rand was, by the way, rather fond of at least trying to use the law of identity as her first principle.

No, mainly because ‘monarchist’ isn’t really much of a category. George III was not anywhere close to an absolute monarch; the British Empire was a constitutional monarchy. In creating our nation, we modeled many things on British law.

Monarchist isn’t much of a category? I think Thomas Paine would disagree as he saw monarchy more or less as a poison that threatens the good of society. Much of his thought is centered around his opposition to monarchy which he saw as antithetical to the republic.

Regarding finding an answer to the question if Paine was an inverted monarchist I don’t see what importance the form of George III:s rule has. He loathed the British monarchy. Read “Common Sense”.

What is being said is that Ayn Rand’s ideas are all reactions to Marxism, and wind up oddly mirroring it with the heavy emphasis on a ‘correct’ interpretation of language, the idea that human nature is perfectible through an economic system, etc. etc

In my recollection I don’t know about any great marxist interest in the correct interpretation of language. Marxists have generally seen language just as a tool for analyzing the world and propagating their ideas. The randian obsession with defining the true objective concepts and their hierarchy is foreign to the general marxist tradition.

Both marxists and randians share the notion that there exists problems in society that must be removed in order to ensure peoples freedom and prosperity. But this notion they share with most post-enlightenment western traditions and among others Thomas Paine.

Marxists in general doesn’t say that abolishing capitalism will make human society and nature perfect. They only claim that a socialist society would better conform to human nature.

I know to little about Rands views to know if she thought that a perfect society was possible.

vidugavia Sat, Jun 1, 2013 5:08:24pm

re: #18 Romantic Heretic

Thanks for the defence.

Thinking about this thread made me think about this article in America Conservative: Marxism of the Right.

Rather silly article that places the writer as a moderating observer between two strawmen.

“Free spirits, the ambitious, ex-socialists, drug users, and sexual eccentrics!” O my! :-)

Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut Sat, Jun 1, 2013 5:09:05pm

re: #20 vidugavia

Yes. First principles as axioms is a well known concept for logical reasoning but it doesn’t learn us anything about the origin of the assumptions that we use as axioms. No assumptions develops from thin air. Each assumption regarding the world has a origin in a reaction to it. Ayn Rand was, by the way, rather fond of at least trying to use the law of identity as her first principle.

I think it’s cool the way that you weirdly attacked me for using the phrase ‘first principle’ and then started using it yourself.

Monarchist isn’t much of a category? I think Thomas Paine would disagree as he saw monarchy more or less as a poison that threatens the good of society. Much of his thought is centered around his opposition to monarchy which he saw as antithetical to the republic.

But monarchy can cover anything between an absolute rule to an executive head strongly hedged by parliament— as George III was. Sure, Paine was anti-monarchist, but ‘monarchist’ isn’t coherent enough so that an inverse of it maxes sense; Marxism is a much more coherent thing.

Regarding finding an answer to the question if Paine was an inverted monarchist I don’t see what importance the form of George III:s rule has. He loathed the British monarchy. Read “Common Sense”.

Gee, thanks for telling me to read Common Sense. I certainly wouldn’t have done that before. See, it’s really freaking rude to just command someone to go read something, espeically something I’ve read plenty before.

My point is simple, and easily understood: There is such a vast gulf between an absolute monarchy and a monarchy with a parliment, that monarchism is not nearly as well-defined a political system as Marxism— not that Marxism is even that well defined.

In my recollection I don’t know about any great marxist interest in the correct interpretation of language. Marxists have generally seen language just as a tool for analyzing the world and propagating their ideas. The randian obsession with defining the true objective concepts and their hierarchy is foreign to the general marxist tradition.

What Randian obsession with defining true objective concepts and their hierarchy?

Both marxists and randians share the notion that there exists problems in society that must be removed in order to ensure peoples freedom and prosperity. But this notion they share with most post-enlightenment western traditions and among others Thomas Paine.

Specifically, they both believe that the economic system needs to be changed to end the exploitation of certain members of it— for Marx, the proletariat, for Rand, the hard-working and the ubermesch geniuses.

Marxists in general doesn’t say that abolishing capitalism will make human society and nature perfect. They only claim that a socialist society would better conform to human nature.

They also very much think that such a system would improve the way that humans interact with each other. Very much.

Your tone is really, really patronizing.

vidugavia Sat, Jun 1, 2013 5:22:47pm

re: #17 dragonath

Yes, actually. Look up “Prosperity Gospel”. In Virginia, the GOP nominee for Lieutenant Governor is a proponent. There are many more.

I know about the prosperity gospel. We have some of those here to. But do they really like a proud atheist like Rand? Don’t they have more fitting books to read?

And from what I know of Lewis, he would probably loathe anything connected to the prosperity gospel. How do these people make their worldview work?

By googling i found a fitting commentary by Lewis demon Screwtape regarding how to corrupt humans:

If, on the other hand, the middle years prove prosperous, our position is even stronger. Prosperity knits a man to the World. He feels that he is “finding his place in it,” while really it is finding its place in him. His increasing reputation, his widening circle of acquaintances, his sense of importance, the growing pressure of absorbing and agreeable work, build up in him a sense of being really at home on Earth, which is just what we want.

Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut Sat, Jun 1, 2013 5:26:08pm

re: #23 vidugavia

I know about the prosperity gospel. We have some of those here to. But do they really like a proud atheist like Rand? Don’t they have more fitting books to read?

They’re already making Christianity, which started with a dude who wanted his followers to live in poverty, into a ‘prosperity gospel’; embracing Rand is not a challenge after that.

vidugavia Sat, Jun 1, 2013 6:34:06pm

re: #22 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut

I think it’s cool the way that you weirdly attacked me for using the phrase ‘first principle’ and then started using it yourself..

I might be a bit lacking in expressing myself as English isn’t my first language. What I wanted to attack was the notion I read into your post that ideas that originated as reactions to other ideas somehow was disqualified av “first principles”.

But monarchy can cover anything between an absolute rule to an executive head strongly hedged by parliament— as George III was. Sure, Paine was anti-monarchist, but ‘monarchist’ isn’t coherent enough so that an inverse of it maxes sense; Marxism is a much more coherent thing.

The monarchism Paine was facing and formulated his arguments against was in its core, at least as Paine saw it, rather coherent. It was supported by centuries of christian european theories and traditions of the monarchs hereditary and divine right to rule. He saw the British system as sort of a chimera but didn’t distinguish it’s monarchy part from the badness of monarchies in general. His critique is, in all its biblical glory, a point by point, reversal of the doctrines of divine right of kings. Does’t that make him a clear inverse 18th century monarchist?

My point is simple, and easily understood: There is such a vast gulf between an absolute monarchy and a monarchy with a parliment, that monarchism is not nearly as well-defined a political system as Marxism— not that Marxism is even that well defined.

Marxism is, and was at Rands time, at least as diversified as the main scholarly theories supporting kingship in the 18th century Europe but that isn’t really important. The important thing is what Rand and Paine themselves saw and defined as their intellectual adversaries.

What Randian obsession with defining true objective concepts and their hierarchy?

Based mostly on a conversation with two self identified objectivists. They seemed to propose that there was a true objective way to define humans and other concept. But this might be a result of a misunderstanding of mine or that they themselves were confused about the true randian way. What did you mean by correct interpretation of language?

Specifically, they both believe that the economic system needs to be changed to end the exploitation of certain members of it— for Marx, the proletariat, for Rand, the hard-working and the ubermesch geniuses.

Well sort of. Marx saw the struggle of the proletariat as the only ones able to free all humanity by abolishing social classes.

They also very much think that such a system would improve the way that humans interact with each other. Very much.

Exactly. Abolishing the things that oppress people and hinders their life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Both derives from rather classical enlightenment thinking.

Your tone is really, really patronizing.

People that categorizes Ayn Rand as a marxist might be i need of some patronage.

JABaker Sat, Jun 1, 2013 6:38:18pm

re: #14 vidugavia

Here’s a start for your research:

swampland.time.com

Check out the blanket approbation for Rand reported in the ad at the end.

vidugavia Sat, Jun 1, 2013 6:51:10pm

To further clarifying what I meant by my critique of “first principles”. I mean that noone has “first principles” that in stands free from influences from our reaction to the world that surrounds us.

vidugavia Sat, Jun 1, 2013 6:56:01pm

re: #26 JABaker

Here’s a start for your research:

swampland.time.com

Check out the blanket approbation for Rand reported in the ad at the end.

Thank you. This is even more bizarre than when Chinese communist leaders started to talk about there being no fundamental conflict between socialism and a market economy.

Romantic Heretic Sat, Jun 1, 2013 8:24:09pm

I just had to come back to this because I remembered this little quote.

There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.

As for China, it’s no longer a Communist state, that is, run on Marxist principles. It’s now simply an an advanced authoritarian state not dissimilar to, say, Pinochet’s Chile. Although it uses Marxism as a cover for its true form.

Which is why businesses are flocking there. Capitalism is more comfortable in such states than it is in democracies.

SidewaysQuark Sat, Jun 1, 2013 11:58:33pm

re: #14 vidugavia

I’m from Sweden and I’m usually rather confused about how the US right wing works. Does it really exist a significant amount of christian randians? People who somehow enjoy both her and Lewis views of the world?

No, for the most part, the Randians and fundamentalist Christians hate one another. It’s part (but a significant part) of why conservatism in America is falling to pieces. The failure of the militaristic wing of the party to give a crap about either of them is another significant part of it.

Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut Sun, Jun 2, 2013 2:16:03am

re: #25 vidugavia

I might be a bit lacking in expressing myself as English isn’t my first language. What I wanted to attack was the notion I read into your post that ideas that originated as reactions to other ideas somehow was disqualified av “first principles”.

Ideas that originate as reactions to other ideas are disqualified as first principles unless they happen to be axioms themselves— and in Rand’s case, they are.

The monarchism Paine was facing and formulated his arguments against was in its core, at least as Paine saw it, rather coherent.

That’s irrelevant. Monarchism in general is not coherent.

Marxism is, and was at Rands time, at least as diversified as the main scholarly theories supporting kingship in the 18th century Europe but that isn’t really important.

I’m not talking about scholarly theories, I”m talking about actual existence.

Based mostly on a conversation with two self identified objectivists.

What you described sounds a lot like correct interpretation of language.

What did you mean by correct interpretation of language?

Stuff like this:

The meaning ascribed in popular usage to the word “selfishness” is not merely wrong: it represents a devastating intellectual “package-deal,” which is responsible, more than any other single factor, for the arrested moral development of mankind.

In popular usage, the word “selfishness” is a synonym of evil; the image it conjures is of a murderous brute who tramples over piles of corpses to achieve his own ends, who cares for no living being and pursues nothing but the gratification of the mindless whims of any immediate moment.
Yet the exact meaning and dictionary definition of the word “selfishness” is: concern with one’s own interests.

This concept does not include a moral evaluation; it does not tell us whether concern with one’s own interests is good or evil; nor does it tell us what constitutes man’s actual interests. It is the task of ethics to answer such questions.

As an example. Rand spends a lot of time identifying particular words and stridently stating what her definition of them is, and if someone criticized (or criticizes) Randism using ‘incorrect’ language she’d attack the argument for their incorrect language.

Well sort of. Marx saw the struggle of the proletariat as the only ones able to free all humanity by abolishing social classes.

Yeah, he also saw them as the most oppressed class and that oppression as the root of many evils. Which is what I said. That he also thought they were the ideal revolutionary force that would achieve equality is true, but that’s orthogonal to my point.

Exactly. Abolishing the things that oppress people and hinders their life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Both derives from rather classical enlightenment thinking.

Yes, they do. However, identifying the ‘things’ that oppress as almost all deriving from the political and economic system is a feature of both Randism and Marxism, and not of most other Enlightenment-era philosophies.

People that categorizes Ayn Rand as a marxist might be i need of some patronage.

Well, it’s a good thing I don’t categorize Ayn Rand as a Marxist, then, isn’t it?

Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut Sun, Jun 2, 2013 2:17:47am

re: #27 vidugavia

To further clarifying what I meant by my critique of “first principles”. I mean that noone has “first principles” that in stands free from influences from our reaction to the world that surrounds us.

Dude, that’s fine, but ‘first principles’ exists as a philosophical concept. You may poo-poo the concept of first principles, but that doesn’t eradicate it from existence.

So when I say that Ayn Rand’s philosophy is not derived from first principles, but rather is a reaction to Marxism, that doesn’t mean that saying that first principles don’t really exist anyway is an actual critique of that statement.

Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut Sun, Jun 2, 2013 2:19:06am

re: #30 SidewaysQuark

No, for the most part, the Randians and fundamentalist Christians hate one another.

I really don’t think this is true. I’d say a large portion of mainstream GOP economics is, in fact, Randian.

vidugavia Sun, Jun 2, 2013 3:52:25am

re: #31 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut

Ideas that originate as reactions to other ideas are disqualified as first principles unless they happen to be axioms themselves— and in Rand’s case, they are.

I don’t understand the above sentence. Are you saying that rand lacks axioms or not? First principles are just basic assumptions from which we construct our reasoning. As long as the proponent argue that these assumptions aren’t derived from any other assumptions that she regard as true, they are first principles. Ayn “A=A” Rand claims that her argument is derived with the law of identity as a first principle. As a tautology the law of identity surely isn’t derived from anything else.

That’s irrelevant. Monarchism in general is not coherent.

Then marxism as a tradition isn’t coherent either. There are a myriad of different views that has been collected under the category of marxism.

But my point is that the contemporary monarchical thought that Paine argued against and the contemporary soviet marxism that Rand argued against was rather coherent. But talking about inverse marxism or inverse monarchism because their views where formed by their opposition is just strange.

I’m not talking about scholarly theories, I”m talking about actual existence.

Actual existence of what? Above you describe Rand as an inverse marxist because her views, according to you, where largely formed from reactions to Marxist concept. I’m trying to emulate the same argument by describing Paine as a reverse monarchist because his views are largely formed from reactions to contemporary European concepts regarding monarchy.

If you are not speaking about scholarly theories. Why speak about philosophical concepts?

What you described sounds a lot like correct interpretation of language.

Ok, but what is the connection to marxism? You were making some kind of comparison.

Yes, they do. However, identifying the ‘things’ that oppress as almost all deriving from the political and economic system is a feature of both Randism and Marxism, and not of most other Enlightenment-era philosophies..

Well both old Locke and Smith sees the organisation of the economy as rather essential for the liberty and happiness of individuals. When Rands views where formed, in the middle of the 20th century, almost all political thinkers where deeply discussing how the economy should be organized.

Ideas are different and inspire each other in both friendship and hostility. I’m still not getting wiser regarding the category of “inverse marxism”.

Well, it’s a good thing I don’t categorize Ayn Rand as a Marxist, then, isn’t it?

No but by some strange reason your categorize her as a “reverse marxist”. In support of “Romantic Heretic” calling her a marxist.

Dark_Falcon Sun, Jun 2, 2013 5:30:39am

re: #29 Romantic Heretic

I just had to come back to this because I remembered this little quote.

As for China, it’s no longer a Communist state, that is, run on Marxist principles. It’s now simply an an advanced authoritarian state not dissimilar to, say, Pinochet’s Chile. Although it uses Marxism as a cover for its true form.

Which is why businesses are flocking there. Capitalism is more comfortable in such states than it is in democracies.

Actually, businesses aren’t flocking there anymore, because of the blatant theft of intellectual property and the ofttimes lawless behavior of the Chinese government. You’re also wrong in that Capitalism is actually more comfortable in a democracy in the longer run, since capitalism works best when defended by the Rule of Law.

vidugavia Sun, Jun 2, 2013 5:33:03am

From what I know of Rand she actually seems more inspired by Nietzsche and a loathing for the modern welfare state than anything connected to Marx. But she somehow succeeds at removing almost all good points Nietzsche had.

vidugavia Sun, Jun 2, 2013 5:46:57am

re: #35 Dark_Falcon

Actually, businesses aren’t flocking there anymore,

Any source supporting that? Has foreign investment dropped?

Dark_Falcon Sun, Jun 2, 2013 5:57:16am

re: #37 vidugavia

Any source supporting that? Has foreign investment dropped?

It’s rate has slowed. GE has notably brought back a few of its products from China, as an example.

vidugavia Sun, Jun 2, 2013 6:24:19am

re: #38 Dark_Falcon

It’s rate has slowed. GE has notably brought back a few of its products from China, as an example.

The rate of what? The rate of growth in investment?
uschina.org

China has had an enormous amount of foreign investment the last decades. This rate of investment won’t be forever. Not because of any issues regarding “rule of law” but simply because it’s the way long term cycles of investment work.

Dark_Falcon Sun, Jun 2, 2013 6:34:40am

re: #39 vidugavia

The Rule of Law is ultimately important for businesses because they operate best under knowable and predictable laws, which nations like the US and Canada generally have. In China, by contrast, the written lay is routinely discarded in favor of graft and power plays by those in power.

vidugavia Sun, Jun 2, 2013 6:48:11am

re: #40 Dark_Falcon

The Rule of Law is ultimately important for businesses because they operate best under knowable and predictable laws, which nations like the US and Canada generally have. In China, by contrast, the written lay is routinely discarded in favor of graft and power plays by those in power.

But you haven’t produced any evidence that show any drop in investment that can be connected to misgivings regarding any lack of rule of law.

Investors seems for now to be rather satisfied with the current chinese order as long as it gives profits. It’s knowable and predictable enough, in relation to the profits.

Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut Sun, Jun 2, 2013 9:59:56am

re: #34 vidugavia

I don’t understand the above sentence. Are you saying that rand lacks axioms or not? First principles are just basic assumptions from which we construct our reasoning. As long as the proponent argue that these assumptions aren’t derived from any other assumptions that she regard as true, they are first principles. Ayn “A=A” Rand claims that her argument is derived with the law of identity as a first principle. As a tautology the law of identity surely isn’t derived from anything else.

I know what she claims, but it’s not actually true. She doesn’t actually use those axioms. She also misidentifies a lot of things that should be theory as axiom. She doesn’t actually do what she claims.

Then marxism as a tradition isn’t coherent either. There are a myriad of different views that has been collected under the category of marxism.

It’s far, far, far, far more coherent than monarchism. Monarchy can be anything from an incredibly powerful centralized government to an extremely weak central government with distributed power. It can be basically a military dictatorship or a theocracy. Monarchy is not a political system in the same way Marxism is.

But my point is that the contemporary monarchical thought that Paine argued against and the contemporary soviet marxism that Rand argued against was rather coherent. But talking about inverse marxism or inverse monarchism because their views where formed by their opposition is just strange.

Well, I don’t think that Paine did form his views simply in opposition to the system of government he was facing, since, as I pointed out, he adopted a ton from the British form of government. Rand, on the other hand, rejected every aspect of Marxism. This is what I feel you’re overlooking.

Well both old Locke and Smith sees the organisation of the economy as rather essential for the liberty and happiness of individuals. When Rands views where formed, in the middle of the 20th century, almost all political thinkers where deeply discussing how the economy should be organized.

Well, of course. So what?

Ideas are different and inspire each other in both friendship and hostility. I’m still not getting wiser regarding the category of “inverse marxism”.

I’m not sure how to explain it any more simply. Let me give it a try.

1. Ayn Rand’s system of philosophy is not formed, as she claimed, from axioms and proofs derived from those. if you attempt to follow such axioms and proofs, you generally discover that what she calls proofs invoke more, unnamed axioms, and that she clearly has a conclusion she wants to reach.

2. Ayn Rand’s conclusions, the areas she arrives at, are almost universally the diametric opposite of Marxism in every area. Such extreme inversion, along with the clear emotion behind her writings, tells me that her philsophy was formed not from first principles nor an honest critique of Marxism, but rather an emotional push-back against Marxism, asserting the opposite in every case. I am not saying Rand analyzed the actual political system in the USSR, but rather actually opposed the ideas behind Marxism.

3. Contrary to that, Paine did not reject everything in the British form of government. He had highly different views of property rights and the relationship of the individual to the state, but many forms of the government, such as the representation democratic form of the House of Commons, were ideas he promoted. The British Monarchy, at the time Paine wrote, was not wholly ‘monarchist’, and to call it simply that is very simplistic. Paine is not adequately described as an inverse monarchist for two reasons: He was much better than Rand at arguing from his own premises, he was an actual, real philosopher, and ‘monarchy’ doesn’t describe a system of thought in the same way that Marxism does.

Auto

This page has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!