Ayn Rand Does Not Get Defended By Credible People
“Liberals are constantly begging for more female authors and female lead characters in literature, but one woman author and philosopher remains stubbornly absent from progressive reading lists. Her name is Ayn Rand, and she is responsible for a theory called objectivism, which holds that reality exists independently of consciousness and that rational self-interest is the proper moral purpose of life.”
This paragraph, which opens an article (published on Vice, written by a liar, libilist, online harasser, and illegal non-payer of employees) about why Ayn Rand shouldn’t be so stubbornly excluded from progressive reading lists, is exactly why she is stubbornly absent from progressive reading lists.
Ayn Rand being a woman does not make Ayn Rand good for women. Or anyone but the richest, highest class, selfish, elite fucks for that matter.
Rand was/is extremely popular amongst reactionaries in her advocacy for selfishness as a moral principle, that accepting any help from a government program was equivalent to slavery, and that these programs should not exist. Not just in her writing, but in her life. She called beneficiaries of such programs “parasites,” “looters” and “moochers” and that altruism, both individual and systematic, a “basic evil.” And when it all came to an end, when she was in need, Ayn O’ Connor (her husband’s last name, so odd she didn’t use hers) filed for and received both Social Security and Medicare (the Rand Institute’s justification for this is an interesting case in mental gymnastics).
The lower class, by her opinion, are essentially leeches and nothing more. The middle class? Lackluster. The only acceptable people, by her standards, were the elites. Those with money and a regard only for themselves — something that is very important to remind of as the entire philosophy revolves around selfishness. Pursuing self-interests only. The only time a “good acting” person would help others is when they can benefit from it — with any hope, monetarily. Repeat: altruism is a “basic evil.”
Aside: I have difficulty fathoming why an article that starts with “liberals are constantly begging” would get published by Vice, a media company whose founder, Shane Smith, has stated emphatically that they’re “not trying to say anything politically in a paradigmatic left/right way” and “don’t do that because we don’t believe in either side.” Articles that begin that way very clearly serve a specific political purpose and clientele. That is not to say they haven’t done the exact same thing the other way around — also questionable if this is a true ethos of the company. They have. To be entirely truthful, I was unaware this was a specific stance taken by them until I began writing this. Oddly enough, I found this statement in the most obvious of places before I sourced it — their Wikipedia article. It is that important of a statement it is used to define their politics on the most “go here to understand this” place for information on the internet.
The movement the author of this piece is a part of, and decidedly a leading voice in, claims itself to be a “consumer revolt.” If, at any point, you can come up with a good reason why someone aligned with a “consumer revolt” would advocate for and defend someone who’s primary beliefs were beneficial to nothing less than the total opposite of the consumer (the elite and unconcerned), I will buy you a copy of any of Ayn’s ridiculous books and a nice card with a little joke about how I was wrong.
Nothing sounds more populist than “consumer revolt,” because in truth, our lives and choices are largely dictated (a carefully chosen word) by corporate influence and marketing. If consumers were to truly revolt, the lower-class “leeches” and the “lackluster” middle-class would be going after the “truly exceptional” people who have made it to the top. Anti-consumer policy has created a superabundance of wealth for these “exceptional” people, and it is in their self-interest to pursue it. The very phrase “consumer revolt” is inherently anti-objectivist and arguably anti-conservative. Why, then, is a leading voice from within advocating for the creator of objectivist philosophy? Why is the majority of people within it (mostly supporters of the author, as well) massively conservative?
It’s because none of these people are actually advocating for consumers, least of all this author. Is he a definite follower of objectivism? Absolutely. You can’t call his actions as the founder of The Kernel, which include not paying his employees to the point where he got in trouble with the UK High Courts, anything aside from acting in self-interest.
Credibility is not derived from selfishness, though — in fact, the opposite. The definition of the word, “the quality of being trusted and believed in,” is derived fully from acting in group interest. When it becomes obvious people are attempting to do things to further their own position and agenda, this results in a loss in credibility to the person consuming whatever media they made. The reason for this is one can not continually act only in self-interest and keep a consistent opinion on all issues at hand. Continuing to play the angle that benefits you — and only that angle — requires the constant outright shedding of views. I am not referring to the idea that person’s views certainly evolve over time, either. I’m talking about massive shifts that happen whenever and opportunity is seen.
You don’t have to look further than the article’s author for a good example of this. Prior to the controversy he has used to raise his public profile significantly, if there was an opportunity to diminish the reputation of gamers and gaming that came along for him, he would take it. But when he saw an avenue to act in self-interest, he took that as well. Now a noted Digimon advocate (no, really), he continues to spout his reactionary nonsense to a mass of people who not only believe he is looking out for their interests (despite the various indications he would only be acting in self-interest, including this Vice article).
There is no real credibility to be derived from the actions of someone acting only in self-interest. To be true, if there is money behind them, their opinions hold weight and this cannot be contested. But weight and credibility are not the same. Just because someone or something is ever-present and unassailable does not mean they are credible. Actual revolts happen because of people in elite positions acting in exclusive self-interest.
Ayn Rand and her philosophies are not credible (beyond a certain sphere of ignorant individuals who do not have credibility themselves) for this very reason. Therefore, neither is anyone who legitimately defends or advocates for her ideas. Not just because they defend her philosophies, but because they practice them.
