Thanks a million, Ayn Rand, for setting the greedy free / Naomi Klein

[Demeter]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2179825,00.html



The trickle-down theory beloved of Greenspan and his ilk is less a philosophy than a handy excuse for avarice.

The tall graduate student, visiting the US from Sweden, would not be satisfied with a quip. He wanted answers. "They cannot only be driven by greed and power. They must be driven by something higher. What?" Don't knock power and greed, I tried to suggest - they have built empires. But he wanted more. "What about a belief that they are building a better world?"

Since I began touring with my book The Shock Doctrine, I have had a number of exchanges like this, revolving around the same basic question: when hard-right political leaders and their advisers apply brutal economic shock therapy, do they honestly believe the trickle-down effects will build equitable societies - or are they just deliberately creating the conditions for yet another corporate feeding frenzy? Put bluntly: has the world been transformed over the past three decades by lofty ideology or by lowly greed?

A definitive answer would require reading the minds of men such as Dick Cheney and Paul Bremer, so I tend to dodge. The ideology in question holds that self-interest is the engine that drives society to its greatest heights. Isn't pursuing their own self-interest (and that of their campaign donors) compatible with that philosophy? That's the beauty: they don't have to choose. Unfortunately, this rarely satisfies graduate students looking for deeper meaning. Thankfully, I now have a new escape hatch: quoting Alan Greenspan.

His autobiography, The Age of Turbulence, has been marketed as a mystery solved. The man who bit his tongue for 18 years as head of the Federal Reserve was finally going to tell the world what he believed. And Greenspan has delivered, using his book and the surrounding publicity as a platform for his "libertarian Republican" ideology, chiding George Bush for abandoning the crusade for small government and revealing that he became a policy-maker because he thought he could advance his radical ideology more effectively "as an insider, rather than as a critical pamphleteer" on the margins. Yet the most interesting aspect of Greenspan's story is what it reveals about the ambiguous role of ideas in the free-market crusade. Given that Greenspan is perhaps the world's most powerful living free-market ideologue, it is significant that his commitment to ideology seems rather thin and perfunctory - less zealous belief, more convenient cover story.

Much of the debate around Greenspan's legacy has revolved around the matter of hypocrisy, of a man preaching laissez faire who repeatedly intervened in the market to save the wealthiest players. The economy that is Greenspan's legacy hardly fits the definition of a libertarian market, but looks very much like another phenomenon described in his book: "When a government's leaders routinely seek out private-sector individuals or businesses and, in exchange for political support, bestow favours on them, the society is said to be in the grip of 'crony capitalism'."....



· A version of this article appears in the Nation (www.thenation.com)
www.naomiklein.org

[kenny blankenship]

1. She shouldn't have dodged: the power of individual greed to build empires

is what Bush, Greenspan, Cheney, and a host of leading politicians mean by the word "freedom".

The fact that these empires trample the lives of millions under their feet like grapes just doesn't matter for these believers--freedom is the word that makes those outcomes right.

THAT is what she should have told the Swedish student who thought there must be some higher ideal motivating Right Wing wars and repressive crackdowns.

[NMMNG]

2. "do they honestly believe the trickle-down effects will build equitable societies "

No. They aren't interested in equitable societies, but in getting theirs. Screw those below them who suffer. Let them eat the little cakes.

[xchrom]

3. that's their sales pitch. --

it makes the masses froth at the mouth -- plays into racism -- kitchen table economics and a whole host of impulses that make it difficult to build either community or society.

but it certainly works.

[NMMNG]

5. Indeed

If you're not at the top it's obviously your fault, you lazy bum. There are never any other factors at play.

Such a nice way for the haves to feel superior while others suffer.

[xchrom]

6. it works for the have nots too.

plenty of people who don't have a lot of means and aren't particularly religious vote that way.

and i mean plenty -- and that's where all of this gets kind of ugly.

they scream about death taxes as loudly as the rich -- or welfare -- etc.

ok -- i'm creeping myself out.

[NMMNG]

7. That's because they buy the lie

Work just a bit harder, vote for us, and you too can have allll this!

:puke:

[xchrom]

9. amazing that it works --

and i agree --:puke:

[NMMNG]

13. People want to believe

They don't want to think they're part of the "have nots" and that they're going to possibly stay that way long term, if not forever. The fantasy keeps them hopeful--and voting against their best interests.

[intheflow]

20. I think it's more than that.

Our primary education system doesn't encourage critical thinking. In fact, it punishes critical thinkers (reflected in the adult world as anti-academic sentiment). Things get a little better at the college level, but not much. So if you grow up being conditioned to not question what is told you by authority figures, you will love the secure, black-and-white message being spewed by the Repukes.

And it's a message that's more than economic. People will vote against their personal economic interests if they think they're doing it for a higher purpose, like the poor religious right who might not like "rich politicians," but they'll vote for whoever is against abortion. By wrapping themselves as the devout, religious party, the Repukes sway even more people into voting against their economic interests.

[Baby Snooks]

4. The subjectivism of objectivism

The reality of Ayn Rand and her objectivism is that it is really subjectivism and therefore, in the end, delusional.

Central to the philosophy of objectivism is the Noble Lie. A lie told in the belief that it is a lie told for the betterment of all but actually told in the sense of the means justifying the end for the individual rather than society. In the end, society does not matter.

The most noble, certainly the most contrary, of the noble lies according to ojectivism is that by bettering yourself, at any cost to society, you are somehow bettering society in the process. Even if you manage to destroy society. The delusion of objectivism in the end is the belief that what you have destroyed simply served no purpose and therefore society is better off without it.

[KT2000]

8. Excellent!

This is where Strauss and Rand devotees meet - the Lie told and lived by the elite.

In the end all Rand did was to provide the rationalization for guilt-free greed. Her US devotees had to overcome their upbringing to embrace selfish greed and she showed the way.

[zeemike]

12. you got that right

And when she referred to the "Virtues of selfishness" it should have been a red flag to the majority of people.
And I have always thought that her philosophy of objectiveism was little more than a restatement of the Divine Right of Kings. With the theory that the creative people are creative because they are selfish.

[xchrom]

10. well said. n/t

[Demeter]

11. How Come Nobody Recommends This Thread?

Don't you think the rest of DU ought to see your excellent philosphical deconstructions?

[Cronopio]

14. She gives Ayn Rand way too much credit here.

Apologists for the ruling class and the moralizers of tyranny have been with us since the beginning of human history. Ayn Rand is simply a marginally influential asterisk in the annals of that tradition because the likes of Machiavelli and Niebuhr have far more consistent arguments than she had. Chomsky has spoken extensively about this tradition, with footnotes.

Greenspan just happened to know her at a crucial time and gained a lot of prominence as one of the early voices of Objectivism. The greedy were going to try to free themselves with or without the help of Ayn Rand.

[nealmhughes]

15. Isn't it amazing that one wizened dessicated Saint Petersburg crone could nurse

so much hatred for Lenin appropriating Papa's pill factory or whatever it was he had?

It is simply astonishing that people who invert one philosophy completely and obviously are given credence: witness Calvin with his complete inversion of classical Catholic theology. . .

I've never "gotten" the appeal of sitting on the floor for hours as she droned away between Sobranies in Morningside Heights. . . before transferring to Hyde Park for the true disciples, of course.

[Cronopio]

21. I just believe that her experience of watching her privilege taken away by the Bolshies ...

... made her a hopeless romantic about the idea of capitalism. Her novel "Anthem" read like a Harlequin novel to me, where she runs off to a romantic enclave with her Enlightened Philosopher/Super-rich Capitalist Magnate - having a tryst with Howard Hughes. It's a standard bored housewife fantasy, the difference being that she was very well-read from an early age (a benefit of her Tsarist-era family privilege) and she possessed a fine intellect. Unfortunately, the intellect was put into the service of baroque rationalizations of purely emotional attachments.

Fortunately for her patrons in the American privileged classes, these qualities made her the perfect pop propagandist for the morality of wealth. But if it wasn't her, someone else would have been groomed for the job.

[NAO]

17. Ayn Rand was more influential than others because of her mass popular appeal

Sure, Chomsky can cite ideological predecessors to the rationalizations of the power elite.

BUT...IMHO...Ayn Rand was a truly UNIQUE individual and her influence was very different that that of other ideologues. The difference was that she appealed to "the average person" and made them think that free-market libertarianism was the path to TRUE freedom for the COMMON MAN.

In her heyday in the 1960's she had a massive cult following, with appointed disciple (and secret lover) Nathanial Branden propagating official apostolic doctrine thru his "School".

Twenty years later, in the 1980's lots of high school students (like me) were reading her novels and feeling swept away to the heights of idealism and really believed in her system.

Now, almost a half-century from her most influential period, high school students still find and read her novels and buy into her ideology. I think she had a major impact on the spread of the idea that "government is bad" and that right-wing philosophy is good for everyman.

[NAO]

16. I am grateful to Ayn Rand - she was a heroic (albeit flawed) figure

I am grateful to Ayn Rand. Her writings changed my live, in many significant ways.

First, she gave me clarity about Reason as the means to knowledge. Without confidence in Reason, I never would have been enabled to leave the religious superstition of my Christian upbringing and I would be focused on "The Kingdom of Heaven" and "Saving Souls" rather than THIS world.

Second, her libertarian philosophy inspired me. It remains at the root of my moral system to this day. The only thing I think Rand and the libertarians got wrong is the NATURE of COERCION.

They do not see the role of ECONOMIC COERCION, else they would recoil in horror at the (so-called) "free market" economy. They do not appreciate how a single person seeking employment from a giant corporation has a massively asymmetric balance of power and that any resultant arrangement is in effect a contract of adhesion.

So I am a far-left libertarian. I agree that government coercion should be sharply limited and should be only used to thwart coercion initiated by others against individuals. I just include economic coercion, and market coercion (such as all companies offering unsafe products) as forms of aggression that merit the use of state power.

[Naturyl]

34. Interesting analysis, and you make a good point.

I'm a vigorous opponent of today's "libertarians," but only because they are so anti-freedom. By not recognizing the enormous role of economic coercion, as you suggest, they focus on empty and abstract notions of freedom while disregarding *genuine* freedom. All true "libertarians" should be deeply critical of modern employment relationships, instead of reflexively shouting at people to "get a job" like any ordinary Republican would. The infringements of human liberty inherent to economically coerced employment are absolutely enormous, and so-called "libertarians" who ignore them are less concerned with liberty than they are with more typical human motivations such as greed, tax breaks, permission to smoke weed, etc.

Those interested in a deconstruction of capitalism and economically-coerced employment may like the following essay, which is truly libertarian in spirit, although Randian "libertarians" hate it with a passion:

http://naturyl.humanists.net/worktext.html

[tinrobot]

18. I will say one thing in her favor.

Ayn Rand was for complete separation of government and business, and much more closely aligned with Libertarians than Republicans. She would not be very supportive of the current administration and their raiding of the public coffers for the benefit of the elite few. She would not support their use of pre-emptive war for personal profit. She also would not be very happy with their use of religion as a political tool.

George Bush and Dick Cheney have much more in common with Atlas Shrugged villain James Taggert than with the heroes of that book.

Just because conservatives list Ayn Rand as a role model does not mean that they've actually read and understood her works.

[Cronopio]

22. She was for government butting out of the doings of Big Business ...

... and Big Business doing whatever tbe hell it wanted, even if it meant running the government. It was a one-way firewall in her philosophy.

However, Rand often contradicted herself, and wasn't the most consistent follower of her own Objectivist philosophy. But it's just a rationalization, so that's not surprising. Neither is the complete disconnect between Greenspan's stated views in his autobiography and his policies as a Fed Chairman. Convenient rationalizations for greed can never be consistent.

I don't believe she'd be too harsh a critic of Big Oil running the U.S. government, given her opinion of the alternative.

[tinrobot]

24. Have you actually read Ayn Rand?

... and Big Business doing whatever tbe hell it wanted, even if it meant running the government.

Which is exactly what Atlas Shrugged railed against. James Taggert and the looters made their money through government favors and subsidies, which was a big reason why John Galt lead the industrialists to go on strike.

In her later nonfiction books, Ayn Rand argued for the complete separation of business and government, likening it to the separation of church and state. She wrote extensively about how government subsidies hurt business, how subsidies actually diluted competition and how they made products and services worse. She thought that pure capitalism, free from government interference would be the ideal. This meant absolutely no government regulations and no subsidies for business. She wanted to take politics out of business and was very very much against the kinds of corporate subsidies doled out to the likes of Halliburton and Big Oil.

I'm not advocating her points, I'm simply trying to set the record straight. I always find it odd how both liberals and conservatives distort her writings to suit their needs. Judging from her writings, I seriously doubt she would have supported the likes of George Bush.

[Baby Snooks]

26. True, but...

She would have loved deregulation and this "free market economy" of the Bushes and the neo-cons and I'm not so sure she wouldn't have just looked the other way. The means, after all, do justify the ends.

Reality is great fortunes cannot be made without the help of the government. Or by controlling the government. As an obscure German banker named Mayer Amschel Bauer put it, "Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation and I care not who makes its laws." And with that, he founded the Rothschild dynasty.

The bankers in the end control it all. They are always the power behind most thrones. And most great fortunes. Which is why the Bushes in particular discovered early on the value of "private banking" to keep their fortunes separate from both the government and the bankers that control the government. And with private banking, there is private government. It gets quite complex. Even with banks, there are two systems. One for the rich. One for everyone else.

It is not all black and white. There are quite a few shades of grey.

[AntiFascist]

27. I agree with your post, Bush's America is the antithesis of a healthy capitalist system

I don't want to necessarily defend Ayn Rand either, but it seems that in her ideal world excellence prevailed. Those who could run their industry best survived and floated to the top, and were consequently awarded with their elite status. In Bush-world crony capitalism determines who survives, monopolies squeeze out any chance at competition, party loyalists are often rewarded with corporate welfare and subsidy, and neocon Republicans invent their own realities with people like "heck-of-a-job" Brownie representing what is considered "excellence". America would likely radically change if there were a true free-market environment for oil in the Middle East, but instead we depend on crony relationships with ruling empires and rely on military force to secure our energy needs. Much of the US population depend on cheap products produced by an oppressive, Communist cum Corporatist nation where sweatshops are commonplace, yet which maintains control over our debt. The corporate and government world have a co-parasitic relationship where those who have all the wealth and power get to increase their wealth and power. If pure capitalism ever made an appearance it would probably be totally unrecognizable and send many of the elite into a state of financial death spiral.

[Cronopio]

33. Pure capitalism could never make an appearence.

Pure capitalism would involve making *everything* in the universe a commodity - the air, the sun, the earth, and every man, woman, and child.

Ayn Rand wouldn't consider herself a commodity. Neither would anyone in charge of a "pure capitalist" economic/social system. It would end up as just another self-aggrandizing ploy used by some people to sell everyone else down the river, in the same way that "pure communism" was used by Lenin and Stalin, and "pure laissez-faire economics" was used by Reagan and Friedman.

Corporations and governments could never exist apart from each other because corporations are a legal entity, created and maintained by governments. If government was abolished, corporations would become the government. So even the term "pure capitalism" is meaningless in the practical sense, beyond being a romantic ideal for many neo-libertarians.

[Demeter]

29. Tell It To Greenspan, Bush , Cheney and Thomas

They obviously diddn't get it, either.

[Cronopio]

32. I read Atlas Shrugged, Anthem, and For the New Intellectual many years ago.

I have not read The Fountainhead, because I found slogging through Atlas Shrugged difficult enough.

"Which is exactly what Atlas Shrugged railed against. James Taggert and the looters made their money through government favors and subsidies, which was a big reason why John Galt lead the industrialists to go on strike."

James Taggert wasn't running the government - he was, as you say, the beneficiary of inside deals with like-minded power brokers within the government, so his character wasn't a manifesto against the idea of industry controlling government at need. The book is about the true industrialists taking over the authority of the false industrialists and government. Rand emphasizes the distinction between the two types.

Because Rand she felt that system of politics favored the weaker, backdoor dealing kind of industrialist, she also believed that the true industrialists were the best equipped to be the real leaders of society. You can't read a story about a group of industrialists going to a private retreat in the mountains, and the government and society falling apart as a result, without understanding who Rand would support in a power vacuum between the government and business.

"She thought that pure capitalism, free from government interference would be the ideal."

Yes, and she recoginized that as an ideal. Same for a government free from business involvement.

"This meant absolutely no government regulations and no subsidies for business."

But after reading Atlas Shrugged do you honestly believe that, if a real-world John Galt felt the need to overthrow the government by taking it over (in other words, in a more active way than is portrayed in Atlas Shrugged), Ayn Rand would cry foul?

To Rand, true industrialists are enlightened philosopher-kings, and as such should have the freedom to do whatever they see fit to do in their superior personal integrity and wisdom. As I said, she was often vague and self-contradictory on the definition of a true industrialist and how they would operate in the real world.

[loudsue]

19. Damn good thread. More people aught to see the means by which

the republicans justify their corruption...which is the outcome of their greed.

:kick: & rec.

[Jade Fox]

23. I used to like Ayn Rand. Then I turned 12.

I'm ripping off something Arianna Huffington said when writing about Alan Greenspan's affection for Rand-ism.

Another Right wing nut in the news this week is also a fan of Ayn Rand: Clarence Thomas. Blech

[Baby Snooks]

25. The curiosity of Greenspan and Clinton

Keep in mind that Greenspan's policies are what made the economy so healthy during the Clinton administration. Or made the economy to appear to be so healthy. The collapse of Enron didn't happen overnight. It only appeared that it happened overnight. It happened because it could no longer borrow enough to cook the books with. Why Kenny Boy Lay called on his buddy George in the White House. Who refused to bail him out. Some believe because someone wanted the assets and probably will get them once Enron emerges from bankruptcy. Then along came Dynegy and a merger to save Enron. Until someone tipped off Dynegy about the cooked books. The tale of Enron is a tale still not told.

But Enron wasn't the only one doing it. And some still are. Cooking the books. The way the government does.

There may have been budget surpluses rather than deficits during the Clinton administration. But there was also a huge national debt. Which has become even huger under the Bush administration.

Reality is, as intimated here and there on other threads, the DLC and quite a few Democrats believe in the philosophy of greed as a virtue and in the objectivism of Ayn Rand. It is not restricted to the Republicans.

Keep in mind that Greenspan praised Bill Clinton. And for all intents and purposes endorsed Hillary Clinton. As has Wall Street.

I'll vote for Hillary is she's the candidate. But I won't be singing Happy Days are Here Again.

[Demeter]

28. Ayn Rand Supports "Victim" Rights

For those who feel inordinately put upon, but don't know when they are well off.

[Canuckistanian]

30. I watched "The Fountainhead" last night

It was the first time I'd really watched it. What a load of codswallop!

I had a half-smile on my face the whole time, waiting for the next atrocious, absurd little nugget of wisdom that came out of the character's mouths.

It was like watching an ideological version of Dudley Do-Right, with the rugged, heroic individualist Howard Roarke as Dudley and the evil, scheming collectivist Elsworth Toohey as Snidely Whiplash. I actually laughed out loud at some of the most outrageous statements.

Our TVOntario had interviews with 3 architects afterwards where they discussed the ideas of Ayn Rand using the theme of architecture to advance her ideas.

Two of the architects thought it was atrocious and ripped the movie apart both for her perception of what an architect actually does (conciliation, external inspiration, adaptation of ideas, cooperation in a common vision) and the truly BAD acting and screenplay dialog.

But I LOVED the theme title of the interview show - "The Edifice Complex".

[muriel_volestrangler]

31. Did Rand have any influence whatsoever outside the USA?

I've only ever heard of her through Americans - who seem remarkably well acquainted with her, even when they totally disagree with her. If there's anyone else non-American in this thread, did you ever even hear of her before discussing things with Americans on forums like this? While the US is obviously the leading capitalist country, I don't think it's influenced other countries by saying "well, Ayn Rand says ...". Someone like Milton Friedman was far more internationally influential.

[provis99]

35. No influence outside the USA I can detect

I'm not really sure she even had anything resembling a philosophy. Really, her stuff only becomes understandable if you know her biography as a spoiled, lazy, unproductive rich kid in Russia, who lost her inheritance when the Communists got rid of spoiled, lazy, unproductive, rich kids. Its less a philosophy than a rationalization of why she hates Communists.