The poverty of our century is unlike that of any other. It is not, as poverty was before, the result of natural scarcity, but of a set of priorities imposed upon the rest of the world by the rich. Consequently, the modern poor are not pitied... but written off as trash. The twentieth-century consumer economy has produced the first culture for which as beggar is a reminder of nothing ~ John Berger (dob 11/5/1926) English art critic, novelist, painter and poet. Berger's essay on art criticism, Ways of Seeing, written as an accompaniment to a BBC series, is often used as a university text.
In a prior commentary (SWTD #303), I hypothesized that because Ayn Rand killed large numbers of fictional moochers in her massive tome (Atlas Shrugged), she hated poor people. Bolstering this case, I believe, was the fact that her "hero", John Galt, called for other wealthy individuals such as himself to take actions that resulted in the deaths of millions of citizens of the oppressive Socialist dystopia that Atlas Shrugged took place in. And, in regards to these deaths, Rand pontificated on how the dead deserved to die due to their support for the Socialist state.
Of course Rand denied that she hated the poor, but I think her writings speak for themselves. A commenter on my blog, when I asserted that the evidence shows hate, asked if I could "point to any statement made by Ayn Rand that she hated the poor". Because Rand never SPECIFICALLY said "I hate poor people"... if I look at other things she said or wrote and conclude that these writings show she hated poor people... that's just my opinion.
Perhaps, but I still contend that the evidence is pretty solid. And I will continue to assert that Rand did indeed hate poor people. The facts I presented in my prior commentary back that up. But those writings I pointed to do not represent the totality of words from Rand that show (IMO) how much she hated poor people. Which is reason for this commentary... to present additional proof of Rand's hate for the less fortunate.
The following concerns Rand's take on money and those who don't have a lot of it.
Rand called the United States a "nation of money", and she meant it as a compliment. "The words to make money hold the essence of human morality", she wrote in a famous passage in her 1957 novel, Atlas Shrugged. In Rand's hierarchy of virtue the American industrialist is "the highest type of human being" and the needy are rabble. "Parasites, moochers, looters, brutes and thugs can be of no value to a human being", Rand wrote in 1963. "Nor can he gain any benefit from living in a society geared to their needs, demands and protection, a society that treats him as a sacrificial animal and penalizes him for his virtues in order to reward them for their vices, which means: a society based on the ethics of altruism". (Ayn Rand - Paul Ryan's Moral Heroine - Instructs Johnny Carson on the Virtue of Selfishness, 1967 by Mike Springer. Open Cluture 8/14/2012) . |
Obviously, given that poor people have less money, they must be less moral (according to Rand). If an individual is less moral as well as a parasite, a moocher, a looter, a brute or a thug; and if they are of "no value"... well, it's clear that Rand's opinion of such people (the poor) was exceedingly low. Heck, sounds like she thought the poor aren't even human, as they are of "no value to a human being". My guess is that the "human being" she refers to would be a rich person.
So, rich people are the only real humans beings, while the poor are nothing but parasites. Of course parasites are creatures that, if they afflict humans, are exterminated. Rand's idea for how the extermination should be accomplished? Eliminate all socialist safety net type programs. Society should not be "geared to their needs", after all. Obviously such a policy would obviously result in some, if not many deaths. Or, as Rand said (in regards to a hypothetical poor man) "if he does not choose to live [by having enough money to do so], nature will take its course [and he will die]".
In other words, "die you evil parasitical scum!". Or, I will sit by and watch you die. And call it "immoral" if anyone suggests help should be provided. Is this hate? You can judge for yourself, but I think more people will say YES than NO. In my opinion. Although it is possible that Rand simply wrote the poor off as trash and did not give them any further thought. However, given how many moochers she killed off in Atlas Shrugged, I doubt it. I mean, she was pretty clear (in AS) that she thought the world would be better off with significantly fewer looters. And fantasized about how to off large numbers of the hated parasitical moochers.
Video: Ayn Rand appears on the Tonight Show, 10/22/1967. According to Rand, a mixed economy (such as we have here in the US) leads to war. Social safety net programs designed to help the less fortunate are "immoral", as are the moochers who utilize them. Given these facts I ask... how could Rand NOT hate the poor, given the evil they represent? (26:37).
Yawn...
ReplyDeleteYawn...
ReplyDeleteRN finds Rand's hate for poor people boring... perhaps because he shares it? Is he saying "yes, of course poor people are to be hated... we all know this"?
ReplyDeleteI thought NO, but someone denying the super-obvious gives me pause...
Yawn.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I do not find the evil of Ayn Rand's Objectivism to be boring. I find it to be alarming. Alarming that many of our Republican politicians (Paul Ryan, for example) point to Rand as someone to be admired.
ReplyDeleteShould I take your yawn to mean that the evil of Objectivism is an evil you approve of?
ReplyDeleteNo you should not. But by all means please yourself however you wish.
ReplyDeleteYou disapprove of the evil of Objectivism? If so, would I be wrong to presume that a repudiation of Rand comes along with that? I don't see how a "benevolent capitalist" could be an adherent of Rand. You know, given the fact that she did not believe in We The People benevolence of any kind.
ReplyDeleteI do not disapprove of objectivism nor the concept of long term rational self interest properly understood and practiced. Rather I disapprove of dismissing of such concepts, primarily based on "feeling" or emotionalism.
ReplyDeleteVery few things (philosophical systems) are 100% right. Neither objectivism or socialism are perfect. Both have components that are correct and both have "weak spots" and only dyed in the wool partisans to see or acknowledge this.
You have your partisan view Dervish and I have my non partisan view. I'll leave it there as neither you or me are going to to change our views. Although my views have evolved and are much less partisan than your own. I my considered opinion.
So, in regards to long term rational self interest "properly understood and practiced", Rand herself didn't get it? Sounds as if RN practices his own brand of Objectivism? Might I suggest calling his new ideology "Les Objectivism"?
ReplyDelete