“No politico-economic system in history has ever proved its value so eloquently or has benefited mankind so greatly as capitalism – and none has ever been attacked so savagely, viciously, and blindly”
— Ayn Rand “Capitalism: the unknown ideal”
Introduction
Few twentieth-century writers are as influential as Ayn Rand on American society today. Her novels, in particular The Fountainhead (1943) and Atlas Shrugged (1957), are still read by millions of people today. Her other, earlier novel Anthem is a required reading in many high schools in the United States, along with Ray Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451 and George Orwell’s 1984. During a time when the free-market capitalist economy was seen by many as inherently immoral and, as an alternative, the socialist ideals had attracted many followers, not only working class people but also many intellectuals of different backgrounds. Ayn Rand attempted to reverse such dominant trend of the society. She was arguably the most outspoken advocate of capitalism of her time. She extolled the virtues of industrialists, businessmen, entrepreneurs, engineers, and scientists, and made them larger than life heroes in her fictions. She was uncompromising in battling socialism, or more generally, collectivism, which included all forms of monarchist or totalitarian systems that trampled on individual rights. In her novels and later non-fiction writings, she put forth a new philosophy, which she named “Objectivism”, to provide a philosophical foundation and moral justification for capitalism. According to Rand, capitalism, more specifically, the laissez-faire capitalism is the only social and political system in human history that fully recognizes individual rights (Rand, 1966, “Introduction”). Today, we see Ayn Rand’s influences everywhere. Her philosophy of Objectivism is a major influence on the Libertarian Party. When we see Bill Gates with his Windows operating system on every PC today, Steve Jobs stepping into spotlight from the backstage to introduce new iPhones, and Elon Musk sending SpaceX rockets to space, it almost feels like the characters from Atlas Shrugged coming to life. Despite her radically non-mainstream ideas, many politicians, economists, CEOs, entrepreneurs, and influential celebrities openly acknowledge Rand’s influence on their intellectual development. These “Rand fans” include Alan Greenspan, Chairman of the Federal Reserve of the United States from 1987 to 2006, who used to be one of Rand’s inner circle during 1950s and 1960s; Paul Ryan, the current Speaker of the United States House of Representatives; Steve Ditko, the comic artist and co-creator of the Marvel superhero Spiderman and Doctor Strange; Mark Cuban, owner of Dallas Mavericks, and actors Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie, to name just a few. What are the powerful messages in Rand’s philosophy that still resonant with people today? Why her popular appeal continues to endure in the US and the world?
Ayn Rand at her typewriter
Ayn Rand: her life and time
Ayn Rand was born Alisa Rosenbaum in Saint Petersburg, Russia, into a secular Russian Jewish family, in 1905. Her father was a pharmacist and they were a well-to-do bourgeois family (Branden, 1986). After the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution, her family lost everything to the Soviet state, and they lived in poverty and desolation, like most Russian people did then. Under the Soviet system, universities were free and open to women. At the age of 16, Rand attended Saint Petersburg State University (named Leningrad State University at the time after the city was renamed Leningrad). She studied social sciences and majored in history. Her firsthand experience under the Soviet regime left a profound influence on her and her first novel We the Living vividly portrayed what such a life was like (Rand, 1936). It was a society where the state controlled every aspects of people’s life, from housing, food, job, news media, entertainment, down to people’s personal thoughts and life style. There were no privately owned properties and the state of Soviet Union was supreme over everyone’s personal interest. Everyone lived in poverty and equally without individual rights. It was a world that Rand, with her non-conformist mind and strong individualist bent, could not possibly survived in. With the help of a family relative then living in Chicago, Rand managed to leave Russia and came the US in 1926 at age of 21 on a visitor’s visa (Branden, 1986). She stayed with the relatives in Chicago for the first few months and then moved to Hollywood, Los Angeles on her own. She took on various jobs such as movie extra, screenwriter, and costume department clerk at movie studios in order to support herself. It was then she met an actor Frank O’Connor and they were married in 1929. This would secure Rand’s legal immigrant status and allowed her to stay in the US. Rand’s first novel We the Living was published in 1936. Her second novel The Fountainhead, published in 1943, was a worldwide success and brought Rand fame and financial security. The novel centers on a young individualist architect Howard Roark who refused to compromise his own artistic vision with an architecture establishment (Rand, 1943). Roark embodied what Rand believed to be the ideal man, and his struggle reflected the struggle of individualism verses collectivism. Warner Bro. produced a film version of The Fountainhead in 1949, starring Gary Cooper and Patricia Neal; and Rand wrote the screenplay herself. In the following years Rand worked on her magnum opus, the novel Atlas Shrugged, which would be the literary vehicle of her philosophy. The story in the novel tried to show what would happen to the world when the men of creative ability in every profession, the men of the mind, went on strike. The novel demonstrated Rand’s new moral philosophy: the morality of rational self-interest. After the novel was finally published in 1957, the subsequent soaring sales of the book further propelled Rand into American media and social spotlights. Despite her radical anti-collectivism and anti-altruism stance opposite the then dominant views of the society, the powerful and unique ideas expressed in her fictions nevertheless attracted many ardent followers in the 1950s and 1960s, among them Alan Greenspan, later Chairman of the Federal Reserve of the United States. Greenspan became a member of Rand’s inner circle since the early 1950s when he was a graduate student pursuing advanced economics studies at Columbia University. Greenspan would remain a friend of Rand until her death in 1982 (Branden, 1986). In her many public speeches, media interviews, and newspaper columns, Rand commented on everything from economics to aesthetics, and further expounded her philosophy.
In a way Rand was a breath of fresh air amidst the prevailing philosophical trends of the day. Since the mid-19th to the mid-20th century, criticism of the capitalist system had been widespread among various political groups and schools of thoughts, from Marxists, Social Democrats, to religious conservatives. The large gaps of inequality, the misery of the poor, and misfortunes people suffered due to the instability of a free market, all were attributed to be the inherent vices of capitalism. The profit-seeking and the individualist morality embodied in the free market economy also went against the traditional altruistic morality of almost all religious and cultural traditions in the world. At the height of the criticism of capitalism, Marx’s analysis of the irreconcilable conflict between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat classes, the exploiting and the exploited, prophesied the collapse of the capitalist society and a proletariat revolution to overthrow the ruling bourgeoisie class and to abolish private ownership of means of production. In the ruins of old capitalist society a centrally planned socialist economy would be established first, to be followed by a Utopian Communist society (Marx, Engles, 1848). For quite some time the vision of such a socialist society held tremendous appeal to people. Back in the early 19th century Alexis de Tocqueville already observed in his brilliant Democracy in America that democratic people “have an ardent, insatiable, eternal, invincible passion for equality; they want equality in liberty, and if they cannot obtain that, they still want equality in slavery.”(Tocqueville, 1835, Vol. 3, chapter 1a) Against such strong sentiments of the people, even the defenders of capitalism had to look to the brutal totalitarianism of Soviet Union and took the stand that were not exactly for Capitalism, but were merely against Communism. Rand was particularly dismayed by the “conservatives” who would defend capitalism based on religious ground instead of a rational one (Rand, 1966, “Conservatism: An Obituary”). She thought that this kind of defense was the worst and was in effect discrediting and destroying capitalism because it amounted to an admission that there were no rational grounds for capitalism and that reason was on the side of capitalism’s enemy (Playboy Interviews, 1967).
Rand took a completely different approach. She explicitly and unapologetically proclaimed that capitalism is the only system that is compatible with individual liberty and can be defended and validated by reason. Her philosophy provided capitalism with a systematic philosophical, moral and spiritual foundation. Rand’s status as a financially independent best-selling author outside academia was immensely enabling and influential. She could more freely and effectively express her thoughts and ideas with little restraints of an academic hierarchy.
The Atlas statue at Rockefeller Center in Manhattan is a symbol of Objectivism
Her philosophy: Objectivism
After the publication of Atlas Shrugged, many readers wanted to learn more about this new philosophy of Objectivism. Rand and her closest associate Nathaniel Branden established The Nathaniel Branden Institute in New York City in 1958, which was dedicated to educate people and spread her ideas all across US. Rand gave lectures to systematically teach Objectivism. The institute published its own periodicals The Objectivist Newsletter and The Objectivists, where Rand put down her ideas in nonfictional writings. Rand considered her philosophy of Objectivism a complete system, covering major branches of philosophy: metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, political philosophy and aesthetics. In 1962, when Ayn Rand was asked to present her philosophy on one foot, she answered: “1) Metaphysics: Objective Reality; 2) Epistemology: Reason; 3) Ethics: Self-interest; 4) Politics: Capitalism.” (Los Angeles Times, June 17, 1962) She then further elaborated as the following:
“My philosophy, Objectivism, holds that:
1. Reality exists as an objective absolute—facts are facts, independent of man’s feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.
2. Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses) is man’s only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival.
3. Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.
4. The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. The government acts only as a policeman that protects man’s rights; it uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders.” (Los Angeles Times, June 17, 1962)
Rand approached her ethics from a completely rationalistic and non-religious point of view. Her concern is with man on earth, man qua man itself. Rand laid out her ethics in the essay Objectivist Ethics: “the Objectivist ethics holds man’s life as the standard of value – and his own life as the ethical purpose of every individual man.” (Rand and Branden, 1964, “The Objectivist Ethics”. Italics are in the original text). She unabashedly claimed that “To live for his own sake means that the achievement of his own happiness is man’s highest moral purpose.”. She used “selfishness” provocatively on purpose, aimed at reversing the negative connotation associated with “selfishness” in conventional usage. In the Western Christian tradition, selfishness was viewed as a central vice. It is almost always applied to individuals who are not merely serving their own interest but doing so in such a way as to abuse, or grossly neglect, the interests of others. It is thus not surprising that this is perhaps the part of the Objectivist ethics that is most difficult for most people to accept and that is the most misunderstood. In Rand’s definition, the word “selfish” simply means to concern with one’s own interests in its exact and purest sense (Rand and Branden, 1964, “Introduction”). The concept does not include a moral evaluation. The necessity of adding the clause “without regard for others” to the definition of “selfish” was problematic to Rand. It would imply that it is impossible to concern only with one’s own interest without impinge on other people’s welfare. Rand rejected such altruistic morality completely. She said that “altruism permits no concept of a self-respecting, self-supporting man – a man who supports his life by his own effort and neither sacrifices himself nor others,” and “it permits no concept of a benevolent co-existence among men.” (Playboy Interviews, 1967) Rand’s concept of selfishness is based on “man’s moral right to existence”. To concern with his own interest is the essence of a moral existence and that man must be the beneficiary of his own moral action. The rational self-interest is not “a license to do as he pleases”. He must be guided by reason and a code of rational moral principles. For example Rand was profoundly opposed to the philosophy of hedonism, which holds that the good is whatever gives you pleasure and, therefore, pleasure is the standard of morality. “Objectivism holds that the good must be defined by a rational standard of value, that pleasure is not a first cause but only a consequence, that only the pleasure which proceeds form a rational value judgement can be regarded as moral” (Playboy Interviews, 1967). According to Rand, “the three cardinal values of the Objectivist ethics…are: Reason, Purpose, Self-Esteem, with the three corresponding virtues: Rationality, Productiveness, Pride.” (Rand and Branden, 1964, “The Objectivist Ethics”). Along the same lines of classical liberalist thoughts of David Hume, Bernard Mandeville and Adam Smith, Rand firmly believed that people can and should be able to pursue their own happiness and work for their own self-interests not only without encroaching on the rights of others but would be mutually beneficial through voluntary trade (Hume, 1748; Mandeville, 1723; Smith, 1776).
Rand did not judge people in terms of rich or poor. She would judge people ethically by whether they are rational or not and how productive they are given their ability. A person’s need (or “whim”, as Rand often called it) is never a justification for reward, but virtue is. Rand had a benevolent view on willful charity but she does not consider it a major virtue nor a moral duty. The political systems that force people to give up their own reason to a higher authority, whether it is God (“mystic of spirit”) or society (“mystic of muscles”) is immoral and anti-life, because according to Rand, “reason is man’s only guide to action, and his basic means of survival.” (Rand, 1957. “This is John Galt Speaking”). In practice Rand’s “rational self-interest” is always applied reciprocally. The ethics of altruism commends the selfless action of serving others especially at the cost of one’s own interest. This would implicitly mean that there are people who would be served at the expense of others. This is what Ayn Rand considered immoral and unjust. She spoke through John Galt, the protagonist in Atlas Shrugged: “I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another to live for mine”. Rand was against welfare state and believed that taxation should be voluntary in principle. Rand saw that the role of government should be to protect people’s right from criminals and foreign invaders, and to settle disputes among people according to objective and well-defined laws (Rand and Branden, 1964. “The nature of government”). Rand had a view on the limited role of government that is very similar to Frédéric Bastiat (Bastiat, 1850, “The law”).
1957 First edition of Atlas Shrugged
Her defense of capitalism: the unknown ideal
Rand believed that the laissez-faire Capitalism, or the self-regulating free-market economy is the only moral system compatible with her individualist ethics. She came to the same conclusion about political systems as the Austrian School economists. She personally knew and respected Ludwig von Mises highly and the two had been friendly (Branden, 1986). Von Mises was one of the founders of the Austrian School of free market economics and, along with some of his students, Frederick Hayek among them, became a major influence on twentieth-century economic thoughts. His major work, Human Action, deals with the nature, scope and methodology of economics and presented a comprehensive defense of the free market and free exchange. However, von Mises did not elaborate on the moral issues of capitalism. Rand was dismayed by the dominant social trend of her time for the lack of moral defense of capitalism, and particularly exasperated by the timid apologies and twisted altruistic excuses proffered by such “conservatives” as those represented by the right-wing publication the National Review (https://www.nationalreview.com/) (Playboy interviews, 1976). She developed a philosophical and particularly an ethical justification for capitalism. Her indictments of collectivism, especially the socialism of the Soviet Russia, were along similar lines as those of Frederick Hayek (Hayek, 2007). Rand particularly emphasized that “society” and “community” are not concrete entities but abstract concepts (Rand, 1967). Society is composed of individuals. To sacrifice the rights of individual for the so called “common good” is in fact to subject one group of people to the benefit of another group of the society. Rand’s view on society is in contrast to that of Karl Polanyi’s social democratic view (Polanyi, 2001). For Polanyi, the economic system and its actors were embedded in the society and culture that individuals lived in. The newly emerged market economy since the Industrial Revolution had destroyed traditional community and “dis-embedded” people from their traditional supportive communities. The loss of security and widespread poverty were at least partially attributed to the commoditization of labor, land and money (what Polanyi called “fictitious commodities”). The ensuing widespread social and political instability reflected the reactionary resistance, or “countermovement,” of the society to protect people from those changes. Polanyi supported that new measures should be established to help people adjust to the new economic movements.
Although classical liberalists could have argued that capitalist economy actually liberated individuals from the confines of the old community and released unprecedented creativity and productivity, Polanyi’s analysis and point of view are nevertheless very insightful and influential. Since the Industrial Revolution in England in the late 18th century up to the current day, technological innovation and economic development have underlined many social changes and often altered people’s social behavior. To ignore the social problems caused by these changes in the contemporary society is self-defeating. However, Polanyi’s prescription of the solution to the problems involved a market system no longer self-regulating and not comprised of labor, land and money - these being fictitious commodities (Polanyi, 2001, p259-262). Polanyi did not elaborate on how such a system can be practically implemented. Even the modern day Nordic Model of Social Democracy systems differ significantly from Polanyi’s vison in The Great Transformation. Contemporary to Polanyi, the opposite views on capitalism and on socialism were elaborated by Frederick Hayek. In his The Road to Serfdom, Hayek warned that the socialist central planning cannot be achieved by democratic means. It would inevitably lead to a small number of people (dictators or whoever are in power) who would claim to represent the society and rule in the name of people. Under such totalitarian situation it is inevitable that individual rights are trampled as in Hitler Germany and Soviet Union (Hayek, 2007).
While Rand reached the same conclusion as Hayek about collectivism that includes both Nazism and socialism, it is in the way how they defended capitalism that Rand and Hayek deviated. Hayek firmly believed in individual right and understood profoundly how market works. For him the individual free will was implicitly embedded in a self-regulating market. Essentially with all the unpredictability and randomness, a free human society could not to be planned and controlled in the sense that socialists intended without abrogating freedom. It is the endless variety of circumstances of individuals, their intelligences, efforts, and chances, often unpredictable, which determined their input or contributions to the market and economy, sometimes with unforeseen social consequences. To plan economic activities by a few people in a central committee would inevitably impinge on individual liberty, and have to ignore the particularity and uncertainty of circumstances. Hayek went into great detail in his The road to Serfdom to elaborate on every aspects of a centrally planned society and prophesied that it would end up in a totalitarian society where everyone’s freedom is lost. The real life results from the great social experiments in the 20th century, the Soviet Russia, Communist China, and other such countries have already validated Hayek’s predictions. During Rand’s time, in the 1950s and 1960s, the big gaps in economic development and individual liberty between East and West Germany was already a clear demonstration of which of the two systems, socialism or capitalism, is superior. Yet, such practical demonstration proved not enough, the illusion of the socialist ideals persisted in the west. Therefore Rand felt that she must also show that capitalism has a sound philosophical foundation, and that it is the only moral political and economic system consistent with the fundamental principles of liberty and individual rights upon which America was founded.
Rand extolled the industrialists and capitalists as heroic human beings personified the virtues of her philosophy because she considered rationality, productivity and self-esteem major Objectivist virtues. For quite some time, the capitalists or the bourgeoisie class, the owners of means of production have been vilified in literature and by the society. They were often portrayed as cold hearted exploiters of the poor, greedy and dishonest in their business dealings and their wealth was always ill-gotten. At the best they were rational, dull, apathetic creatures devoid of normal human emotions. The 19th and 20th century Western literatures were full of such portrayals. The characters of Felix Grandet in Balzac’s Eugénie Grandet and Soames Forsyte in John Galsworthy’ Forsyte Saga almost became cultural icons. Depictions of the dismal conditions of the poor industrial workers by authors such as Charles Dickens and Theodore Dreiser and movies by the great comedian Charlie Chaplin (Modern Time, City Light) were also immensely influential. The bosses, if not quite evil or inhuman, were decidedly un-heroic. Rand completely reversed such a view. In her novels, the heroes are industrialists, innovators, engineers, scientists, and artists. They are the most intelligent, rational, innovative, hard-working and productive people among all. In Ayn Rand’s words, they are “the men of the mind” and the “Atlases” of our world. They are the driving force of the progress of the mankind. The protagonists of Rand’s fictional are all highly idealized uncompromising individuals, rational, intelligent, and highly capable in their chosen professions. Rand’s larger than life heroes have inspired several generations of entrepreneurs and individualists. Indeed we do see that in all walks of life: capable people, people who work harder, are more intelligent and rational do tend to come out on top in a free society. Being recognized and suitably compensated are just some of incentives that motivate people to do their best and realize their best potentials. And this is virtuous according to Rand. This should be how things work in an ideally laissez-faire capitalist society, which actually has never existed. State has always intervened into economic life and we have a mixed economy with both the market and government regulations to various degrees. Government involvement into the economic life gives rise to the “crony capitalists” (Rand, 1966). In contrast to the capitalists involved in the free-market competitions, the “crony capitalists” would seek to influence politicians and government policies to their advantage in order to gain an upper hand over their other competitors. This is but one of the reasons Objectivists are against government intervention of economic activities.
Ayn Rand the radical
From the start, Ayn Rand was both fiercely damned and admired for her ideas. Her unreserved anti-collectivism and anti-altruism rhetorics antagonized both the liberals and conservatives. She was particularly open about her anti-religious stance. She considered the religion a form of collectivism, and called it the “mystics of spirit.” (Rand, 1996; Atlas Shrugged) To give up one own rational faculty for faith in a supernatural being is anti-life according to Rand. She called the Christian concept of original sin “a monstrous absurdity” (Rand, 1957, “This is John Galt Speaking”), rejecting that man is guilty by nature, because “morality pertains only to the sphere of man’s free will – only to those actions which are open to his choice” (Playboy Interviews, 1967). Her provocative use of “selfishness” also went against the grain of the altruist ethical codes of most religions and cultures.
The philosophy of Rand was also strongly influenced by her own personality and her strong psychological orientation toward rationalization over empathizing. In her ethics, Rand claimed that emotion is the consequence of the sum of all the perception, which is subject to reason to form a concept, and man must act according to reason (Rand and Branden, 1964). Emotion has little place, if at all, in Rand’s theory of man’s knowledge. She seemed to dismiss many essential functions of human emotion and rather rationalized her perception of reality in the framework of her ideology. As a highly evolved biological being, human emotion is an important part of our existence and cannot be simply ignored. Additionally, not all men at all time are rational on all things. To think for oneself and deduce one’s values requires deliberate efforts. By default, young children rely on adults for everything, including values and judgments. When he grows up and acquired ability to think on his own and to reason, he may start to question some of the values that he has been grown up with if they conflict with his reality. He may modify his old value system but implicitly he would have accepted many things that have been taught to him without further questions. Often times people actually defer their judgment to others, to somebody they respect and trust or to their faith, without thinking through and rationalize everything consciously every time. It is certainly desirable to have an explanation for everything that happened to a person and to always act rationally. However the reality is that there are many things in nature and in human experience that are not yet understood or tangible at the moment when it happened and people do act upon intangible impulses. Irrationality of human behavior adds to the randomness and unpredictability of market behavior. Over-rationalization can lead a person away from reality and can be dangerous.
Nathaniel and Barbara Branden at their 1953 wedding with Ayn Rand, right, and her husband, Frank O'Connor, left.
Ayn Rand and the Objectivist movement
Rand was a remarkable thinker in the tradition of classical liberalism and she was a forceful and effective advocate of her philosophy with a very strong and imposing personality. The power of her personality came through in the way how she conveyed her ideas, which was black-and-white with “unblinking immodesty”. (Playboy interviews, 1967) Although Rand clearly followed and built upon the classical liberalism of Locke, Hume, Smith, Bastiat, and America’s founding fathers, she only admitted that Aristotle is the only philosopher who influenced in an interview with Mike Wallace in 1959 (see https://youtu.be/1ooKsv_SX4Y). Although she and the Austrian School of economists as well as libertarians shared many common ideas, in the end she inevitably broke up with people who were once her allies over certain things that she deemed essential and could not tolerant the difference. These would include people such as Isabel Paterson and Murray Rothbard (Branden, 1986).
In her rationalist approach to her philosophy and her life, Rand had a tendency to over rationalize. Her limitations in the understanding of science, especially modern biology and human psychology left some of her assertions and premises open to debate. Her dogmatic attitude was probably the biggest detractor for both the spreading of her ideas and her relationships with others. Ironically the closest followers and associates of Rand used to call themselves “the collective” and most of them are young people in their 20s. According to Barbara Branden’s biography, Rand would often repudiate and denounce some of her students and associates over opinions that were not exactly the same as hers. The tactics and languages she used were strikingly similar to those used by the persecutors or inquisitors in a totalitarian regime (Branden, B.,1986; Branden, N.,1999).
In about 1954, Rand at the age 50 started a sexual affair with the 25 years old Nathaniel Branden with the knowledge of both her husband Frank O’Connor and Branden’s newly wedded wife Barbara. Rand rationalized and justified this affair ethically, quite oblivious to the true feelings of the people involved. This affair would last 16 years and the eventual breaking up between Rand and Branden in 1968 was devastating for all involved and was a severe blow to the Objectivist movement (Branden, B.,1986; Branden, N.,1999). Before Rand passed away in 1982, she picked Leonard Peikoff, a philosopher and her longtime associate, as her legal and intellectual heir. With the financial backing of several American businessmen Peikoff established the Ayn Rand Institute in California in 1985 to promote her philosophy (https://www.aynrand.org/). Even after Rand’s death, the objectivist movement was racked with dogmatic ideological conflicts and in-fights. At one point Peikoff repudiated the senior Rand scholar philosopher David Kelly, who then moved to the east coast and established the Objectivist Center, later renamed The Atlas Society (https://atlassociety.org/). The two competing organizations remain critical of each other to this day.
Ayn Rand at Alan Greenspan's inauguration as Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, 1974.
The lasting legacy of Ayn Rand
The collapse of the East Europe communist countries in the early 1990s in a way validated the prophecies of thinkers like Hayek and Rand. In fact the economic situations and the living conditions of the people lacking freedom in those countries were a lot worse than most people had imagined. Not only these real life costly experiments proved that socialist central planning did not work, they also shown that horrendous violations of human rights were committed in the name of some lofty ideals under totalitarian regimes. Now nearly thirty years have passed, a capitalist market economy in its various degrees of mixed forms appears to be thriving in many parts of the world along with improved human right conditions. Today’s market economy is a highly dynamic and globalized system perhaps far beyond what Hayek, Rand or Polanyi could have envisioned. New technologies and innovations are changing society much more rapidly. New start-up companies are a norm in many people’s life. Impacts of new technology on the society are immediately anticipated and studied. Companies and workers constantly are coping with such processes as downsizing, merging, reorganizing. Measures are taken to help people cope with the changes though how successful they are is varied and debatable. Perhaps the influence of Polanyi’s “double movement” theory can be seen in these measures.
Nowadays, people like Bill Gates of Microsoft, Steve Jobs of Apple, Jeff Bezos of Amazon, Elon Musk of Tesla and SpaceX, Mark Zukerberg of Facebook likely belong to the category of innovators and producers that Rand would have had in mind. These people are the faces of today’s capitalists and entrepreneurs, and they are highly visible and influential. Their stories and experiences have inspired many future entrepreneurs to take risk, to be innovative, to create, and to change the world. When they are successful, whether it is a new product, a new service that people like, or a new drug that treats a disease more effectively, they, the people who work with them and the society at large would all benefit. There are certainly greedy and dishonest people among businessmen. One recent example is Elizabeth Holmes, founder and CEO of Therenos, a biotech company specializing in blood test technology. Holmes made false claims about her company’s products in order to gain financially and has been charged with fraud. Her scheme was first exposed by a Wall Street Journal investigative reporter and subsequently investigated by SEC (The Wall Street Journal, 2015).
Ideas from many thinkers have influenced the society we live in today, such as Schumpeter’s creative destruction (Schumpeter, 1942), Polanyi’s double movement, and the Austrian School’s economic thoughts that underline the mainstream “Washington Consensus.” Ayn Rand and her philosophy are unique and yet highly influential. While it is a major influence for the Libertarian Party in the US, it is so radical that it has antagonized both the left and the right. Nevertheless many influential people today openly acknowledge the inspiration of Ayn Rand on their intellectual development, even though they may not agree with all aspects of Objectivism. In today’s rapidly changing and increasingly globalized world, our society is in a constant struggle to balance between individual liberty and security, prosperity and equality, human nature and rationality. Among the ideas of many thinkers, those of Ayn Rand and classical liberalists are very important, reminding us that human life and individual right are at the heart of the moral make up of the civilized world today. Free-market economy is the socio-political expression of such morality based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights. Such messages will always be relevant and will not go out of fashion any time soon.
The Ayn Rand postal stamp issued in US in 1999
Bibliography
Bastiat, Frederic. The Best of Bastiat, “The Law” http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/2481. (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 2013)
Branden, Barbara. The Passion of Ayn Rand. 1st ed. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1986.
Branden, Nathaniel. My Years with Ayn Rand. 1st ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1999.
The Wall Street Journal. Carreyrou, John."Hot Startup Theranos Has Struggled With Its Blood-Test Technology". (2015-10-16) ISSN 0099-9660.
Hayek, Friedrich A. von, and Bruce Caldwell. The Road to Serfdom : Text and Documents. The Collected Works of F a Hayek. Definitive ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007.
Hume, David. Essays, Moral and Political. 3d ed. London,: Printed for A. Millar; etc., 1748.
Los Angeles Times "Ayn Rand Ties Her Beliefs to Today's World", June 17, 1962. Copyright © 1962 by Times-Mirror Company.
Mandeville, B. The Fable of the Bees. 1 vols. 2d. ed. n.p., 1723.
Marx, Karl, and Friedrich Engles. Manifesto of the Communist Party. Tokyo,: Nauka sha, 1948.
Playboy Interviews. 1st ed . ed. Chicago: Playboy Press, 1967.
Polanyi, Karl. The Great Transformation : The Political and Economic Origins of Our Time. 2nd Beacon Paperback ed. Boston, MA: Beacon Press, 2001.
Rand, Ayn. Atlas Shrugged. New York,: Random House, 1957.
———. Capitalism, the Unknown Ideal. New York: New American Library, 1966.
———. For the New Intellectual : The Philosophy of Ayn Rand. New York: Signet, 1996.
———. The Fountainhead. Philadelphia,: The Blakiston company, 1943.
———. We the Living. New York,: The Macmillan Co., 1936.
Rand, Ayn, and Nathaniel Branden. The Virtue of Selfishness, a New Concept of Egoism. A Signet Book, P2602. New York: New American Library, 1964.
Schumpeter, Joseph A. Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy. New York, London,: Harper & Brothers, 1942.
Smith, Adam. An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. 2 vols. Reprint of Economic Classics. London, New York,: Printed for W. Strahan and T. Cadell A. M. Kelley, 1776.
Tocqueville, Alexis de, and Henry Reeve. Democracy in America. 4 vols London: Saunders and Otley, 1835.
网友评论