Can someone explain Ayn Rand to me?!

I hate to generalize, but Objectivism seems to appeal to mousy women and geeky men, NOT "alpha" men and women.

This is not so much a philosophy as it is a cult .

x-post : I know, "Randian goth" - it's just ridiculous.

Hokey Cokey.

What fletrejet said.

The point is that Rand and Hubbard were cultists. So what's your argument that there is a similar Chomsky cult? Especially when the people I know who tell me to read such-and-such by Chomsky are usually plain old liberals? Obviously if he's "dogmatic", it's not working too well.

Dogma : n. 1. That which is held as an opinion; a belief, principle, tenet; esp. a tenet or doctrine authoritatively laid down by a particular church, sect, or school of thought;

i.e., go with me or burn in (ideological) hell.

...so who's your guru, Don? Or are you too cool for that?

We can go 'round and around with the definition of "dogmatic", but near as I can tell, it wasn't out of line for me to use it in this context. More importantly, you spun my words to your own context--rather than ask for clarification, you simply started making assumptions. To wit, I posted that Rand reminds me of Hubbard and Chomsky in the way she inspires extremists. I didn't assert that Chomsky was a cultist or that followers of his intellect were. If it's guilt by association, that's not my fault. That's your reflexive defensiveness. Just because Chomsky's followers don't have some cult-like name for themselves doesn't mean that they don't come off as dogmatic. That's kind of my whole point. You're just annoyed that someone could put Rand and Chomsky in the same sentence together.

Oh, and why do I suddenly need some sort of guru? Is that a requirement for my existence? Why am I too cool if I don't have one? To be honest, I'd probably put my parent's name, or maybe my wife in that spot if you want to pin me down that badly.

I don't own a single Chomsky book, as a matter of fact - I'm too lowbrow for that, so let's stick to logical arguments and not speculation, please, as long as we're all trying to appear as independent-minded as possible.

I don't think Chomsky is a good comparison. I also dislike Chomsky's writing and think he's very obscurantist. He hashes his shit around to make it assume more relevance that it really has, and uses big words to make it sound like better ideas than it really is. If he could start from a solid, basic thesis, and also write it well, I would like him more. I like him best when he's interviewed by other people. The way he hashes shit around, I think you could call it facile, and also call Scientology and Objectivism facile, but I wouldn't call it dogmatic.

Ayn Rand's Objectivism is a facile, rationalizing cover for market-Nazism. Wealth-supremacy would also be a good term for it. The basic idea is that wealth should be the basic measure of everything, and all culture and politics should be oriented towards getting wealth and controlled by the wealthy. Ignoring of course, that there's a such thing as a cost of living, and that there can be no egalitarianism without a level playing field for how people make their living. Objectivism pretends that there's no such thing as coercion in the labor market, so all wealth distribution is meritocratic. It pretends to be egalitarian through "free trade."

For an example if how ridiculous that is, Ayn Rand supported child factory labor by saying "at least they aren't dead" and that laissez-faire capitalism gives people freedom by raising living standards, as if there wasn't such a thing as the Great Depression. She also hated there being a minimum wage. I wouldn't be surprised if she hated that there was such a thing as weekends, overtime, and retirement, too.

I think it's kind of wierd someone said she disliked homosexuals. That doesn't seem to fit because Objectivism calls itself "libertarian." (A perversion of classic libertarianism of course because it's anti-egalitarian- it means total liberty for how wealthy people spend their money, like child sex should be legal just because people want to buy it.) Also, on the "objectivism dating service" thread, someone said she was really into kinky sex.

Finally, while I regret making any assumptions--in this case, assuming what you would be annoyed about--it seems to me that you were doing quite a bit of assuming yourself, including that little tossed off line about me having a guru or not. I'm glad you confess to being lowbrow anyway. It's a lot more fun down here, as you well know.

Transcription from a TV interview on 25 Nov 1992

JOHN PILGER: And yet you’re often described as an extremist
CHOMSKY: Sure. I am an extremist. Because a ‘moderate’ is anyone who supports western power, and an extremist is anyone who objects to them.

admittedly, it drives you up the wall that I did that.

Apparently, you enjoy "driving (certain) people up the wall", or at least imagining that you do. Maybe it's just because I don't see legions of Chomskyites all over the 'net - it's just not the same author / audience relationship, and I don't find your characterization convincing. If you pursue your thinking to its logical conclusion, than anyone who closely follows a prominent thinker is "dogmatic". It just seems like an anti-intellectual argument at its core.

And as for the legions of Rand-ites and Hubbard-ites on the 'net, I don't ever and have never seen them. I didn't run into them in undergrad or grad school either, but I sure as shit knew a lot of people who were familiar with Chomsky. So if it's merely my experience that is guiding my perspective on this, I apologize. I'm sure there are a lot of Objectivists and Scientologists on the Internet but I have not ever run into one.

As for what I enjoy doing or imagining what I enjoy doing, I thought we were going to stop making assumptions. Whatever.

Obviously because everyone around here is so much smarter than me, I've lost the argument, and I must resort to desperation in order to preserve my precious dignity. After all, Chomsky isn't anything like Ayn Rand. He's not extreme in any way, there is not even the slightest amount of dogma to anything he does, none of his followers are dogmatic in any way, and if I didn't have massive self esteem problems I wouldn't end up playing the house asshole on every political thread that I have time to participate in. Sucks to be me.

----------------

"Best Books...chosen by Chuck Klosterman"

ATLAS SHRUGGED - "People who are intellectual (but not necessarily smart) constantly insist that Rand's philosophy is simplistic and flawed, and maybe it is; no philosophy is perfect. But she makes more sense than anyone else I've ever experienced. If you disagree with Atlas Shrugged, it basically means you disagree with the concept of 'being great.'"

That is fucking hilarious Eisbar.

Also, did anyone see that Ayn Rand movie on Showtime (I think it was Showtime)? I saw parts of it, but only because I love Helen Mirren.

So, while there certainly is a crazy component to the Cult Of Rand, it's very easy to scoff at its ideas when you come at them from a position of privilege.

No, just sarcasm, Don, and it does nothing for your dignity.

Most of the people I consider 'great' don't have the capitalist/materialist worldly whatsits - money, power, fame, etc. - that Randian Libertarians/neo-cons seem to be so wowed by.

rand's "cult," on the other hand, seems to have been inspired by her writings and her personality. her philosophy has a sort of "my way or the highway" mindset built into it. as with chomsky, that isn't bad in itself -- except that rand purports that her philosophical system is both internally consistent and complete. it's all Torah and no Talmud, if you will, with no room built in for clarification or modification of the basic text -- no toleration for hermeneutics, at least as far as miss rand and her most devout followers were concerned. additionally, miss rand and her coterie ("the collective," they called themselves -- apparently, randism doesn't totally sap its adherents' senses of humor) were notoriously fond of excommunicating people, essentially for not seeing things the way miss rand did (or, at least wr2 one very famous randian dust-up, b/c the guy she was fucking was fucking another woman on the side!) whatever else one can say about chomsky, i simply don't see either the same close-mindedness or willingness to excommunicate coming directly from him (some of the more fanatical of his supporters, that may be a different story).

"Personally, I’m not a committed pacifist, so I think that, yes, [violence] can sometimes be justified."

Chomsky quote here; this is a sentiment he's expressed elsewhere as well. He qualifies it heavily, so not sure if this makes him "extreme" necessarily. (Even without knowing the context, I'd guess that the "I'm an extremist" quote Don referenced upthread was ironic - Chomsky labelling himself with others' terminology.)

x-post w/ Tad

"Semantics" or whatever aside, I don't think it's a hugely controversial thing to claim that Chomsky has many, MANY uncritical devotees on the left, and that these attitudes are not only a hindrance to accomplishing anything but also contrary to Chomsky's anarcho-whatever ultra-critical politics.

Markelby, if I had any damn dignity I wouldn't be spending this much time chasing my tail.

Andrew - I don't really think it was a great quote, to be perfectly honest. But I found it within about ten seconds of Googling and don't really feel like going to better sources i.e. Lexis to get more appropriate comments. Perhaps Chomsky isn't an "extremist", but he's certainly in the far part of the left; there really aren't that many avowed pacifists around anymore, so in that he seems a bit on the extreme. It would be fun to spend a day Googling and Lexis-ing Chomsky just to find a bunch of radical type of quotes to post but it's really beside the larger point anyway.

And Eisbar, despite me mouthing off to you in the past (sorry about that, I was a dickhead) you have put my original quote into perfect context. Not that you necessarily tried or wanted to, but thanks for making my case.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EAq-VzeXoAAsWX-?format=jpg