Showing posts with label USA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label USA. Show all posts

Saturday, 3 September 2022

Common misunderstandings of Ayn Rand

Ayn Rand, the author of Atlas Shrugged. You either love her or hate her!

But I read Atlas Shrugged without knowing that you were supposed to love her or hate her. I just knew that it was a title that kept popping up here and there, in a number of different contexts, and so eventually, I felt I had to read that book that so many people seemed to be talking about!


And my reaction was:

'Wow!... I've never looked at it this way before!... This woman is bright!'

Afterwards, when talking about this book, I discovered the strong emotional reactions people have to her. I also discovered how - as can be expected when feelings run hot! - most people had a rather incorrect idea of what she had actually said, and what she actually believed.

One common misunderstanding of her that I came across was this one:

"She claimed that rich people are some kind of altruistic, highly talented, good-hearted super-humans that if left alone will never do anything bad, but only use their talents and riches to improve the world."

This is not what she said.

Ayn Rand said that there are exactly TWO ways to become rich in this world. No more and no less. The first one is to be pretty much what was described above: Talented and productive. You produce some kind of value that people are prepared to pay for, willingly! They buy whatever you are producing, and feel that they have made a good purchase; that they got good value for their money. You get rich and they get satisfied. Everybody wins.

The second way to get rich, also the last way, since there are only two, is to loot somebody else who is productive. There are no other ways, she said! The value has to come from somewhere - it doesn't just fall from the sky or spring out of thin air. And so if you are rich, then either you produced that value or you stole it.

She also said that it's not necessary that the person you loot be richer than you, or as rich as you. She said there is also the Indian Maharaja: The only rich person in a country of poor. Because no matter how poor a population is, there is always enough to loot for ONE person to be rich! And she said the problem in our societies is that too many people want to be that Indian Maharaja. You often find them in politics. They don't care about the prosperity of society! They don't care if society plummets into utter despair! So long as they can steal enough from it to be rich, themselves. And the problem with this, of course, is that there can be only one Maharaja... So the only thing they will succeed at is to make society poorer, to the detriment of all. Everybody loses.

“When a society establishes criminals-by-right and looters-by-law, men who use force to seize the wealth of disarmed victims, then money becomes its creators' avenger. Such looters believe it safe to rob defenseless men, once they've passed a law to disarm them. But their loot becomes the magnet for other looters, who get it from them as they got it. Then the race goes, not to the ablest at production, but to those most ruthless at brutality. When force is the standard, the murderer wins over the pickpocket. And then that society vanishes, in a spread of ruins and slaughter.”

Ayn Rand - Atlas Shrugged

 

 Another misunderstanding of Ayn Rand that I came across was this:

"She's such a hypocrite! She wrote 'The Virtue of Selfishness' only as a desperate attempt to justify why she didn't help her poor relatives back in Soviet, after she got rich in America."

Let me show you another quote from Atlas Shrugged:

“People think that a liar gains a victory over his victim. What I’ve learned is that a lie is an act of self-abdication, because one surrenders one’s reality to the person to whom one lies, making that person one’s master, condemning oneself from then on to faking the sort of reality that person’s view requires to be faked…The man who lies to the world, is the world’s slave from then on."

 Ayn Rand - Atlas Shrugged

Tell me: Can somebody who writes a quote like that be a hypocrite? No, I would say. Because a person who feels that a quote like that rings true wouldn't WANT to lie... It would be an act of self-abdication. Of making oneself the world's slave, condemned to trying to fake the kind of reality that the world approves of. Ayn Rand doesn't care what you approve of! She stands up for HER OWN beliefs.

The quote continues, in the book:

“There are no white lies, there is only the blackest of destruction, and a white lie is the blackest of all.”

This reveals even clearer how very strongly she feels about any kind of dishonesty or of bending the truth. But I intentionally put this separate from the lines before it, because I don't feel it fits the context! The lines before are a cool, logical reasoning - this is a sudden outburst of emotion! And as Virginia Wolf writes, in A Room of One's Own: "An angry writer is a bad writer". Ayn Rand is often a bad writer, because of her anger seeping through. She was, after all, an illegal refugee from the Soviet Union, and she is angry with her motherland, oh how angry she is!...

And I believe this is why most people love her! Not because they understand what she really meant with her philosophy, but because they share her anger towards communism and socialism! Because the villains in Rand's books do come out as very Soviet communist-like... That was the face of evil, to her. But when American Christian right-wing politicians expressed love for her philosophy, she protested! They were far too limiting of people's freedom for her. For one thing, she was sex positive, perhaps even polyamorous in her ideology, although those terms didn't exist at the time. She was also a staunch atheist and advocated abortion rights. American Christian Conservatives were, of course, far from this! Had she grown up in the USA instead of the Soviet Union, perhaps they would have been the paint that she painted her villains with? Who knows.

And had that been the case, the left-wing would have been the ones who loved her! Now, sharing a common enemy with her.

Ironic, though. Isn't it?


I warmly recommend you read the book. Not as a novel! It's not a great novel (although the story is also captivating), and you would have to put up with her anger, which gets rather bitter, at times... But in her good moments, Ayn Rand is, indeed, a very bright woman. She has some very clear thoughts, well worth reading for oneself, rather than through the lens of somebody else who either loves her or hates her, probably for the wrong reasons... 😏


Monday, 24 August 2015

Our greatest security threat - the USA

Image from: http://www.roguestatesman.com/
Me: The US is the greatest threat against our security. Yes or no?

Them: No

Me: I had a hunch you would say that. But what else would it be?

Them: Russia, if we are to point out a certain country. Otherwise I would say poverty and social conflicts in Sweden, Europe and the Middle East. But it also depends on how you define security.

Me: If we skip Russia for one moment...

You are aware that the food produced today is enough to feed all people on the earth, right? The reason why people still go hungry is that it's being wasted with by the rich. And who is the greatest waster? Exactly: The US

Our future poverty will be caused by a ruined/depleted planet. Who is the greatest environment destroyer? The US

Who is the greatest obstacle against peace in the Middle East? Who has been blocking every single UN convention against Israel, that didn't dutifully mention that 'Palestine is guilty too'? Who has consequently taken Israel's side, regardless of what baffling assaults and crimes against international law they commit? Of course: The US

...Now if we would pay a little revisit to Russia, at least it would be a lot easier for the rest of us to put pressure on Russia to disarm and join peaceful methods, if our greatest buddy the US wouldn't be so stubborn that THEY of course be allowed to use whatever violence and undemocratic, unlawful methods they want... This goes of course for all traditional US opposition. All the talk about international law and human rights become pure hipocrisy to them, so long as we simultaneously allow the US to go on ravaging like they do.

Q.E.D. - Which was to be proven!

Me: Do you approve that I use this sms exchange in a blog text? :)

Them: Sure, without the mentioning of my name...

Me: I wasn't planning to use your name. :)

Me: Btw: The US COULD use their enormous superiority in power to STOP all violence! (Instead of legitimizing it, like they do. Not to mention how they legitimize unlawful detention, executions and of course torture.) They could go into every armed conflict and interrupt it! Force the parts to the negotiation table!

Now I wouldn't exactly want a particular country to have that role. I would much rather see a more democratic world police. Like the UN. Preferably even more democratic than that - an organisation where the people rule rather than nations - but by all means, the UN is a lot better than none! And then we ask ourselves: Who is the greatest blocker of the UN? Naturally... the US! I have a report about all the ways in which they have obstructed the work of the ICC for example, linked to somewhere in my blog. (see sources by the end of this text, editor's note)

Violence is the greatest threat to our security. Law and justice is our shield against the violence. Violence gives birth to violence, and thus the US is the greatest birth-giver of violence, both by their use and by their legitimization of large quantities of violence. Simultaneously they are, without a doubt, the greatest blocker of international law.

(Even all conflicts in Africa can in one way or another be linked back to the US, even though Europe (and Russia) have our dirty fingers deep into that honeypot too...)

Me: It would feel even better i you said: "Right! You've got a point there actually!"...

Them: Of course you've got a point! But it doesn't feel like you really hit the nail, still. "All conflicts in Africa"... "without a doubt, the greatest blocker"... Hmmm! :-\

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

They resists! :) They always does. But please read the Wikipedia-article: United States and the United Nations, and hopefully you will still find e.g. these quotes:

"since 1989 the U.S. government has dissented against security council resolutions on 12 occasions out of 17 total instances when a permanent member vetoed. Of these 12 occasions, only two related to issues other than the Israeli-Palestinian conflict."

"Since 1985 the U.S. Congress has refused to authorize payment of the U.S. dues, in order to force UN compliance with U.S. wishes, as well as a reduction in the U.S. assessment."

(The above quoted article has a lot of [citation needed] but still.)

Also I'd very much invite you to read the book Sveriges Afrikanska krig (Sweden's African wars) by the journalist Bengt Nilsson, which deals mostly with how Sweden, through its foreign aid, keeps never-ending wars alive in Africa. But in a passage it also describes how the battle between socialism and capitalism has made external entities (Sweden, Russia, the US,...) become 'supporters' of a kind, of certain regimes or guerrilla movements in Africa, providing them with weapons and aid, so that socialism/capitalism will prevail. "The idea of 'The Righteous War'", he writes. Of course it is also of importance that Africa has rich natural resources, such as gold, diamonds, rain-forest, a good climate for coffee and tea etc, and those whose "team" wins has therefore a lot to gain for themselves. It's a bit of 'the tragedy of the commons': If we don't do it, somebody else will, and takes home the reward.



Hear my words: If we are to have a positive development in the world, we have to formulate our goals accordingly! Foreign aid, as well as military interventions, must be based on objective, quantitative premises, such as basic human rights. US interventions to allegedly protect human rights (e.g. against Saddam Hussein, or the Syrian gas attack) have no effect on the matter, since they are not consistent. We all know that at the same time they allow Israel to commit as bad assaults as Hussein, if not worse! The conclusion must be that there is no point in respecting human rights. Instead it's much better to remain friendly with the US. Or to manage to stand up to them. Then this is the world we get.

It is us, the people, who have to be consistent with what we want. If we want human rights, then this is what we have to support, always! If instead we want power for ourselves and/or the US, and we don't care what assaults and murders are found in our rear water... well, then we can just continue like today.

------------------------------------
Sources and further reading:
Wikipedia - United States and the United Nations (quoted in the text)
Wikipedia - United States withdrawal from the United NationsSvenska Freds - Review of Sveriges Afrikanska krig (I disagree with Svenska Freds here! Interrupt all foreign aid to countries that violate human rights, and of course take it up again when these human rights are again being met. THEN it's highly likely that these human rights will suddenly start to be met...! There is no excuse for "at least doing something" if your "something" does harm instead of good.)
Sofia Haraldsson, Lund's university - Internationella brottmĂ„lsdomstolen – en garanti för rĂ€ttvisa? (mentioned in the text) Treating all the ways in which the US has obstructed the work of ICC, among others. 


Image from: http://lonestonerevolution.blogspot.se/2006/02/whats-so-bad-about-democracy.html