Mark Skousen on Ayn Rand and 'Atlas Shrugged'

[zantonavitch]

Mark Skousen on Ayn Rand and 'Atlas Shrugged'

by Kyrel Zantonavitch

On January of 2001, libertarian investor, economist, and author Mark Skousen called Ayn Rand "the greatest novelist of the 20th century." He says he enjoys the way Rand portrays businessmen and money-making in The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, and finds her views on these phenomena admirable and unequaled. Skousen lauds her for her pure laissez-faire economics and "uncompromising defense of freedom," and he notes "No one has written more persuasively about property rights."

For all of this, however, Skousen doesn't much agree with Rand's philosophy of Objectivism. This is apparent in his recent essay 'Atlas Shrugged -- 50 Years Later.'

For the most part, this ideological disdain isn't surprising. Despite having written for and worked at seemingly half the libertarian and Austrian publications and organizations in existence, Skousen is still highly religious. He attended university at Brigham Young, quotes the bible frequently, writes approvingly of religion in general, and his recent piece on Rand was published in The Christian Science Monitor. All this godliness colors his views considerably. So while it's nice that he thinks so highly of Rand -- religion and Rand just don't mix.

In the end -- and probably more than even he realizes -- Mark Skousen rejects a solid majority of Ayn Rand's epistemology, ethics, and even politics.

On the one hand, Skousen observes in his article that "Rand articulates like no other writer the evils of totalitarianism, interventionism, corporate welfarism, and the socialist mindset." But on the other hand, he heavily condemns the way she promotes capitalism. He derides "her defense of greed and selfishness, her diatribes against religion and charitable sacrificing for others who are less fortunate, and her criticism of the Judeo-Christian virtues." In February of 2000 he also passionately condemned the ethical system which directly underpins Rand's politics by saying flatly "selfishness is not a virtue, nor is greed."

The most disappointing part of Skousen's recent essay -- and his approach to Rand and Objectivism in general -- is how simplistic and shallow it is. Despite evidently having read and admired her two main novels, plus her two main books on morality and political science, Skousen doesn't seem to have much idea what Rand is about. Or at least he seems determined to see her thru the distorting prism of monotheism and Christianity at all cost. This misrepresents her and does great injustice.

Seeking allies and ideological alternatives, Skousen promotes the overall philosophy of Adam Smith and Ludwig von Mises, among others. But the reality here is Rand far exceeded these two capitalist greats. She covered philosophical subjects they could never imagine, and with a brilliance they could never equal. Ultimately, Skousen's evaluation of Rand's various views is primitive, surface, caricatured, and even anachronistic. He refutes her very little.

On its 50th anniversary, Mark Skousen's essay claims there's "much to condemn in Atlas Shrugged, principally its "inversion of Christian values." He fulminates against her principled opposition to "altruism" and the Judeo-Christian ethic calling it an "extreme canard." In 2001 Skousen argued that the "true capitalist spirit" can best be summed up in the Christian commandment 'Love thy neighbor as thyself.' Rand, it seems, got it all wrong. Indeed, with her consistent individualist and egoist ethical perspective, she's in serious danger of "giving capitalism a bad name."

But Skousen's essay isn't entirely wrong-headed. In contemplating this radical utopian novel and the idealized world it portrays and champions, Skousen seems correct in saying Rand doesn't adequately deal with the concepts of children, family, and local community. And maybe her sex scenes really are too sudden and violent.

But Skousen misses the boat a bit when he says real businessmen "wouldn't give a hoot for Galt" and the novel's labor strike against world tyranny. Skousen's basic argument is that businessmen are natural "compromisers" and "deal-makers" who almost always "work within the system." He notes elsewhere that real businessmen aren't "ideologues and true believers" but rather practical folk who seek to make money "by whatever means." What Skousen doesn't seem to remember is that none of this is really possible in the tyrannical and crumbling world of Atlas Shrugged. Thus struggling and desperate captains of industry might well welcome a visit from someone like John Galt if he can explain why all this is happening and what one can do about it.

Previously Skousen has attacked Rand's novel The Fountainhead and especially the approach to business by its hero Howard Roark. Skousen says that Roark -- in all his idealism and artistic integrity -- fails to understand "the very raison d'etre of capitalism -- consumer sovereignty." Because the architect Roark boasts of working exclusively for his own pleasure and benefit, this supposedly reveals the fact that "Rand's ideal man misconstrues the very nature and logic of capitalism -- to fulfill the needs of consumers and thereby advance the general welfare."

Skousen heartily rejects Rand's "egotism," "hedonism," and "extreme self-centeredness." So too her "materialist metaphysics" and overall "godless world." Rather than having business geniuses like Roark and Galt living and working only for themselves, Skousen claims "if society is to survive and prosper, citizens must find a balance between the two extremes of self-interest and public interest."

Ultimately, as a superior alternative to Randianism, Mark Skousen promotes a depressingly familiar "stakeholder" philosophy which seems to come directly out of old-style monotheism and socialism -- the irrational, illiberal banes of the past 150 years. Skousen wants society to reject too much individualism and work toward an "Aristotelian mean" between selfishness and selflessness in ethics, business, and government. But all these tiresome, proposed solutions to non-existent problems just reveal Skousen hasn't read Rand deeply or correctly at all.

The true "golden mean" which our world needs to achieve pure capitalism and social utopia is an ethics wherein the individual avoids the twin evils and extremes of sacrificing others to himself and himself to others. We need a society where each man can prosper without limit under unfettered individualism and liberty, and with nobody acting as a sacrificial animal.

Under Ayn Rand's philosophy of unrestricted personal freedom and concomitant wealth, the sacred individual and cynosure of the known universe can be as "selfish" and "greedy" as he wishes with no resultant social destruction. A principled individual of virtuous work and play ultimately benefits all of us collectively.

Despite what religion invariably teaches, humans aren't naturally evil and anti-social. Thus they don't need to serve god or society to create the ideal world, as Skousen repeatedly claims. Indeed, the symbiotic and poisonous ethical ideals of serving the deity and serving the collective end up destroying society, as Rand has explained countless times. It's too bad Mark Skousen's persistent religiosity doesn't allow him to understand these obvious points.

[Adrian]

Hi Kyrel

Thank you for an interesting post.

Respectfully, I'm not really surprised that Skousen's Christian/altruist position leads to different conclusions from Rand's atheist/egoist position. I guess that's what most people on either side of that divide would expect.

What I did find striking was Skousen's suggestion that "Rand's plot violates a key tenet of business existence, which is to constantly work within the system to find ways to make money. Real-world entrepreneurs are compromisers and dealmakers, not true believers". I'm an MBA teacher, and happened to be working with a class on business ethics when the article came out. We were discussing then how Yahoo had revealed the identity of a Chinese dissident to the Chinese government, and also how Google had restricted its content to be acceptable to the Chinese government.

We also looked at an article by Milton Friedman, in which he observes that "I have been impressed time and again by the schizophrenic character of many businessmen. They are capable of being extremely farsighted and clearheaded in matters that are internal to their businesses. They are incredibly shortsighted and muddle­headed in matters that are outside their businesses but affect the possible survival of busi­ness in general. This shortsightedness is strikingly exemplified in the calls from many businessmen for wage and price guidelines or controls or income policies".

Also, as I remember (haven't got the book in front of me), in the early chapters of "Atlas", Rearden doesn't keep a very close eye on what his agent Wesley Mouch is doing in Washington, because of his distaste for the whole business of government lobbying. Arguably that disregard bites back on him later in the book. There could be a practical case for keeping a very close eye on what your adversaries are doing, and trying to influence/manage them, even/especially if you find them distasteful.

At the moment, I'm rather inclined to think that Skousen has a point in suggesting that real, successful business people do in fact strike a compromise with the political temper of the times rather than taking a principled stance against it. I'm not sure I like that, but I think it might be true.

Most happy to discuss.

Adrian

[zantonavitch]

Adrian: First off, Welcome to Objectivist Living! I'm only a light participant here, but I think I'm allowed to say that.

You write:

I'm an MBA teacher, and happened to be working with a class on business ethics when [skousen's] article came out. We were discussing then how Yahoo had revealed the identity of a Chinese dissident to the Chinese government, and also how Google had restricted its content to be acceptable to the Chinese government.

We also looked at an article by Milton Friedman, in which he observes that "I have been impressed time and again by the schizophrenic character of many businessmen. They are capable of being extremely farsighted and clearheaded in matters that are internal to their businesses. They are incredibly shortsighted and muddle­headed in matters that are outside their businesses but affect the possible survival of busi­ness in general. This shortsightedness is strikingly exemplified in the calls from many businessmen for wage and price guidelines or controls or income policies".

...

At the moment, I'm rather inclined to think that Skousen has a point in suggesting that real, successful business people do in fact strike a compromise with the political temper of the times rather than taking a principled stance against it. I'm not sure I like that, but I think it might be true.

I think the business of business is business. So it's very unreasonable for the general public or Objectivists to expect too much from practical, hard-headed, nose-to-the-grindstone, naturally-amoral, philosophically-indifferent businessmen.

Still, we can demand something. Mainly we in society need to command businessmen not be collaborators with criminality or tyranny. They don't have to be "nice" to the consumer or the general public, but they must always be generally honest.

I think this is an easy moral weight to bear -- an easy social duty to discharge. Honest and reputable businessmen tend to prosper, and be well-loved besides. So some of what Mark Skousen said about "consumer sovereignty" is correct. But he looks at it from the wrong perspective and context.

This probably all has many implications for your business ethics class, Adrian. How is that, by the way? What do you teach?

[Chris Grieb]

Stephen Hicks who is working on a book on business from a Randian propective will be at the Atlas Society Summer Seminar. There maybe moments for a further discussion. This is a shameless plug.

[Adrian]

Adrian: First off, Welcome to Objectivist Living! I'm only a light participant here, but I think I'm allowed to say that.

...

This probably all has many implications for your business ethics class, Adrian. How is that, by the way? What do you teach?

Hi Kyrel

Many thanks for the welcome, and the interest!

There are two views about how ethics should be introduced into business school courses - one that you insert a bit of ethics into each subject module, the other that there should be a single overall module on the subject. (Some schools do both.) Personally I mostly teach strategy and entrepreneurship, and sections on ethics are now appearing in texts and material for both subjects.

In principle I guess that's a good thing, but I'd say that the material presented isn't always brilliantly philosophically coherent, and faculty aren't always well-prepared for the task. Which is why I'm interested in people like Stephen Hicks who are doing good work in the field.

Best regards

Adrian

[Jerry Biggers]

Some idle speculation regarding Mark Skousen and his animosity to Objectivist philosophy. I wonder if he is related (the son, maybe?) to W. Cleon Skousen, who was a pillar of the John Birch Society in the 1960s, and an outspoken Mormon.

W. Cleon wrote a book (actually, it is an extended book review and commentary on Carroll Quigley's Tragedy and Hope, which was a liberal's analysis of international affairs and Anglo-American foreign policy through the first half of 20th century, but had the peculiar distinction of agreeing with the Birchites' conspiracy theory of history - but added the kicker that these conspirators were actually a positive force!). Of course, this was the Birchers' wish-fulfillment - a liberal admitting that world affairs are controlled by a conspiratorial cabal! Skousen entitled his book, The Naked Capitalist, a play on the title of his earlier work, The Naked Communist.. Both books, incidentally, are quite entertaining, if not particularly convincing.

But, I digress. If Mark Skousen is a devout Mormon, then it would not be surprising at all that he would disagree with many positions taken by Ayn Rand in Atlas Shrugged. He is simply being consistent with his faith. Similar to the position of other Christians, Mormons clearly realize that Objectivism and Christian theology are diametrically opposed on major philosophical issues (although they may come to similar conclusions about some economic issues).

Objectivists should not expect that Christian libertarians and conservatives would agree with Ayn Rand. Of course, they may still have very useful things to say about those few areas where our positions seem to coincide.

[Chris Grieb]

Jerry Biggers is correct about the Skousen family connection with the John Birch Society and LDS Church connection.

When I was new to Objectivism and stationed at Dallas NAS I was recommend to American Opinion Book Store. I found out the bookstore kept the copies of Atlas Shrugged along the anti-Semitic literature under the counter. The attendant said too many people read Ayn Rand and became atheists.

Edited June 14, 2007 by Chris Grieb