News: Goddess of the Market by Jennifer Burns

[Jerry Biggers]

Bill P.

http://journals.camb...line&aid=254983

I assume that you have to pay for the article, but the abstract is supposedly there. Additionally, I just discovered that the majority of the text of that article is covered in Tucille's Book the Gospel of Ayn Rand - see http://www.amazon.com/Gospel-According-Ayn-Rand/dp/0595435750?tag=dogpile-20

Damn...I remember that National Review - it had a stained glass Ayn on the cover - I know I got that issue the second it became available. The newsstand owner at Lex. and 59th saved one for me lol.

Hope that helps, Bill.

Adam

Somewhere, probably in some box....somewhere in our basement....I have a copy of that NR issue with "St. Ayn" Stained Glass window on its cover. It's not as neat as it may sound...and the article itself is not very deep. Evans has some positive things to say (he calls her a "philosophical system-builder, par excellance" to my recollection). However, he ultimately discounts her because of her rejection of the Christian ethics.

I guess I could not copy it her without the consent of NR (which they may well give- they think that all their articles are, well, the gospel), 'cause I don't want to go to jail!! The discussion of those burly guards in the Intellectual Property Rights Division is scary...(and NO, I DON"T want to find out if I would like it!).

[Robert Campbell]

National Review Online doesn't get deep into the archives. It carries articles from the print magazine all the way back to 2003.

Robert Campbell

[Robert Campbell]

Adam,

Clemson University has an online subscription to the journal, so I was able to download Jennifer Burn's article "Godless Capitalism: Ayn Rand and the Conservative Movement."

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract;jsessionid=8CBF774A641896385BF4D41083BBD4F0.tomcat1?fromPage=online&aid=254983

Great article.

Some of it has been incorporated into Goddess of the Market, but there is much further detail on various National Review authors (especially E. Merrill Root and Garry Wills) and their reactions to the challenges that Rand posed.

Dr. Burns sees the underlying issue as the incompatibility between Christian ethics and capitalism. She notes that Whittaker Chambers (of all people) actually stopped calling himself a conservative after he realized that his primary allegiance was to capitalism (too bad this didn't happen before 1957...). Garry Wills, on the other hand, eventually moved Leftward after deciding that his primary allegiance was to Christian ethics.

She is emphatic that the moral acceptability of capitalism was originally promoted by libertarians, most notably by Ayn Rand herself, while in the 1950s Christian conservatives often had grave doubts about the market economy.

Well worth reading...

Robert Campbell

[Selene]

Adam,

Clemson University has an online subscription to the journal, so I was able to download Jennifer Burn's article "Godless Capitalism: Ayn Rand and the Conservative Movement."

http://journals.camb...line&aid=254983

Great article.

Some of it has been incorporated into Goddess of the Market, but there is much further detail on various National Review authors (especially E. Merrill Root and Garry Wills) and their reactions to the challenges that Rand posed.

Dr. Burns sees the underlying issue as the incompatibility between Christian ethics and capitalism. She notes that Whittaker Chambers (of all people) actually stopped calling himself a conservative after he realized that his primary allegiance was to capitalism (too bad this didn't happen before 1957...). Garry Wills, on the other hand, eventually moved Leftward after deciding that his primary allegiance was to Christian ethics.

She is emphatic that the moral acceptability of capitalism was originally promoted by libertarians, most notably by Ayn Rand herself, while in the 1950s Christian conservatives often had grave doubts about the market economy.

Well worth reading...

Robert Campbell

Robert:

Thank you so much.

Hmm, now I am going to have to take a fresh look at Adam Smith's arguments again in The Theory of Moral Sentiments [ 1759].

"It provided the ethical, philosophical, psychological and methodological underpinnings to Smith's later works, including The Wealth of Nations (1776), A Treatise on Public Opulence (1764)

(first published in 1937), Essays on Philosophical Subjects (1795), and Lectures on Justice, Police, Revenue, and Arms (1763) (first published in 1896)."

I have not read that first book in years, but I sure remember it establishing what is in the Wiki quote.

Adam

[Robert Campbell]

Adam,

The Theory of Moral Sentiments has been enjoying a revival among social psychologists.

It is also cited extensively in the first volume Rob Bradley's treatise on genuine vs. "political" capitalism, alongside Ayn Rand's works:

http://www.amazon.com/Capitalism-Work-Business-Government-Political/dp/0976404176/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1255995461&sr=1-1

Robert Campbell

[Selene]

Adam,

The Theory of Moral Sentiments has been enjoying a revival among social psychologists.

It is also cited extensively in the first volume Rob Bradley's treatise on genuine vs. "political" capitalism, alongside Ayn Rand's works:

http://www.amazon.co...55995461&sr=1-1

Robert Campbell

Robert:

So Jennifer is implying something different because I would imagine she ran across it.

Adam

[9thdoctor]

There’s a cringe inducing new article in New York Magazine, using the Heller book as a springboard for some spirited ad hominem.

http://nymag.com/arts/books/features/60120/

Edited October 20, 2009 by Ninth Doctor

[Philip Coates]

Subject: How to Smear and Misrepresent a Philosophy

With this New York Mag piece, so similar in tone to Wilson Quarterly and New Republic [and the NYT mag piece on John Allison, a vehicle to attack Rand's politics and ethics] a pattern has clearly emerged, contrary to an earlier assessment I had.

And it's the same old pattern:

The top, most influential publications or the NYC dominated major media will only host reviews about the two new books which are vehicles for attacks on her and her philosophy - Wilson Quarterly, New Republic, and now New York Magazine.

[given the lockstep results, you can suspect they already know the point of view of people who write reviews - if they were conservative or libertarian or did not have a highly liberal track record, they would not be trusted to review an important book - the former editor of Reason was already on record as hostile to Rand before he was hired to write a review by The Wilson Quarterly]

Just as ARI gets some op eds published in second string or 'second city' or right of center type periodicals or websites, there has been and will be some favorable and non-snarky comment on Rand and her importance in venues which are not the ones read and edited by the top opinion-makers, the "ideas workers" in New York, at the Ivy League, etc.

And notice that those three 'elite media' reviews have some eerie similarities, either explicitly or RBTL [one hopes they are not derived from Burns or Heller]. Each point feeds into the next:

1. woman with feet of clay, not very rational.

2. not objective but formed by a harsh, malevolent and unusual loner childhood.

3. her life and harshness and malevolence toward associates shows that selfishness doesn't work

4. by implication, neither does capitalism and freedom which are based on a harsh (and surprise!) malevolent individualism.

Since you can't refute Objectivism directly, the above four points are a mutually reinforcing chain showing how you discredit it indirectly without ever discussing or clearly identifying the benevolence and logic of the philosophy and how it works positively.

This will be the 'line' used to attack Rand from now on...it's what they will take from the two biographies as talking points. Any stick or additional 'documentation' they can use to beat her with. No matter what is actually in the books.

This is the same approach used against conservative politicians. First you denounce them personally: Cheney, Palin, Bush become synonyms for all the evil in the world, something morally reprehensible. Loathsome. Then that discredits the ideas, so you don't have to present them fairly or deal with them.

Why would you think the media, heavily dominated by the left, would have changed?

Edited October 20, 2009 by Philip Coates

[Selene]

"...a pattern has clearly emerged, contrary to an earlier assessment I had."

And notice that those three 'elite media' reviews have some eerie similarities, either explicitly or RBTL

1. woman with feet of clay, not very rational.

2. not objective but formed by a harsh, malevolent and unusual loner childhood.

3. her life and harshness and malevolence toward associates shows that selfishness doesn't work

4. by implication, neither does capitalism and freedom which are based on a harsh (and surprise!) malevolent individualism.

Since you can't refute Objectivism directly, the above four points are a mutually reinforcing chain showing how you discredit it indirectly without ever discussing or clearly identifying the benevolence and logic of the philosophy and how it works positively.

This will be the 'line' used to attack Rand from now on...it's what they will take from the two biographies as talking points. Any stick or additional 'documentation' they can use to beat her with. No matter what is actually in the books.

This is the same approach used against conservative politicians. First you denounce them personally. Then that discredits the ideas, so you don't have to present them fairly or deal with them.

Why would you think the media, heavily dominated by the left, would have changed?

Good points Phil:

I wonder why you thought the Alinsky media would have changed?

These rules of the ethics of means and ends are only one chapter of his book, totally distinct from his "clear set of rules for community organizing." For example, his rule 12 is "pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it."

Some of his other rules are:

• The judgment of the ethics of means is dependent upon the political position of those sitting in judgment.
• In war the end justifies almost any means.
• Judgment must be made in the context of the times in which the action occurred and not from any other chronological vantage point.
• Concern with ethics increases with the number of means available and vice versa.
• The less important the end to be desired, the more one can afford to engage in ethical evaluations of means.
• Generally, success or failure is a mighty determinant of ethics.
• The morality of a means depends upon whether the means is being employed at a time of imminent defeat or imminent victory.
• Any effective means is automatically judged by the opposition as being unethical.
• You do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral garments.
• Goals must be phrased in general terms like "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity," "Of the Common Welfare," "Pursuit of Happiness," or "Bread and Peace."

Remember folks, this marxist pig is the absolute adored alpha leader who Barack, Hillary. Michelle my belle and a ton of other banal bottom feeders extol as a God.

Adam

[merjet]

Cato is hosting an event with Burns and Heller on October 28.

It will be aired online. http://www.cato.org/event.php?eventid=6416

[Philip Coates]

Adam, thanks for your neatly and precisely detailed points about Alinsky. Heard his name, but was not familiar with him. Sounds like Lenin. Or from the U.S., what's the name of that San Diego Marxist professor that was written about in The Objectvist? Coercive tolerance? Ah! I've got it...Herbert Marcuse.

Paraphrase: You can't make an omelet without breaking heads.

PS, I don't want to divert this thread into other figures in politics, though. But you said "only one chapter of his book" -- what's the name of his book and is it worth reading to understand today's leftist and ad hominem strategies and tactics?

Edited October 20, 2009 by Philip Coates

[merjet]

Herbert Marcuse was a leading member of the Frankfurt School. On another thread Darrell Hougen gave a link to this video about MSNBC, the Frankfurt School and leftist strategies and tactics.

Edited October 20, 2009 by Merlin Jetton

[Robert Campbell]

Adam,

As you've netted him out, Saul Alinsky was an advocate of Revolutionary Morality Lite.

Heavier on the deception, lighter on the shooting.

Robert Campbell

[Robert Campbell]

The New York magazine piece makes the following statement:

"She arrived in New York, wept at the glory of its skyline, and changed her name. (The origin is unclear—although we do know that “Rand” is not, as she once claimed, based on a Remington-Rand typewriter, since that brand wasn’t produced until after her rechristening....)

Does anyone know whether Anne Heller's book actually says that Ayn Rand personally circulated the "typewriter story"?

Robert Campbell

[Jerry Biggers]

The New York magazine piece makes the following statement:

"She arrived in New York, wept at the glory of its skyline, and changed her name. (The origin is unclear—although we do know that “Rand” is not, as she once claimed, based on a Remington-Rand typewriter, since that brand wasn’t produced until after her rechristening....)

Does anyone know whether Anne Heller's book actually says that Ayn Rand personally circulated the "typewriter story"?

Robert Campbell

Robert,

I haven't yet seen Heller's book, but I assume that all these "reviews" now coming out are based on pre-pub review copies, although it is hard to tell - given the writers using it (and Burns' book) as a pretext for them to unload their hatred of Rand.

By the way, the New York magazine "review" has a claim (I am paraphrasing here) that she stated that Native Americans deserved to have their lands taken from them by Europeans because they had not formed an advanced civilization. I do not recall her saying that or anything like that in her books, and... oops!, I just decided to look it up in Mayhew's "Ayn Rand Answers," and unfortunately, there it is on pp. 102-104. Actually, what she said is even worse, IMHO.(To wit: the Indians were nomads and savages. They had no concept of private property and had no government which believed in individual rights. Ergo, European settlers had every right to appropriate all of their land). Umm, okay, so if the government does not legally guarantee rights, then it citizens have no rights, and invaders can do whatever they want? Apparently so. I don't believe this follows from an Objectivist-based line of reasoning (unless, of course, you believe that everything Rand said was Objectivism, as some ARIans do).

Mayhew attributes this to a Q&A at the end of he West Point lecture, Philosophy Who Needs It." I have not heard the recording of that lecture, which may have this comment on it. Has anybody else heard this?

[Robert Campbell]

Jerry,

Philosophy: Who Needs it (her West Point speech) is supposedly available here

http://atlasshrugged.com/ayn-rand-works/speeches-and-interviews.html

along with its Q&A.

However, these are both in a format that I can't play on my system. (I've been able to listen to some Q&A's from Ford Hall Forum that are in a different format on this site.)

I heard her say worse things about Native Americans after one of her Ford Hall Forum talks... something about the form of torture they were fond of employing.

Robert Campbell

[Selene]

Adam, thanks for your neatly and precisely detailed points about Alinsky. Heard his name, but was not familiar with him. Sounds like Lenin. Or from the U.S., what's the name of that San Diego Marxist professor that was written about in The Objectvist? Coercive tolerance? Ah! I've got it...Herbert Marcuse.

Paraphrase: You can't make an omelet without breaking heads.

PS, I don't want to divert this thread into other figures in politics, though. But you said "only one chapter of his book" -- what's the name of his book and is it worth reading to understand today's leftist and ad hominem strategies and tactics?

Thank you Phil:

I believe that it is critical that you know your enemy, therefore, I would posit that this is the most important book to read now because he is the "soul" mentor of Hillary and Bill Clinton and O'biwan the magnificent at a minimum.

http://search.barnes...e/9780679721130

Use the see inside function - the table of contents is there. He even quotes Tom Paine in the dedication.

Hope this helps. I think it also answers the question as to whether this scum means well. They don't.

Adam

Edited October 21, 2009 by Selene

[Brant Gaede]

Jerry,

Philosophy: Who Needs it (her West Point speech) is supposedly available here

http://atlasshrugged...interviews.html

along with its Q&A.

However, these are both in a format that I can't play on my system. (I've been able to listen to some Q&A's from Ford Hall Forum that are in a different format on this site.)

I heard her say worse things about Native Americans after one of her Ford Hall Forum talks... something about the form of torture they were fond of employing.

Robert Campbell

"Indian torture." Whatever that was. They could be pretty nasty but ended up on the short end of flu, massacres, smallpox and the benevolence of reservations and forced schooling.

--Brant

[Philip Coates]

> To wit: the Indians were nomads and savages. They had no concept of private property and had no government which believed in individual rights. Ergo, European settlers had every right to appropriate all of their land)...[so] invaders can do whatever they want?...Has anybody else heard this?

Jerry, sparse numbers of nomads don't need an entire continent in order to follow migrating herds. Nor would they need to or have any right to preclude settlement, land claims, water rights, cities, industries to have a herding or hunting lifestyle. After all, we have both today even in an advanced 21st Century industrial civilization. Hunting season begins on certain days in the rural areas, so stay out of the woods especially if you look like a deer! (Also, state and national parks and other set-asides). So, supposing the Indians had all been nomads and not believers in settled, civilized living or in property [not true everywhere on the continent]... and supposing neither the Indians had initiated force [in many cases they did] on anyone trying to get a foothold anywhere near them & supposing the settlers had not initiated force [driving the agricultural, non-nomadic Indians off their farms], a legitimate property based system might have ended up with the peaceful Indians who wanted to remain hunters having, say [and I'm just completely guessing] 5%-15% of the continent until and unless they want to sell it. Which would still allow 85%-95% for 'civilized' or 'modern' settlement. (But over time many Indians - if tirbal coercion were prevented - would want to move into the modern world, just as has been true of primitive tribes and aborigines across the world, so that percentage would change.)

If the Indians want to remain 'uncivilized' in the sense of communal, just like communes and cults today have their own communities, a proper system would have allowed that. But if they wanted to remain 'savages' in the sense of aggressors against their own people or other tribes or white settlers, then they would have been (properly) pushed so far away -- as punishment or as a safety buffer [think Gaza Strip and the Israeli walls and checkpoints].

One final point: The dealings with the Indians are complicated as to who was the aggressor - they varied by place (the Pilgrims and the Sotherners), by political group (Pres. Jackson vs. the U.S. Supreme Court on the Cherokee and other Indian agriculturists), and by time.

NOTE: All of the above is from Phil Coates , not from Rand or Peikoff, who I believe may have made sweeping and general statements about "the Indians". They may have oversimplified (if I recall correctly?) as if it were one undifferentiated phenomenon to be generalized about...which is a failure to assimilate American history.

Edited October 21, 2009 by Philip Coates

[jeffrey smith]

Article here by Ms. Burns on growing interest in Rand in India.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/10/19/howard_roark_in_new_delhi?page=0

[Robert Campbell]

Jeffrey,

Nice article.

Now if Rand's novels would only start selling in Pakistan...

Robert Campbell

[Robert Campbell]

Brant G,

Don't know whether you've seen the movie Black Robe, about a French missionary among the Huron and the Iroquois in the early 1600s.

When his party gets captured by the Iroquois, they are introduced to the preferred method of dealing with enemy prisoners—cutting off their fingers, one by one, with sharpened clam shells.

Not recommended viewing for the squeamish.

Robert C

[Robert Campbell]

Phil,

If you're going to wade into Native American questions, you need to study up on your history. For starters, many of the tribes north of the Rio Grande practiced agriculture.

In the 1820s, the northern end of Georgia was largely inhabited by Cherokees, who farmed, lived in small towns, one of which had a courthouse, and published a newspaper in their own language.

None of which did helped their case. They were run out and marched off to "Indian Territory" (now called Oklahoma), during which forced exodus many of them died.

It's an extremely complex story, with bad actors on different sides at different times. Suffice it to say that Ayn Rand never learned the first thing about it.

Robert Campbell

[Brant Gaede]

Relationships are basically power relationships. The native populations didn't have enough power to resist the Europeans so they got shoved aside. Now the American government is doing more and more to its citizens generally what it's been doing to the Indians from day one. This process is accelerating exponentially. We're going onto the reservation. Got any vodka?

--Brant

[Jerry Biggers]

Phil,

If you're going to wade into Native American questions, you need to study up on your history. For starters, many of the tribes north of the Rio Grande practiced agriculture.

In the 1820s, the northern end of Georgia was largely inhabited by Cherokees, who farmed, lived in small towns, one of which had a courthouse, and published a newspaper in their own language.

None of which did helped their case. They were run out and marched off to "Indian Territory" (now called Oklahoma), during which forced exodus many of them died.

It's an extremely complex story, with bad actors on different sides at different times. Suffice it to say that Ayn Rand never learned the first thing about it.

Robert Campbell

Regarding the peaceful nature of the pre-Columbian Native Americans (you know, "the conquest of paradise"):

Recent archeological/anthropological digs at the pre-Columbian (and long-gone before European settlers entered their territory) Cahokia Indian Mounds in southern Illinois, discoveries were made that significantly changed the portrait of these people as an advanced civilization of peaceful farmers and "mound" (i.e., pyramid) builders, with some very large cities, allegedly rivaling or surpassing London at the same time (1250 A.D.). It now appears that there is significant evidence to confirm that the Mound builders practiced ritual human sacrifice in a manner and quantity similar to that the Meso-American (Aztec/Toltec/Mayan) civilzations. One mass burial site of over 50 men and women had evidence that they were buried alive (skeletons found in positions indicating trying to claw out). See salon.com, and type cahokia into their search engine.

Oh. Some New Agers regularly congregate at the mound site because they say there is a lot of "psychic energy" there. To be sure.