Posts Tagged collectivism

Book Review: The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand

The Fountainhead The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand

My rating: 5 of 5 stars (buy it here)

I read this book a few years after reading Rand’s magnum opus, “Atlas Shrugged”. I would say this book falls in line with the later work and was fabulous. I am a fan of Ayn Rand’s writing and this was no different. The key argument in the book was collectivism vs individualism and she worked it out well. As with other writings, it had the Rand tinge of atheism in spots but with proper context, even those arguments were well structured and accurate.

I am a strong proponent of the human spirit, man’s ability to progress, succeed, innovate, and to do it interdependently, that is, free individual will offered to each in exchange for the creativity of others. Humanity is great if allowed to think for one’s self. This book lines this argument nicely and gives 4 example types of people in the world. The typical follower with no will of his own, the person who desires power over others by destroying individualism, the person who could have been great but squanders ability in trade for apparent “power” only to find himself/herself enslaved by the desires of the “masses”, and the one who is the ideal- who understands his/her individual ability and desires nothing from others but for each to explore their own ability to create.

If your political and socio-economic ideals are completely out of sync with objectivism, as with all of Rand’s books, you won’t like this one. Otherwise, this is a great book and very entertaining as a novel.

View all my reviews >>

Post to Twitter

Tags: , ,

Redefining “Sacrifice” for your Personal Success

Personal success is defined by an individual in his/her own manner.  Some want overwhelming financial prosperity while others look to quiet family comforts.  Some want to travel the world while others want a large home, garden, and car.  Some want international business success while others simply want flexibility to work or not work.  Some want spiritual achievement while others define spirituality very differently.  To nearly all, it is preached that one must sacrifice in order to achieve what one wants most in life.  Is this true?  I would say yes but what you must understand the nature of sacrifice and then decide, is it really a sacrifice at all?  This line of thinking is a key component of a philosophical framework called “Objectivism”, developed by Ayn Rand.  With such titles as “The Virtue of Selfishness”, you can imagine the controversy.  Most religious people, me being a Christian, would claim this to be false and pose arguments to the contrary, the selfishness is wrong and sacrifice is the key.  When you strip away the semantics of modern language and build the proper context to Christian sacrifice, the philosophies begin to align.  I’m sure any hardcore objectivist would beg to differ, which is fine, this is simply how my understanding has developed.

In “The FountainHead”, Ayn Rand makes a statement that I find valuable in this discussion. (Emphasis added)

Is sacrifice a virtue? Can a man sacrifice his integrity? His honor? His freedom? His ideal? His convictions? The honesty of his feelings? The independence of his thought? But these are a man’s supreme possessions.  Anything he gives up for them is not a sacrifice but an easy bargain.  They, however, are above sacrificing to any cause or consideration whatsoever.

I have pondered this for some time and have come to the conclusion that even most Christians would agree with that statement.  Sacrificing one’s integrity, convictions, etc. would be against the intent and idea of sacrifice.   I love the statement that anything one gives up for these values is not a sacrifice but an easy bargain.  Compare it to this obvious scenario:  If I sacrifice $10 by giving it to you, knowing you will give me $20 in return, is it a sacrifice?   One gives and “sacrifices” for one’s ideals in order to enhance them, to keep them, to live by them and the return is much greater than the sacrifice (assuming you value your ideals, or let’s just say your ideals are what you value most in life, whatever they are).

The key difference in definition, for many, may simply be timing.  Sacrifice to some is the idea of giving up what you want today for what you want of greater value sometime in the future.  This may be a form of short-term sacrifice but once the item of greater value comes, you will have sacrificed nothing as you now stand with more than you started with.  The great teaching challenge of many religious credos is getting individuals to give up instant gratification for future glory and reward of much greater value.  It is to “sacrifice” in the immediate future.  The ideas of objectivism simply remove the issue of timing and state: Look at what you want most and do that, no matter how long it takes.    Looking at both of these statements creates a foundation for successful achievement.  What do you want most in life?  Professionally? Personally?  Now working on achieving it, no matter how long it takes, no matter what you must give up today in order to obtain it tomorrow (that is all but the ‘un-sacrifice-ables’ in your life, however they are defined).

Many Christians and religious individuals may take the idea of self-sacrifice to the extreme that Rand shares as a danger, that of sacrificing your integrity, convictions, honor and more for the “good of society”, for the good of the collective, the community.  This goes beyond the scope even of properly understood Christianity.  Even Jesus Christ himself would not sacrifice his integrity and conviction for the good of mankind.  What “good” would that have done anyhow? It would have gone counter to his purpose and goal.  That’s the peculiarity of many religions, Christianity included, and the understanding of sacrifice.  It doesn’t make logical sense even within their own doctrines to sacrifice to that degree or definition.  It also reveals the shortcomings of collectivism but that will be left for another discussion.

With this understanding of sacrifice and taking necessary action for success, I must say it is much easier to think about when you use Rand’s words:

Achieving personal success is simply a matter of making “easy bargains”…

Post to Twitter

Tags: , , ,

Our forgetful nature brings Keynes to the economic forefront once again…

Oh Paul… Paul Krugman, our Keynes Reincarnate…  here to influence us to continue walking toward the “Keynesian light”.  I recently read an article by Lilburne from the Ludwig von Mises Institute regarding Paul Krugman’s current influential role in our political economy.  The article is titled “The Second Coming of Keynes” and highlights some interesting points regarding America’s tendency to NOT learn from our experiences.  He states:

Paul Krugman is a devotee of John Maynard Keynes. He’s such a hard core disciple that he was Keyensian when Keynesianism wasn’t cool: the period between the 1970s stagflation, which seemed to disprove Keynesian doctrine, and now, when it is groundlessly renascent due to our society’s stunted memory span.

And what of the years and years of proofing done by classical economists, testing the original ideas of Adam Smith?  Richard Ebeling (former president of FEE) wrote in the Freeman a few years ago:

The classical economists of the eighteenth and nine­teenth centuries had persuasively demonstrated that government intervention prevented the smooth func­tioning of the market. They constructed a body of eco­nomic theory which clearly showed that governments have neither the knowledge nor the ability to direct economic affairs.

…During the Napoleonic wars of the early nineteenth century, many European countries experienced serious inflations as governments resorted to the printing press to fund their war expenditures. The lesson the classical economists learned was that the hand of the government had to be removed from the handle of that printing press if monetary stability was to be maintained.

I will leave the evidence behind these claims to the authors (see their articles and other writings for detail).  Suffice it to say we cannot recall our past with the prudence to understand that the social collectivist movements– no matter the name albeit communism, socialism, or progressivism–  are not effective systems.  We are set to govern ourselves and no individual carries a divine calling as supreme decision maker for the collective (which is interesting considering Marx was anti-religious. I wonder how he assumed his calling?).

Now back to Krugman… as a devout Keynesian disciple, he once stated:

one of the high points of the semester, if you’re a teacher of introductory macroeconomics, comes when you explain how individual virtue can be public vice, how attempts by consumers to do the right thing by saving more can leave everyone worse off. The point is that if consumers cut their spending, and nothing else takes the place of that spending, the economy will slide into a recession, reducing everyone’s income.

I must agree with Lilburne that such as statement is an example of “childish theory.” As Lilburne quotes Gary North:

peak of saving as if it were a system for hiding paper currency under a mattress. They refuse to answer this crucial question: What does the bank do with the money that a consumer deposits instead of spending? Put another way: What analytical or conceptual difference does it make whether a saver deposits a dollar [in] his bank, which the bank will lend, or whether he spends it, enabling the seller to deposit the dollar in his bank, which his bank will lend?

The Keynesian theory is either ignorantly arrogant (as Keynes himself often was) or completely naive to banking and finance processes.

The best part is this country’s people and leaders’ willingness to accept it without a thought or research.  I guess that’s the definition of progressivism: “Don’t look back, don’t read old thinking, we must move forward with “new” ideas that you don’t call “classic” cuz that’s too old and un-progressive…”

It may be much simpler as to why this thought realm is so popular with politicians and governments, as I’ve previously quoted and discussed here, from Ebeling again:

What Keynes succeeded in doing was to provide a rationale for what governments always like to do: spend money and pander to special interests.

Welcome Back Maynard… I mean Paul… whatever…

Post to Twitter

Tags: , , , ,

It’s about the Individual!

On the opening page to Ayn Rand’s “Anthem” is a quote from her:

I worship individuals for their highest possibilities as individuals, and I loathe humanity, for its failure to live up to these possibilities

- Ayn Rand

I can’t help but agree!  If humanity is viewed as many individuals with individual possibilities, opportunities, and talents as it should be, then humanity has grand potential.  As a collective, unified, single body, it is destined to be dragged down to the lowest common denominator.  A chain is only as strong as its weakest link and collective society tends to think it unfair for one link to be stronger than the other, thus we must weaken the other links as that is easier than strengthening the already weak one.  It is an inevitable possibility even if intentions are to strengthen as we cannot control the will of one.  Thus, the goal must be to allow individuals to flourish as they choose!

Post to Twitter

Tags: , ,