Eric Crampton informs me of this article:
So, in lots of the developing world, we're seeing lots of searches on
Marx and very little on Rand. Rand only registers in the Philippines.
In the US, Rand beats Marx by a small margin; same in India. In Canada,
Marx beats Rand; same in Norway and New Zealand and … pretty much
every country that makes the top ten in searches on Ayn Rand. The green
bars show searches for "Atlas Shrugged". Only in the US and India do
searches on Rand beat searches on Marx.
In other words, we are not currently at a "Rand moment," at least not globally. There is much more information at the link.
For what it’s worth, Drudge has the following (w/o a link):
“Rasmussen Poll: Just 53% of Americans Say Capitalism Better Than Socialism… Developing… “
Don’t forget how many school kids and university students are assigned homework on Marx. How many of those searches are ‘from the heart?’
Marx still probably wins, but by less and for obvious reasons–national governments have never called themselves ‘Randist.’
Well, ‘pole dancing’ beats both ‘capitalism’ and ‘communism’ in the UK, Canada, and Ireland. In the US, ‘communism’ sneaks about ‘capitalism’ and ‘capitalism’ beats ‘pole dancing’. The Philippines comes in once again as the top searcher, with ‘capitalism’ edging out ‘communism’ and both of the latter terms trouncing ‘pole dancing’.
“So, Randians, be a bit careful about calling this a Randian moment.”
So, did people like me suddenly start to care about social proof? Since when did we think that the popular conclusion was the right one? Randians under the illusion of popularity strike me as unobjective.
I kind of see Marx’s view as a fairly accurate estimation of how the masses will erroneously react to capitalism. Am I surprised that the masses are erroneously reacting to capitalism at this particular time? Not so much. But, don’t contribute to making a virtue of necessity by validating popular delusion.
Oddly enough, I added The Passion of Ayn Rand to my queue yesterday.
Lots of people may be trying to figure out what it means when Obama is called a Marxist. Of course, google isn’t going to provide the answer because calling Obama a Marxist is illogical. It would make a lot more sense to call Obama a Moral Philosopher like Adam Smith.
The Philippines comes in once again as the top searcher, with ‘capitalism’ edging out ‘communism’ and both of the latter terms trouncing ‘pole dancing’.
I wonder how these search results would turn out in Poland.
Why is calling Obama a Marxist any more illogical than comparing Rand and Marx?
If you are looking for a box to fit him in, does he fit more with Rand or Marx?
When I myself call someone a Marxist, it is not totally an insult. There are points of overlap between my opinions and Marx’s views, even though I think his followers (or exploiters, “Marxploitation?”) are cause of some of the greatest human suffering. I think that we’d be better off if individual workers were more independent contractors. We should decrease transaction costs between individuals that give corporations advantages. I’d go about it different than Karl.
At bottom, does Obama believe this:
“The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.”
Or not? To what degree?
I doubt he’s a ordinal subjective marginal valuist.
It should be no surprise; Marx’s popularity was a direct result of the poor class created by industrial capitalism. Even if it wasn’t the correct solution, it’s an appealing reactionary solution. So in downturns of the business cycle, when everyone’s hurting and poor people are feeling their poverty more than usual, we should see an uptick in Marx’s popularity.
So Marxism should be the countercyclical product of the day sometime.
I think Rand would consider Kant her philosophical foil, not Marx. She makes this very clear in her non-novel texts, lectures, and papers. Rand/Marx are foils with respect to what Rand would call the “collectivist/individualist” dichotomy, and Rand/Kant are opposites in terms of their view of the objectivity of nature.
Or for that matter, why is Ayn Rand so popular in the United States, despite being taken seriously mostly by teenagers and having no influence outside of her field?
I think Rand is neither good literature, nor good philosophy. But I however, consider her books to be amazingly prophetic. In atlas shrugged, there is a description of an oil shortage caused by price controls that is almost exactly how it happened in the US in the 70s, and that is just one of the obvious examples of future prediction…there are hundreds more.
Regardless of all of this, the comparison between Marx and Rand is weak. First of all, how many languages has Rand been published in? It was never entirely popular in her native language, how are we supposed to expect publishers to take on translation and more publication? What about time? How long has Marx’s writing been around in comparison to how long Rand’s has been around. What about catastrophe? How many global catastrophes have these writings lived through?
Trying to gauge global opinion about socialism vs capitalism from google data is misguided.
“I think Rand would consider Kant her philosophical foil, not Marx. She makes this very clear in her non-novel texts, lectures, and papers. Rand/Marx are foils with respect to what Rand would call the “collectivist/individualist” dichotomy, and Rand/Kant are opposites in terms of their view of the objectivity of nature.”
She’s totally wrong and doesn’t acknowledge that she’s basically an ethical Kantian.
Also Kant wasn’t a subjectivist. Rand never seemed to understand philosophy well enough to get why.
I just talked to an Indian economist who was very surprised by the American interpretation of Ayn Rand’s writing. She did not consider Rand to by diametrically opposed to Marx. She said that the appeal of Rand for her (and possibly to many other Indians) was the strength of the character’s convictions. She said that would likely appeal to a lot of Indians who are drawn to a strong sense of idealism. She said many Indians consider themselves to have more gumption(her word choice) in following through on their convictions as compared to other cultures. She said it was this aspect of Rand’s characters that she was drawn to, and not the actual philosophy itself.
–Thorfinn
Thats an easy one, India and China are moving towards the free market. Thus they will be the future superpowers.
Coming from the left, I’ve admired Rand over the years because of her respect for free institutions and formal equality in political relationships.
It’s not a great leap to reconcile Rand’s respect for the inviolability of individual rights with an abiding respect for (freely-chosen) acts of generosity.
From a Randian perspective, generosity and even altruism can flow through a simple decision: to widen one’s sphere of caring to include those who share the qualities of spirit that one wishes to see replicated.
Dawkins’ ideas on how “selfish genes” (and “selfish memes”) can prompt unselfish action suggests a path for understanding why capitalists with an extended self will take risks to ensure the survival and reproductive success of others who hold valued qualities of spirit.
In these cases of “sacrifice”, we may be part of an evoluntary process in which “selfish values” compete for survival and reproductive success. When individuals who have kindred qualities of spirit interact, trust grows and the potential for cooperative endeavors increases. This can create foundations for remarkable actions of “unselfishness” such as Wikipedia (created by Jimmy Wales, an Ayn Rand admirer) — not far from Marx’s vision of human production after the withering away of the state.
Mark Frazier
Openworld.com and EntrepreneurialSchools.com
@openworld (twitter)
There should be a comma before “wearing”.
Vernunft you have no idea of what you are presenting. I have read Kant and listened to Objectivist lecturers who have read Kant. Even if Rand did not actually read Kant DIRECTLY she understood his contorted arguments for what they were: subjectivist nonsense. Certainly, all I have read supports that interpretation, though many academics love to think that their own senses deceive them!
Vernunft you have no idea of what you are presenting. I have read Kant and listened to Objectivist lecturers who have read Kant. Even if Rand did not actually read Kant DIRECTLY she understood his contorted arguments for what they were: subjectivist nonsense. Certainly, all I have read supports that interpretation, though many academics love to think that their own senses deceive them!
Have you read Kant properly? Do you even know what questions Kant was addressing? Hint: Humean Skepticism. Do you even know exactly what Kant was talking about when he talked about noumena and phenomena. Can you even make a cogent reply to his line of argument other than saying “Pfft! I read him as denying external reality! Must be nonsense!” If you can’t then you and other Randroids are just talking out of your ass. Kant provides a far more solid basis for a libertarian polity and individual rights than Rand. Kant is not perfect, but his critique of pure reason is not easily dismissed as subjectivist nonsense.
GQ’s new article kicks the teeth in on randians and their delusional ideas. With lines such as (talking of Rands works) “with prose so dry you have to weigh it with a meat scale.”
Comments on this entry are closed.