This play was written in the early 1960s. A special performance was given at the 60th birthday celebration for Murray Rothbard held March 3, 1986, in New York City. See the fully text by Murray Rothbard
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=82c9e6a0-4039-4bed-8599-3523a9561010)
Source link: http://blog.mises.org/11017/mozart-was-a-red/
Mozart Was a Red
Previous post: A Free-Market Operative in the Bowels of Bureaucracy
Next post: The Triumph of Socialism
{ 33 comments }
Wow! That is brilliant! I know so many people like Carson and her toadies in every area of life. They’re in church, at work, in sports, school; they’re everywhere. And they make like so painful for everyone else.
My son was in the high school band for four years and he described it as a cult. Carson-type people led it. He enjoyed the music, comraderie and performing but saw the cult-like nature of it amusing.
Everyone needs to follow the advice of the great reformers of the 16th century: unity in essentials; diversity in nonessentials; charity in all. Of course, to people like Carson, everything is essential.
Hilarious! Murray could have made more money as a play and screen writer than economist, but the world would be less for it, or at least I think so.
Mozart was a neocon.
Let’s establish our Rothbard cult!
Rothbard’s dilemma of praise and exasperation well illustrates the problem with Rand: one the one hand, a depressingly narrow soul; on the other, an irrefutable demolisher of altruism. Narrow, in her lack of interest in serious music beyond a single piece by Rachmaninoff; narrow in her intolerance for the life-blood of reason — the openness to discussion; narrow in the scope of her reading (her Marginalia, supposedly a show of broad interest, is puny); narrow in her almost criminal failure to attribute to others (e.g., I.Paterson’s God of the Machine and G.Garrett’s The Driver). In spite of this, one must say, does 1+1=2 cease to be true because Mao or Pol Pot believed it? Call her Satan himself if you like, but her demolition of altruism in The Virtue of Selfishness is unanswerable.
Check out the answer to “Did Rand “excommunicate” friends because they liked Beethoven’s music?” at the Ayn Rand Biographical FAQ: http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/bio/biofaq.html#Q4.8
Also, this is a quote from Leonard Peikoff, her legal and intellectual heir:
“If it were true that Ayn Rand kicked out of her circle or denounced or
would not tolerate anyone who disagreed with her on things like music and
painting, I’d like you to account for my continued existence as a close
friend of hers for over thirty years plus being designated as heir.
“I loved Beethoven. I have a vast Mozart collection of which she knew
perfectly well. I love Somerset Maugham whom she hated. [ ...]
“She knew in great detail of the conflicts — such conflicts or
disagreements as there were — and as long as you could specify what you
liked in terms that were understandable in reason (and that were not an
assault on reason, as I indicated to you before) there’s no such thing.
It’s a complete, total lie.”
Andras: “Let’s establish our Rothbard cult!”
I think you’re a little late.
David, Don’t you think Rothbard was exaggerating a little for comic effect?
My own “Atlas Shrugged” parody:
http://www.emba.uvm.edu/~wilson/aynrand.pdf
fundamentalist:
Exaggeration implies the existence of facts to exaggerate.
Let me give you another example. Rothbard claims that Ayn Rand was vehemently anti-Christian, whereas in fact her position was much more nuanced and she had many close religious friends. It doesn’t make any sense for someone raised in an secular environment to harbor any strong feeling about someone else’s religion. In my experience only people raised in religious environments have any strong feelings one way or another about that particular religion. How many atheist Jews do you know who are vehemently anti-Christian?
For example, she wrote:
“Jesus was one of the first great teachers to proclaim the basic principle of individualism — the inviolate sanctity of man’s soul, and the salvation of one’s soul as one’s first concern and highest goal; this means — one’s ego and the integrity of one’s ego.”
http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/texts/jesus.html
All these contradictions about Rand, I kind of sensed as I read first The Fountainhead – practically knowing nothing about the author.
While I’m amused by Rothbard’s eclecticism, I don’t think its more compelling than Rands own parodies of socialist dinners – of which Rothbards himself seems to even make a parody to the second degree though.
It didn’t bother me that Rand’s own artistic ideas about purity were partly very conventional… as Rand’s book is still an unconventional attempt to reach a higher level of consciousness of the reader (a bit like Hermann Hesse which she most probably hated with all her guts !).
Again, in particular, her choice to make her hero an architect in the Fountainhead (and her multiple digression about sculpture) mark her vivid yet sometimes utterly “emotional” interest for artistic ideas !
Her choice of the great F.L. Wright as a model for Roark also, shows the limit imposed through real life to the nobility of artistic ideals in a way that reflects her own hopeless struggle, probably more than she would have liked it.
Wright’s houses had many structural problems that could not cope with the new principle of aesthetic – which in turn he himself attempted to rationally extract from the technical superiority of the materials… but the flaws and cracks only showed many years later.
What is left of his buildings is now still a fabulous and unequaled sense for innovative living space in modern architecture … but little objectivism.
> Her choice of the great F.L. Wright as a model for Roark
From the “Letters of Ayn Rand”, p. 468:
“There is no similarity between Roark and Mr. Wright as far as personal life, character and basic philosophy are concerned. The only parallel which may be drawn between them is purely architectural—that is, in regard to their stand on modern architecture.
@Michael Wilson.
ROLF ! This really made me laugh ! You’ve got great writing skills !
I found Atlas Shrugged – though still enjoyable, too much of a remake with the same ideas as those in the Fountainhead
> the limit imposed through real life to the nobility of artistic ideals in a way that reflects her own hopeless struggle
That is not the theme of the Fountainhead. The theme of the Fountainhead is that there is no contradiction between the ideal and the practical. Characters who compromise their ideals ultimately succumb in material terms, while Roark ultimately succeeds in his career precisely because of his uncompromising idealism.
> mark her vivid yet sometimes utterly “emotional” interest for artistic ideas
Are you suggestion that Ayn Rand was somehow anti-emotion? She was against emotionalism, (substituting emotions for thinking) but she was very much for emotions, as after all, she believed that pursuing one’s happiness ought to be the goal of one’s life.
@ David Veksler
Yes I just saw that too!
But still she asked him for the movie, and even within that limited frame, both architects (or the author) show disturbing similarities … in their respective flaws : trying to define objectivity as the only motive for their work.
@ David Veksler
(Answering the second post)
Of course you’re right, and I do think she is a great writer…!
Lol is David Veskler Rand’s after death bodyguard, or what?
Michael Wilson:
I truly did laugh out loud! You’ve encapsulated 1,168 pages of Rand gobbledygook quite artfully.
Some very good comments, here. I learned a couple of things – having once been a Rand devotee until I understood – and disagreed with – her methodology (basically Cartesian) and her ethics (largely Nietzchean, with a flavor of “The Ego and Its Own” and the Futurists).
I wish I’d have known more about the Rothbard-Rand feud. I began reading the Rand non-fiction (newsletter) stuff in 1965, got the back issues to the beginning (1962) and went on from there. It took me about 5 years to formally drop out, and a few more to reintegrate what I’d learned, there, to the larger Empiricist World, or whatever was my philosophical orientation.
I have yet to read and see Barbara Branden’s “The Passion of Ayn Rand,” and the film with Helen Mirren. Believe me, I’m looking forward to it!
Great Falls, Montana
A few things that weren’t mentioned:
(1) the woman-philosopher, Rose Rand, affiliated with the Vienna Circle, including Popper and Wittgenstein
(2) one of the first serious students of Rand’s philosophy I met asked me, right off the bat, had I read Russell and Whitehead’s Principia. His name was Steven Smith – he preceded me as Chairman of the UCLA Ayn Rand Society (and he, in turn, was preceded by Durk Pearson, the Life Extension guy, with whom I had a few extended discussions, as well. We still had some very good minds, there. Peter Reidy and Phil Salin were my closest friends, and later Robert and Carol David Avila). We also knew Jan and Peter Crosby socially. He was the official Nathaniel Branden Institute representatives, and a grad student in Philosophy at USC. They were strong “arts” people – probably the first I ever knew on that level in my own generation.
We went through Arthur Koestler’s “The Act of Creation, ” together, for example. So, the charges of real “intellectual authoritarianism” didn’t extend to LA or other “Western Revisionist” locations.
David, Thanks for the interesting insights on Rand. I admit I don’t know much about her, although I loved her writings. We need to keep in mind that Murray may have been a little hard to get along with, too. He couldn’t get along with the people at the Cato Institute, I understand.
I don’t see how Rand could possibly have had “close religious friends”.
Her moral philosophy suggests that acting on anything other than reason (for example, faith) is not just inadvisable, but is, in fact, immoral and evil.
“He has to hold reason as his only guide to action.”
“It has to be either reason OR faith.”
“People go on [believing in God] because they want to believe. I regard it as evil to place your desire above what your mind knows.”
She also suggests that love is given in recognition of a person’s virtues.
It doesn’t seem to be a leap to then declare that religious people, who live by faith, are immoral and therefore unworthy of love.
Interviews that these quote came from:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ukJiBZ8_4k
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTmac2fs5HQ
I’m not sure how one can say that Rand wasn’t “vehemently anti-Christian” when she declared that Christians (as people of faith) are evil and therefore undeserving of love.
The video of the play at Murray’s birthday party is great. And Mr Tucker is a just a kid!
As for Peikoff’s characterization of Randian excommunications as “a complete, total lie”: There is no point in splitting hairs over the word “excommunication” — the evidence is abundant and obvious that a pin-headed intolerance was at work pidgeonholing adherents for trifles, rather than a liberal mind drawing out another mind in respectful discussion. No intellectual can possibly tolerate such a straightjacket — it is fatal to the life of the mind. And the obsession with Alissa Rosenbaum the person bears the strong stench of worship to me. I don’t give a good %#&* whether she liked or disliked Christmas (to give one hilarious example), whether she liked or even read three works of Shakespeare. All such ex-cathedra pronouncements from her, uttered with an air of ultimate judgment, should be laughed to scorn. Literature and art cease to be life-giving foutains of thought when regarded in such an anti-intellectual way.
I just watched the video too. I take back what I said about a somewhat pointless parody by Rothbard and I apologize: I guess I’m not a good play reader because watching the result with those actors is just fantastic! Hilarious and great!
“Her moral philosophy suggests that acting on anything other than reason (for example, faith) is not just inadvisable, but is, in fact, immoral and evil.”
Yes, acting on faith is emotionalism and is immoral. But that doesn’t make those actions evil, and it doesn’t make a whole person evil. There is a whole spectrum between total virtue, immorality, and outright evil. One is not either perfectly moral or perfectly evil. Most people are mixed.
David Veksler,
” Yes, acting on faith is emotionalism and is immoral. But that doesn’t make those actions evil, and it doesn’t make a whole person evil. ”
Just to add to what you said, most people also fail to understand what Rand meant when she said “immoral”. As I have understood her writings, an action is judged (by me) as moral if it is in my long-range selfish interest to do so. If I thus judge an action/choice as moral, I ought to engage in/make it because not doing so would be an evasion of reality, especially of the reality that I need to make a choice. Similarly, an “immoral” choice is one that is detrimental to my long-range well being. I should not make an immoral choice because I am harming myself by doing so.
Thus, morality, in Rand’s framework, is a guide to individual action. My morality has no consequences for any other individual. That I judge another individual’s choices does not mean that I am always exalting or condemning other people. In fact, the real victim of my incorrect exaltation or condemnation of other people is me. That is why I should be careful in judging.
Lucas M. Engelhardt
” It doesn’t seem to be a leap to then declare that religious people, who live by faith, are immoral and therefore unworthy of love. ”
Quite a leap of faith here, as I see it. As I understand Rand, when you live by faith rather than reason, you are likely to choose as value that which is not really value. The problem with faith, therefore, is it leaves the door open for disvalue to enter your mind in the garb of value. Thereafter, you leave yourself prone to danger when you act to keep that “value”.
The best example I can think of, based on my experience out here in India, are the “biscuit bandits”. These people are on the prowl in our railway stations, drug-laced biscuits in hand and looking out for trusting people. After some sweet talking, they offer their biscuits. The people who trust them and eat the biscuits soon fall asleep under the influence of the drugs in the biscuits. Once the bandit is clear that the victim is fast asleep, he decamps with his luggage. Quite a neat trick and works very well. All it requires is a person to take the bandit’s entreaties on faith.
In this case, the victim is facing the consequence of his immoral choice – that of accepting the biscuit from a complete stranger. That, however, does not mean that he is not a virtuous person. He could be a very virtuous person who made 1 wrong (and hence immoral) choice, the penalty for which he pays soon after by losing his luggage and maybe even a lot of time and opportunity.
In sum, you are wrong because you are including in your thought process, the premise that a person who makes immoral choices does not possess virtues that one can admire.
David Veksler,
“But that doesn’t make those actions evil, and it doesn’t make a whole person evil.”
I can buy the second part, but not the first, unless you’re claiming that the morality of an action is not dependent on the motivation for the action – which seems to contradict Rand’s idea that, morally, reason is the only acceptable guide for action. And, the word that Rand uses for someone going by their desires rather than what their mind tells them – for example, believing in God – is “evil”, not just “immoral”.
So, does Rand misunderstand her own philosophy? Or does she believe that religion is not just immoral, but evil?
Bala:
“Quite a leap of faith here, as I see it. As I understand Rand, when you live by faith rather than reason, you are likely to choose as value that which is not really value.”
But, that’s not what Rand says. Rand doesn’t say that living by faith is likely to lead to dumb choices (like assigning value where there is none), and is therefore a bad idea. Rather, Rand says that living by faith is evil simply because you are, by necessity, not living by reason. Naturally, you don’t have to believe every word that Rand says – but I don’t think we can discard what she actually said if we want to understand her views on things.
Lucas M. Engelhardt,
” Rather, Rand says that living by faith is evil simply because you are, by necessity, not living by reason. ”
You are going to have to give references. I have read and (I think) understood almost everything Rand has written and haven’t come across something of this sort. In fact, I just did a quick referencing on my collection to confirm my assessment that you are wrong.
Maybe I can contribute something to the philosophical discussion, here.
First, what Rand means by Reason and Faith.
As in so many other cases, her definitions do not fit most people’s understanding of these terms. The same could be said of “Capitalism” (which is why I never use it positively). Capitalism can mean nothing else but a system ruled by “capital” – i.e., the owners of vast wealth, land, bomb factories, or whatever. How can anyone possibly twist it to mean some “unknown ideal” – something absolutely good and noble? It’s just nuts. When you say “capitalism,” all but the brainwashed see starving workers, war, poverty, revolution, authoritarian, militarized states, etc. You see “utopia” – the literal meaning of an unknown (and unknowable) ideal – “Nowhere.” (Erehwon spelled backwards).
Now, as for “Reason” or “Logic”, Rand is 19th century or before. Yes, she’s got all sorts of double-talk out of the history of philosophy, branding Kant as evil and the Empiricists, Aristotle, and a few others as “virtuous” (they were the real “down and dirty” guys), but any competent professor in the field would be embarrassed by her “reasoning.” Is there a “cyber-Objectivism?” I don’t think so. Not even a “systems theory” Objectivism, as far as I can tell. They just don’t get “whole systems.”
The same is true of faith. Where is “The Force” in Ayn Rand? It’s killing itself from lung cancer and probably amphetamine-induced psychosis. Evil may be “impotent” in her world, but that’s because her concept of “good” is Nietzschean Triumphalist.
Real warriors don’t follow Ayn Rand.
Paul Stephens,
You start thus
” First, what Rand means by Reason and Faith. ”
And then you say
” As in so many other cases, her definitions do not fit most people’s understanding of these terms. The same could be said of “Capitalism” …… ”
No where in your long “explanation” have I been able to read anything coming close to an explanation of that which you started off “trying” to explain. What her definitions are not does not explain what her definitions are. As of now, what you said sounds like a lot of unintelligible gobbledygook and loads of smear without an ounce of an argument.
” but any competent professor in the field would be embarrassed by her “reasoning.” ”
Just as any established professor in the field of economics would be “embarrassed” by the reasoning of Mises and Rothbard.
No, not “just as”, Bala. One individual main-stream professor may be embarrased by the reasoning of Mises, Rand and say L. Ron Hubbard, but for very different reasons. How’d the old “Sesame Street” song go? “Which of these thinkers is not like the other two?” One of them was a scholar.
Michael Wilson,
I think I’m enjoying your parody even more than Rothbard’s satire. Thanks. At work, my girlfriend had to suffer through her younger co-workers; listening to “Atlas Shrugged” on tape. She is going to love this. Terrific.
A couple people here were using Rand’s name in the same breath with Nietzsche, to my amusement. And that reminds me: you and Rothbard (and obviously not Rand or her followers I’ve met) share much with the man who said:
“Digressions, objections, delight in mockery, carefree mistrust are signs of health; everything unconditional belongs in pathology.”
what a piece of junk (although i got a few good chuckles).
Rothbard should have stuck to his aethereal academic ponderings.
m’thinks HE’S the one who had the problem with those folks.
Comments on this entry are closed.