Ayn Rand rejected major pieces of the Austrian edifice, including subjective value theory and a priorism as the method of the social sciences. Here, however, I review a scholarly symposium that argues a greater connection between Austrian economics and Randianism than has previously been known. Mises himself praised Rand’s greatest work, and she in turn worked to draw attention to his economic thought. [Full Review Article]
Source link: http://blog.mises.org/3448/to-what-extent-was-rand-a-misesian/
To What Extent Was Rand a Misesian?
Previous post: A Different View of Market Failure
Next post: Investment dearth, not savings glut
{ 18 comments }
I appreciated Bettina Bien Greaves’ article for attempting to reconcile Rand and von Mises (or Objectivism and Austrian economics). Each has much to learn form the other. The Objectivists could learn the merits of apriorism & subjective value theory, while the Austrians could benefit from the philosophical support of an ethical system. It is true that the policies of Rand and von Mises are quite similar, however there is a difference between policies that are based on ethical principles, and those that are strictly Wertfrei.
I’m thinking out loud over here, that Rand’s “objective” values were really no more than a subjective set of values, only that it depends on your point of view. When viewed from the 2nd & 3rd person they are subjective, but to the 1st person, they can be tagged “objective”, since a person subjectively identifies the values objective to their life.
As a long-time student and researcher of Ayn Rand, let me just say this article is fraught with many errors about Ayn Rand. Let me point out only the most egregious. Ayn Rand could not have been “reportedly proud” when former member of her inner-circle Alan Greenspan was appointed Fed-chairman in 1987. The problem is Ayn Rand died in 1982. I suggest the author actually read more about Ayn Rand before attempting further writing on her or her philosophy.
David Claassen-Wilson’s pointing out of the author’s ‘most egregious’ error about Rand is itself in error. The comment in question (about Rand’s ‘reported pride’) is not about Greenspan’s appointment as Fed chair, but his appointment as “President Ford’s chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors” – and as this appointment was in 1974, Rand most certainly was alive at the time.
That point about Greenspan should have said appointed to head Ford’s CEA. It has been changed but the change might not have made it into the versions sent out by free subscription.
Dear Mr. Claassen-Wilson,
Upon first reading your comment, I thought it was atrocious that such an obvious error could be committed. However, being suspicious about such a statement (as the LvMI usually produces top-quality article), I referred back to the article, here’s what Greaves actually said:
Greenspan was Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors from 1974-77, which was while Rand was still alive. Thus, a statement that “Rand was reportedly proud of Greenspan” is quite plausible, although the author questions the plausibility that Rand would still be proud of Greenspan, were she still alive.
Sincerely,
David J. Heinrich
My apologies to David, then. I didn’t realize there had been edits between versions.
Given what Ayn Rand wrote and stood for and given the economic record of the Ford Administration and virtually every other administration for at least the past 80 years, how Rand could be proud (and maintain intellectual consistency) of Greenspan’s appointment to the CEA escapes me. If Greenspan should be appreciated for anything as a public servant, it should be for his role in ending conscription.
If they can be made public, Ayn Rand’s margin notes (“marginalia”) in her copies of Socialism and Human Action will spell out pretty well where she agrees and seriously disagrees with Mises. Over the years I’ve lost track of what has been post-humously published of Ayn Rand’s work, so this commentary might actually be in the public domain. If not, someone should query ARI.
gregg
The odds of ARI putting Rand’s marginalia are slim, as they sell them in book form. As I understand it, Rand disagreed primarily with Mises’s utilitarian ethics (i.e., she believed he justified capitalism on greatest-good-for-greatest-number grounds) and his aprioristic reasoning (she was more in favor of induction than deduction).
– Lowell R.
I just wanted to thank Bettina B. Greaves for bringing attention to this landmark anthology of The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies, a periodical of which I am a founding co-editor. I consider this collection a first step in an important intellectual engagement between two traditions, and I’m delighted that it finally was published as part of our year-long celebration of the Ayn Rand Centenary.
With regard to Rand’s notes on the Austrians, a book entitled Ayn Rand’s Marginalia has, in fact, been published; it features Rand’s comments on a number of works relevant to the current topic: Mises’s Human Action and Bureaucracy, Hayek’s Road to Serfdom, and Hazlitt’s The Great Idea. Some of the authors in the JARS symposium discuss these notes in greater detail.
I have read the comments by Ayn Rand of Human Action in the book “Ayn Rand’s marginalia”. The comments were of a quite negative kind since she didn’t write any comments about the things she agreed with. From what I can remember she strongly disapproved of Mises’ Kantian grounding of the aprioristic reasoning, not the aprioristic reasoning itself.
The Objectivist philosophy is very much a aprioristic axiomatic system similar in many ways to praxeology so she certainly didn’t object to that. Her objections was to Mises’ basically view that the praxeological axioms were categories of the human mind, whereas a Aristotelian or Objectivist would instead argue that they were categories of the real world. Murray Rothbard has in his writings given a Aristotelian defence of praxeological apriorism and I actually wrote a largely Objectivist defence of it when I studied philosophy of science at the University.
Along the lines of Stefan’s excellent comment, Professor Hulsmann has argued in his “Introduction” to the Mises Institue edition of Mises’s “Epistemolical Problems of Economics” (page li) that: “Rather than as a Kantian, Mises can more usefully be classified as a representative of Aristotelian realism.” Just some interesting food for thought; a subject on which I am certainly not qualified to comment.
Mr. Karlsson,
I made a stab at discussing Ayn Rand’s view of the a prioi here:
http://www.solohq.com/Articles/Parille/Ayn_Rand_and_Apriorism.shtml
I would like to add my thanks to Bettina Ben Graves for an excellent article, and I hope to pick up that issue of JARS as soon as possible. My wife Heidi wrote an essay on a similar topic for Bob Murphy’s Austrian Economics class last fall, entitled ‘Reason and Reality: The Logical Compatibility of Austrian Economics and Objectivist Ethics; it is available online here: http://geocities.com/sindanarmo03/austrian01.htm, and will soon be published on the Canadian libertarian website ‘Le Quebecois Libre’ (http://www.quebecoislibre.org/). As something of an Objectivist myself, and only a newcomer (as of the past four years) to the Austrian school, I find the subject of synthesis between the two a fascinating and rewarding one to study.
And incidentally, I agree with Allen’s comment up top, though I would add that I believe that values can be both subjective (in a Misesian economic sense) and objective (in an Objectivist ‘life of man qua man’ sense).
And to add one comment more: Ayn Rand was proud of Greenspan’s appointment to Ford’s CEA in ’74; in fact, she was there in the audience when he received the appointment. She referred to Greenspan as her ‘protege’, and she hoped that he would help to turn the administration towards more laissez-faire policies. But no, she would not be proud to associate with him today; he has in a sense taken on the job that ‘Atlas Shrugged’s hero John Galt refused under torture, and Rand would probably not see that as forgivable.
http://www.aypearl.com – Wholesaler of fashion handmade jewellery, beaded jewelry.thousands of fine-quality jewelry with exacting wholesale prices,all the world can enjoy best service from us.
饰å“æ‰¹å‘ http://www.ayjewelry.com
http://shop60585950.taobao.com/黄玉苑黄龙玉翡翠饰品
Comments on this entry are closed.