Tales of Titans and Hobbits
Both Rand and Tolkien passionately tell their tales about freedom, writes Juliusz Jablecki, but they resort to completely different aesthetics, and, in consequence, paint two entirely different pictures of the world, with different heroes and different challenges. Are those differences important? How do they affect the "moral" of the respective tales? Given that it is of utmost importance just what kind of story one tells, it is perhaps worthwhile to reflect upon the different world images depicted in Atlas Shrugged and The Lord of the Rings, comparing the characters of both narratives along with the predicaments they face. FULL ARTICLE
Comments (55)
mike
A very interesting and well-written article. Would any Titan have cast away the Ring?
Published: July 9, 2007 10:22 AM
Paul Marks
The One Ring works by making other folk do what they do not want to do.
It would be harder (in moral terms) to get rid of one of Three (which preserve areas) or the Seven (practical tools of production and business).
But then (if it were not for the danger of mind control by the One) there would be no reason to cast away one of the Three or the Seven.
As for the "Tory Anarchism" (there may be a King or whatever - but they do not do anything) of Tolkien, that has been in American literature for a long time as well.
Take the example of J. Hector St. John de Crevecoeur (he of "Letters from an American Farmer" and so on).
On Tolkien's "Lord cf the Rings".
One does not even know to talk about the One Ring or about the "slave tilled fields of southern Mordor" or the state production plants of north Mordor (if one does not want to).
The chapter "The Scouring of the Shire" is enough to prove the case.
"They took our stuff for "fair distriubtion" which meant that they got it and we did not".
Supplies of everything got shorter and shorter - accept the list of rules, that got longer and longer.
The ugly (government) houses that men of the Boss used to build (in the days when they did any work at all).
And so on and so on.
The weakness of Tolkien (from the libertarian point of view) is that he associates technology with statism, and also with environmental damage (which means the "Greens" like him).
That machines could be used for good as well as ill was not part of his teaching.
Published: July 9, 2007 10:34 AM
Paul Marks
I also note that the writer of the article is Polish.
By all accounts Tolkien would have loved Krakow.
Published: July 9, 2007 10:39 AM
Eric Dennis
You've somewhat mischaracterized Rand's view of society and the (proper) relationship of it as a whole to the highest order producers, whom you describe here:
"They wish neither to exploit, rule, nor control the rest of the society, but rather to impose upon it their rational project of "enlightenment" — they want to make use of their genius and bring prosperity and comfort to all."
But the producers don't want to impose anything on anyone. They do not view themselves as out to enlighten people. They view themselves as striving to create a society in which they don't have to bother about other people's lack of enlightenment. Hence Galt's climactic "Get the hell out of my way."
You seem to be trying to transform an external fact (that a small set of producers is in fact responsible for most of the wealth in the world) into an internal fact regarding their own motivation.
If you dispute the external fact, that is an issue of economics and history. On that, a reasonable guess is that, but for a group of past and present innovators who constitute a tiny fraction of the current world population (say 0.001%), we would be living with Midieval technology today.
The society sought by the heroes of Atlas Shrugged is economically decentralized, but it is not homogeneous. The emergence of economically vital individuals is a result of the natural order itself, and is not something imposed on it.
Rand's point is that it is about time to stop pretending otherwise.
Published: July 9, 2007 10:43 AM
Bronson
Interesting read, though I do not think that the author read Atlas Shrugged very thoroughly, as many of the statements regarding the novel are incorrect. The following quote illustrates:
"As much as Ayn Rand's novel, with its strictly modernist message, could have been at some point in the past an effective remedy against the plagues of socialism and collectivism, the world described in it does not fit today's reality and does not help in introducing the idea of natural order. Today, it is no longer necessary to protect big business from people. On the contrary, it is people who need protection from big business, which now goes hand in hand with Leviathan in trying to create a homogenous and completely atomized society."
In Rand's novel, Taggart Transcontinental became one of these "Leviathan-subsidized big businesses," as did the other companies run by the antagonists; Rand did not neglect to address this aspect of collectivism. It was, in fact, one of the bigger points made by the novel, and I find it hard to believe that this point could have been missed by even a "skimming" reader.
Similarly, the author maintains that Atlas Shrugged could serve as an illustration of libertarianism. This may be true if the novel's philosophy is taken in pieces, but otherwise, this claim cannot be substantiated; Rand herself thoroughly denounced "libertarianism" as thinly-veiled collectivism.
Atlas Shrugged is one of the most widely "read" novels out there... as well as one of the most frequently mischaracterized.
Published: July 9, 2007 10:45 AM
Matt
Tolkien novels themes include the death of an entire race (Elves), fallen men, and entrusting the fate of the world to a simple Hobbit. What is remarkable is how similar the political implication of their novels are, but philosophically they are as far apart as one gets.
Reading Tolkien helps realize that, even after the "end of history," the world and society can move in the direction of Merry Old England rather than a soulless homogenized mass of atoms. Moreover, The Lord of the Rings conveys an extremely important and optimistic message, namely that a plurality of many different cultures, languages, societies and visions, all existing together, yet separate and independent of each other, is still viable — not in a democratic regime, but in the new world of Hoppean natural order.
But all the races are dead, except for men. The book is set in the past for a reason. I think it may be correct to draw a political message from Middle Earth, but Middle Earth was pagan and was destroyed. Therefore, one must be careful to separate the religious from the political, whereas in Rand this is not necessary.
Published: July 9, 2007 11:34 AM
Brad
The comparison is not equal in one sense, the LOTR is the magnum opus work of a larger set of (anarcho-catholic) writings, while Atlas Shrugged stands by itself.
Also severe geekdom ahead....
There is a mechination in the whole Middle-Earth writings beginning with Eru (God) making the Music of Ainur (Ainulindalë) which comprises the whole unfolding of Middle-Earth, from beginning to end. "Evil" creeps in when one of his created "angels" (Melkor/Morgoth) decides to make his own muscial themes, and of whom Sauron, the great evil of the LOTR, is a lieutenant within Middle-Earth proper.
The unfolding of the musical theme then is compromised, and within this dichotomy the lesser beings live their lives. Those who remain faithful the West and the "proper themes" eventually win and prosper. Those who reject the West either lose sanction from the West or are punished. The Feanor and the Noldor try to regain the Silmarils to their very long misery. The Numenoreans are seduced by Sauron (after Morgoth's defeat) and actually attack the West and are swept under the sea. This cosmology continues in the LOTR. Boromir succumbs and dies, while Faramir, of loftier mold, does not, and aids the ringbearer. Saruman is destroyed and his spirit is rejected by the West. Even gollum, with a preexisting evil nature, is destroyed by abject faithlessness.
Those who are faithful to the West, Gandalf, Galadriel, to some extent Elrond (who had the ring in his "kingdom" and let it depart), Faramir, and Aragorn all could have taken the ring at several junctures and did not. The hobbits, the meek as it were, were faithful perhaps by not knowing better. So however the faithfulness is derived, by simple nature or by conscious choice by the orthodox, it is the continuum of faithfulness to the West's precepts that get aided, individually and collectively, very subtly perhaps. Examples include the winds that break up the Darkness created by Sauron and speed the ships up the Anduin. Sam "speaking in tongues" with the Phial of Galadriel in the fight with Shelob. There are several more, capped with Aragorn's sanctioning as King by the finding the White Tree sappling (with the assistance of Gandalf, himself an emissary from the West to lend subtle support to lesser beings).
So there is in fact a whole cosmology at work within these writings culminating with the War of the Ring in the LOTR. Something that doesn't really exist within Atlas Shrugged, and since I am an atheist, I'd say Atlas Shrugged is more realistic in that it shows that our civilization is built not on some unfolding thought of some great being, but built plank by plank by men, some better than others. Does Atlas Shrugged perhaps go too far in creation of an Ubermensch, I think so, and there are many other flaws in the work. But while it may be exaggerated, it does show that whatever conception is put forth that involves human action, from telling a joke to dunking a basketball, we are all exceedingly unequal, and the lesser have no moral claim on the greater.
Force is the key to both. Libertarians are anti-force, and both selections try to show the damage done when Force is unleashed. One works within the cosmology of the Middle-Earth writings, the other shows that socialism taken to its logical end rewards stupidity and mediocrity by cancelling out all that greater laborers have done until the fabric is undone. That resonates more with me when I look at the Federal Report of the United States Government with its $48 Trillion accrual basis debt than the quaint habits of hobbits living free. It's not that it doesn't resonate at all, but I'd rather conceive of a society that demonstrates cooperation of individuals, moving fluidly and making progress through intellectual means, than celebrating an insular people who operate with a grinding sense of tradition.
One last shot over the bow of "reality" of one versus the other, and the praising of the habits of the hobbits, it must be remembered that their existence for a very long time was "subsidized" through the Rangers of the North. They would not have been able to live quiet lives of contentment if it weren't for the selfless sacrifice of the Rangers. This, of course, is one of the themes of the book as well, is that now that the world has changed, they are now going to be more responsible for themselves (Gandalf says as much before he takes his leave, leaving them to their fate with Saruman). Who knows what actions hobbits would take when the vagaries of life that beset us real men come to pass. Perhaps the old quaint ways are not long for the scrap heap as they must now fend for themselves in a dangerous world (albeit less so with the greater evils vanquished). Simply put, being quietly subsidized by others is certainly not realistic.
Published: July 9, 2007 11:42 AM
Geoffrey Allan Plauche
Good article. I like that you cited La Boetie. I have an article on Atlas Shrugged that should be coming out in JLS (perhaps the Winter issue?) in which I delve a little more deeply into this parallel.
I do agree with some of the criticisms already made though, especially Eric Dennis, Bronson, and Brad's.
Bronson... I don't recall Rand criticizing libertarianism as thinly-veiled collectivism, however. True, she did criticize libertarians for lacking a full and fully rational philosophical foundation for their non-aggression principle/axiom. Still, all her protestations to the contrary, she does qualify as a libertarian herself.
Published: July 9, 2007 12:06 PM
Matt
The writer (J.Jableki) I would bet has not read Rand's works, INTRODUCTION TO OBJECTIVIST EPISTEMOLOGY, and her essay THE COMPRACHICOS. This would be a great help for him in understanding Rand's mind and ATLAS SHURGGED.
Published: July 9, 2007 12:32 PM
Jonathan Bostwick
Paul Marks:
"The weakness of Tolkien (from the libertarian point of view) is that he associates technology with statism, and also with environmental damage (which means the "Greens" like him)."
After World War I art was filled with rejections of the modern world, thats not unique to Tolkien.
You have to remember that he was seeing modern technology from a European point of view.
Rose Wilder Lane described it well:
"The Caterpillar tractor that Americans invented to plow the peaceful fields, and multiply the farmer's productive energy as if by magic, now armored and armed it charges in battalions of tanks over the bodies of men . . . The Machine that two brothers invented in their bicycle shop, to give all men wings, now it makes the moonlit sky a terror that drives men underground. This is what Authority does with the tools of the Revolution."
The shire is not meant to be a literal representation of the future, its symbolic of a peaceful and local existence, contrasting with a world engulfed with war.
Published: July 9, 2007 12:47 PM
billwald
Since WW2 the USofA has seen the elimination of the old social classes based on race, religion, and national origin. As evidence, the fastest growing demographic class is "mixed race," unthinkable 50 years ago.
With every sort of mixed marriage now being acceptable, on what basis will the young people choose their mates? I suggest on the basis of education, intelligence, and ambition.
In other words, we are voluntarially self segregating into a leader class and a worker class.
Published: July 9, 2007 1:17 PM
N. Joseph Potts
I find the innocence and ingenuousness (and yes, their friendliness) of Tolkien's hobbits quite as unlike the general run of humans as I know them as I find the altruism and ideological nobility of Rand's titans of industry.
The themes of these fables are interesting, but at the end of the day, they're essentially fables. Not even good allegory, as is, for example, George Orwell's Animal Farm.
Published: July 9, 2007 2:21 PM
Anthony
Of Tolkien's creations, I've always loved his Elves most. Such noble, graceful beings. I've had little liking for the hobbits. And I also do love Rand's vision of the entrepreneur, the self-sufficient, self-made Uebermensch that moves the capitalist machine.
Published: July 9, 2007 6:25 PM
meiguoguizi
Ahem. Rand converted people to liberalism? Please define liberalism as you understand it. Did you mean libertarianism? That would make more sense.
Published: July 9, 2007 7:15 PM
Brainpolice
I think they were using liberalism in the classical sense of the word.
Published: July 10, 2007 2:30 AM
H
The Titans have no children. Having children is an act of altruism.
It seems odd to me to base a social philosophy on the actions and choices of a group of people who can not propogate themselves. The life styles/choices of people with and without children are fundamently different by necessity. Why should those that have children subscribe to the visions for life of those who do not?
Ayn Ran's book sounds like a defense for those who would choose not to have children yet still manage to contribute to society meaningfully. If society seems ungrateful... well, you should try having kids, its worse.
The Lord of the Rings has always struck me as Tolkien trying to come to terms with the War. As for a rejection of technology. There is nothing a human has ever made that hasn't struck another human as a possibility as a use for a weapon. There is something in our brain that files away the ideas for tools next to ideas for defense. Even language is a technology, and yet Tolkien cultivated that tool.
Frodo and Bilbo were not represenative of Hobbits. Their actions caused them to be irrevokably removed from Hobbit society much like soldiers unable to reassimilate after War. Were they Titans? How do we champion the lifestyle of the Hobbits and venerate Frodo? Is Sam our hero?
Published: July 10, 2007 7:14 AM
Anthony
"The Titans have no children. Having children is an act of altruism."
How aware are you of Objectivist views on children?
Published: July 10, 2007 7:22 AM
TLWP Sam
Wow, the thought that some use fiction to expose the truth or others use fiction to subtlely brainwashing the masses, wow. Some works are obviously so then again is it a case of finding views that may not necessarily exist? Kinda like looking at one of those dot-fest '3-D' pictures, some get it, others don't.
Here's a link to a possible subtle brainwashing popular-culture red conspiracy that once targetted l'il GenXers.
http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Cinema/3117/sociosmurf2.htm
Published: July 10, 2007 7:44 AM
DC
meiguoguizi wrote:
Ahem. Rand converted people to liberalism? Please define liberalism as you understand it. Did you mean libertarianism? That would make more sense.
Liberalism as in classical liberal, or liberalism in the classical tradition.
Mises' book with that title:
http://mises.org/liberal.asp
Published: July 10, 2007 7:58 AM
Kevin Tuma
Very nice.
I believe that both novels are useful as allegorical tales. Although there are lots of sub-currents running through both stories, much of the essence of Lord of the Rings is reinforcement of the concept Absolute power corrupts absolutely, which could be extended as a denunciation of empire and statism. Atlas Shrugged links (or essentially reboots the concept, for a socialist world) Innovation with Civilization, and denounces envy of wealth as the childish and destructive force that it is.
As to the question "Would any Titan have cast away the Ring?", I think all of them would have if we interpret the Ring to symbolize the Imperial throne. It could be an allegory for government power. "One Ring to rule them all" does not refer to technological advancement. It is about coercive misuse of power.
Published: July 10, 2007 1:24 PM
Juvor
I love this article. I had read the Lord of the Rings thru three times until I understood that it was a very libertarian book with a good and well hidden agenda.
Although I love the Lord of the Rings the problem with the book is that it doesn't make the libertarian point clear enough. When you read it, you don’t get angry and think "I wish the ring would be destroyed", instead you ponder things like "how would the ring affect me" or "how would things be different if..." Although these are good questions, they don't make people much more libertarian. In this Rand succeeds very well, when Tolkien mostly fails. Two other downsides with the Lord of the Rings (as already mentioned) is the fact, that it is a pretty anti-industrialist book that longs for the past (e.g. how the elven or dwarven smiths used to produce better armor in the past than they do now). Furthermore all in Tolkien's works points out that he really loved the elves, which can be seen as the equivalent to Rand's Titans, instead of the humanlike hobbits.
There are many good things with the Lord of the Rings too, which weren't mentioned in the article. For instance, I really like the way how the Shire is described as an anarchistic society and how all the good human societies are ruled by just kings. How the society of the elves and dwarves operate remains mostly a mystery, but they seem to be more or less small city states, ruled by natural law courts. An even more important point is how the hobbits are portrayed as small and helpless, but they still can change the course of history. This underlines the point, that even if an individual doesn’t own large resources, he may still grab a pen and win the war of ideas, just like Friedman, Hayek, Mises, Rand and Rothbard have done.
Published: July 10, 2007 1:32 PM
Matt Robare
How is letting an ubermensch tell one what to do any different than a State that does it?
I don't much care for Ayn Rand--I don't like her atheisim.
I don't think Tolkein's problem was industrialization so much as pollution. He grew up in Brmingham and Manchester--two of the most polluted cities in England at the time.
He was not alone in that sense.
Two more important pseudo-libertarian works are Star Wars and Dune.
Published: July 10, 2007 3:26 PM
Greg
Consumers need protection from big business precisely because we don’t separate state and economics which is what Rand advocated. There is a big difference between political power and economic power something that Rand explicitly makes clear in Atlas.
Published: July 10, 2007 4:14 PM
Vanmind
Clearly, one was a fine work of literature while the other was not.
Published: July 10, 2007 4:33 PM
Anthony
Juvor
"How the society of the elves and dwarves operate remains mostly a mystery, but they seem to be more or less small city states, ruled by natural law courts."
The elves had monarchies IIRC. Natural-law city state monarchies I guess, the kind Hoppe describes in DTGTF.
Matt
"How is letting an ubermensch tell one what to do any different than a State that does it?"
Where does Rand advocate this?
Vanmind
"Clearly, one was a fine work of literature while the other was not."
Lemme guess -- Atlas Shrugged wasn't? Why not?
Published: July 10, 2007 5:50 PM
Vanmind
Well, I can only assume that it was because of Rand's second-rate talent for writing fiction.
Published: July 10, 2007 11:09 PM
Anthony
That is a matter of opinion - personally I find her style witty. To use a cliche, de gustibus non est disputandum.
Published: July 10, 2007 11:27 PM
WJYoung
The One Ring is the US Constitution and Sauron is perhaps Madison. The States each had a ring, but the master ring was "forged in secret" to "rule them all".
Recalling more from Peter Jackson's film (as I am more confident in that memory than of the book, and yet am cautious not to assume he represented it accurately that I make this qualifification considering the preposterous elimination of the Scouring of the Shire and the misrepresentation of Sharkey's dying):
Three for the Elves
Seven for the Dwarves
Nine for Men
That makes Nineteen. When were there Nineteen States? Indiana became the nineteenth State in 1816. Maybe it isn't supposed to correlate exactly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_date_of_statehood
As Juliusz Jablecki notes:
This sounds just like the interrelationship of the States. The races fell apart from each other after the big war (Lincoln's War). It will be the modest, mediocre hobbit who destroys the ring, but even then, and most miserably, not because he is has the personal fortitude, but because he loses a scuffle with Golem, as Golem is rejoined with the Ring at the moment of its destruction.
The LOTR is a comment on America and is as unique in literature as its subject is in history. If so, we can see that the story is not finished.
PS - Notice as well the return to monarchy to Middle Earth, and how the king of men bows, and knows he should, to the hobbits who sacrificed so much.
Published: July 10, 2007 11:49 PM
ktibuk
The only libertarian theme in LOTR is the message that "power corrupts" and nothing else.
The world that it depicts is nowhere near the reality, it is actually the communist dream. Or the communist propaganda that, back in the day everything was fine and jolly, children (hobbits) were playing around in the fields but industrial revolution started, polluted the beautiful earth, sent the children to mines and factories. Of course it has an anti-empire and anti-authority theme but in rhetoric every socialist claims the same position.
Atlas is a much more realistic work. The only fiction in it is the "strike". That won't happen but the rest, parasites feeding on the producers, happen on a daily basis in real life.
When I first read Atlas I thought it had many exagorations. As I grew older and see more things I felt the book is more like a mirror of the real world. The characters are here with us and the policies we see them everywhere around us even in the capitalitic US.
I think Rand had a clear understanding of what she believed but Tolkien was confused when it comes to philosophy and politics. I would even put Tolkien to the socialist side.
Published: July 11, 2007 5:41 AM
WJYoung
I don't think the Hobbits' society, as it was in the beginning of the story and as to which the Hobbits of the Fellowship sought to restore upon their return, could be considered communist, at least if it is true that communism implies government and coercive force.
To the contrary, the returning Hobbits were dismayed to find a city government had been formed with police officers and a token mayor apologizing for Sharkey, who was really in charge. Hobbiton had none of this before Sharkey. It was more like anarchy.
Published: July 11, 2007 10:36 PM
Peter
ktibuk, and others, are reading it from a much too modern point of view. LOTR is a conscious attempt to create heroic epic in the mold of the ancient European mythos - cf Beowulf, the Norse Sagas; Wagner's Ring cycle, etc. Tolkien's professional forte. The idea of a "golden age" in the past when things were better, etc., is a common one; nothing to do with communism, environmentalism, etc.
Published: July 12, 2007 12:43 AM
Brad
***ktibuk, and others, are reading it from a much too modern point of view. LOTR is a conscious attempt to create heroic epic in the mold of the ancient European mythos - cf Beowulf, the Norse Sagas; Wagner's Ring cycle, etc. Tolkien's professional forte. The idea of a "golden age" in the past when things were better, etc., is a common one; nothing to do with communism, environmentalism, etc.***
But it might have a lot to do with fascism, particularly Naziism. I don't have any doubts that the root of Hitler's vision was a High Germania, a rebirthing of the might of the "Numenoreans", the higher order. He simply was derailed by being seduced by the "dark side" and unleashing of force consumed him. It doesn't take much to turn the noble war of defense against usurpers into offensive war, to become the prime mover in the struggle of blood and soil. I have no doubt he saw himself as a Gandalf, when he was at best a Saruman if not Sauron.
And, again, for those who see Tolkien's LOTR as having no "great plan" it existed in its own axiomatic realm of quasi-religion, with a beginning, middle, and an ultimate end, where Fate and Providence play a huge role (and, again, see Hitler's Mein Kampf). I did not detect anything like this in Atlas Shrugged, but instead people fighting feircely to live their lives free from the coercion of others and to have ones system of belief carry through every phase of their life, not be short circuited by force, from the guilding of beliefs into behaviors into productivity into possession into trading into consumption and back again to the beginning. It is a bit exaggerated in my opinion, and a chunk of the prose is turgid and hard to get through, but the stretches of Manifesto seeded throughout depict with clarity the real world and the parasites who infest it.
Published: July 12, 2007 10:54 AM
Vanmind
"Atlas is a much more realistic work. The only fiction in it is the 'strike'"
That is the main reason why it fails to qualify as a top-shelf work of fiction.
Published: July 13, 2007 1:39 AM
AxiOlogee
My "gut feeling" is that you used more of your feelings (irrational) rather than your thinking (rational) to make the comments and to come to the conclusions you did. There is an overall gut wrenching feeling to your writings that you are a people caring "connected" person (aka I feel your pain). I think you'll find your grand design/blueprint for life intended you to be in the caring industry, for which you seem well suited, rather than in the philosophical one.
Published: July 15, 2007 9:58 AM
ktibuk
"I don't think the Hobbits' society, as it was in the beginning of the story and as to which the Hobbits of the Fellowship sought to restore upon their return, could be considered communist, at least if it is true that communism implies government and coercive force."
You are confusing the communist utopia with the socialist state.
The communist society is exactly like hobbits' world. Happy little place with no private property, state or divison of labor.
I can't remember any reference to private property or commerce in the shire. But I havent read the first book only the LOTR.
Published: July 15, 2007 10:54 AM
Peter
You haven't read the first book only LOTR? What does that mean? By "the first book", do you mean you mean The Fellowship of the Ring, or perhaps The Hobbit? There's plenty of evidence of private property in the Shire - not least, that Bilbo is rich with the "loot" from his earlier adventures (with some scheming relations trying to get his property, etc.)
I can't see anything even vaguely communist about it!
Published: July 16, 2007 2:55 AM
Mark Humphrey
I fail to understand the purpose of this article, unless it is to curry favor with the anti-Rand phobes who run the von Mises Institute.
I have read and reread Rand and Tolkein many times. The writing of each author was, in its distictive and unique way, brilliant and persuasive. To fault Rand's writing as somehow comparatively deficient to Tolkein's, with little-to-no consideration given to the meaning and unifying coherency of Rand's ideas, is utterly impoverished thinking.
Rand emphasized that only under a regime of individual rights and capitalism could creative genius flourish and shower its vast benefits on the masses of less creative, less productive people. Rand pointed out that to exist, creative genius requires living, breathing Creative Geniuses. But, of course, this insight runs contrary to the ethos of this Great Age of Egalitarianism, in which we're all told, repeatedly, that we should be viewed as Equal Hobbits.
Naive defenders of capitalism, such as the author, believe that to deviate from egalitarianism is to cede the moral high ground to those hostile to free markets. But the seed of genius resides in each of us, waiting to be nurtured and developed into the full bloom of understanding and achievement. Cast out of polite society those who achieve the best within themselves, on the grounds that such genius intimidates and offends, and one denigrates the highest human potential.
Incidentally, Rand was not alone in extolling the high virtue of human geniuses; von Mises, in Human Action, and George Reisman, in his book Capitalism, each emphasize both the primary importance and the vast scale of improvements to productivity brought about by the large scale entrepreneurs, such as those personified by Ayn Rand's heroes.
Finally, Rand's thinking was not "modernistic", whatever that means. It was naturalistic, which referrs to the idea that the universe is, in principle, and in all of its manifestations, knowable, i.e. capable of human understanding. It is Rand's naturalism, above all else, that galls the religious priesthood who run the Mises Institute.
Published: July 16, 2007 8:57 PM
Dave
"...the anti-Rand phobes who run the von Mises Insitute."
Wow! Talk about hyperbole!
Enough said, the hyperbole should be obvious to anybody who engages in a moments honest reflection about the Mises Institute. If someone needs elaberation, I will be glad to engage them...
By the way, does anybody else think the tone of Mark Humphrey's post borders on hysteria?
Sorry Mark...honesty is also a virtue.
Regards,
Dave
Published: July 17, 2007 1:53 AM
Mark Humphrey
Dave, if you believe my reference to anti-Rand sentiment within the Mises Institute is purely fictitious, I suggest that you do a search for articles referencing Rand on the Mises website. You'll bring up occassional favorable commentary about Rand, and many more disparaging references.
My reference to "the religious priesthood" that runs the von Mises institute, while not literally true, is figuratively accurate. Lew Rockwell and David Gordon are men of religious faith who recoil from Rand's naturalism and uncompromising defense of reason. Murray Rothbard, whom the Mises Institute has promoted to sainthood, also harbored great animus toward Ayn Rand, as is obvious to anyone who has read a lot of Rothbard's writing.
Finally, Mr.Jablecki's comparision of Rand, naturalist and defender of reason, with Tolkein, who incidentally was devoutly religious, is yet one more example of the anti-Rand sentiment that dominates the Mises Institute. Mr.Jablecki's criticism of Rand boils down to the idea that she was anti-egalitarian, in contrast to Tolkein, whose hobbits are more like "regular people", and whose Middle Earth was "properly" anarchistic.
Finally, the obsession of the Mises Institute with "anarchy" as supposedly representing the ultimate issue in political philosophy, is another unfortunate instance of hollow ideologizing. While questions regarding anarchy versus a minimal state are interesting and worthy of careful investigation, there are far more important fundamental issues that the Mises Institute utterly neglects. These include the nature of knowlege, the nature of moral values, and the philosophical foundations supporting individualism and natural rights. Ayn Rand wrote about the philosophical framework necessary to a proper defense of individualism with originality, brilliance, and passion.
Published: July 17, 2007 2:14 PM
Dave
Mark,
Yes, how dare anybody question Rand, who was never wrong.
Also, Rothbard was a real so and so. All his books are a sustained attack on Rand and thus upon reason. I mean, he was always like: Rand was wrong about this and wrong about that- anybody that has read even one paragraph of Rothbard's works realizes this.
In addition, Ludwig von Mises Institute has absolutely no philosphical basis for defending anarchy. They follow the framework of Rothbard's (that so and so) "Ethics of Liberty" which was not at all a philosophical work. Moreover, Long and Hans Hoppe, who have built on "Saint" Rothbard's framework are not philosophical, because they follow Rothbard, who was anti-Rand and thus anti-reason; therefore, they, too, are anti-reason, those blanking irrationalists.
... Now to be serious: I agree Rand was a good philosopher-perhaps even a great philosopher- who provides a very sound basis for individual rights. However, Mark, this is no reason to engage in hysterics as you have in your last two posts. A reasoned defense is much more convinceing- I say this as someone who also admires Rand and wishes for her followers to defend her philosophy in an "adequate" manner and at the same time, improve her philosophy where she was wrong (as she sometimes was)-thats all.
Regards
Dave
Published: July 18, 2007 1:21 AM
Antony
I must echo Dave's sentiments - all too often Rand's followers come off as cultists unwilling to engage in debate. A shame, because Rand had much of value to offer.
Published: July 18, 2007 5:43 AM
Mark Humphrey
Dave, if you think Ayn Rand was just possibly a great philosopher, you'd disagree with Mr. Jubleki, who in his article denigrates Rand as having been merely a novelist, not a philosopher.
If you think that Murray Rothbard did not harbor great animosity toward Rand, you're in for a rude awakening if you read Rothbard extensively, as I have. For example, his play "Mozart was a Red" was written specifically to ridicule and disparage her.
You mischaracterise my attitude toward Rothbard, who was a great economist, and whose books taught me a lot about eocnomics; and toward Hoppe, whose books I've also read and enjoyed.
Unfortunately, Rothbard's "The Ethics of Liberty", which I have read, is a truncated work of political philosophy. It does not attempt to deal with the philosophical groundwork essential to any coherent and compelling defense of individual liberty. Rothbard states as much in the introduction to the book.
He set out to prove the validity of property rights, but without first establishing the source and nature of moral values, which provide the logical foundation for ethical principles, of which property rights are one instance. In short, Rothbard tried to defend particular political ideas as good for man, without first establishing the nature of good and bad.
Rand had the intellectual power to make sweeping, overarching, unifying integrations, from highly abstract, fundamental insights about the nature of concept formation and knowlege; to the nature of man, who uses his unique volitional ability to think conceptually as his primary means of survival; to the moral values necessary to the survival and flourishing of such a being; to the political system necessary to defend and uphold those moral values; to the economics consistent with such a political system.
To Rand, such sweeping integration reflected her understanding that all knowlege is a logically integrated hierarchy--that no aspect of the universe is inherently mysterious or unknowable. This world view stands in sharp contrast to that of Rockwell, Gordon, and the Mises Institute, which retains strong attachment to the idea that mystery is inherent in creation, and that reason, carried beyond its "proper realm", limits and often distorts understanding.
Although both Rand and the Mises Institute people were and are individualist libertarians and advocates of free markets--and that's all to the good!--there are fundamental conflicts in their respective thinking about the nature of man, of knowlege, and of moral values. Thus, it should come as no surprise that these differences generate antagonism, which include numerous critical and often unfair comments on Rand and her ideas from the Rockwell crowd.
Published: July 18, 2007 2:15 PM
Dave
Mark,
I actually agree with you for the most part. I was just responding to the hysterical tone of your posts in my last post and the one before it.
I woud like to say more, but I really don't have the time to construct worthy and sound arguments. Ah well, maybe someday.
Published: July 19, 2007 1:09 AM
Cheimison
I think that both books have elements that strongly appeal to someone of libertarian views, and elements that do not appeal to those of libertarian views. There are also elements that people like or dislike based on other philosophical and aesthetic positions.
I think Atlas Shrugged was great insofar as the consequences of socialism and 'state' altruism were depicted. But for my part the aesthetic and moral certainties, though, are just elements to be accepted or ignored as presuppositions of the setting - just like Tolkein's Light and Darkness, or magic for that matter. I may not think its realistic, but I'll deal with it because its essential to the plot and theme.
I like Tolkien's work largely because of the imagery and depth of the background, and found myself more annoyed by his anti-industrialism and self-sacrificing characters than anything else in the books. I certainly noted anti-state/war elements, but these are ultimately confusing because Tolkien (in my opinion) has no real alternative or understanding of what is not Statist and Warlike. Thus, as a view of a libertarian world, Atlas Shrugged is far more thorough.
Published: October 23, 2007 12:41 AM
Steve Reed
Any essay citing both la Boetie and Voltaire is worth something. That's about all I can praise about this, however.
If Jablecki was going to do an honest comparison of Rand and Tolkien, he wouldn't have used a loaded term such as "Uebermenschen" to add a groundless Germanic - Nietzschean? or worse? - spin against Rand in the discussion.
Nor would he have treated Jerome Tuccille's book as being anything other than a parodistic (and, yes, hilarious) personal commentary - not the history that he clearly mistook it to be.
He's also missed both writers' own aims. Rand's certainly was not to create a "means for conceptualizing the ideas of freedom." She made her quite different fictional aim quite explicit (see her "Romantic Manifesto").
Neither was Tolkien creating anything as limited as a political opus. And although I admit to not reading the "Rings" works - I could barely even stay awake through the first third of Jackson's cinematic trilogy - I know enough about them to realize that he intended a far broader tapestry than the stunted literary aims Jablecki sees for him.
As it turns out, however calmly phrased, this piece ends up being just another hatchet job on Rand.
Published: July 8, 2009 1:47 AM
D Frank Robinson
Why are all these posts dated 2007? My clock says 2009? Is there a virus in your server?
Published: July 8, 2009 2:38 AM
D Frank Robinson
My clock says the date is 2009. Why are posts dated 2007? Are you infected?
Published: July 8, 2009 2:39 AM
M. B. Moon
Good comparison!
"The one and only unforgivable sin there is altruism."
I abandoned Ayn Rand mostly because she apparently opposed all altruism even voluntaryaltruism.
But one other thing: talent is a gift from God that apparently has nothing to doing with worthiness. He is the One that keeps this world running.
Thank you Ayn. I learned a lot from your books. But I have learned a great deal more from The Book.
Published: July 8, 2009 11:11 AM
K Ingoldby
I'd just like to say thank you.
THANK YOU!
I'm so sick of Ayn Rand, i read Atlas Shrugged and it nearly turned me off Libertarianism. A lot of Power Worshiping, unbearably cliched and utterly unrealistic nonsense. The characters are less believable than orcs and elves, their emotions and motivations are completely unnatural and the version of Society that Rand seems to be calling for is so divorced from any relationship to human realties as to be better suited for robots.
It's ironic that Tolkiens tales of Hobbits, Ents, Orcs, Dwarves, Elves and humans should be more realistic and true than anything that Rand ever wrote.
Tolkien gets to the heart of the matter of human liberty. The role of the individual and voluntary associations and natural loyalties. Rand just indulges in perverse ubermenschen worship, sub-Nietzschean drivel that offers no remotely realistic critic or alternative vision.
Published: July 8, 2009 11:29 AM
Paul Gross
I read both Tolkien and Rand when I was in my early teens. Atlas Shrugged had a huge effect on my subsequent thinking. Tolkien entertained me for a couple of weeks. So much for their relative merits, as far as I am concerned.
The difference was Rand's powerful presentation of an overt philosophy of rational individualism, which I saw as an attractive alternative to both mysticism and collectivism.
Tolkien, on the other hand, makes very few philosophic assertions, and offers nothing resembling a comprehensive philosophy. Most of the practical problems his characters face are handled by lopping off heads. Furthermore, Tolkien's universe is a magical place -- meaning that things in his world do NOT work the way things do in the real world. To kids looking to make sense of the world around them, Tolkien offers no relevant advice, let alone answers. The Lord of the Rings is fun reading, sure. Deeply inspirational and thought-provoking -- not.
Published: July 8, 2009 1:35 PM
Paul Gross
I read both Tolkien and Rand when I was in my early teens. Atlas Shrugged had a huge effect on my subsequent thinking. Tolkien entertained me for a couple of weeks. So much for their relative merits, as far as I am concerned.
The difference was Rand's powerful presentation of an overt philosophy of rational individualism, which I saw as an attractive alternative to both mysticism and collectivism.
Tolkien, on the other hand, makes very few philosophic assertions, and offers nothing resembling a comprehensive philosophy. Most of the practical problems his characters face are handled by lopping off heads. Furthermore, Tolkien's universe is a magical place -- meaning that things in his world do NOT work the way things do in the real world. To kids looking to make sense of the world around them, Tolkien offers no relevant advice, let alone answers. The Lord of the Rings is fun reading, sure. Deeply inspirational and thought-provoking -- not.
Published: July 8, 2009 1:35 PM
Paul Gross
I read both Tolkien and Rand when I was in my early teens. Atlas Shrugged had a huge effect on my subsequent thinking. Tolkien entertained me for a couple of weeks. So much for their relative merits, as far as I am concerned.
The difference was Rand's powerful presentation of an overt philosophy of rational individualism, which I saw as an attractive alternative to both mysticism and collectivism.
Tolkien, on the other hand, makes very few philosophic assertions, and offers nothing resembling a comprehensive philosophy. Most of the practical problems his characters face are handled by lopping off heads. Furthermore, Tolkien's universe is a magical place -- meaning that things in his world do NOT work the way things do in the real world. To kids looking to make sense of the world around them, Tolkien offers no relevant advice, let alone answers. The Lord of the Rings is fun reading, sure. Deeply inspirational and thought-provoking -- not.
Published: July 8, 2009 1:36 PM
Paul Gross
I read both Tolkien and Rand when I was in my early teens. Atlas Shrugged had a huge effect on my subsequent thinking. Tolkien entertained me for a couple of weeks. So much for their relative merits, as far as I am concerned.
The difference was Rand's powerful presentation of an overt philosophy of rational individualism, which I saw as an attractive alternative to both mysticism and collectivism.
Tolkien, on the other hand, makes very few philosophic assertions, and offers nothing resembling a comprehensive philosophy. Most of the practical problems his characters face are handled by lopping off heads. Furthermore, Tolkien's universe is a magical place -- meaning that things in his world do NOT work the way things do in the real world. To kids looking to make sense of the world around them, Tolkien offers no relevant advice, let alone answers. The Lord of the Rings is fun reading, sure. Deeply inspirational and thought-provoking -- not.
Published: July 8, 2009 1:38 PM
John Donohue
Some of my points below have been brilliantly made already above, but I'll post it in it's entires anyway as part of a chorus showing how the author mistakes both books in this clumsy effort.
Tolkien's universe is not about freedom. It is about God's plan for his subjects. Read the origin myth in the Silmarillion. Yes, the refusal of the ring of power is a proper project for the children of Illuvatar (God), since it was the work of Sauron, henchman of the fallen angel Melkor. However, the elves and mortals did not overthrow Illuvatar; they are God's children, God's property. They are not an end in themselves. They are not free, yet they seem not to chafe at being subjects. The only ruffle of rebellion you will find in the elves is in the Noldorian line of Finwë, namely in the character of Fëanor and Galadriel. They dared to, respectively, 'create the essential light of reality' and 'rule a kingdom in Middle Earth.' One suspects Galadriel would have loved to have ruled all of Middle Earth. Yet even these two would not fully reject God.
The drama of the refusal of the Ring of Power is a distraction. You are so relieved that Sauron did not enslave the world that you do not notice that the world is not free; it and all the sentient beings in it are subjects.
It would be interesting to write a history of the Arda from the point of view of Melkor, who revolted against God.
Meanwhile, the analysis of Ayn Rand and Atlas Shrugged in this piece is atrocious.
"...Hans-Hermann Hoppe's idea of natural order..." You have to be a libertarian anarchist to think this theory has anything to do with freedom. Judging Ayn Rand from the perspective of Hoppe, yes, she would not be about his 'natural order'. Judging Hoppe from the perspective of Ayn Rand, yes he is an anarchist who pins hope on competing governments (civil war) and is not about freedom.
"Ayn Rand, after all, was primarily a novelist." Wrong intent. This is the typical libertarinistic attempt to marginalize Rand as a philosopher.
"... a fairy tale..." Hilarious. The use of this word is for the purpose of leveling Rand to Tolkein. Dishonest. Rand's genre was romantic realism. Mr. Juliusz Jablecki should have said "fiction" and stopped there, as we all know that fiction is fiction! We do not need to have it intimated to us that it is the same as a fairy tale.
"Rand does not write about labor unions or working masses, but about titans..." This is a common error. Rand has an explicit example of an ethical and valuable union at work and her strike is not just for "the Titans" (libertarian bogeyman term). Please note the everyday people who inhabited Galt's Gulch and also her reference of ethical Taggart employees, students, "housewives", movie stars, etc. and the vast numbers of upright, honest non-collectivist people of the country who were never called out on strike, but who shrugged in place.
"Dagny Taggart, ... to lay hands on her fortune." Yes Dagny did not want her fortune confiscated. However, that was not her main objection. It was to the confiscation of her freedom and her life's work.
"The society in which the heroine lives is dull, envious, lazy, essentially quite helpless, and were it not for the handful of Atlases, it would have definitely plunged into despair." Hogoblinism.
"The real burden for [Dagny] is not work itself, but the necessity — the legal obligation — to share its plentiful fruits with the rest of society — the ungrateful mob of losers." This sentence is propaganda. It does NOT represent Dagny's gaze. She does not need to characterize the mob, she does not think in terms of "sharing" or "plentiful fruits." She has her life's productive work as the fire in her soul. She objects to the murder of that. There was no need for Jablecki to use the purple prose he chose here. That is, unless he is after a slant.
"...the relieving thought in mind that she is not alone, that other great achievers feel and think similarly, and though they may be outnumbered, they constitute the real engine of the world. " Completely wrong! Could not be more wrong. Up until the time Galt shows her his strikers, she thinks she is completely alone, that she is the only one who thinks as she does, and if fact that her lover Francisco, who she thought was of a like mind, is actually a complete betrayer and that the real engine of the world is "the destroyer." Did Jablecki even read Atlas Shrugged? His abject errors are so blatant one thinks not and that yet he has the effrontery to make proclamation like this sentence.
"...among the losers:
"How should I deal with it?" asks one frightfully mediocre worker.
"How should I know?" is the invariable, dull reply. "Who is John Galt?" "
Despite the quotes, this is NOT an excerpt. It is invented by Jablecki, especially the attributions. The "how should I know" is very Rand-like, but the rest is propaganda, and along with the word "losers" is intended to project into Rand and Dagny's mind that cynical distemper against "people" in general, which the two of them did not have at the moment. This is a dishonest segment.
"Galt used to be one of the titans, but greed, collectivist bias, and ingratitude from the society to which he had given so much in the past have induced him to go on strike — not to fight with the oppressive system, not even to try to change it, but simply to leave, taking others along. And so they go, one by one: the great composers, innovators, creators, directors, owners… As a result, the engine of the world stops, and the economy plunges into chaos, for when there is no one to prey upon, the society of insatiable vultures no longer knows what to do. "
More slant slam and sarcasm. This is not the actual tone of Atlas Shrugged. Galt was not a titan, he was a complete unknown, he did not give anything to society, did not expect gratitude from society and the cause of him going on strike was the explicit threat to enslave him directly. This paragraph also attempts to construct the value that "leaving" is morally inferior to "staying to fight with the oppressive system." Why is that better when the system is about to enslave you?
At this point in my destruction of this slur piece I leave the reader to observe the tone of the next four paragraphs, starting with the totalized word "Übermenschen. These paragraphs hilariously drip with disdain and thinly veiled disgust for Rand and Galt's strikers. We get it Jablecki. But thank you for this over-hurl; your bile is clearly visible and duly noted.
The next segment of the piece is a description of Middle Earth at the end of the Third Age and the War that ended it. I could quarrel with some of it. Not worth the time.
Then, the payoff: the juxtaposition of AS as a world driven by a benevolent dictator who "maintains the reality in order" while Middle Earth is the wet dream of anarchism, the happy place humanity is supposed to reach after the state is...abolished?
Can't be abolished, that would be authoritarian and who would abolish the abolishers? They would wither away? Maybe authoritarians would cease to arise and the natural order of pure hobbit-like people would emerge..........WHOOPS, sorry, I digressed.
And yes, duly noted, an attempt was made to throw a sop to AS with the language "They wish neither to exploit, rule, nor control the rest of the society" and " they want to make use of their genius and bring prosperity and comfort to all." which I contend are intended to get Jablecki off the hook as having outright declared Rand as advocating a Dictatorship of the Übermenschen. Unfortunately these platitudes are contradicted by the rest of the implicit meaning from top to bottom of this essay, not to mention being somewhat.....castrated?.....by having this phrase injected between the two above phrases: "...to impose upon it their rational project of "enlightenment"." Nice attempt at pretzel making there. I am not buying it.
As to the characterization of an anarchist Middle Earth, please see my above insight that Arda was never a place of freedom. Everything in it, including the 'gods' in the Blessed Realm, are simply the subjects of Illuvatar, not ends in themselves. They are not free. And if you think Illuvatar is benevolent, just try crossing him or disobeying one of his commandments as did the Númenóreans.
The tone of this piece is: 'the Übermenschen irritate me just be being Uber instead of flawed and ordinary and "clumsy, neither exceptionally smart, stout, nor courageous, but good, sociable, faithful and generally cheerful" and I suspect they work for the evil corporations and they will dominate and impose on the world just because they exist. Damn it they are doers, not abnegators; you know that is evil in and of itself! They even have big plans and like big dramatic projects! They will give rise to that which will disturb us from living quiet and hobbit-like in a world very much like Merry Old.'
What this piece is actually saying is: anarchism only avoids its fatal flaw if no one gets uppity.
Published: July 24, 2009 2:14 PM
John Donohue
The Elven Races did not "die." Quite the contrary. It is their fate to NOT die from Arda as men do. They are bound up with its fate forever. The Elves (most) departed Middle Earth at the beginning of the Fourth Age, true, but they did not depart the world.
Published: July 24, 2009 2:55 PM