Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Big Sister is Watching You (Whittaker Chamber's critique of Ayn Rand...)
National Review ^ | Dec. 28, 1957 | Whittaker Chambers

Posted on 09/21/2009 9:24:56 AM PDT by AnalogReigns

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-70 next last
Since Free Republic is a mishmash of Conservative and (small l) libertarian types, I thought this was a fascinating article delineating the differences...
1 posted on 09/21/2009 9:24:57 AM PDT by AnalogReigns
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: AnalogReigns

How does it do that? Are you equating libertarianism with objectivism?


2 posted on 09/21/2009 9:35:44 AM PDT by SeeSharp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AnalogReigns

I always loved that review. Chambers nails the book and the bare fact that the objectivists are as shrill and dictatorial as the collectivists.

The libertarian movement (big L or small l) will never truly gain serious traction until they give up their romance with Rand.


3 posted on 09/21/2009 9:53:27 AM PDT by Valpal1 (Always be prepared to make that difference.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AnalogReigns
the author's image of absolute evil — robbing the strong producers (and hence good) to give to the weak parasites (and hence no good)
4 posted on 09/21/2009 9:55:54 AM PDT by mjp (pro-{God, reality, reason, egoism, individualism, independence, limited government, capitalism})
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AnalogReigns

The biggest problem I had with Atlas Shrugged was it seemed to assume that capitalism, without moral underpinnings, still works. It does not. Capitalism lacking in morality always leads to communism. Just as an engine without some sort of governor with eventually blow up. In other words, capitalists who do not throttle their desire to make money with a moral governor actually empower those who wish to destroy capitalism.


5 posted on 09/21/2009 10:04:52 AM PDT by TruthBeforeAll (Honesty is like a knife... Used without love, it can do a lot of harm.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TruthBeforeAll
Capitalism lacking in morality always leads to communism.

Utter and complete claptrap written without a shred of any kind of proof, historical or otherwise.

6 posted on 09/21/2009 10:06:59 AM PDT by Lurker (The avalanche has begun. The pebbles no longer have a vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: AnalogReigns

Whittaker Chambers offers an excellent review of Atlas Shrugged. I loved reading both Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead as a teenager and enjoyed them both. However, now when I look back on it I see the validity of Chamber’s critique. Atlas Shrugged, in particular, was filled with unrealistic characters making these long winded speeches and lectures. The good guys are virtually superhuman and without flaws and the bad guys are cartoonishly evil buffoons.

I recently read Chamber’s own book, Witness. Now there is a book for ALL conservatives. A true story based on Chamber’s tumultuous life as a young communist who transformed into one of the greatest conservatives of all time who famously locked horns with Alger Hiss in a titanic struggle which has divided conservatives from the liberal/left ever since. With Chambers you see the human condition in its totality warts and all beginning with himself. Therefore, his work, writings, and life experiences are much more grounded in reality.

Read Atlas Shrugged for fun and entertainment—and yes Miss Rand was light years ahead of her time predicting socialism coming to America no matter how silly and unrealistic her characters were. But read Witness for getting to the truth and a real life experience of one man’s ascent from darkness and evil to the truth and seeing the light. One work is quite juvenile, the other is manifestly profound and deeply spiritual.


7 posted on 09/21/2009 10:09:04 AM PDT by Welcome2thejungle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Valpal1
We now have the benefit of 50 years of history since Chambers wrote this 'review'.

It seems Miss Rand was a good deal more correct than anyone could have imagined back in 1957.

L

8 posted on 09/21/2009 10:09:05 AM PDT by Lurker (The avalanche has begun. The pebbles no longer have a vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Lurker

Lurker, you are witnessing it now.


9 posted on 09/21/2009 10:11:14 AM PDT by roofgoat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: TruthBeforeAll

I don’t see how Rand proposes capitalism without morals.

I’ve been reading Capitalism by Rand right now and she’s quite explicit that it is only capitalism which is in fact moral.


10 posted on 09/21/2009 10:11:29 AM PDT by Pessimist (u)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: TruthBeforeAll

Well said!


11 posted on 09/21/2009 10:16:25 AM PDT by LearsFool ("Thou shouldst not have been old, till thou hadst been wise.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: TruthBeforeAll
I would agree. I find Rand's rejection of religion to be her Achille's heel. If Man is the only thing that counts, then Man's moral sense of self-ownership is the highest good and all other moral values must flow from that. Unfortunately, this leads to unthrottled desires for ownership and control and over time can turn into the very thing it despises.

However, with morality based on a higher power, Man is naturally throttled back in his desires. Ownership and control may still be valued, but there is a sense that there is more to life and that giving of one's self and of one's possessions is not so very bad.

I don't think Rand saw this, and I've known a lot of Libertarians who don't see it either. In my experience, such people become very shrill and dictatorial.

12 posted on 09/21/2009 10:16:28 AM PDT by ClearCase_guy (Play the Race Card -- lose the game.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Lurker

Actually, no. Her world was one of black and white cardboard characters.

The world is far more shady and complex than anything she imagined and she totally failed to predict the rise of Islamic Jihad. Churchill, in contrast, predicted it quite well.


13 posted on 09/21/2009 10:18:51 AM PDT by Valpal1 (Always be prepared to make that difference.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Pessimist

I didn’t mean she “proposes” capitalism without morals. She seems to “assume” capitalism is moral by it’s very nature. When, in reality, capitalism is a tool, like an axe, or a hammer. It can be used to support freedom, or it can be used to enslave.


14 posted on 09/21/2009 10:20:56 AM PDT by TruthBeforeAll (Honesty is like a knife... Used without love, it can do a lot of harm.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: AnalogReigns

NYC snob author?


15 posted on 09/21/2009 10:23:22 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AnalogReigns

Author cant even get D’Anconia’s name right while when making a point with the name. Oy.


16 posted on 09/21/2009 10:23:38 AM PDT by Jagermonster (They will not force us. They will stop degrading us. They will not control us. We will be victorious)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Valpal1
The world is far more shady and complex than anything she imagined

Yea that whole 'good and evil' thing is just so....confining.

she totally failed to predict the rise of Islamic Jihad

That wasn't the point of the book. Duh.

17 posted on 09/21/2009 10:29:52 AM PDT by Lurker (The avalanche has begun. The pebbles no longer have a vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Pessimist
I don’t see how Rand proposes capitalism without morals. I’ve been reading Capitalism by Rand right now and she’s quite explicit that it is only capitalism which is in fact moral.

Arguing that capitalism is moral and arguing that capitalism requires morals are not remotely like the same thing.

18 posted on 09/21/2009 10:30:42 AM PDT by Dan Middleton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory

I’m laughing at the posters in this thread who clearly have no idea who Whittaker Chambers is.


19 posted on 09/21/2009 10:33:56 AM PDT by Dan Middleton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: AnalogReigns

My husband and I recently listen to it on CD as we drove to Texas. It was so true that I could barely stand to listen to it at times. Ellesworth Toohey is such a worm.


20 posted on 09/21/2009 10:34:20 AM PDT by wintertime (People are not stupid! Good ideas win!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-70 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson