Rand rejected all the lessons of Communism except Atheism. I can never figure out how she missed how interconnected it all was.
But I think people read into Galt’s words too much dogmatic ideology, and I think Rand missed a huge loophole in her thought in the book.
If Objectivism is doing what is in my own self interest without cheating another, then I can choose, in my own self interest, to extend aid to another who needs it.
“Altruism” can only be immoral when it is coerced or forced from a person.
True altruism is a personal choice, rationally reached.
Rand never got that.
"...Rand never got that....."
Actually, yes she did. I read most of her books and she explicitly stated many times exactly what you said: that if it was in her own rational self interest to help another (and not be forced to do it) she would.
For example, the joy derived from helping a complete stranger, either financially or whatever.
What she deemed evil was the forced "help" imposed by a government or bureaucrats to enact that assistance. For example, the plundering of personal or corporate wealth for re-distribution for "altruistic" causes.
"Rand rejected all the lessons of Communism except Atheism. I can never figure out how she missed how interconnected it all was."
Pretty much sums up my perspective on her as well; I'd go so far to say she said a lot of smart things. I do find delicious irony in the fact that many of her diehard proponents have essentially deified her, and will viciously assail any person who casts even remotely negative aspersions her with all the vigor of a religious fanatic in the face of a heretic. Funny how an avowed athiest seems to be followed by so many "true believers".
State atheism, the suppression or control of traditional religions, is necessary for the totalarian state that doesn't claim legitimacy from a god, since organized religions would compete for the loyalty of the people. Most people need some belief to fulfill them, and that role is normally filled by religion. Communist and other states take advantage of this by suppressing traditional religions and raising the state to the level of the god to be worshipped, creating a political religion. Mao, Stalin, Lenin, Kim Il-sung, all gods of their state religions.
Remember, Buddhism doesn't necessarily have a god either. Buddha thought belief in a creator deity interfered with the path to enlightenment. So while these states may be technically atheist, they are also quite religious in nature.
Atheism is also not necessary for communism. In fact, religious communism has existed on a small scale in various movements for a long time. Remember, the original Plymouth colony was effectively communist, and so were the Diggers of England.
That's only if you don't consider the strong likelihood that Rand's entire philosophy began with her atheism.
Seen in that light, the tenets of Objectivism make a great deal more sense.
I believe that Rand started off (and ended) as an ardent atheist who nevertheless had a strong sense of moral imperatives.
She was not willing to give up her atheism, but she needed to justify morality as a set of "absolute" principles. In essence, she needed a way to create a moral system that yields the last six Commandments without having to deal with the troublesome first four.
Unfortunately for her, the axiomatic underpinnings of her philosophy do not withstand scrutiny -- even when tested by Rand's own standards they collapse.
For example, consider her statement, "Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others." Which sounds great, until you bring children into the mix.
Quite simply, Rand's philosophy cannot survive contact with the philosophical implications of living in a family.
But in the end, that obvious failure still traces back to her atheist assumptions.
“True altruism is a personal choice, rationally reached.
Rand never got that.
“
She got it. You just didn’t get Rand.
They're not interconnected. Communist strongmen suppressed religious belief because they took over the mantle, and had the populace worship the state instead. But there's plenty of non-believers who aren't authoritarians, leftists, or liberals.
I'm not a card carrying objectivist, but I think that a few more of them in Congress would actually be a good thing for liberty. 534 of 535 members of Congress are theists, as is our President. My question to theism is, "What have you done for me lately?"
But to Rand, in doing so, you deprive the beneficiary of liability for his own success or failure, which is the ultimate form of slavery. If he fails, YOU own his failure. If he succeeds, YOU own that. And you defy the natural order when you bear the burden of someone else's life -- success or failure -- whether you choose to do so or not. Your aid elevates you to a status above your donee, and creates a moral obligation in him to account to you. Altruism -- to Rand -- is always the wrong choice.
Personally, I think that's pasture putty. But it underlies much of her Objectivist ideology.
Well said.