Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePhanastasio
It is really interesting. The thing which is difficult is that any political literature has its good and bad points, when applied to the world as a whole, or even a country as a whole. Ayn Rand's Virtue of Selfishness actually brought up interesting points, but it was before capitalism got to the point it's reached that it was published. I don't think that Ayn Rand would have been anti-oil companies at all; I think she'd have thought it their right and a noteworthy enterprise, but on a smaller scale...it actually made a lot of sense.
Then again, I highly doubt she intended it on a smaller scale.
Reaganomics boosted Ayn Rand's philosophies in ways I feel she never could even have dreamed. As a loather of Ronald Reagan, I've no doubt THAT'd have pissed her off.
I suppose, also, she never intended Objectivism as a political ideal, but as a personal moral code. Her major lacking was not acknowledging that moral codes will affect political affiliation and political beliefs significantly.
|
Oh gosh, late reply is late, and I know I'm going to hurt a few feelings with this, but I have, to this day, found Ayn Rand absolutely unreadable. I still remember tossing Atlas Shrugged to the other end of my room (which is my only memory of it) and not bothering to pick it up for many months.
Karl Marx on the other hand, I just find it illuminating how he analyzed and predicted things which most people never really thought about until at least half a century later - on religion, on the growth of the United States, on the legacy of the British empire and how history can more eloquently be explained based on materialistic incentives. In fact, you can consider his essays as a whole and find most of it completely being true. The Communist Manifesto though, does seem rather dated and an idea that should be buried with the past century.