Ayn Rand&#39;s ideas = Adolf Hitler&#39;s ideas?

As part of my journalism course I had to do a movie or book review. I chose to review Ayn Rand's "Anthem", one of my favourite books. In my review I said "Born in Russia in 1905, Ayn Rand experienced first-hand the problems associated with socialism when it is taken to its logical conclusion."

My tutor underlined the words "logical conclusion" and put a big red question mark in the margin. In his assessment he said "Note my question mark. This is just a personal thing. I don't see this scenario as the logical conclusion of socialism. But I do see Ayn Rand as a peculiarly evil person whose ideas should have been confined to the dustbin of history long ago, along with those of Adolf Hitler, with which they almost perfectly correspond."

Talk about gobsmacked.

I don't think it appropriate that I get into a debate with him as I don't want to jeopardise my course marks etc. However I might include a quick note to him with my next assignment, perhaps asking if he's ever read "Atlas Shrugged". Any ideas???

Post 1

Wednesday, July 3, 2002 - 5:56pm

I would just ask him simply in the manner of mild curriosity, "How did you come by that knowledge? What rational evidence can you give me that their ideas correspond?"

If he evades to answer your question, then you would be safe to assume that he is intellectualy and moraly dishonest (in which case you have undercut his confidence and authority without technically doing anything that might put your course grades into jeopardy.

If he works hard to answer your question as best as he can, he will not come up with an answer and will be forced to re-examine his premises. My guess is he will either evade either by re-directing the question at you, or claim something along the lines of, "Well if you're not bright enough to recognize the similarities between the two, then there is nothing I can do to help you, my dear fellow."

Personally, I believe his statement speaks for itself, therefore he is probably not worth the time. I hope my suggestion helps.

Pianoman

Post 2

Wednesday, July 3, 2002 - 9:41pm

You should probably start off by asking your tutor if this is just an emotional outburst or if he plans on making this a regular occurance. Your tutor obviously has not read Ayn Rand so it is worthless to wonder how he made his judgment. This is so sad, unfortunately, it is very customary. You might tell your tutor that Heidegger, Konrad Lorenz, and many other German philosophers, psychologists, and artists actually flirted or supported Nazism at one point. Ayn Rand did nothing but loathe Nazism, and yet she is compared to that moral monster (I won't even mention his name). I have seen alot of this crap online. Rand is constantly being identified with evil creatures but notice they never actually quote her or reference any of her work. Just remember, there is life beyond your tutor. Good luck, you learned a lesson, just never be guilty of doing it yourself.

Post 3

Monday, July 8, 2002 - 11:27am

Well, by the standards of the altruist pseudomorality, Ayn Rand is evil. Then again, so are you, Tony. So is Linz, and just about everybody else who posts to SoloHQ (including me).

Don't waste any time on your tutor; if he doesn't understand what he condemns, then he isn't worth your effort. Just tell him that Ayn Rand stood for freedom, life, reason, and passion; and if that be evil, then make the most of it!

Post 4

Thursday, October 31, 2002 - 7:29am

I would like to reiterate what Matthew said ("Don't waste any time on your tutor..."). If I were you, Tony, I would largely terminate any extra-curricular conversation with the tutor. Unless you think the tutor's Rand remark was very uncharacteristic of his mentality, any discussion with him will be an exercise in masochistic frustration.

P.S. As we know, Rand's individualism is the proper opponent of racism/naziism; but this point will surely be lost on your tutor.

Post 5

Thursday, October 31, 2002 - 11:33pm

There's another way to respond to this mentality. Pretend you're curiously surprised and perhaps confused. (I know this would be difficult given what this twit said, but try!)

Sit down with your tutor and a few of Ayn Rand's books and ask him to explain what he means by reference to her writing. (The AR Lexicon might be a useful resource to have handy.) Don't come across threateningly. Try to give the impression that you respect his opinion and that you want to hear and understand his viewpoint, because you're curious and puzzled.

At this point, as soon as he tries to provide evidence for his remark, he's going to discover that he's ignorant about AR's philosophy. But, if he's dishonest, he's going to do everything he can to avoid opening one of her books.

This same approach would probably work with a socialist when discussing capitalism. For example, you could sit down with this tutor or some other socialist and a copy of "Human Action" or Reisman's "Capitalism" then point out a passage that has you "confused" and ask him to interpret what Mises or Reisman is saying. This forces the tutor to engage with capitalist literature without the benefit of preparation.

All you have to do from that point onwards is adopt the Socratic approach. Ask the tutor one question after another and enjoy the spectacle of how he contradicts himself and reality at every turn.

Post 6

Saturday, November 2, 2002 - 9:49pm

I never said anything to him about his comment, although it is obvious that to have said what he said he is totally ignorant of the ideas of either Rand or Hitler, or both. The reason for this is that I didn't want to jeopardise my course marks, and in all other respects he has been an excellent tutor.

However I sent off my last assignment today, and when I get my final mark and my diploma I intend dropping him a line, and the feedback above will be very helpful....

Post 7

Tuesday, November 5, 2002 - 11:54am

Actually, I can see where some get the idea that Hitler and Rand are so similar, and in at least this instance it's possible that they've arrived at this conclusion honestly.

In essence, it is Rand's determined and unflinching manner of presenting a powerful ideal of Man as the proper inheritor of the world that confuses these people. This tends to get confused with Hitler's Aryan Race. It becomes even worse when the mistaken person is passingly familiar with Nietszche's Oberman because it describes what amounts to a halfway-point between Rand's Ideal and Hitler's Aryan. To combat this sort of misconception, it would behoove you to prepare for it by examining specifically what differences there are between these comments, especially in the ethical arena. For instance, focus on the Aryan racism and the Randian description of the Ideal Man as being an achievable state.

In more general terms, it seems to me that the best way to change a casual socialist around is to start with the initial tenet of Objectivism, that one's worldview should be built upon rational precepts. Find some belief that you have in common with the person in question, like the idea of an atheistic and rational world (if you so believe), and set that as an agreed-upon basic premise from which all others must proceed. Then begin to build upon that a logical framework leading inexorably through the formation of an ethical system to your Objectivist-leaning ideas. Objectivism and its cousins constitute one of a very select few philosophical concepts that can be justified in such a manner without becoming self-contradictory. Of course, when working through this, don't do so as a conversation about Objectivism vs. Socialism. Don't even bring up those terms until you've managed to effectively convert your subject. This is not a technique to be used with a stranger over coffee, obviously, but on friends and other acquaintances that you can be in regular, comfortable contact with.

Wow, I'm long-winded.

Post 8

Tuesday, November 5, 2002 - 11:21pm

Good post, ren

>'The initial tenet of Objectivism, that one's worldview should be built upon rational precepts..'

As a new objectivist I am still pondering the nature of existence and the axioms, things I had never really given much thought until about a year or so ago. My world view has certainly changed, and 'the idea of an atheistic and rational world' seems to me to be the perfect scenario. Unfortunately I'm a long way off from converting others - hell, I'm still to meet in person another objectivist or libertarian (although SOLO2 will change that, heh heh!). But one thing's for sure - I don't like what I see around me, and I am very annoyed that when I was younger no-one taught me that an atheistic and rational world was even an alternative. All through school it was teachers like my journalism tutor that failed me to teach me HOW to really think for myself. And while I know I will really want to take the battle of ideas to others one day, at the moment I don't know enough to engage in that battle. And I get too hot under the collar when I talk to idiotarians (where's that damn Ransburger Pivot when you need it - sounds like a fencing aid!) This I need to overcome.

Out of interest ren, when you said that 'Objectivism and its cousins constitute one of a very select few philosophical concepts that can be justified in such a manner without becoming self-contradictory', what were the other philosophical concepts you had in mind?

cheers
tony

Post 9

Wednesday, November 6, 2002 - 10:26pm

Tony perhaps you would like to check out my introductory site to Objectivism at www.whatisobjectivism.com

Also submit me your questions, and I will add them to my "misconceptions" section.

Post 10

Thursday, November 7, 2002 - 4:20pm

Tony said:

"In my review I said "Born in Russia in 1905, Ayn Rand experienced first-hand the problems associated with socialism when it is taken to its logical conclusion.""

"My tutor underlined the words "logical conclusion" and put a big red question mark in the margin. In his assessment he said "Note my question mark. This is just a personal thing. I don't see this scenario as the logical conclusion of socialism. But I do see Ayn Rand as a peculiarly evil person whose ideas should have been confined to the dustbin of history long ago, along with those of Adolf Hitler, with which they almost perfectly correspond.""

I thought this issue is interesting in the sense that I agree with your tutor's red marking your comment about socialism "taken to its logical conclusion." Within a paragraph, much less a sentence, it is not likely that you can prove that horrendous problems are a "logical conclusion" of socialism's political theory. If you had only said "Rand experienced first-hand the problems associated with socialism" deleted the "logical" part and then outlined what some of the problems were you would have made a powerful and factual statement. Having done that you would not leave your critics much room to find fault with you. The trick is to present FACTS in such a way that your audience comes to your opinion/conclusion before you give it to them, if you choose to do so.

You might want to check out how David Kelley and Chris Sciabarra use of this type of style to make their claims.

Regarding your tutor, he lost his stature by offering his "personal" opinion that Rand is an evil person without any reference to the facts that could lead him to such a conclusion.

Good luck.

Michael

Post 11

Thursday, November 7, 2002 - 9:04pm

Your teacher is an idiot. Forget about him. Tell him that you disagree, if you want, but don't bother to try to argue with him. The only two things that you shouldn't do are: 1)Somehow imply or suggest that you think his view is reasonable; 2)Get yourself in serious trouble trying to change his mind.

Post 12

Monday, July 21, 2003 - 5:10am

Hi. I would have responded by telling him I didn't think my paper was an appropriate place for him to express his personal resentment against the ideas I favor on.
I'd tell him I didn't appreciate him using his priviledge to personally attack me by calling someone I obviously admire evil. Better yet, I'd bring it to somebody above him to settle it and not even deal with him, because he crossed the line using your paper to moralize to you on.
I wouldn't get into any debate on certain ideas, at least not on those terms. He's out of line and if you don't call him on it, but get into his debate, you're at a disadvantage. You'd already be admitting an inferiority to him by letting him walk on you like that in the first place, or on your paper.
I think his calling Ayn Rand as evil as Hitler is in perfect keeping with this bit of overbearing act,BTW, and if you were to let it go and get into the debate with him on WHAT he wrote, you'd be encourageing him.
You shouldn't have to defend your personal beliefs to you tutor. Does anything he disagrees with about you obligate you to defend youself to him, or suffer being personally attacked for it? You lose either way because it's unreasonble to be pushed into debating somebody, and he's setting the terms of the debate too. He's pushing you by using his power for one thing as a lever for making moral indictments against some beliefs you hold. He has no place doing that. It's not what he's there for.
I'd tell him about it, that I don't appreciate him using my paper to write his personal feelings about my ideas on, that that's not what I submitted it to him for. I wasn't submitting to his personal moral judgment of me and he was out of line acting as if I was, or it was his place to treat me so.
I mean that little act was an usurpation of moral authority over you, and over certain ideals. You can't let that go. It's too mediocre. There's no reason to let him lord it over you. You don't have to challenge him on Ayn Rand. Show him what's better by calling him on his behavior. Then he'll get the point, over what sort of people act rightly and what sort don't.

Post 13

Monday, July 21, 2003 - 8:06am

Tony:

Very interesting that your tutor challenged you to clarify your thinking/defend your assertion (which strikes me as appropriate), in self-confessed 'personal' terms that you felt too intimidated to properly respond to.

Newt made some excellent points, immediately above. This kind of smug moralism is not worth arguing with in this context. But if these is the kind of journalistic values this person promotes, I'm not surprised at the dire state of contemporary journalism.

Post 14

Sunday, December 7, 2003 - 8:26am

Rand and Hitler are DIAMETRICALLY opposite on most topics.

I'm ashamed to admit this now, but I was (for a time), somewhat intrigued by the whole "White Racial" movement (through my idiot heroin-user brother, and various short-wave radio programs and such.) Thankfully, Rand's article on Racism CURED me of that line of thinking (along with helping me in so many other ways).

But on to my main point:
In Mein Kampf (the parts of it I could manage to read, it was so poorly written), Hitler lays out his whole system of thought. I do NOT see where your tutor could possibly even DREAM that Hitler's viewpoints were at all similar to Rand:

1. He cites as the defining characteristic of the "aryan" (and the thing that makes him most honorable) "the capacity for self-sacrifice." His whole premise is that the "aryan" has the capacity to SUBMERGE himself (his "petty individualism") into the "greater whole", and act for the good of the "Folk" (the Germanic people").
He contrasts this with what he considers the defining characteristic of "The Jew": namely, "Jewish Egoism"
The essential evil of the Jew in Hitler's estimate, is that the Jew does not sublimate his "petty personal interests" to a "greater whole".
One of Hitler's favorite bromides is "Jewish Egoism".

So, for Hitler, Egoism, Individuality, and SELF-INTEREST are hallmarks of supreme evil, and the "racial" (IE genetic) lack of them makes "the aryan race" noble.
In other words, Hitler's noblest conception of humanity is as a herd of cattle.

Hitler and Rand are pretty much diametrically opposite. Read Mein Kampf. it'll help you see how.

(on a side note: you could have some fun with your tutor, depending on his political leanings: if he is a believer in Altruism (the idea that the primary purpose and justification for an Individual's life is "service to Others"), you could have some fun compiling a list of similarities between HIS viewpoint and Hitler's! Actually, if you want me to do it, just email me, and I'll help you with it.

Hope this helps.
Also, please forgive my admission that I was once (in my younger, stupider days) drawn towards a racist value system. It didn't last long, until I saw through it.
Many and deep apologies.

Post 15

Saturday, January 10, 2004 - 9:05am