Ayn Rand; Leader of the Lollipop Guild

Enough already with Ayn Rand!

Yes, we get it Paul Ryan and others like Illinois' own Joe Walsh who have made mythical this wannabe (and in her day marginal) writer.  We get that you want to resurrect her longing for the feudal, aristocratic [Eurocentric] order from whence she was born into and the one I wrote about earlier in the United States of Oz.  Funny how you never note her hostility to Christianity -- her atheism!

Her anti-democratic (note the lower-case "d"), pro-feudal, elitist dystopia began with the fall of Czarist Russia and her loss of all the privilege afforded to her [family] by way of her bourgeois pharmacist father.  Without promoting the evils of Vladimir Lenin . . . Ayn Rand simply had a bad case of "sour grapes". 

It is once again, we find a character of the elite being promoted and worshipped by those who she undoubtedly looked upon as "common" or the "proletarian" in her mother Russia.  Why do these people continually think  and act counter-intuitively, and in benefit of the nation's elite like the Koch Brothers?

So, let us venture down this yellow brick road and ponder . . . who are the lollipop guild and how is it that she is their leader?

Lollipop Guild

I would suggest the Guild is largely made up of socio-economically challenged and displaced individuals, mostly men who have "toed the company line" and believed in the mythos of America; men looking for scapegoats to assuage their contemporary marginality.  The Guild are those who, noting the demographic shift underway in America as it becomes a majority minority society with women now comprising the greatest percentage of college graduates, are sensing a real loss of "power" and are subsequently blaming others for their problems.  A confusing time in a world some no longer understand.

To put another way:

Ozzie is undereducated and unemployed, Harriet's bringing home the bacon.  Gays are out of the closest, Blacks refuse the back of the bus, and Spanish is the nation's de facto "second" language.

To draw from a more recent, 70's sitcom; we are witnessing the death throes of Archie Bunker.

The "Lollipop Guild" then, like in the movie, is a group of scared and impressionable disciples of a mythical character.  Unlike in the move, this character seeks not deliver Dorothy to a kind and benevolent "wizard," rather this character seeks to broaden class distinction paradoxically by leading them in the belief that they can be whomever they desire essentially just by wishing it so or by identifying "the obstacle(s)" impeding their progress (never mind such impediments are often of their own making)  . . . with Ayn Rand as their "objectivist" leader marching them into a manifest dystopia.

Rand's affect upon the lollipop guild can be found in the United States of Oz.

*****And here is a follow-up question*****

If a Paul Ryan, "Randian"-like state were realized do any genuinely believe the majority of Americans (mind you now in a majority minority construct) would continue to "pledge allegiance" to that America; an America then devoid of social safety nets, a sense of community, etc.?

Additionally, does this question then in-and-of-itself prove that the dystopia wrought by Ayn Rand's poorly conceived social order, in essence, portend the destruction and end of the United States of America as a global power and indeed, as an intact nation-state?

Comments

Leave a comment
  • Love it!

    I spent a great deal of time reading Atlas Shrugged to try to figure out the appeal and I still could find none. Rand was a mediocre romance novelist who chose three words whenever one would suffice. It was slow-moving and torturous to read.

    In all these years, I can hardly believe that few were able to see what you so aptly summarized in the first paragraph of this post. I picked up on one huge irony - actually a complete hypocrisy - at the very beginning of Atlas. Namely, Dagny's legendary grandfather wasn't the beneficiary of his own hard work - he was one of the very first corporate welfare queens.

    Anyone who knows the slightest bit of history would realize that transcontinental railways were built with land giveaways financed by government bonds. Railroad builders were given ten acres of land along the track right-of-way by the Federal government. The railroads sold these parcels to pay back the government bonds and make a profit. Without the detested government intervening and prioritizing railroads, no bootstrapping entrepreneur could have established his own rail line.

    Without rail lines, none of the other industries so lauded in Atlas could have materialized to the benefit of their respective owners. None of these "chosen" people would have been able to protest the government, go on strike, and hide out in their mountain utopia had they had to build infrastructure, create markets, and obtain financing all on their own.

    More irony is Rand's hatred of moochers and looters - the very characteristics espoused by today's corporatists. Corporatists lobby for favorable legislation that builds monopolies while Wall Street adds no value whatsoever for the percentage it takes from every transaction (looting someone else's hard work). These activities held in such esteem by the GOP were actually detested by Rand in Atlas!

    I've come to the conclusion that Rand's Objectivism was nothing more than situational ethics based 100% on selfishness. I also believe that her ardent followers have neither read nor understood Atlas Shrugged. If they had, they would realize that she was nothing but a "sour grapes" elitist who suffered from the delusion that her family was entirely self-made and was paranoid that the government would steal her wealth.

    Well, at least maybe her followers can identify with that last point...

  • In reply to Brent Cohrs:

    Thank you Brent. Well deconstructed!

  • I will neither post nor reply to flame. PERIOD! Please read the "rules of conduct" disclaimer found by reading the "About Your Host" information.

    Please also make any and all posts "readable"; ergo no rambling diatribes or propaganda. I appreciate good writers with sound reasoning.

    . . . and please, offer more than one man, George Soros, as your "citation" of "the left's" elitist benefactors as we can spend all day referencing "think tanks," benefactors, Super-Pacs and the like on "the right". Offering one man undermines and otherwise makes sophomoric your argument(s).

  • When you specifically target a social group, a political movement, an author, or a responder, you are breaking your own rules. You specifically call out the "right", the "tea-party", the Koch Brothers, and then claim picking on George Soros is not fair. You single out and pick on all of your opponents, just collectively. But then again, can you name one leftist who ever believed in free speech or could take a punch?

    OK, I will take out all references to you and George Soros. You still won't have the guts to post my message.

  • In reply to Quasimodo:

    Obviously you are wrong. A short, well-mannered reply will always receive its due response.

    I never claimed analysis of Soros "isn't fair," what I said is it is a weak and poor example -- a lone man versus what goes on on the right. Additionally, any "movement" that supports its entire existence and political rationale on a woman whose vested interest lay primarily in a type of life-long, psycho-emotional quest for "payback" is one who should be held to a rigorous critical standard -- one she has been subjected to and most reject. You, my friend, are entitled to your opinion on her . . . as am I.

    Being of Norwegian heritage, I could name a litany of "leftists" who believe in free speech. By most measurable standards, "the Nordic model" is currently a model many find favor with -- "taking the punches" of the world's banking and financial crisis (and subsequent recession) to use your terminology.

    You are correct about one thing, however, I don't post rants. Your other submission qualifies as such. I never have nor ever will condone nor support Lenin! I am vigorously anti-Communist! I do, however, agree with the Russian people not having to live under a feudal Czarist monarchy where few, like the Rand's, benefited.

  • I wasn't talking about that message. I was talking about my long post about the false choice between Aristocratic feudalism and communist feudalism, as in Pol Pot feudalism, Maoist feudalism, Leninist feudalism, etc. The European models do not apply here. The European left and right are an historically interesting, though narrow dichotomy; pick your poison! No nation has elevated man's soul, man's worth to the level of this country. Even now we have a President who would like to reverse that trend which was a seed the United States cast like a seed around the world. I don't want to hear about imperialism! The Constitution does not delve into militaristic issues other than as a defense. I am talking about the value of life and the individual, the antithesis of Frederick Nietzsche and Lenin. Today, we have a museum in Lviv, Ukraine dedicated to the thousands who were executed for not giving up that belief in the individual; who owned a Bible or a cross and were executed by Stalin. Nietzsche Humanism is the religion of the left. The "New Man", created by government, not the universal man who is independent and free.

    When I speak of free speech, and I am talking about today, here in the US, not Norway. Norway may be highly Socialist, a nation of limited diversity and rather homogenous people working together for a unified end. I have no problem with that. But small countries like Denmark and Norway can make it work because they have a very defined idea of what it is to be Norwegian or Danish. Here, not so much. We are told that we shouldn't have borders, that people who enter illegally are essentially just taking a part of what the White European Imperialists stole! So they are my equal in the eyes of the law. You don't have this debate in Norway, though you have many social ills directly related to immigration diversity issues now. But your experiment is working well. Here, it will never work. [Remaining text redacted by post moderator due to unsubstantiated claims].

  • In reply to Quasimodo:

    See, even though I disagree with the vast majority of your opinion, I none-the-less respect it. Something severely lacking from "your" side of the fence.

    The problem with your argument is that you assume that the US was founded as a republic by and for the people -- we know better.

    Excerpt from, The United States of Oz:

    "America mythologized by these merry modern “patriots” belies the facts; that America was founded not for the betterment of all living in the colonies, rather for a select class of aristocrats tired of being subjugated by King George III. The revolution was indeed fought by aristocrat, indentured servant, and at times slave alike (the half-White, ex-slave Crispus Attucks being the first to die in the name of American freedom), but the beneficiaries of the war were primarily those aristocrats who had “skin in the game”; property and position. Furthermore, having won their “freedom,” the newly minted “Americans’” first impulse was not one of universal liberation; to free the slaves, empower women or native peoples, or release the white indentured from their servitude (though some were), no, their first impulse was to reform the monarchy in their image and for their purposes by naming General Washington their king!"

    . . . more . . .

    "While the colonies turned into states, the economic engine that created and expanded a nation was primarily that of White Anglo-centric capital and Black (and sometimes Native) slave labor. Later, Chinese would be indentured to help build the railroads and by the twentieth century colonial Spaniards (Hispanics) would help to settle the agrarian West only to then move ever eastward by century’s end. One cannot, nor should not forget the millions of European ethnics (Irish, German, Scandinavian, etc.) that too lent their labor to both the expansion of the agricultural sector as well as the development and solidification of urban life. Herein, we find the genesis of the “liberal” America we know today."

    . . . and finally . . .

    "While many European ethnics were fighting for worker dignity (banning child labor, 40 hour work weeks, overtime, unionization, etc.) others were hoping to draw on the morality of Franklin, Jay, Hamilton and the sadly small handful of “founding fathers” who dared to demand the abolition of slavery. Other efforts can be seen in the women’s Suffragette movements, farm-worker movements among others. These efforts would be driven through the 20th century by “liberals” and their attendant organizations that hoped to distance America from its paternal, class-based, and aristocratic founding, putting the founders’ rhetoric into actual practice."

    I am sorry, but American history tells us that the nation-state excels and broadens it socio-economic vitality with aspirations and policies diametrically opposed to those of Rand -- it excels with a progressively taxed, well-regulated, liberal Democracy. Randian philosophy is simply sought by those who want to redress the 20th Century and return to the days of quasi-feudal lords: robber barons and the like. The facts are that, unlike Europe, America only recently took definitive steps in removing the cloak of post-colonial feudalism!

    The reality is we need not look to a "socialized" order as found in Europe as Marx himself only wrote for the short-sighted European what might be observed around the world -- "aboriginal collectivism" -- an order also found in pre-Christian Europe amongst the Vikings, the Celts, and others.

    No, the way out for America is not yet another Eurocentric philosophy of dubious motives . . . we need only visit the American Southwest or Plains and envision a life more reflecting that of the native peoples: a genuinely 21st American solution with contemporary sensibilities that match the most socially, linguistically, ethnically, and politically diverse nation in history (that post, however, is for a future essay -- sorry ;)! I in no way attempt to romanticize life in pre-Colonial America or Celtic/Viking pre-Christian Europe as some Shangri-La . . . but neither is the vapid future society envisioned by Ayn Rand.

    ***Thank you, sir, very much for chiming in. At this point, I think your perspective has been fairly and fully presented. I do appreciate your time.***

  • If your premise were true, then why did they work to end slavery? [Remainder of post redacted by post moderator due to redundancy]

  • In reply to Quasimodo:

    Come on, your post is now drifting to things you should have learned in high school -- assuming your school wasn't in Texas.

    I will address one final question:

    You said: "If your premise were true, then why did they work to end slavery?"

    Most didn't . . . you answered your own question. Franklin, the Quakers, and other "liberals" were but a few that thought "liberty" to be a universal right -- most of "the founders" did not. "Liberalism" is what got most of "the right" the freedoms they now seem to ascribe to a mythical force that never existed, a type of denial -- or poor education. The sooner "the right" reconciles the fact that liberals got them where they are today the sooner we might be able to move forward . . . in REALITY. You are entitled to start a myth perpetuation blog somewhere where you can imagine otherwise . . . there are PLENTY of them out there for you to join. The United States of Oz should help to answer any ligering questions and where I also address the plight of Native people, women, and the White indentured -- they didn't have it too well at the beginning either. Beyond that, it is simply your decision to accept or reject (my perspective on) history.

    Again, thank you and all the best . . .

Leave a comment