WAS AYN RAND A CRYPTO COMMUNIST? (RHETORICAL QUESTION)

And the crypto Communist --
I've got him on the list
And they never will be missed
They'll none of them be missed.
--The Mikado

(Perhaps I should choose my words more carefully. "Marxism" is a philosophy, taking many forms, both culturally and politically. "Communism" refers to any of several variant political systems based on any of the variant philosophies of "Marxism". Thus, a "Marxist" may not, in a certain narrow sense, be a "Communist"' at all; but he usually is, and it's hard to tell the difference.)

Many years ago, a Soviet defector revealed that some Soviet defectors were, in fact, double agents -- Pied Pipers -- trained to deceive Western anti-Communist movements into self-defeating courses of action. Such people were trained to lecture the world endlessly about Soviet secret police and prison camps; this would have relatively little effect: all countries have police and prisons.  But, they were warned, "You  must never reach any philosophical conclusions contrary to Communism; if you do that, you are finished".

That being said, I wonder what the Communists would think of the so-called "philosophy" of Ayn Rand?

I think it would suit them to a "T". I think they'd be laughing their budyonovskas off.

For example, my brother was in the Green berets in Laos in 1962. He was anti-Communist. We were an anti-Communist family.  He was an "advisor".

In Laos, according to him, the US army recruited suicide squads (that's not what they were called, but that's what they were) of Laotian montagnards whose villages had been burnt and  their families tortured to death or otherwise killed by the Communists -- desperate, hopeless men who had nothing left to lose and nothing to live for, except hatred of Communists and the desire for revenge -- trained them, armed them to the teeth, and dropped them into remote Communist-controlled valleys, with instructions to kill as many Communists as they could. A year later, it was assumed that they were all dead, and another group was dropped.

"It's called patriotism", he told me, with a touch of irony.

After ONE YEAR of studying the so-called "philosophy of Ayn Rand", he told me, "Even if you sacrifice your life so that Communism may disappear from the earth, it's still altruism", and, thus, ipso facto immoral according to the so-called philosophy of Ayn Rand.

This is anti-Communism?
--
During some of the naval mutinies during the Russian Civil war, officers were chained to planks and fed feet-first into the boilers, or into boiling water, slowly -- everybody knew what the bolsheviks were like; everybody knew what happen if they won the war; but if you sacrifice your life trying to kill them, you are "immoral"!

We must be selfish, says Rand; but rationally selfish. Altruism is a no-no. What does that mean?

Ayn Rand, studying "history" at a Marxist university and going to the theater in the evening, had no answer: either then or later.

I repeat: this is anti-Communism?

--

I do not wish to be misunderstood at this point. The question is not:
Was Ayn Rand a Communist double agent? (because there is no real proof that she was) --

The question is:

If Rand had been a Communist double agent -- if her entire so-called "philosophy" were solely and deliberately intended and designed to confuse, disorient, demoralise, and "soften up" the West so as to be incapable of resisting Communist take-over -- I refer, obviously, not to the rigidly stratified, organised Communism of the Soviet Union, but, rather, to the chaotic, ramshackle Communism of someplace like Zimbabwe
-- perhaps "Marxism" would be a better word --
how would Ayn Rand's "philosophy of reason" have had to be any different?

--

At this point, the question arises: what would a Communist, Marxist, or extreme Left-wing socialist of any kind understand by the term: "philosophical conclusions"? In other words, what kind of philosophies are they really afraid of?

Do you really think they are afraid of a refutation of the Marxist "labour theory of value"? You've got to be joking!
A child can do that. "I draw a lot better than Bobby, and I'm better at kickball, why should he get the same grades as me?"

By some curious coincidence, in probably 99.9% of all cases, they are referring to Christianity, and the family.

All socialist literature is cram-packed with claims that socialism can never be achieved without the destruction of both of these institutions.
The irrationality and violence of their attacks upon these institutions surpass belief, and I have never understood them, although personally I am not a Christian.
The family is "fascist", the family is "authoritarian", the family is "reactionary", the family is "repressive", the family is "slavery", the family is "legalized prostitution", the family exists for the "perpetuation of property", etc. etc. etc., ad nauseam and ad infinitim.

The real reason is that the family -- the duty to support one's wife and children -- interferes with "Free Love", another principal tenent of all Left-wing extremist philosophies, and, along with religion -- competes with the State for the ultimate loyalty of the individual.

From a Marxist point of view, the only thing the family is good for, is to hold them as hostages.

For example, during the Russian Civil War, Trostky, the great "military genius", realised that the bolsheviks hadn't the slightest idea how to organise an army or fight a war, so they pressed all the Czarist officers they could find into service, threatening to shoot their families if they lost too many battles or betrayed them in any way.
Thus was the family made "useful".

--

There is a very amusing chapter in The Devils by Dostoevsky (it's entitled either The Meeting or the The Fete, but they're both hilarious) in which an extremely obnoxious character referred to only as "the girl student", asks "how the institution of the family ever came about?" Stavrogin -- in actual fact, the main character in the book -- remarks that he doesn't think that answering that question would be "very discreet". One of the older women present laughs, and says "You ought to write for vaudeville!"

The fact is, as shown conclusively by Mao: The Untold Story, by Jung Chang, and many other books on the private lives of leading Marxists, Marxists don't care about ideas; they don't care about the poor, the peasant, the working class; they care about themselves; they care about creating huge bureaucratic superstructures of any kind whatsoever (the EEC is another example), in which they can wield enormous power, living in luxury while kicking hundreds of millions of people around. The "ideological superstructure" involved makes no difference, and is just a means to an end.

So of all the principal tenents of extreme-Left-wing political philosophies, Ayn Rand grants nearly all of them: from "A", in fact, to about "X" -- ("Y" and "Z" -- full-blown Marxism -- can wait).

Atheism, abortion, "Free Love", the abolition of Christianity, the destruction of the family, and -- oh yes -- the modern plank of "unrestricted mass immigration" and racial integration, not to mention pornography, drugs and perversion, to destroy the White Race.

Interfering with these things is an "initiation of the use of physical force", dixit Ayn Rand! An attack upon "reason", Man's "means of survival"! It all fits together.

If the "fascist", "reactionary", "repressive", "bourgeois" citizens of Western countries will not follow Marxist leaders, why, we will simply replace them with people who will!

You don't think the Mexicans and Chinese will follow Communist (or Marxist) leaders -- leaders like Mugabe (or Obama, come to think of it)?
They'll do so in a second. Just give them the power -- which means the numbers.

--

Rand fooled a lot of people by talking about "capitalism" and pretending to oppose "socialism" and Communism. As if they were opposites!
The fact is, that Marxism (or whatever you want to call it) will come about as a matter of course, as soon as the Democrats (and neo-con Republicans hoodwinked by Ayn Rand) succeed in turning America into a Third World hell-hole.

Ayn Rand was a Jew. What is the difference between capitalism and Communism to a Jew? What is the difference to a capitalist, even?
Under Communism, the State owned the "means of production", but the vast bureaucracies were full of Jews, so the "means of production" were all controlled by Jews!
Under monopoly capitalism (the system we live under at the moment), the "means of production" are controlled by Jews anyway, so from their point of view, the results are the same!

The fact is that capitalism and Communism -- like the Walrus and Carpenter -- have always "walked hand in hand". Capitalism and Western capitalists built up the Soviet Union for 70 years, making it one of the world's most powerful industrial nations; then they did the same thing with China.

It must have been obvious to Ayn Rand -- and to all the capitalists involved as well -- that, in transferring all our industry to China, in becoming totally dependent upon China financially (by selling them dollar bonds so that we could continue living like drunken sailors, after giving them all our industry on a silver platter), that we were handing China our position as a world power as well. There is a word for this: it is called treason.

The Objectivists were perfectly well aware of this, because they actually recommended many books on the subject, including the following:

Ta Ta, Tan Tan, by Valentin Chu
Are the Russians Ten Feet Tall? by Werner Keller

Anthony C. Sutton (author of The Best Enemy that Money Can Buy and many other, similar books), says that capitalists have always preferred to deal with totalitarian regimes, because they could sign multi-billion dollar deals with a single contract, signed by a single agency in the totalitarian country.

In one case, this involved a single factory -- I believe it was a tractor factor, easily convertible to the production of modern tanks), covering 35 square miles -- one factory.

The only good thing I can say about traditional Soviet-style Communism is that had we had been conquered by the Soviets, we would have kept our industry, and most of our people as well. The Soviets -- like the fascists and nearly every other system in the history of the world -- recognised the need for strong national industries, a strong, healthy working class, and generations of strong, healthy youth.

You could get a very good education in the Soviet Union, particularly in maths, sciences and languages, as well as in the arts -- just about everything except history, which Ayn Rand majored in.
They published some good literature, some very fine novels (better than Ayn Rand's trash) and made some very good films (most of this after Stalin's demise, admittedly).

Examples:
Children of the Arbat
Fear

Dust and Ashes
(the 3 books together are also known as The Arbat Trilogy)
by Anatoli Rybakov.
(On Soviet films and novelists, more later.)

What do the Objectivists plan to leave us with? A minuscule class of people with money, short-term?

Objectivism is a philosophy for people living off inherited wealth in big houses, whose attitude is, "What do I need industry for? I've got money. I can buy anything I need".

I attended a 6 or 8-week lecture series on "Romantic Love", given by the NBI, Ayn Rand's lecturing mouthpiece, in the mid-1960s, and there was never one single reference to children, child-rearing, discipline, the realities of marriage -- for example, the need to think of others, considering their feelings and needs -- and responsibility, at any time, ever: never. Not once, in 6 or 8 weeks.

The audience consisted of professional people in their late 20s, but the lectures seemed intended for horny 13 or 14-year olds: a sort of "Ann Landers column", but tape-recorded. (They seemed obsessed with oral sex, for example.)
--
CONCLUSION

Objectivism claims to be a philosophy of "Man's Life", of "Man's Life on Earth" (or, as John Lennon put it, "Imagine all the people, Living for today").

Question: where are "Men's Lives" to come from if nobody ever has children?

Oh, that doesn't matter, let the immigrants have children, we're too busy with promiscuous oral sex.

We've been "living for today" for over 50 or 60 years now, perhaps longer, and the results are a nightmare. It's time to start living for tomorrow.

C.P.
Updated 16 December 2015



RECOMMENDED READING:

RED VICTORY by W. Bruce Lincoln
NONE DARE CALL IT TREASON -- 25 YEARS LATER by John Stormer
NATIONAL SUICIDE: MILITARY AID TO THE SOVIET UNION by Anthony C. Sutton
ARE THE RUSSIANS TEN FEET TALL? by Werner Keller
TA TA, TAN TAN by Valentin Chu
MAO: THE UNTOLD STORY by Jung Chang
THE PSYCHOTIC LEFT by Kerry Bolton
THE DOUBLE LIFE OF FIDEL CASTRO by Juan Reinaldo Sánchez and Axel Glydén
ADIOS, AMERICA by Ann Coulter
THE DEATH OF THE WEST by Pat Buchanan
THE DEVILS by Dostoevsky (make sure you read the Michael R. Katz translation)
FEAR by Anatoli Rybakov


Back to philosophical index