The journey from there to here
The way the Socialist age will lead to a return to liberty
Published on June 24, 2005 By Gideon MacLeish In Politics

Karl Marx and Ayn Rand, two individuals operating at polar opposites on the political spectrum, have far more in common than a superficial analysis might perceive. And it is my contention that Rand's political thought will contribute as much to the politics of the 21st century as Marx did to the 20th.

The Communist Manifesto, published in 1848, gave way to a wave of social and labor reform whose effects are still being felt to this day. Where the factories once were deathtraps that considerably shortened the life of the laborer, they became safer, more efficient places to work and effectually helped in the Industrial Revolution's move to self actualization. The assembly line style popularized by Henry Ford, for instance, allowed workers to specialize in one area of the manufacture, causing greater efficiency and greater safety records due to familiarity with one's environment.

Once the social and labor changes were enacted, however, the more sinister aspects of socialist thought came to the surface. The factors of human greed and desire for control that Marx had never introduced into his thesis, became self evident, and few knew that better than Rand. Born in Russia, she watched as her once affluent family was reduced to poverty by the Bolshevik revolution and its aftermath. She emigrated to the United States forever affected by what she had witnessed in the genesis of the USSR, and her passionate appeals for liberty became evident in her works.

At this point in US and international history, socialist thought is fast becoming universal. Recent Supreme Court rulings on eminent domain, combined with the educational "reforms" enacted by our president, George W. Bush, are but two examples among the many of how we are devaluing the individual and constructing a socialist state. Where the deathtrap factories of the early to middle 19th century were one extreme, the totalitarian control of socialism is another, and where Marx's socialism represented the inevitable backlash of the workers against their 19th and 20th century oppressors, so too, will Rand's libertarian principles represent the inevitable backlash of oppressed members of a socialist society against their 21st century. Historically, every attempt to suppress liberty has met with revolution, all too often violent revolution, to restore it, and I believe our future will be no different.

Once time has removed the subjective feelings towards Karl Marx and Ayn Rand, they will be seen as the preeminent thinkers of their respective eras. And once the successes and flaws of each of their principles have been evaluated, each will be assimilated into a larger pool of human thought to make us a stronger and better society. As it is, however, we stand at a very frightening crossroads; not knowing our future causes us to fear it. And indeed, such fear may not be without merit.

But, "that which does not kill us makes us stronger"...and I feel the current crossroads will be no exception.


Comments
on Jun 24, 2005

Gideon - a very well written article, as always. I agree with you that both had grand ideas, and that both philosophies have flaws. As polar opposite as they may be, though, both have one common theme at their heart: the idea that personal responsibility is the only way to make either system work.

It may not seem that way with socialism, but socialism could never work if each individual did not fully understand the system under which they were operating and realize that each of them was as important as the next; and that because of that their individual actions would count as much as anyone's. As you point out, people were overcome by greed and powermongering and therefore the system failed.

The same is true of Objectivism, and although Rand uses the idea of personal responsibility as one of her tenets, I think people forget that we are all in this together. To make decisions or take action without regard to the welfare of your fellow man often means that you haven't really thought your actions through. We all affect each other one way or another and it's best to consider the consequences before we act.

I pray that you are right, and that with time we will gain wisdom and act with a sense of responsibility, with the full knowledge that our actions affect more than ourselves.

on Jun 24, 2005

I cant agree with you on Marx.  While some of his thoughts did lead to good, in the end he was just a frustrated meglomaniac with the ends justifying the means as his main theme.  And indeed, if his works had come to fruition, we would not have a chance at liberty any longer as George Orwell showed us.

Ayn Rand may yet be the prophetess of the 21st century.  We could do a lot worse.  But as long as the tyranny of the minority continues to rule us, I do not see it happening.

on Jun 24, 2005

But as long as the tyranny of the minority continues to rule us, I do not see it happening.

"Every action has an equal and opposite reaction", drguy...and I believe Rand may be it.

I view Marx somewhat differently than you do. Like Darwin, the principles that have evolved from his ideals bear little resemblance to the ideals he proposed. I am by no means a Marxist, but I do feel his legacy contributed greatly to our evolution as a society, and some of that contribution has been good (personally, I would view Rand as about 80% good, and Marx at about 10-15% IF that high, but still...if there's a baby in the bathwater there, we need to take hold of it). Without rehashing, I would say that the areas where I see the benefits of Marxist theory can be viewed in my Microsocialism/macrosocialism articles.

Marxism as a global concept is still too new for objective evaluation. Perhaps once we've removed ourselves from the curent fervor we can look back at it with a clearer eye.

on Jun 24, 2005

I would view Rand as about 80% good, and Marx at about 10-15% IF that high, but still...

Ok, I can agree with those numbers!  ANd as always, you are the eternal optomist.  I wont fault you for that.  But I am too old to think in those terms.  Or cynical.  Whichever.

on Jun 24, 2005
Either extreme breeds disaster. We're a nation now addicted to socialist programs, so much that we believe the absence of such to be evil. On the other hand we are a nation addicted to "Liberty", but in word alone. The moment anything goes wrong our first instict is to blame the government for it.

But you can't do that if you are solely interested in liberty. To do so breeds institutional reactions that enevitably infringe on liberty. The more Marx is taken into consideration when planning for the needs of the people, the more chains are piled on those people.

To me, the 20th century was the century of Marx's failure. Given more then 50 years we saw that billions of people totally devoted to socialist ideals could not pull a self-sustaining state together. Both China and the USSR were spiraling toward doom and their salvation has been rejecting the hardline socialist policies and taking advantage of private industry.

Rand, I'm afriad, offers little more. In the whole of human history, we've either had a dominant totalitarian government, or a society eating at itself from within. Either the people are too frightened to blame and make demands from their government, or they do so to such an extreme that they lose their identity, lose their productivity, and their society fails.

Maybe there is a happy medium, or maybe this is just the 'old age' of societies that will always play itself out. I tend to be less than optimistic.
on Jun 24, 2005
Excellent points, baker. As a sidenote, this article is the beginning part of a larger piece I am putting together on my theory that the influence Rand will have as the 21st century wears on will parallel the influence Marx had on the 2oth century (and, sadly, continues to have to this day). While, as you know, I lean heavily towards Rand's philosophies, I am intending to objectively focus this on each person's societal influence, rather than on subjective value judgements.
on Jun 24, 2005
I think the problem with leaning too far toward Rand is almost identical to leaning too far the other way. Both philosophies rely on their concept of "citizen", whether it be the devoted worker of the socialist society, or the educated, Jeffersionian thinking citizen.

There's too much working against both. We are greedy people, but we are also lazy people.

So, give us opportunity and freedom, and we'll demand to know why we don't have a govenment providing more for us. Give us oppression and socialist programs, and we'll rant to the heavens that we should have more liberty.

Sadly, there doesn't even seem to be a happy medium. Look at France. That kind of stagnation and self-abuse seems to be inherant in a nation with two distinct personalities.

In the end, people are too greedy and dishonest for socialism, and way too demanding and lazy for true Democratic, free-market liberty.

We will only be happy when we can make a powerless government that we can boss around and who waits on us hand and foot. Unfortunately, we don't have a Marx or a Rand for that, tey.
on Jun 25, 2005
Yet another great article Gid!

The dirty little secret of society is, Capitalism and Democracy can only work if tempered by small amounts of socialism. This would seem like a contradiction unless you consider the fact that freedom and rights can only exist when there is a balance between the power of the individual, society and government. Throw off that balance and rights and freedom are lost.