A recent WSJ article, Does Ayn Rand Hurt the Market, Heather Wilhelm asked the question, Is Ayn Rand Bad for the Market. Well, not only was Ayn Rand "not bad" for the markets, she was a pre-requisite to any lasting turn to Capitalism this country might ever take. The article trots out tired old objections we've heard before "Rand has this extremist, intolerant, dogmatic antigovernment stance" but even goes as far as to claim she had "shoddy manners". If you've listened to her countless Q&A sessions or interviews she is incredibly polite and patient even with her adversaries.
Rand created an entirely new philosophy, requiring the most "extreme" intellectual thought to establish truths that would help man live his life on earth. In science, there is no time for, or purpose in, marketing spin. Being "extreme" is required, extremely accurate, extremely diligent, extremely detailed, extremely encompassing, extremely logical etc. In the end she was extremely brilliant and extremely cohesive while managing to be extremely creative in presenting this new philosophy through one of the greatest novels of all time - Atlas Shrugged. I'm not sure where the critic would have liked tolerance to be factored in, perhaps he thinks Rand should have been more tolerant of incorrect views or even corrupt ones, and made a little room for them in her ground breaking new philosophy?
The intellectual and business leaders who have adopted Rand's philosophy (of whom there are many) over the past 50 years would not have been convinced by the pandering spin the article's author believes Rand has omitted, and that we need in order to make the ideas non jarring, i.e. non thought provoking. Shallow statements about Capitalism yielding the most for the greatest many were hardly original back then and it is questionable whether these adopters would have been swayed by such "arguments" alone.
Today, it may indeed be an opportune time for emphasizing the message that not only is Capitalism the only moral system, it is also the most productive, raising the standards of human living more than any other system …. a point Rand made repeatedly when referring to the early years of the United States. But this new message could not begin to pay dividends without the substantive defense created by Rand. But in today's dominantly altruistic society, if one walks into any serious debate wearing only the weak protection of the utility argument, the altruists will eat you alive. In such a case, one desperately needs Ayn Rand to decimate your opponent's arguments.
Regarding the naive comment made in the article to Rand's insistence on the folly of altruism tending to invalidate the utility message of Capitalsim, see above and realize that claiming altruism to be false is not the equivalent of being against people's successes. Rand, more than anyone, had a benevolent view of man and wanted the system where every man could succeed to the fullest of his abilities.
If one reads Rand's critique of altruism one will realize that its goal is not kindness and what it achieves is the exact opposite. She understood that altruism stands firmly in the way of achieving any lasting Capitalist society. Two of her quotes on altruism:
"Every major horror of history was committed in the name of an altruistic motive." and "If any civilization is to survive, it is the morality of altruism that men have to reject."
Rand exposes altruism for the evil social system that it really is in The Virtue of Selfishness and demonstrates how such a morality is incompatible with achieving Capitalism in America in her book Capitalism: The Unkown Ideal. Ayn Rand Bookstore
In conclusion, I have to wonder why the author of that article needed to involve and criticize Ayn Rand to make the point she is making, she could have easily wrote a much more convincing article citing all the ways in which free markets really do produce the most for the greatest many, and prescribed her strategy for getting that message out to help people on the fence, maybe considering Capitalism's benefits. But introducing Ayn Rand and claiming she might not have done enough seems like nothing more than an attempt to leverage Rand's enormously popularity.
