Howard Roark in New Delhi

The surprising popularity of a libertarian hero in India.

BY JENNIFER BURNS | NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2009

Consumer spending in the United States may be down, but an interest in Ayn Rand certainly is not. Sales of Rand's last novel, the vigorously pro-capitalism fable Atlas Shrugged, have seen a huge leap in 2009, briefly outperforming even President Barack Obama's The Audacity of Hope on Amazon's best-seller list. Few 1,000-page, half-century-old tomes can claim so much.

Related

English Spoken Here

How globalization is changing the Indian novel.

By Chandrahas Choudhury

At tea parties and town halls nationwide, amid outrage over government bailouts of Wall Street banks and Detroit carmakers and the supposed socialization of health care, protesters speak of "going Galt," refusing to work in what they see as a socialist economy, just as Rand's hero John Galt did. Even the mea culpa of Rand's most famous fan and follower, former U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, has done little to dent the appeal of her radical individualism and libertarianism, which Rand shaped into a philosophy she called Objectivism. But all this makes a certain amount of sense. Perhaps more surprising is the Ayn Rand boom that is building in another mass democracy: India.

Not only do Indians perform more Google searches for Rand than citizens of any country in the world except the United States, but Penguin Books India has sold an impressive number of copies -- as many as 50,000 of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead each since 2005, a number comparable to sales there by global best-seller John Grisham. And that's not counting the ubiquitous pirated copies of her works that are hawked at rickety street stalls, sidewalk piles, and bus stations -- an honor that Rand, a fierce defender of intellectual property rights, probably would not have appreciated.

As modern India continues to undergo seismic economic and cultural shifts, not to mention the current global recession, Rand is emerging as a touchstone for a new generation. For many Indians, she is a tonic of modernization, helping to inspire a break with India's collectivist, socialist past. Rand's mixture of capitalist boosterism and self-empowerment is an irresistible combination for a range of Indians, from think-tankers to corporate barons to pop stars.

Rand's celebration of independence and personal autonomy has proven to be powerfully subversive in a culture that places great emphasis on conforming to the dictates of family, religion, and tradition. Gargi Rawat, a correspondent and news anchor for top tv channel ndtv and a former Rand admirer, says Rand's theory of the supremacy of reason and the virtue of selfishness adds up to "the antithesis" of Indian culture, which explains the attraction for Rawat in her youth and for many rebellious Indian teens today.

Unlike in the United States, Rand's most popular novel in India-anecdotally at least-is not the overtly political Atlas Shrugged, but her earlier novel, The Fountainhead, in which Rand's political views are muted. The novel tells the story of Howard Roark, an architect who refuses to compromise his designs for clients or the public in a heroic expression of personal will. It is Rand's most accessible work, and also the one that makes the strongest emotional appeal to those who feel suppressed by attempts to put the collective ahead of the individual.

 

Jennifer Burns is assistant professor of history at the University of Virginia and author of Goddess of the Market: Ayn Rand and the American Right.

Facebook|Twitter|Digg
 SUBJECTS:

DR TRITON SOL

1:28 AM ET

October 19, 2009

Objectivism is Coming

First of, I'd like to thank Dr. Burns for writing her biography of Rand. I must say, I was surprised at the level of scholarship Dr. Burns displayed (as well as the even handedness).

I am a "leftist" and, as I have written in my other places, I am deeply concerned about the lefts response to Ayn Rand.

Smears and thumb-nosing will work for some time. Meanwhile, the "Objectivists" are landing philosophers in the USA's top philosophy departments and the "Ayn Rand Institute" continues to grow at a rapid pace.

If you are interested in preventing the type of society Rand envisioned than it is time to engage the arguments coming from Objectivists.

 

ROARK

6:02 PM ET

October 19, 2009

Objectivism is Coming

Dr Triton Sol, I'd like to thank you for your clearly written comment

I appreciate the fact that you recognize your enemy and that we are at opposite ends of the spectrum. People are seeing the results of collectivism and Objectivism is indeed gaining momentum as a result. Let the thinking individual evalute our positions and then decide for themselves between the collectivism of your view and the individualism of ours. The Ayn Rand Institute is the best place to start.

 

RITU

2:55 PM ET

October 19, 2009

Howard Roark was not a libertarian

Dear Dr. Burns,

Howard Roark was not a libertarian, and neither was Ayn Rand. In fact, Rand despised libertarianism for stealing her ideas and lacking principles. Libertarianism stands for nothing. It comprises of individuals who want freedom from many things, ranging from child molestation laws to the FBI.

The political party is a mixed bag of ideas with no principles on which to stand. Libertarians all want liberty, but liberty from what? They have no principles to answer this question. That is why on one hand you have Ron Paul who espouses American non-interventionism, a policy which Ayn Rand vehemently rejected, and on the other hand, you have the lunatic who wants to be able to freely fornicate in public. Both call themselves libertarian, and Ayn Rand would denounce both. Even in the Libertarian party, there are those who are for abortion and those who are against it, those who are for immigration and those who are against it, and those who respect intellectual property and those who don’t. These irreconcilable beliefs all fall under the umbrella of “libertarianism.”

Given your almost decade long research into Ayn Rand's life and ideas, I would think you would have come across her hatred of libertarianism and realized that this was not a minor issue for her.

In any case, here is a link that describes how Ayn Rand (in her own words) felt about libertarianism.

http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=education_campus_libertarians

 

PIOTR WADAS

6:13 PM ET

October 19, 2009

the point

The point is, that, regarding political, or conceptual viewpoint,
there's no such thing as "group of individuals" for the same - nomen omen - reason, for which there's no "democratic communism" - look at China.
One can actually use anything, including Rand's books, to claim
any-other-thing, but it does not make any-other-thing true. I've
read a few weeks ago an article, where author seriously
claimed that quantum physics had proved, that there's no
table and chair. Alan Greenspan can proclaim himself a Rand follower,
no matter what she would say about mortgages and government loans.
Remember this, considering "global movements", etc.

 

MANOJ MEHTA

2:09 AM ET

October 20, 2009

Manoj Mehta

The excesses of both capitalism and socialism have a highest common factor – man’s lust for greed and power. Unbridled capitalism leads to uncontrolled greed which in turn leads to a divide between classes of populace which ultimately causes breakdown of capitalism itself. Socialism recognizes the handicap of poor masses to start with, assumes and vests power with a small oligarchy, ostensibly for the common good of the society, allows power to corrupt itself, creates hidden pockets of affluence, employs more power to quell the protests of the masses and silence dissidence, ultimately collapses under the weight of the public glare and a dysfunctional administration.
The world will continue to suffer the oscillation caused by the excesses of both the above political systems.
It would still be meaningful to attempt to find which of the two is less harmful to mankind’s progress, and to the middle classes which are generally piggybacked by the rich and the super rich.

 

KARENYKARL

9:54 AM ET

October 20, 2009

Damn that BJP

BJP is everything and all you need to know about Ayn Rand in India.

 

ROBERTEDWARDJ25

4:44 PM ET

October 20, 2009

From an American Randroid on Rand, Swatantra, "Rajiv Reagan" etc

1. As I started my own "rightward" evolution back in Junior High School in the early 1970s (my parents were moderate Democrats and Southern Baptists), I heard of a party in India called the Swatantra party. As I later came to discover, it was the Sanskrit word for FREEDOM (similar to Swoboda in Russian, etc.) Later, in grad school in the 1980s, I saw some Swatantra Party convention schedules in the University of Chicago Regenstein Library. I also met a fellow there in the Business School who had been in Students of Objectivism in Bombay. So Rand's philosophy, and the idea of FREEDOM (whether you are more into the Objectivist variant of it or some other libertarian flavor) has always been around in India, but clearly got stronger after Rajiv Gandhi (aka "Rajiv Reagan") and much later the BJP (though their own views seem more clouded with Hindu fundamentalism and of course militaristic nationalism as symbolized by the nuclear test when they came to power, just as the US Republican Party has its Christian Fundies and neocon militarists).
2. In my own case, I became a libertarian politically the summer before 11th grade, became an Objectivist (i.e., full-blown atheist) during my last three years at Princeton, eventually came to believe in non-testable hypotheses again somewhat after college, but will always admire Rand not only as a writer who gave me (and continues to give me) a call to rise, but whose non-political aspects of her philosophy left an indelible imprint on me forever.
3.. I'm not sure that I'd agree with Manoj that capitalism leads to class war in the sense of consolidating the power of the wealthy - except by the power of government. I'd instead offer that it's usually capitalism that ERODES the power of "first families" and creates new ones (goodbye Rockefellers, Mellons, etc. hello Waltons, Gates, etc.).
4.. To Piotr, I'd say that while I agree that Greenspan, especially towards the end, sort of "sold out" (i.e, went ahead with "cheap money" as a solution during W's administration) I think he deserves some credit for largely sticking to a k% growth rule a la Lucas and thus holding down price inflation to low single digits.
5.. To Ritu, I'd agree that Rand called libertarians "emotional hippies of the right" and that she accused them of "plagiarizing" "her" ideas. But, indeed, Rand was more synthetic than original as a philosopher, and the fact that she claimed to owe a large debt to Aristotle doesn't mean that she "plagiarized" Aristotle any more than libertarians "plagiarized" her political philosophy. Indeed, I seem to recall limited government predating Rand's birth by many decades, going back to Adam Smith, etc. Moreover, libertarianism - and clearly, Rand was a libertarian politically whether she would have admitted it or not - MERELY speaks to the role of government and isn't SUPPOSED to imply a view on metaphysica, epistemology, or ethics. That's one reason politics makes strange bedfellows, and should. It's also not a "failing" of libertarians that on some issues, they disagree, usually where there's a question concerning when life begins, when rationality begins, etc. Some might also argue that on her more idiotic foreign policy pronouncements, Rand was inconsistent with her own philosophy, just as she was when she "borrowed" other women's husbands.
6. Dr. Sol is right to recognize that "Objectivism is coming" and indeed, libertarianism is coming even faster and stronger. I hope he'll decide to "go with the flow" rather as Bill Clinton was forced to do on economic policy once the Contract with America took hold in 1994. To mutate (though hopefully not mutilate?) a favorite part of my favorite novel by my favorite authoress, sometimes it's like "rape by engraved invitation" - it's better to just lie back and enjoy it >:-)

 

MANOJ MEHTA

11:27 PM ET

October 20, 2009

A Small Rejoinder

Hi Robert, I never meant "capitalism leads to class war...". I meant and I still do that the excesses of capitalism leads to a class divide as much as excesses of socilaism leads to an oligarchic state with power being abused by a handful. Just the same, I admire your interest in Ayn Rand, somewhat dubious I now suspect, which extends beyond an objective study of her works, into her private life.

 

MIKELM

12:28 AM ET

October 27, 2009

"Moreover, libertarianism -

"Moreover, libertarianism - and clearly, Rand was a libertarian politically whether she would have admitted it or not - MERELY speaks to the role of government and isn't SUPPOSED to imply a view on metaphysica, epistemology, or ethics. That's one reason politics makes strange bedfellows, and should."

What a beautiful view of the chasm between libertarianism and Objectivism. It admits that libertarianism posits a politics with no context, that is a good with no standard, a conclusion for no reason. It rips politics from philosophy to be practiced in a vacuum. Then it pretends to be proud of the resulting chaos of contradictions that gather under its tent.

Whether they like it or not, politics is the extension of ethics in the context of the life of an individual into the context of the individual's life in a society of other individuals. Politics is the subordination of a society of men to ethics. Rand's radical capitalism is the inescapable conclusion that follows from recognizing man's nature. Specifically, that men must apply their reason to their actions to produce the values necessary in the service of their life or they will cease to exist. Furthermore, as volitional and hence fallible creatures, all men must be free from the fallibility of each other in choosing how they will apply reason to action as well as how they will dispose of the product.

In brief, that is the reason for the existence of this principle that summarizes what a capitalist government must enforce:

No person shall initiate the use of physical force to gain, withhold, or destroy any tangible or intangible value of another person who either created it or acquired it in a voluntary exchange.

This moral mandate is the limitation on government that did not predate Ayn Rand.

This is the politics that does and must imply an ethics, because there is no such thing as a politics that does not imply an ethics; and the only ethics that has ever demanded that all human interrelationships be voluntary is the Objectivist ethics. When Rand accused the libertarians of plagiarism, she meant that they dishonestly make use of the politics while pretending that its ethical source does not exist.

 

ANNAN AMOS

5:57 PM ET

October 20, 2009

A few Rand myths

A few Rand myths that should probably be dispelled:
As far as "Saint Ronnie" is concerned, he was a fan - but he certainly didn't live up to very much that Ayn Rand was all about. Ayn Rand actually held the belief that the conservatives would kill us before the liberals would, and between Reagan, The Bushes, Cheney, and McCain - she was right. Also, Reagan and the so-called conservatives that came after him are not actually true laissez-faire capitalists - they are actually corporatists, which is a form of fascism. As ardent an anti-socialist/communist as she was, she was equally an anti-fascist. Good government does not intervene on behalf of anyone - it gets out of the way, essentially.
Also, Ayn and the Libertarians: she broke with them almost from the very get go. Libertarianism, though it certainly very closely linked, in fact almost identical at times, with Objectivism, she wasn't a huge fan. The reason why is that the Libertarian Party, as it were, is more mainstream refuge for anarchists, religious fundamentalist fascist, and also a racist contingent. She saw that potential, whereas Objectivism makes no room for those factions. Objectivism rejects anarchy as being irrational and unobjective, and racism as being simply an irrational and uglier form of collectivism. As far as the religious faction of the libertarian party...well, Rand's views on religion are pretty well known at this point.

 

RIPLEY

10:31 PM ET

November 4, 2009

yawn..

about sums up Rand. Crying against control and for personal freedom when she herself would not allow or try to at any rate allow others to have it in her own personal life. She tried to rule with an iron fist.and was distraught when she failed .

her virtues of selfishness hypocritical when she took on a lover expecting her husband to understand as well as her lover to understand she would not leave her husband. yet when her lover left her for another all hell broke loose. she could not live by her own dictum.

a mediocre writer with a philosophy that the young , gullible and unread gravitate too. That without the ignorant masses there is no elite ! There is no creative without those who are not so.

let Galt go . who cares who he is ? one thing he is ? replaceable. easily.