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.
I look forward to when Atlas Shrugged is a best-seller in China and Russia.
and still atlas shrugged. how is it that capitalism is a good thing sir? remember bophal?
ReplyDeletei take it the karl may novels are the best sellers in russia and china long before ayn rand's book is.
ReplyDeleteThanks for stopping by and taking the time to comment.
ReplyDeleteI mentioned free enterprise, not capitalism. The latter term, I think, has lost its meaning. There is no economy, once you get past barter, that does not depend on a medium of exchange, i.e., capital. What people usually mean when they refer to "capitalism" is corporatism, which is actually inimical to free enterprise. I worked for a major corporation for a quarter-century. I used to remark that working there was a lot like living in the Soviet Union.
Yeah, that's just what they need in India, more specious arguments for walling off the superior individuals -- what was it someone called them? übermenschen? -- in gated communities from the common herd. Too bad in India they revere their cows; perhaps they could barter them and put into practice that delicate distinction between free enterprise and capitalism.
ReplyDeleteWorking in a major corporation is hardly a unique accomplishment in this country; hundreds of millions have done it over the decades -- much of the entire working populace, in fact. If any of them had ever also worked in the Soviet Union, I'm sure they would say there is no comparison.
Don't they already pretty much hew to Randian principles in China and Russia, though? In China, at least.
ReplyDeleteI don't quite follow, Ivanhoe. Is there no comparison between life in the Soviet Union and working for a corporation because one is so much better than the other - and which one, your view, would that be? I can tell you this: A lot of the problems besetting newspapers today derive from corporate management that made procedure an end in itself, that was incapable of innovation, and that cut costs for no other reason that to inflate profits and boost the stock price, so the corporate honchos could make out like bandits via generous stock options. I do not know as much as about India as you seem to, so I will refrain from giving them advice as to what Indians should read or do.
ReplyDeleteIvanhoe, I am an Indian and am not sure what you are trying to say. It is fine if you don't like Rand but what exactly is the link between that and Indians respecting cows, and how is objectivism promoting Übermensch?
ReplyDeleteAs regards the article itself, I am not sure we can speak about Indians' reading preferences based on a rather selective database. Ayn Rand does seem to be first book picked by young English-reading Indians in a country were literature is virtually
absent from public life. That may be partly attributable to the fact
that coaching institutes that prepare students for MBA entrance
recommend it heartily. And that's a large segment today because of the
craze for an MBA. But this leaves out the large readership in languages such as Bengali, where Mahasweta Devi remains a formidable
presence, one whose message is quite opposite to Rand's. (She is a
leftist writer.)
Also, the article does not quite justify its claims based on the
numbers it quotes. Chetan Bhagat is another writer who sells that kind
of numbers and he talks about life in India's premier business and
engineering schools. His books are completely apolitical and sell only
because they present a slice of life that's instantly relatable. The
basic fact of Fountainhead's popularity may have to do with how Roark will always hold some attraction to the youth, and not India's rising capitalism per se.
Vikram Johri makes good points.
ReplyDeleteI would add: I wonder if there is a subconscious pull from Rand—who has indeed often appealed to adolescents trying to define themselves, especially define themselves as special or different—towards the thinking behind the caste system. I can see this perhaps in two apparently contradictory ways: 1. an appeal to someone coming from an upper caste in that Rand supports the innate idea of superiority; and 2. an appeal to the lowest castes, as Rand also appears to support the ideals of meritocracy. (In fact, Rand does not support the idea of meritocracy, but some have read her that way, if only superficially.)
I quote from Art: "I wonder if there is a subconscious pull from Rand . . . towards the thinking behind the caste system. I can see this perhaps in two apparently contradictory ways: 1. an appeal to someone coming from an upper caste in that Rand supports the innate idea of superiority. . . ."
ReplyDeleteThis is the serious flaw in India's capitalistic democracy. Those who are making it in the economic surge of recent years seem to have little regard for the greater society beyond them, and so pull themselves off into gated communities with the better schools, better services, better everything. Because they deserve it. If they've discovered Rand, it'll only exacerbate such shameful übermensch self-regard.
That is what makes -- or made -- the United States a better democracy, that we largely disowned such narrow thinking, first because it is immoral and second because it is destructive of future progress (and democracy). Of course, we have always had great class divisions, expressed in vulgar displays of wealth and discrimination against the poor, but the revolutionary impulse throughout our history was always toward egalitarianism. I am forced to admit, however, that we seem to be abandoning such noble principles.
As for the cows comment, that was just to mock the specious distinction drawn between free enterprise and capitalism. It wasn't very good and I'm not surprised it didn't work. Which is not to say that there IS a distinction between free enterprise and capitalism; if there is, it is so minor as to need a microscope to discern.
Of course, there is a distinction between free enterprise and capitalism. The latter refers, fundamentally, to the convenience of money. Those who would take the control of that convenience away from individuals are the ones who tacked an "ism" onto the word "capital". Free enterprise refers to the freedom of individuals to possess what they earn and to engage in economic exchanges with other free individuals. The Soviet Union was not a communist state. Its system was one of state capitalism. Which is the point. To concentrate capital in the hands of an elite few, be they bureaucrats or corporate honchos, is for that elite to exercise tyranny over everyone else, since, if you are not free economically, you are not free, period. If you are not in favor of free enterprise, Ivanhoe, you must presumably favor some variety of unfree enterprise.
ReplyDeleteJaysus, what a load of claptrap that is, to be sure. Words self-defined by their user, distinctions without a difference, a Soviet Union that was not communist but capitalist. Are we in Wonderland with the White Rabbit? Or in Oz with a Wizard protecting his self-importance with a fog-machine of portentous-sounding words signifying nothing. Here's a flash for you: Capital has been concentrated in the hands of an elite few practitioners of free enterprise in this country practically since the days of the first Indian-robbers. If you've got free enterprise, you've got capitalism. Not that I advocate some other economic system. But we shouldn't go around fooling ourselves that things will be better if, Wonderland-like, we define words the way we like.
ReplyDeleteSelf-defining what capital means? Look the bloody word up.
ReplyDeleteAlso, polish up the reading comprehension skills: I think I made it clear that concentraing wealth in the hands a few, whether bureaucrats or corporate honchos, is not free enterprise. Got that? The idea is to have the capital and the means of production as widely distributed as possible.And speaking of robbers, the origin of the state has been traced, not to any social contract, but to marauding brigands. Finally, please put forth whatever it may be, if anything, that you are arguing on behalf of.
Funny. You're making a distinction between Indian democracy and US democracy that isn't really there, to criticize the one while praising the other. In fact, uncontrolled and unregulated free enterprise (harking back to Adam Smith et al., and as demonstrated by Alan Greenspan's recent retraction of his own free market ideologies) is harmful to whatever culture it's allowed to exist in, and gather resources to itself regardless of social consequences. The issue is that uncontrolled capital acquisition tends to concentrate wealth in a small group and leave everyone else out in the cold.
ReplyDeleteAs for India, there are aspects of Indian culture that most Westerners still consistently fail to understand. Most of them are rooted in the subcontinent's social history. But then, I don't expect much, as most Americans remain ignorant of even their OWN history.
Thank you, Frank and Art, for making the excellent point that what is needed is socialism to, as Frank says, "have the capital and the means of production as widely distributed as possible," and, as Art says, to thwart the "uncontrolled capital acquisition [that] tends to concentrate wealth in a small group and leave everyone else out in the cold." A card-carrying Social Democrat could not have done better. It is, of course, totally contrary to everything Ayn Rand stood for.
ReplyDeleteSorry, Ivanhoe, you still have it wrong. Yes, as Art says, "uncontrolled capital acquisition tends to concentrate wealth in a small group." So the government certainly has role to play in any economy. We have a government to protect us from people who would break into our homes, attack us on the street, etc. The government d=should also serve as a referee in matters economic. But socialism does not mean distributing capital and the means of production as widely as possible. It means placing them under the control of the government. And that happens to be state capitalism, if you will. If anybody is looking for an ideal economy where no dishonesty occurs and everybody has exactly what they need when they need it, they're on the wrong planet.Those things are never going to disappear, anymore than crime is. The point is to minimize them. As for Alan Greenspan, a courtier if ever there was one. Don't look to such for mere intellectual consistency, let alone principle. BTW, we all seem to agree that economic concentrations are a bad thing. The difference seems to be that I do not have any naive faith in the benevolence of the state. Maybe because I actually worked for the federal government once. And I worked in a presidential campaign. I've seen how the sausage is made.
ReplyDelete