Hi there, Alistair here. Let me quickly tell you about something super exciting. Registrations
are now open for our 5 star rated course The Mules. We offered this course in autumn
last year and it was a huge success with hundreds of people from all over the world taking
part and leaving amazing reviews. So I'm thrilled to tell you that we are running it again.
The Mules will be open for a week and the course is going to start on Monday, July 1st.
Now what is The Mules you might be thinking? Well it is a new story based course that combines
the magic of a professionally produced audio drama with English language lessons. It will
all take place over the course of 30 days. So every day you'll get a new chapter of the
story as well as a video lesson taught by me, complete with a quiz, transcripts,
kivokabri lists and more. Hundreds of curious independent learners have taken it already and loved it.
I think you will love it and I would love to see you in the course. You can find a link to
register in the show notes for this episode and remember you will need to register by midnight
on Sunday June 30th to take part. Right, that is it from me. Now it's time to enjoy this episode.
Hello, hello, hello and welcome to English Learning for Curious Mines by Leonardo English.
The show where you can listen to fascinating stories and learn weird and wonderful things
about the world at the same time as improving your English. I'm Alistair Budge and today is the
third part in our three part philosophical miniseries. In case you missed them, in part one we learned
about the philosopher king or perhaps more aptly the philosopher emperor Marcus Orrelius.
In part two, which was one of our member only episodes, we learned about one of the grompiest
and most pessimistic men toward the earth, the 19th century German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer.
And in our final episode, part three, we are going to talk about the controversial 20th century author
and philosopher Ein Rand. To some, she is a voice of reason. The only person prepared to articulate
the truth of how people really see the world. To others, she offers a misguided and foolish
interpretation of humanity, one in which there is no love, compassion or charity, only selfish
self-interest. So let's get right into it and learn about the queen of capitalism Ein Rand.
What is the meaning of life? We've talked about this a lot in this miniseries. And of course it's
a question that thinkers and philosophers have grappled with for centuries, are still grappling
with today and will continue to grapple with until the end of time. If you asked Marcus Orrelius,
he would probably have said something like, to live a virtuous life in accordance with the rules
of nature. If you asked Arthur Schopenhauer, if he hadn't simply walked away or looked down at you
like you were wasting his time, he might respond by telling you that life has no meaning, only death.
If you asked Karl Marx, he would probably say something like solidarity between men,
plus struggle and self-realisation through labour. If you asked Ein Rand, however, you would get a
very different answer. The meaning of life, according to Rand, was a rational self-interest,
doing whatever was best for you as an individual, free of interference from others. You might think,
well, that doesn't sound so controversial, doing what is best for me doesn't sound like such a
terrible way to live my life. But the controversy and radicalism in Rand's philosophy was the extent
to which she took this to its logical extreme. For Rand, the individual came at the centre of
everything. This meant that any external requests on the individual were wrong. Nobody should tell
anybody else how to live their life, or force them to do anything that they didn't want,
because the individual needed to put their own interests first.
Now, we'll get to the intricacies of this philosophy in a minute, and what it means from a practical
basis. But let me first give you some background to Ein Rand. Like Marcus Aurelis, and certainly like
Arthur Schopenhauer, it is not difficult to see how their life experience shaped their view of
the world. Ein Rand, as you might have guessed, wasn't her real name. It was Alice O'Connor. And even
that wasn't her birth name. It was Aliza Zinoviena Rosenbaum. She was born in Russia in 1905 to a
bourgeois Jewish family. Now, Russia at the start of the 20th century wasn't a great place to be.
It was a particularly bad place to be a Jew, and it was an even worse place to be a Jew from a
bourgeois family, as Ein Rand was. There was a new wave of anti-Semitic pogroms, riots against
Jewish people, which went on from 1903 to 1906. And then in 1917, the Rosenbaum's family life was
turned upside down after the Russian Revolution, which did not turn out well for the Russian bourgeoisie.
Her family's pharmacy was nationalized. Her family had to flee, and, like tens of millions of
other Russians at the time, she endured terrible hardship, poverty and starvation, as communist
Russia started its experiment with collectivism. And in 1926, she arrived in America. She had been
given a visa to visit relatives, but she had no intention of returning to her country of birth.
Her real plan was to escape and become a screenwriter. This was the early days of Hollywood,
and Ein Rand was intent on hitting it big. The first problem was one I imagine you might be
familiar with. She needed to work on her English. She took an English course and made her way out
west to Hollywood, where after a few years of rejection, she found some success.
In 1935, after managing to sell a script to Broadway, she started work on what would become her
first major commercial success, and outline her philosophy. It was called The Fountainhead,
and was rejected by 12 different publishing houses before eventually being published in 1943.
The novel follows the story of a heroic architect, Howard Rock, and explores his struggles between
conformity and independence. It isn't a philosophical treatise, a manifesto, but a novel through which
Rand presents her philosophy, a way of viewing the world, which would come to be called Objectivism.
It was an immediate success, a cult hit, but soon after she got to work on her new book,
the even more successful and controversial Atlas Shrunked, which was eventually published in 1957.
Atlas Shrunked was even longer, 1,200 pages, and further developed the themes that she had touched on
in The Fountainhead. Principally, individualism, property rights, the role of government,
libertarianism, and capitalism. It was to be her magnum office, her greatest work, but it was not
universally well received. One critic described it as a thousand pages of ideological fabulism,
while another called it unpleasant, dafth, and deeply flawed. But it was a great success commercially,
selling millions of copies, and turning Rand into a rich and successful author.
After its publication, she focused on developing her philosophy rather than writing more fiction,
dedicating her life selfishly, to furthering her ideas. So, what did Rand believe?
What were some of the core ideas of Objectivism, and where did these come from?
The first point is that reality exists independently of consciousness, that there is an objective reality
external to the mind. The world is not how we think it is with everyone experiencing a slightly
different reality. There is an objective reality, away the world is, that doesn't require anyone to
take anything for granted. Secondly, the way we should understand this world is through reason.
Man needs to think and act rationally according to the reality that is in front of him.
And what does this mean in practice? It means rational self-interest, acting according to your
best interests. Sacrificing your interests for others, or the collective, is considered immoral, wrong.
At the centre of everything should come the individual, the single human being.
No group should have any claim over the rights of any individual. Nobody should be able to force
anyone else to do anything that is not in their best interest. Now, this has all been quite
theoretical. So, what would this mean in practice? What would a world look like in which objectivism
rained supreme? It would be the most extreme form of laissez-faire capitalism, a society in which
economics and state are separated, and where there is zero government interference in the affairs of
the individual. Taxation is a form of theft according to Rand, because it forces the individual to
give up something that is theirs, their money, in order to benefit other people. Taxation is by
default, not in the best interest of the individual, and therefore tax is morally wrong,
according to Rand, at least. Now, if there is no taxation, who pays for the things that
governments typically provide for their citizens, you might be asking? Well, the individual,
because that person will act in their own best interest. If you drive a car on the road,
you pay a toll. If you want to borrow a book from a library, you pay a fee. If you get ill,
you pay the doctor. You would only pay for what was in your best interest, not a penny more,
and not a penny less. Rand did argue that there needed to be some form of government,
but in objectivism, its function was reduced to purely law and order, enforcing property rights,
protecting citizens from crime, and protecting the nation from foreign invaders.
What an ideal society looked like in Ransize was one with practically zero state interference,
and unbridled free market capitalism. After all, capitalism by default rewards self-interest.
People buy products and services because they have a selfish desire for them. You buy bread
because you are hungry and you want to eat it. You buy an English course because you want to
improve your English. You buy a family holiday because you want to sit on a beach or visit
a new country or do whatever it is that you want to do. Capitalism encourages people to produce
things that people want to buy. You might think that some of these things are morally questionable,
whether it's gambling, alcohol, cigarettes, or even heroin. But there is a clear demand for it.
People are acting in their own self-interest, and therefore they should be allowed to do whatever
it is they want. Capitalism is not just the superior economic system. It is morally right,
according to Objectivism. Now, for someone to propose this position with such conviction and integrity
was something of a novelty, and as you might expect, it was controversial.
In a 1959 interview, Ein Rand was introduced as an intellectual who was involved in a new and
unusual philosophy which was seemed to strike at the very roots of our society. And clearly it did.
Most societies around the world, regardless of religion or culture, tend to include some kind
of expectation that people with more support those with less, which typically happens through
taxation. Rand rejected this, dismissing it as altruistic and morally wrong, because it was not
in irrational self-interest of the individual. She also, as you might imagine, completely dismissed
faith and religion. There was none, Rand said. The world is objectively as it is, and to pretend that
there is some divine being, a god, that controls everything is not simply misguided. It is not
backed up by any evidence. Now, in terms of her impact, it has been vast. Atlas Shrugged has sold
10 million copies, and as of 2022, more than 37 million copies of her writing have been sold worldwide.
Her critics, disparagingly suggest that she is most popular with teenage boys, who read
Atlas Shrugged and avidly adopt her worldview, only to realize its impracticality as they grow up.
Or to tell you a popular wise crack, a joke about Ein Rand, there are two books a lot of
boys discover when they are in their early teams. Atlas Shrugged and the Lord of the Rings.
One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes,
leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world.
The other is Lord of the Rings. The idea is that Ein Rand presents a view of the world that
seems to just click for certain people. It is a simple and utterly rational explanation,
breaking everything down to first principles, and it doesn't require anyone to believe anything
that they cannot see with their own eyes. But the morality and worldview that Rand presents
is simply unworkable, in a world in which altruism and compassion are considered to be virtues,
regardless of religious or cultural background. We've had tens of thousands of years of human
society, in which communities have independently converged around the idea that it is a good thing
to care for others. And to Rand's critics, even if she has a rational explanation for why
self-interest should always come first, most people reject this idea. Nevertheless, she has plenty
of fans who are not teenage boys. Alan Greenspan, the former chairman of the US Federal Reserve,
was a close friend of Rand's. The tax-cutting former president, Ronald Reagan,
wrote to a friend that he was a fan of Rand's ideas, and she continues to be cited by many US
Republicans today. Her ideas have never been fully embraced to the extent that she advocated for,
but they have certainly had an impact on business people and policymakers all over the world.
On the flip side, to her critics, who are primarily found on the political left, but can also be found
on the right. She is a pariah, a dangerous and compassionless individual who presents the
antithesis of a happy, healthy society. What kind of world would it be, her critics argue? If there
is no sense of society as a whole, just a collection of individuals acting in their own self-interest.
There would be no public health system, no public education, no public infrastructure, no government
regulation. Not only would it be a morally bankrupt society, but it would lead to the collapse
of society, a dystopia where the rich and powerful grow more rich and powerful, and those without
money or power are left with nothing. The social contract we all implicitly engage in by paying
taxes and a paying government laws, keeps society aflut. Tax pay-amoney goes towards supporting
those who are less able to support themselves, and government legislation exists to protect
individuals from the worst excesses of capitalism, so the argument goes. Both to her critics and her
greatest supporters, there seems to be little middle ground. Rans most ardent supporters tend to reject
any criticism of her ideals, arguing that objectivism is a world view that you embrace in totality,
or not at all. Which, to be fair, is a rans position. Objectivism provides a framework for seeing
the world and making decisions, and if you use a framework, you can't pick and choose, that isn't
rational. On a personal level, I and Rand was able to find the occasional compromise, or at least
find reasons for what other people would claim was a compromise. She was a heavy smoker
her entire life, and in her late 60s she was diagnosed with lung cancer. Her treatment was expensive,
and although she'd made a lot of money through book sales, it all went on healthcare bills.
She was practically broke, and she needed help from the state.
She initially rejected social security benefits and Medicare, the state provided pension
and healthcare, as this went against everything she believed in. But she then changed her mind,
as she'd been paying in her entire life through government-mandated taxes, so now is her time to
take something out. It wasn't charity, it was rational. I and Rand died in 1982, at the age of 77.
42 years have passed, but she has just as many followers and is just as controversial in 2024,
as when she was alive. One thing is for sure. She was a visionary, she presented a completely
different way of seeing the world, an utterly new blueprint for the meaning of life.
And whether you agree with it or not, on that basis alone, she deserves to be discussed and remembered.
Okay then, that is it for today's episode on Iron Rand, the unashamed champion of free market
capitalism and the founder of Objectivism. And with that comes the end of this philosophical
mini-series, in case you missed them, part one was on Marcus Aurelius and part two, which was one
of our member only ones, was on Arthur Schopenhau. As always, I would love to know what you thought about
this episode, have you read any Iron Rand? What do you think of her work? Would you like to live in
the kind of society she championed? I would love to know, so let's get this discussion started.
For the members among you, you can head right into our community forum, which is at
community.leanarloenglish.com and get chatting away to other curious minds. And as a final reminder,
if you enjoy this episode and you are wondering where to get all of our bonus episodes,
like part two of this mini-series, plus the interactive transcripts, subtitles and
keyword cabbary, then the place to go for that isleanarloenglish.com. And if you aren't yet ready to become a member,
but you would like to do something to support the show, then I would love for you to think about
leaving a review or a star rating on your favourite podcast app. It takes less than 30 seconds to do,
but they are super helpful and each one brings a smile to my face. You've been listening to English
learning for curious minds byleanarloenglish. I'm Alistair Bunch, you stay safe and I'll catch you
in the next episode.
