Why I loathe Ayn Rand and you should too
Written by Matt D. Harris, LPWV Chairman
Many in the liberty movement worship and idolize Ayn Rand, author of The Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged, and a myriad of other novels and shorts. Ms. Rand, however, hated the liberty movement and the Libertarian Party in particular. Rand was particularly critical of the LP’s presidential candidates running in opposition to Nixon and Reagan, as she was herself both a staunch Republican and advocate of authoritarian statism. Unlike what many believe, Rand in fact believed that a strict authoritarian state with dictatorial powers was the best way to impose her brand of objectivism and capitalism on the unwashed masses. In fact, it’s quite clear that Rand in fact loathed the productive class of society in general.
Rand is quoted in “A Nation’s Unity” in 1972 as saying “ If, at a time like this, John Hospers takes ten votes away from Nixon (which I doubt he’ll do), it would be a moral crime.“ Furthermore, she goes on to state, speaking of the Libertarian Party “Capitalism is the one system that requires absolute objective law, yet they want to combine capitalism and anarchism. That is worse than anything the New Left has proposed.“ If these two quotes – an endorsement of statist president Richard Nixon, and a lambasting of anarchism while stating that capitalism requires absolute objective law, do not show you that Rand was in fact a statist, then perhaps you’re dense.
Regardless of her beliefs in statism however, perhaps you should also give consideration to her hatred for you, as libertarians. “Now here is a party that plagiarizes some of my ideas, mixes it with the exact opposite—with religionists, anarchists, and just about every intellectual misfit and scum they can find—and they call themselves Libertarians, and run for office.”, Rand stated in a 1975 interview. She makes an accusation of plagiarism (which is, in fact, quite common for Rand – even though there’s never any credible evidence thereof given whatsoever) while denouncing the Libertarian Party and libertarians. History shows that Rand never supported libertarians politically and in fact unilaterally sided with statist Republicans.
Throughout her career, Rand showed a genuine loathing for the productive classes of society – those who were not her beloved “capitalists”, but were the workers that allowed such people to do anything whatsoever. Face it – without workers, there’d be no industry. Yet while claiming moral superiority, Rand lambasted those very workers while championing the non-productive classes of society. By supporting statist Republicans, she championed the political class. In Atlas Shrugged, she clearly showed a love for the non-productive “management” class. On the other hand, her dislike for the productive class – those who actually do useful things and create useful things – was obvious in many of her writings.
Not everyone in the liberty movement cares much for the Libertarian Party, it’s true. Many of those who choose not to support the LP are in fact great activists, philosophers, thinkers, writers, and otherwise. Just because they choose not to support the LP does not make them authoritarians or statists. Rand, however, has clearly shown herself to be a statist and proponent of the useless political class in America. Her writings, thoughts, ideas,. and statist notions of capitalism ought be tossed out of our philosophy once and for all.
Ayn Rand hates you, and philosophically, you can do so much better than her drivel.
Jun302009
Tags
ballot access class class warfare democrat dp economics elections g20 g20 summit gop libertarian libertarian party lobbying lp lpac lp anarchist caucus lpwv pittsburgh pittsburgh g20 pittsburgh g20 summit republican running for office west virginia wine
I find it odd that an article with the pronoun “I” in its title is unsigned. Shouldn’t there be a byline? (I’m not arguing, pro or con, about the content.)
[...] http://www.lpwv.org/2009/06/30/why-i-loathe-ayn-rand-and-you-should-too/ [...]
Matt, I find it odd that you would take a position like this on the LP WV homepage. If I had not read Ayn Rand, (while ignoring her admittedly silly and jealous forays into real-world politics), I might never have become a L/libertarian (capitalist, jury rights, objectivist, individualist, Jeffersonian democracy, whatever…) activist. One can agree with objectivist politics (in their pure formulation) and disagree with Ayn Rand
s (and ARI’s) woefully-inconsistent application of them. Why exclude those who disagree with you? As early as 5 years ago, I would have thought it was philosophically foolish to say “I loathe Ayn Rand” on a State Libertarian Party (but the case can be made). Now, I simply think it’s strategically foolish, because objectivists can be (and are) libertarians as well. Especially the objectivists of the Nathaniel Branden variety. I strongly recommend that libertarians who are spending their time “loathing” other libertarians read the following essay by Nathaniel Branden:
http://www.theadvocates.org/library/objectivism-and-libertarianism.html
Rand was a good philosopher who helped clarify muddled thinking in many people. As such, her works are often the first step towards political clarity. That’s not something I’d want to take a stance against, even if it is and was inconsistently applied by much of her legacy. As far as a description of my allegiances, I agree most closely with Robert Heinlein, who in turn, said he “could get along with a Randite” (in his novel, “The Moon is a Harsh Mistress”). …Let’s all get along.
It is written as an opinion piece and identified as such. I see no problem with this on the homepage. It is not presented as an official stance of the LPWV.
In fact, I encourage everyone to send us your opinions and we’ll post them. It creates great discussion and provides a wide array of opinions.
I think Rand provides a good general introduction to the philosophy, but I’ve never understood the obsession with her. Her books are boring and tedious, and no way am I going to bother reading 1,200 pages of garbage.
I learned nothing from this article other than the fact that its author has some hostile emotions boiling inside of him. Are we supposed to just accept his unjustified assertions. No facts are presented in his attempt to demonstrate that Rand had a “genuine loathing for the productive classes of society.” No quotes, no argument, nothing. Also, who exactly is in the “non-productive ‘management”’class? Once again, just asserted, not defended.
Jesse, look to the Rand quotes. I’m using her own words, not my own, to make my assertions. Your arguments to the contrary just don’t stand up. Did you read all of the Rand quotes in the essay?
Here are the three Rand Quotes in the piece:
- If, at a time like this, John Hospers takes ten votes away from Nixon (which I doubt he’ll do), it would be a moral crime.
- Capitalism is the one system that requires absolute objective law, yet they want to combine capitalism and anarchism. That is worse than anything the New Left has proposed.
- Now here is a party that plagiarizes some of my ideas, mixes it with the exact opposite—with religionists, anarchists, and just about every intellectual misfit and scum they can find—and they call themselves Libertarians, and run for office.
Apparently from those quotes this conclusion is reached:
“Rand, however, has clearly shown herself to be a statist and proponent of the useless political class in America. Her writings, thoughts, ideas,. and statist notions of capitalism ought be tossed out of our philosophy once and for all.
Ayn Rand hates you, and philosophically, you can do so much better than her drivel.”
Hmm.
I reach the conclusion that she is a statist based upon her advocacy of supporting Richard Nixon for president.
I base the claim that she hates us based on her own assertions that… well, she hates us. *Us being the LP, collectively.)
Rand believed that government is necessary to protect individual rights and that anarchy would degenerate into statism. She also believed that all political systems had underlying philosophies that led to those systems and that free societies needed her rational philosophy to sustain themselves. Libertarians generally understand none of this.
Rand had no problem with the “working classes” and even pointed out that unions had at times fought for freedom more effectively than businessmen. She did believe that innovation was the product of great minds doing great things and that they should be free to do such things.
IMO, anyone who reads Atlas Shrugged and hates it is hopeless.
Mr Harris is one scary fellow and his attempts to discredit Rand only highlight the faults of the Libertarian Party. Rand was right!
This article is so full of outright lies that it is outrageous! It is heartening that so many others agree with my viewpoint. Irrationality is rife among libertarians.
I wouldn’t say he is scary because he disagrees with Rand. That is somewhat of a ludicrous position to hold.
If the article is full of outright lies you should usually use your own facts to prove them wrong. Otherwise you are just throwing out some statements without anything behind them.
While I’d agree that Ayn Rand’s fiction works were tedious reading and not that enjoyable, that doesn’t change the fact that she’s an admirable woman for her philosophy and political theories (doubly so considering her own background).
What I get from much of this article is simply that Rand had a practical side, and realized that sometimes, you have to vote for a “lesser of 2 evils” instead of tossing a vote to a 3rd. party that has a zero probability of being elected to office under the circumstances. (And as illustrated with Nixon’s election, sometimes that doesn’t work out like you hoped either.)
There’s often a big difference between small-l libertarians and people claiming allegiance to the big-L Libertarian party, too. I’d agree with Rand that anarchists and other whack-jobs who often latch onto the Libertarian party do nobody any good. (Here in my home state of Missouri, for example, we recently had some guy who insisted he be addressed as “Chief” in front of his name. He wanted to run on the Libertarian ticket, but seemed to have formulated just about NO opinions on political policy, save his enthusiasm for marijuana and other drug legalization. Every picture I ever saw of the guy showed him smoking a hooka or something, stoned off his butt. Electing those types gets nothing useful accomplished, and makes the party as a whole into a joke.)
I think the current political climate in America is FAR worse than it was in the Reagan and pre-Reagan era that Rand was referring to, also. We’re now in an era where our leaders, no matter which party they claim allegiance to, have basically the SAME agenda of advancing the New World Order. A 3rd. party is the only viable option now…. We’re past “lesser of 2 evils” discussions today.
I read Atlas Shrugged in 9th grade and it had a profound effect on me. I now recognize her folly in believing in minarchism, but I will never forget these words:
“I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live my life for the sake of another man; nor will I ever ask another man to live for mine.”
Say what you will about the woman and her politics, but the ideals in her books are of pure freedom.
Do I really need to refute the unsubstantiated accusations of Mr. Harris? I think not. His statement that “Rand in fact believed that a strict authoritarian state with dictatorial powers was the best way to impose her brand of objectivism and capitalism on the unwashed masses. In fact, it’s quite clear that Rand in fact loathed the productive class of society in general.” is totally ludicrous. Rand dedicated her life to fighting dictatorship. THAT is a fact which is beyond refutation. The “fact” that Mr. Harrris calls the working class the “productive” class postions him clearly in the camp of the leftist, class war types. His evasion of reality is typical of libertarians. I have no interest in, as “Tad” suggests presenting my own facts to refute Mr. Harris’ statements. I merely make statements and readers can accept them or not. MY position is clear. Unfortunately there IS no archetypal “libertarian”. These people have perverted the nature of freedom in their advocacy of anarchism. Libertarian “philosophy”, if it can be called that, is all over the map. Ultimately, the “party” is a failure, and will continue to be.
From The Ayn Rand Institute:
I’ll take “Hippies of The Right“, for the win.
Jack Plant, your bias is showing: “The ‘fact’ that Mr. Harrris calls the working class the ‘productive’ class postions him clearly in the camp of the leftist, class war types.”
Just what qualities do equities owners add that increases the end value of product produced by a business’ workers? Self-evidently, it is the persons who create product, who are also the productive class. Equities owners simply skim from the value of other person’s work. Capitalism and Free-Market are two very different concepts. It is proper that an entity which supplies necessary capital to a business receive a fair return on the investment, but there is nothing fair about receiving a perpetual grant of ownership to the value of others’ work product. A lifetime grant for profit from capitalisation long past, which has been paid in full with proper interest is slaveholding.
You attempt to grayscale reality with a reference intended to portray this as some sort of discredited Marxist theory in action, by using the same evil tactic of dialectics? All of this to support what you perceive to be a natural right to NeoFeudalism? Please spare me the inanity.
Mr. Plant,
It seems silly that you would call the LP a failure given that the political party which you link to, apparently founded in 2002, is non-existent other than said website. The LPWV on the other hand has in fact been very successful in myriad ways Your randroid babble is virtually worthless since you refuse to make any worthwhile statements whatsoever. Go do better than the LP with your “Freedom party international,” and then we’ll talk. I wish you nothing but the best of luck!
In the end, the lack of maturity amongst the randroids has really made me feel quite justified in terms of attacking their hero. She hated us, she hated our movement, she hated our party We do ourselves a huge disservice to idolize her.
The idea that “Equities owners simply skim from the value of other person’s work.” is a purely Marxist idea. Now we know where “pdsa” stands. As for Mr. Harris’ HE is a failure and the libertarian party is a failure and will continue to be so. Stating that “randroids” lack maturity really means nothing coming from him. Yes, Rand did hate the libertarian party, mainly because it stands for nothing and is just another attempt to evade reality. Her hatred was justified. The party does do itself a great diservice by idolizing her, if the party’s objective is the evasion of reality. And since this IS the goal of the party please have the hobnesty to say so. It is odd that “pdsa” would use quotes from the ARI that show perfectly why the libertarian party is a sham. Case proven.
I can only laugh at your inane, largely non-sensical rhetoric, Mr. Plant. Sorry, but you’ve done nothing for liberty. As far as my being a failure or success, I believe my actions and the actions of the party under my leadership speak for themselves. We’ve won a legislative battle to reduce ballot access requirements. We’ve got candidates running in 2010 here in the state, and we have made great strides towards getting them on the ballot here.
If you wish to discuss success versus failure, please let us know what your “freedom party international” has done. Unless you can prove yourself to have been more successful than we have, your statements hold no water and your opinions have no value.
You equate “success” with “political” success. By your criteria the Democrats and the Republicans are “successful”. Freedom Party rejects this notion. We believe as Rand did, that the LP has done more to hurt the cause of freedom than many of our enemies have. Your sarcasm is appreciated, I hope it helps boost your self-esteem. Every little bit helps.
Freedom Party International is not a political party. It IS affiliated with the Freedom Party of Ontario founded in 1984. FPO’s newsletter, Freedom Flyer, which illustrates much of it’s record of action from its founding up to 2007 is found here:
http://www.freedomparty.on.ca/freedomflyer/toc.htm
So you have a newsletter which was last published 3 years ago. You talk in it about political success (which is something you just lambasted us for), yet don’t actually claim any real political success, you only talk about hoping to do so, about money raised, etc. Even prior to 3 years ago, the newsletter seems to have been very infrequently published, which leads me to believe that your organization lacks any sense of motivation.
Since you chose to attack me personally, why don’t YOU go ahead and detail some of the success you’ve personally had. I’ve gone on and on about mine and could continue to do so for hours. I’ll spare you, though, since I doubt you care and the other readers here are well aware of the successes of the LPWV. So, let’s see if you can come out and meet my challenge.
I also notice from this page (http://www.freedomparty.on.ca/officials/officials.htm) that several of your officers’ terms have expired, including that of your “Leader”. Your website seems woefully out of date, Mr. Plant.
I have ststed my case…’nuff said. The libertarian party lacks a principled moral basis. Case closed.
Your article concerning loathing Rand has condemned you.
Much of this interesting piece hinges on two assertions:
1. That Ayn Rand was a statist.
2. That Ayn Rand drew a distinction between “white collar” and “blue collar” productivity.
For the first, I think a definition of what is meant by “statist” would be useful. If a statist is someone who favors anything other than anarcho-capitalism, then most Libertarians are statists and it would make no difference that Ayn Rand was one as well. If statist means something else, say, someone who favors something other than anarcho-capitalism or constitutionally limited government, then that needs to be defined and supported, which this post does not do.
The second point is harder still to support. From her books, it seems clear to me that Rand viewed work as work, whether one was running railroad operations or digging ore. When Roark is working in a quarry in “The Fountainhead” he does it superlatively, and takes pride in this. Several of the main characters in Atlas Shrugged, such as Francisco d’Anconia, Dagny Taggart, and John Galt also work in similar non-managerial roles with the same glorification. The villains, however, are almost always exclusively white collar (Jim Taggart, Wesley Mouch, Ellsworth Toohey, and so on).
Rand’s tragedies and failures as a human being do suggest that her ego may have overestimated her own insight into human nature, and that her appropriation of the term “objective” for her philosophy may have been inappropriate. Personally I find her description of the way markets function to be in error, as well as her understanding of human social organization. Nevertheless, in highlighting the value of the productive mind as against the parasitism of traditional ethics I believe she performed a service, and that her works therefore have some merit.
Abilard, I believe a statist is someone who believes in the use of force by a state. Rand’s endorsement of Richard Nixon supports that assertion. I believe that to be fairly air-tight based upon Nixon’s policies. Her statements regarding Hospers vs. Nixon show her to have supported just that – and Hospers was no anarchist, either, so clearly she was making a choice not of government versus anarchism, but of bigger government over smaller government.
I admit that the second point is somewhat weaker, and I don’t believe that you worded my assertion correctly. White collar productivity is no less productive than blue collar producitivity, and many white collar workers are no less oppressed even though the average salary may be somewhat higher. In fact, white collar workers are in highly stressful conditions because they rely even more heavily on their jobs and work in some very high-stress industries. My distinction was between productive people (workers) and non-productive people (people who sit around spending money on things.) The latter is not white collar. My definition of white collar would be more along the lines of those who work in office jobs, for example a computer programmer, architect, etc. Those people are definitely in the productive class.
While I largely agree with the second paragraph, and have never said that her works have no merit, I do assert that much better exist, and that much better examples for us as Libertarians exist. Her endorsement of statist candidates, and her rabid anti-Libertarian and anti-anarchism rhetoric make her an example of someone who opposed an opportunity to shrink government – to any level, be it minarchism, anarchism, or what have you. The Libertarian Party has people from a wide variety of ideals and we’re all on the “smaller government” train. Some want to get off earlier than others, while some will keep on hammering away until there’s none left at all. Rand was on a different train, heading the opposite direction – and she was quick to endorse Nixon and other Republicans as her conductors of choice.
Furthermore, her notion of morality – “the virtues of selfishness”, as she put it, and her endorsement of her own philosophy as a “god” clearly defines her life in terms of maniacal egocentrism that just doesn’t hold any real value.
In a Libertarian world with no government-enforce theft and welfare, we all ought to be more philanthropic.
I’ve had enough of this whack-job from a no-name party. He’s not saying anything useful. If he’d actually answer any points instead of wasting our time with bogus rhetoric and ad-hominem attacks I’d feel bad about banning his useless waste of space self, but I don’t given that he does not bring anything useful to the table. Adios, Mr. “Plant”.
Greetings,
Mr. Harris’ assertion, that Ayn Rand is an authoritarian statist, contradicts the facts of reality. She opposed every form of statism in word and deed. Rand’s preference for Nixon had nothing to do with endorsing statism. The country was facing two choices: stay the course with Nixon or hasten the country’s descent into statist hell under McGovern. John Hospers candidacy only served to help McGovern and the Democrats since he had no chance of winning anything.
Matt, which of Ayn Rand’s philosophic ideas listed below is, as you term it, “drivel”? (All quotes are from Rand)
– Reality exists and is what it is independent of any consciousness.
Consciousness is “the faculty of perceiving that which exists.”
– Sensory perception is the self-evident, “given,” basis of all knowledge. Sensory perception is infallible (“illusions” etc. being errors of conceptual interpretation of what is perceived, not in the perception itself).
– Concepts are mental integrations of perceptual data; they are based on the fact that existents have objective similarities and differences, similarity being “the relationship between two or more existents which possess the same characteristic(s), but in different measure or degree.”
– Logic, “the art of non-contradictory identification,” is man’s means of ensuring that his conceptual interpretations of perceptual evidence are valid.
– Reason, “the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses,” is man’s means–his only means–of gaining conceptual knowledge.
– The basis of morality is the fact that man, as a living organism, faces the alternative of life vs. death, and has choice. “It is only the concept of ‘Life’ that makes the concept of ‘Value’ possible.” The connection of “value” to “life” provides the basis for bridging the alleged gap between fact and value, “is” and “ought.” The standard of morality is: “Man’s life qua rational being.”
– In the Objectivist ethics, the basic virtue is: rationality:
“Rationality is the recognition of the fact that existence exists, that nothing can alter the truth and nothing can take precedence over that act of perceiving it, which is thinking–that the mind is one’s only judge of values and one’s only guide of action.”
– Each man is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. This is an ethics of “rational selfishness,” according to which one may neither sacrifice others to himself nor himself to others.
– The basic social principle of the Objectivist ethics is that “no man has the right to initiate the use of physical force against others.” All human interactions should be voluntary, by mutual consent and to mutual benefit.
– Each individual has inalienable rights. The basic right is the right to life, and its corollaries and derivatives are the right to liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. The only thing that can violate these rights is the initiation of physical force.
– The social system recognizing and protecting individual rights is laissez-faire capitalism, in which government’s sole purpose is to protect the citizen’s rights from violation by physical force.
Since you are dropping the context of her quotes, you’re led to the wrong conclusions, Matt. I hope the list above helps you to more properly understand Ayn Rand’s philosophy. To label it as “drivel” is ignorant at best.
Matthew, I’m not attacking the objectivist philosophy insofar as it is disconnected from Rand herself. That was never my purpose and I’v4 not said anything of the sort. I am attacking Rand as a human being for her actions and words. My point is that we as libertarians can do better than someone who endorsed Nixon and attacked anarchists.
I do believe that thre is virtue in selflessness and charity, though, however that has nothing to do really with politics or my critique of Rand’s pro-statism actions such as endorsing Richard Nixon for president
My beef isn’t with objectivism, but with Ayn Rand.
“Ayn Rand hates you, and philosophically, you can do so much better than her drivel.” That to me appeared as if you had beef with Objectivism. I agree with you that we should stick to specific, though, so let’s leave this and your thoughts on the virtue of selflessness and charity aside.
There’s a lot of accusations on Rand in your article, so I’ll choose this excerpt:
“Throughout her career, Rand showed a genuine loathing for the productive classes of society – those who were not her beloved “capitalists”, but were the workers that allowed such people to do anything whatsoever. Face it – without workers, there’d be no industry. Yet while claiming moral superiority, Rand lambasted those very workers while championing the non-productive classes of society… In Atlas Shrugged, she clearly showed a love for the non-productive “management” class. On the other hand, her dislike for the productive class – those who actually do useful things and create useful things – was obvious in many of her writings.”
Ayn Rand does *not* show a genuine loathing for the productive classes of society (the workers), at least none post-1940 (writing of The Fountainhead). Furthermore, she doesn’t treat them- or any group of individuals- as a class and make blanket judgements on them. Some workers are upheld as virtuous and good, others as evil. It’s not the extent of intelligence or productive ability that matters to Ayn Rand, but rather, among other things, whether they are trying their best in whatever productive field they’ve chosen. Just look at Mike Donnigan in The Fountainhead or Eddie Willers in Atlas Shrugged. In Ayn Rand words, “It is not the degree of a man’s ability nor the scale of his work that is ethically relevant here, but the fullest and most purposeful use of his mind.”
I agree with Ayn Rand on this. What is morally praiseworthy is whether someone is trying their best to use their mind to its fullest in a productive field, not whether they have the intelligence of a genius or a moron.
If you agree with that, I would say you’re in line with Ayn Rand.
Is there any writings of hers that you can recall her lamblasting a common worker? Particularly one who is using his mind to his fullest? I’d be curious to examine such a passage if you can find one. Otherwise, I’d say that your analysis of her views on the subject are incorrect.
Greetings,
Mr. Harris states: “My point is that we as libertarians can do better than someone who endorsed Nixon and attacked anarchists.”
Why is it not as obvious to you as it is to me that Rand’s concern is the possibility of the election of George McGovern as President? What should Rand have said and done in the face of a possiblity of that kind? Incidentally, Rand did not publicly endorse Nixon in 1972. She merely expressed a preference for Nixon. That’s not an endorsement. She was highly critical of Nixon in her writings.
Here is an excerpt from Rand’s biographical information (http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/bio/biofaq.html):
“After writing several articles critical of President Nixon, Rand nonetheless encouraged her readers to vote for him, in order to prevent George McGovern from winning the election. She subsequently wrote more articles criticizing Nixon.”
Anyone who believes in the fallacy of Democrats and Republicans being different is foolhardy. They serve the same evil masters. The policies of Obama and Bush are identical, as would have been the policies of Obama and McCain (in fact, take a look at their senate voting records for proof…)
To think that the policies of Nixon and McGovern would have differed is just as silly. Anyone who would play along in such a fallacy is shilling, and I don’t have any respect for that.
Did you read “Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal”? Rand’s argument that Capitalism requires objective law is a reference to the fact that such a socio-political-economic system as Capitalism requires clearly defined, objective laws to protect man’s individual rights (i.e., property rights, therefore the right to his own mind). You are confusing objective law with a subjective system of laws as exist currently under the Sherman Act. The objective law of which Rand speaks is not intended as a reference to stifiling government intervention in the economic realm (i.e., a series of controls and an aristocracy of pull), but to government protection of individual rights.
Hi Matt,
Just read your Facebook message about the protests around the G20 summit in Pittsburgh, PA (Sept. 24-25), and from that your post on the LPWV website “Why the free market is our best weapon in the class warfare struggle,” which in turn led me here.
I appreciate what I think you are trying to do with both these pieces. Libertarianism as a whole is neither right nor left, but anti-authoritarian, yet due to various factors including prioritization of issues, use of language, movement history (including Rand), self-identification, and so on, libertarians and the Libertarian Party are too often identified as some type of conservatives, which is incorrect and dangerous to the independence and future of our movement.
However I think it is wise to use caution when wading into the fever swamp of analyzing society on the basis of classes. It’s ultimately a collectivist concept that identifies people first as members of groups, whereas the cause of freedom ultimately depends on getting people to see themselves and others first as individuals. Rather than focusing on these “classes” themselves, I think we do better to attack their root causes, i.e. the large and powerful institutions (governments and other mega-corporations) which tend to produce the negative social arrangements for which class analysis can provide a handy if limited and dangerous analytical framework.
Precisely what Ayn Rand believed can often be debated, and I think it is important to acknowledge weaknesses in her philosophy and her practice of it where they existed, because of the “cult of personality” that objectivism still carries to some degree. In particular, I think her tying the cause of freedom to selfishness, rather than to social justice, has set the movement back by making it appear to lack compassion for others. Ironically (because you strangely attack her for doing the opposite!), I think she put *too much* emphasis on idolizing “producers” while failing to recognize the merit of people who enrich society in ways that aren’t recognized by the market. Perhaps she did have too much fondness for the hierarchically structured organization run by management types, although the “manager” figures lionized in Atlas Shrugged were hard-working people who contributed a lot, scarcely useless parasites merely living off the labor of “workers”.
Nevertheless, as some of the other responses to your remarks here should make clear, she probably helped at least as much as she hurt. Many, many people, including myself, discovered the philosophy of liberty at least in part through her novels, and found those writings extremely inspirational. Despite her flaws, Ayn Rand was a philosophical giant, and I certainly don’t “loathe” her.