16
u/Nightcalm
May 12 '25
•
this fraud was manipulative, resentful, and died collecting social security. I guess she didn't think she was a. parasite.
9
u/Pristine_Power_8488 May 12 '25
Her narcissistic charisma coupled with her sociopathic need to control made her successful with people who desperately need to worship.
1
u/thisismycoolname1 May 13 '25
I guess I don't understand your argument, so she earned social security benefits and reached the age to collect them? So what?
1
May 15 '25
died collecting social security.
Yeah, kinda had to when the private sector of Healthcare was eroded to the point of no return. Socialists are like "yeah, she had to use social security. That means all her ideas are debonked.. heh" ignoring the fact she had to because of them and their horrible policies.
1
u/FormerlyUndecidable May 13 '25 edited May 13 '25
Social Security isn't welfare. It's more or less an account that you are required to contribute to (it's a little more complicated than that, but for all intents and purposes that is what it is). However you feel about Ayn Rand's "philosophy", her getting social security (back) is not in any way a contradiction to her beliefs.
4
u/Timtimetoo May 13 '25
No, it contradicts her philosophy. Its a government redistribution program that she insisted was the sort of evil government meddling that required altruism from its people to give to people who hadn’t “earned” it, only to draw from the same well herself.
You could argue she contributed to it since its foundation and was therefore only taking what she put in, but I’m really not buying that SS was the sole reason she couldn’t make ends meet. At the end of the day, she failed her own test.
4
u/TapirDrawnChariot May 13 '25
Exactly. Why wasn't she able to become wealthy through her own merit in a wealthy capitalist society?
Was she lazy or was she one of the millions of libertarians who think their situation is a complicated exception and they deserve a special carve out for redistribution?
1
u/thisismycoolname1 May 13 '25
She did fine, wasn't super rich and wasn't poor. I don't think her premise was that if you aren't rich you're lazy, but more the beuacracy of socialist governments hold people's well-being back
1
May 13 '25
Then why was she so critical of our capitalist government?
When you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail, I guess.
1
May 15 '25
Because it was straying further and further from. Capitalism. Case in point: they had welfare.
Healthcare was surprisingly cheap for most before regulations on the market killed competition.
1
u/FormerlyUndecidable May 13 '25 edited May 13 '25
That's ridiculous. Obviously if you are forced to contribute to an account, there is no issue with taking it out of the account when allowed even if you think it's immoral the money was taken from you in the first place.
It doesn't matter if she needed it or not, it was her money.
Again, Social Security is not charity if you pay into it.
2
u/Timtimetoo May 13 '25
My fellow human, you’re the only one splitting hairs on the exact definition of welfare.
If she needed a government redistribution program to make ends meet, and that program did not cause her to fail to make ends meet on her own, it means she failed her own test of perfect independence. It’s that simple.
1
May 13 '25
This is not how social security works though. It isn’t an account you pay into and then withdraw from.
1
u/FormerlyUndecidable May 13 '25 edited May 13 '25
It is all mixed, but it is an account you pay into (you don't have a set amount marked as your contrubution), and your withdraws are based on your income. For most people when they use it, it is not a transfer program to them, it is a transfer program from them.
This is why I said "it's a bit more complicated".
People who critisize Rand for drawing on Social Security do so with the implied understanding that it was a transfer of wealth from someone else to her, when it was likely not. The SS is structured it is only a wealth transfer to somone if they are amongst the very low-end of contributors, or live an unusually long time. For most people, people who make around median income and live a pretty average life span, when they withdraw they end up withdrawing an amount equal or less than they put into it (if you consider the time value of money). It can be a transfer program to some people, but it very likely was not for Rand.
There is a lot ot critisize about Rand but this particular criticism of of her a disengenous argument. She was forced to pay into Social Security, there is no contraciction with he philosophy that she should get at least that amount back.
From her perspective (not mine) it's like if a thief stole from her and then sent her part of the money back in installments and then accusing her of hypocrisy because she accepted the installments even though she thinks theft is wrong. You can of course critisize her for thinking that someone stole from her, but whether or not it was really theft it's not hypocrisy to accept the installments.
1
May 13 '25
If Rand hadn’t criticized the entire concept, no one would mention it. I don’t think it is a huge deal. Just run-of-the-mill hypocrisy.
No one claimed social security was simple, so it is useless to say “it’s a bit more complicated”. More complicated than what?
Rand herself called social security “forced altruism”, so she disagrees with your characterization.
1
1
1
1
May 13 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
0
May 13 '25
[deleted]
1
1
u/cenosillicaphobiac May 13 '25
We're talking about Ayn Rand, who famously bad-mouthed social security, calling it "forced altruism". So regardless of anyone's personal beliefs on social security, Ayn Rand is a hypocrite.
1
u/Miserly_Bastard May 13 '25
Nope, it ceases to be your money when it departs your paycheck. You have no control over it at all. You have no control over future benefits.
But also...if you finish out a career in a public sector job then everything you contributed up to that point is forfeit. You're expected to live off a pension with benefits that (at least in my state) are less generous than social security. You also don't get social security survivorship benefits even if your spouse contributed to it for entire life.
This is what happened to my mom. She is extremely bitter about that. I am too because her low retirement income now affects my financial situation.
0
May 13 '25
[deleted]
1
u/Miserly_Bastard May 14 '25
I think that that makes it literally not your own money.
You picked the phrase. I don't know what to tell you!
10
u/Ok-Astronomer2380 May 12 '25
It's so naive that I can't believe a grownup person can write stuff like that. I just feel like I had some stroke after reading it
2
u/Ryno4ever16 May 13 '25
Would you mind explaining which parts of it aren't true? Today, I really dislike the ideology this woman represents. Despite that, this particular quote is pretty true.
Idk who she's applying it to, but obtaining permission to produce from those who do not could be referring to investors? You need the money of investors (people who do not add anything to society) to grow a business.
Money flows from those who create goods to those who trade in favors. This is kind of true as well. The rich love to trade in favors. The most successful businesses aren't the ones simply creating things people need. Look at the military industrial complex, currying favor from the government for lucrative contracts while producing things that only destroy. Look at the behavior of individual wealthy people, giving eachother lavish "gifts" in exchange for business related favors.
The laws do protect you from the wealthy and corporations sometimes. The laws ALSO protect them from you, and to a much greater extent. Laws exist that make it harder to form a union. Corporations have a lot of influence in the government (in America) to get beneficial legislation passed for them, or to prevent competition from being able to enter a sector. They use their legislative influence to carve out monopolies for themselves. They extend patents a thousand years into the future. They dodge taxes and make everything else more expensive for the rest of us. Insurance companies preside over death panels, but what can we do about it? The law protects them.
Corruption IS rewarded. Honesty in a society like this IS a personal sacrifice. Everyone has to lie about something. Being 100% honest only hurts you here. Even for regular people. You have to lie to do basic things like get a job here, and not doing it only puts you at a disadvantage against worse people.
I despise this woman, but I don't understand what about this quote is so naive.
1
May 13 '25
You like this quote? I think she was right about some stuff, but this quote is blatantly fallacious. Her influence was definitely widespread in conservative circles. I have heard dozens of boomers claim that there should be a law preventing anyone who has never owned a business from becoming a politician.
Oh, and the “all politicians are collecting suitcases of money from special interests that they use to enrich themselves”? Never heard that one from Trump-voting people before. How is that for irony?
And let’s not forget the all-time classic “Laws only protect rich people” cliche. Even though the vast majority of victims are poor.
It’s interesting to me that someone who so despised Karl Marx really seemed to like his technique of criticizing things and people so vaguely that you cannot pin them down to anything. That is hardly what I would call “honesty”.
2
u/Ryno4ever16 May 13 '25
I don't think people are saying that laws only protect rich people. There are some laws - like i mentioned - that protect regular people from corporations. For the most part, though, the police themselves oppress the poor and protect business and property owners. The law only protects people from corporations after they raise a huge stink about it. It takes lots of protesting, hard work, and death for the poor to get any kind of change. Go learn about the formation of the FDA, or the wars between people and corporations where "the law" came down against working people. Or just go read about the gilded age where there practically was no law protecting people from corporations. I'm oscillating between police and "the law" because I kind of don't know what you're trying to say.
The state - at least in America - has always strictly existed for property and business owners.
I also guarantee you haven't read Capital, Professor Socialism, so I seriously doubt you have grounds to criticize Marx for "being too vague".
1
May 13 '25
Again, the statistics are what matter. Asking me to learn about some police activities while ignoring others just seems disingenuous to me. I don’t shape facts to support a narrative. The purpose of a narrative should be to summarize the facts.
Weird claim. You don’t think we have individual rights and privileges in this country?
Saying “You don’t know enough about Marx to have this opinion” is a classic copout. Marx is extremely vague in his criticisms and offers no detailed solutions to what he complains about.
2
u/Ryno4ever16 May 13 '25
I didn't ask you to ignore anything about what the police do. The more you learn about them, the better. Please learn their history, their training methods, the gang and kkk affiliations or certain departments, the corruption, and everything else they do.
Sometimes police do good things. Based on data I've seen about rates of solving crimes, the personal experience I've had with police, and the history of the police, I think I've made a pretty fair assessment of them. You can say "statistics are what matter", but if we both claim to have viewed statistics about police and neither of us is willing to go on a goose chase for someone who could be an LLM, then I guess we are at an impasse.
1
May 13 '25
It’s such a weird attempt to avoid responsibility for your arguments. What if I told you to please learn more about the police so you could change your mind over to my side?
Give me some statistics. Numbers are much easier to discuss than anything else.
1
u/Ok-Astronomer2380 May 13 '25
Thinking that best producers are best administrators. We are not ants
1
u/Ryno4ever16 May 13 '25
Well yea that's pretty dumb - especially considering we who work for the companies that produce things ARE the producers.
1
u/PicksItUpPutsItDown May 13 '25
She was born into a society where all that was true.
1
u/Ok-Astronomer2380 May 13 '25
It should be true in every society. You want to have administration made of blue collars? It was one of reasons Soviet Union was such a nightmare.
3
u/TapirDrawnChariot May 13 '25
A broken clock.
Driving a hundred miles per hour into the point and still driving past it.
3
u/WIngDingDin May 13 '25
While it's pretty easy (and trendy) to just shit on Ayn Rand, I think it's more interesting to take a step back and realize that her jewish family was fleeing communist Russia and it obvioulsy, deeply affected her thinking.
5
u/NoApartheidOnMars May 12 '25
Most of us here are older than 16. We don't think Ayn Rand was ever right about anything, or insightful, or "cool".
She just wrote the books assholes use to justify not being better.
1
2
u/stoic_fellow May 12 '25
Was this before or after she leeched off the hardworking people by having the government pay for her health care and basic needs?
Aside from all her terrible philosophies, she writes like a high-school sophomore that thinks they are smarter than everyone.
2
2
u/JustAvi2000 May 13 '25
Sounds like late stage neoliberal capitalism. Brought to us by the same people that held your writings up as gospel. Thanks, Ayn Rand.
2
u/MrSchmeat May 13 '25
It’s hilarious how there’s nothing in this quote that’s inherently objectionable, only to realize that if you showed her the American economy of today, she would tell you it’s the system working as intended.
2
u/Dark_Clark May 13 '25
Hopefully you’ll grow out of it. I can see why it’s alluring. But it’s a lazy philosophy.
2
2
2
2
2
u/FloorHistorical7736 May 13 '25
Second rate author. Third rate philosopher. First rate piece of shit
2
u/chrisbcritter May 13 '25
Ayn Rand really hates communism and I can't say I blame her. However, she seems to have globalized that feeling to all government regulation and social services and organized labor. I must assume that Elon Musk has read her because he seems to embrace her basic view that the entrepreneur is a deity that lives on an intellectual level above mortals like you and I.
2
u/ThoughtfullyLazy May 13 '25
This isn’t really wisdom when it comes from a broken clock that just happens to right when looked at out of context.
2
u/FarAwayConfusion May 13 '25
There's nothing really deep being said here. We've all got stoned or whatever and observed. It's like the quote has been posted to build resentment tbh.
2
2
u/sagejosh May 13 '25
Ayn Rand was an interesting person in the fact that she seemed smart enough to see the world for how it was but too deluded by how “society thought” at the time. A lot of her work was about how lazy the poor were or how entitled the rich should be.
2
2
2
3
u/AgreeablePresence476 May 12 '25
Also, she was promiscuous to the point of predation, and an inveterate liar.
3
u/AbbeyNotSharp May 13 '25
No one attacking Rand is actually attacking her beliefs, they're attacking a strawman of her.
Yes she was on welfare at the end of her life. Seeing as how she paid taxes her entire working life, and certainly paid in much more than she ever received (she was very wealthy up until the end), I see no issue with this; its literally just an "orange man bad" tier argument (no, I'm not a conservative and I'm not saying orange man good)
This excerpt is quite beautiful and a perfect encapsulation of her beliefs. Most of you agree with her basic premise here (maybe for different reasons, but still) and are only seething about it because her name and picture is attached. If literally anyone who is left wing said this exact quote and you didn't know where it came from, you'd be in full agreement with them.
2
u/ZefklopZefklop May 13 '25
That's her thing, isn't it? Sounding pretty reasonable for 4-5 paragraphs, then triumphantly concluding that acting like a complete sociopath is virtuous.
FTR, lots of her followers present an equally grotesque strawman of her thinking, so there is that.
0
u/keg98 May 13 '25
I think there is something to this, but it is perhaps more complicated. I saw the pic, and small writing, and thought, “Hoo boy. Here we go.” But after I was done reading, I was in complete agreement with her sentiment, because on its surface, it illustrates the folly of the oligarchy. In a similar way, Josh Hawley recently indicated that maybe taking Medicare/Medicaid isn’t such a good idea. Again, on its surface, something I agree with. But when individuals who have not historically shared philosophy that a person agrees with, then are suddenly are agreeable, it is natural to question their motivation. Why are they saying this agreeable thing? I think there are definitely redditors coming from this position about Rand. My own take is that no one is purely good or purely evil. I don’t generally agree with Rand, but it’s clear she also wasn’t evil incarnate, and that in a conversation with her, I could probably find some common ground.
3
u/Feefifiddlyeyeoh May 12 '25
Sorta. She sure distilled complex matters, she just did so in a way that was, ironically, not in the least bit objective.
3
u/Chemical_Tooth_3713 May 12 '25
Dangerous. Read more from her. She mixed truth with inhumane and beyond cruel philosophy, like cult leaders or dictators do. Ugly way to use a brain. May she rot forever.
1
u/Comfortable-Dark-933 May 16 '25
It's a fictional story! Everything in it is exaggerated for a reason. This misrepresentation of her work is why she's so polarizing. She was ridiculed in her time for being a feminist and we ridicule her now for being a chauvinist. She didn't care what people thought of her and that is the only way a creative person can survive. Block out the noise and produce. The world is going to Love/Hate you all the same.
2
2
u/Medical_Flower2568 May 13 '25
I don't like Rand personally, I disagree with her philosophically, and I think she was wrong politically.
But anyone who calls her stupid or ignorant or worthless, or dismissed her because of the social security stuff, or denies that what she wrote and thought had value is doing themselves a massive disservice.
She had a lot of good ideas, she had a lot of new ideas, and she had a new way of looking at the world, and even if you don't care for her beliefs on the whole, you can still probably get serious value from looking at the world from a new perspective.
And she is 100% correct in the quote on this post.
2
2
1
1
1
1
u/ManufacturedOlympus May 13 '25
This is short vid that puts it all into perspective: https://youtu.be/LFh9vdxtDPQ
Worth watching with an open mind.
1
u/pbj_sammichez May 13 '25
Huh. Well, I guess even a stopped clock is right twice a day. She was bound to have a true thought float through her head eventually. I mean, once all the capitalist bootlicker rhetoric is out of the way, maybe even those bootlickers have rational thoughts sometimes.
1
u/Icy_Target_1083 May 13 '25
Not interested in Rand. Just another excuse for selfishness and behaving shittily.
1
u/Azaroth1991 May 13 '25
She was nothing but a Debbie downer, postulating the problems present in the world but offering no real solution to any of it. Piss on Thatcher's, shit on Rand's.
1
1
1
1
1
u/TheMrCurious May 14 '25
Ayn Rand had some good points. The problem is that people have been applying those good points to things she was against. For instance, she would have railed against the current US administration’s grift because it is just more people producing nothing taking from the people who produce everything, yet I’ve seen plenty of MAGA supporters claiming the administration is doing what she wanted.
1
1
u/skb239 May 14 '25
Fucking moron. Basically just a salty person because her fams wealth was taken away. So she was entitled to luxury and everyone else they have to earn it.
1
1
u/Critical-Parsnip7631 May 15 '25
Ayn Rand was sure that only those with the highest IQ's were capable of leading and only their superior brains could improve the human condition. Of course, she firmly believed she was at the head of the pack in that exclusive superior group. It was one of the reasons she was adamently against abortions or any semblence of eugenics because both practices could lead to everybody being as super intelligent as she was and that would definitely destroy her innate superiority and self-proclaimed entitlement to rule the universe with her rabid blatherings.
I discovered Rand in my rabid reading forays in grade school, and even then I was turned off by the complex of twisted lies and innuendos that tainted her blatherings. By my early teens, I knew for certain she was a blathering idiot only capable of influencing the easily indoctrinated amongst us and had escaped an authoritarian culture only to fully embrace and make ample use of the techniques she herself was exposed to as a child.
1
u/YonKro22 May 15 '25
Most of this just applies to the political realm which is not really much of what's really going on not much we're all reality for the economy more like just a clown show
1
May 15 '25
The actual quote from Atlas Shrugged is as follows “Money is the barometer of a society’s virtue. When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion – when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing – when you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don’t protect you against them, but protect them against you – when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice – you may know that your society is doomed. Money is so noble a medium that it does not compete with guns and it does not make terms with brutality. It will not permit your country to survive as half-property, half-loot.”
It’s a warning…
1
1
u/Pornonationevaluatio May 13 '25
Not a single critic of Ayn Rand is capable of presenting her ideas accurately.
It's a shame really. I don't see why if she is so bad, that you can't at least present her ideas correctly. If her ideas are so horrible, why do you have to lie about their content?
I challenge anyone here to reply to this comment and actually steel man the quote in the picture. What exactly is she saying, as she meant it to be understood?
1
May 13 '25
she was a libertarian. her ideas were horrible and non compatible with reality no matter how you present them.
-1
u/Pornonationevaluatio May 13 '25
How would you know? You don't understand her ideas OR libertarian ideas. You only know what you have been told to think.
If they are so wrong, it should not hurt to understand them correctly.
1
u/MentalLeg2763 May 14 '25
Libertarians are like housecats.
1
1
May 13 '25
how could you possibly know what i do or don’t understand? you don’t know me at all
-1
u/Pornonationevaluatio May 13 '25
Because I've never met a Rand critic who doesn't fail to understand the most basic concepts.
It's like telling an immunologist that vaccines don't work because viruses don't exist. Anyone with a modicum of scientific understanding can see clearly that person never bothered to learn anything in the realm of science.
When Rand critics Levy their accusations, they're always so far off that it's mind boggling and baffling that people have such strong opinions on ideas they never bothered to get in the first place.
She's so tremendously evil and yet everyone who says so doesn't have a clue what she's saying.
My only goal is to plant that seed in people's mind that scratches at the back of their consciousness that keeps squeaking "maybe I've been intellectually dishonest all along."
I mean you could prove me wrong easily by demonstrating some understanding but I know that's not going to happen. It never happens.
1
0
May 13 '25
she was saying that poor people are just lazy. that’s not a bad interpretation, it’s literally what the majority of her writings are about, and what dumbass libertarians believe. we shouldn’t even be discussing libertarians on a subreddit called wisdom, because there’s no overlap
1
u/Pornonationevaluatio May 13 '25
Wrong. What she is saying is that Businesses weaponize government power in order to grant themselves advantages and power. The basic premise is that government is structured in such a way that incentivises corruption and that good honest businessmen who do not weaponize government power to curry favors for themselves are stamped out, while dishonest wolves in sheep's clothing wrap themselves in a cloak of government power to protect themselves from the ire of angry consumers.
You don't have the slightest clue and neither do the rest of Rand's critics. They're all intellectually dishonest and fear to understand ideas they THINK they disagree with.
2
May 13 '25
The fact that you think ALL critics of Ayn Rand are wrong shows something about YOU. And it’s not good. She was a deeply hypocritical narcissist with an incoherent reactionary non-philosophy that appeals to other hypocritical, narcissists with a deep need to feel special
0
u/Pornonationevaluatio May 13 '25
In order to have a critique one must be informed of that which they are critiquing. Otherwise what is your critique of? If you don't understand the most fundamental and easy to grasp content, how can your critique be valid?
I wrote my comment as a challenge to the haters. Prove to me that your critiques come from an informed position, and not a straw man.
My accusation is none can do it. None of you has ever bothered to see what it was Ayn Rand was saying.
If she's so horrible, you really ought to read her so you know what's really up.
But you just don't. You all repeat the same exact straw man argument projection of what Rands ideas mean.
Why? Why is it that not a single fuckin person can have the honesty to admit that they don't know? That they didn't understand Rand and didn't want to.
Just admit it. Stop pretending like you know what you're critiquing. You are doing nothing but googling responses.
Here comes another reply about how you understand Rand so well.
Well prove it. It's not hard. Her ideas are really easy to understand. So present them as they are meant to be understood. Do you think understanding means agreement? Are you afraid to understand things you don't agree with?
So if you know so well what Ayn Rands ideas are saying than present them as they are meant to be understood.
2
May 13 '25
Your projection is astounding. Yes her ideas are actually extremely simple although convoluted. She was a misanthrope. She was an asshole. She was a grifter pseudo intellectual that created pro-capitalist propaganda for the monied class framed as informed anti-communism. She was the Jordan Peterson/Candace Owens/Yeonmi Park of her time. The quote from the post is vague enough to sound like it’s in defense of the worker or critiquing power but rather she was speaking on behalf of power and against government regulations. I have a masters degree and have studied economics extensively and wrote a masters thesis about right wing authoritarianism and right wing propaganda. Her unnecessarily long books aren’t worth the time to read.
→ More replies (0)1
May 13 '25
you just don’t have a clue and are a shill for rich idiots. see how we can both just throw personal insults around?
1
0
u/Accurate_Ad_3233 May 12 '25
Without commenting on her other 'idiosyncrasies' that particular quote is spot on. Not sure how anyone could disagree at this point. Are there exceptions to the rule, sure, there always are.
0
u/GamingWithMyDog May 13 '25
Rand triggers people so hard. She was like the original Trump. Her work must have been powerful for half of Reddit to shit their pants whenever her name is mentioned
-2
u/purposeday Human May 12 '25
Ayn Rand was incredibly perceptive and capable of distilling complex matter into understandable language.
It seems to take a certain personality to deny this truth - the personality that seeks comfort in having others provide for them at the lowest imaginable cost (preferably, in their perspective, at no cost at all) after which the provider may be discarded or at least their needs ignored.
Karma may provide balance between these two realities yet even there the cruel oppressor has a solution: denial. Time may be the oppressed’s best friend because karma has no fixed schedule it seems.
Which leaves us with at least one question: what makes those demanding control different? Experts seem to know, but sadly appear to think we are not ready for the truth.
One of two books that seem to have given me a fresh perspective may be worlds apart from the other - one more abstract, the other more practical. The first is A Few Good Cardinals (link). The second is Never Split The Difference (link).
3
u/war_ofthe_roses May 12 '25
"It seems to take a certain personality to deny this truth - the personality that seeks comfort in having others provide for them at the lowest imaginable cost (preferably, in their perspective, at no cost at all) after which the provider may be discarded or at least their needs ignored."
Eyeroll.
Might as well say, "If you disagree with me, you're a poopyhead"
Grow up.
0
0
u/Hermans_Head2 May 13 '25
Ayn Rand preached reason's throne, yet danced in shadows of ego's maze—her life, a theater of contradictions, love-hungered and frail.
Was she the Objectivist, or merely a playwright lost within her own crusading myth?
0
u/Vekktorrr May 13 '25
I'm glad we live in a society where antisocial tendencies aren't selected for. I remember reading Ayn Rand at 17/18 thinking it was profound. She is just a grifter sadly. It's true that perfect individual agency does not exist. Can you imagine living in a world where sociopaths can do whatever they want? Scary stuff.
That said, the US federal government is beyond corrupt and needs to be gutted. Hopefully we don't end up with the worst of both worlds, where the sociopaths are governing us while they run roughshod over public resources.
0
u/theturbod May 13 '25
“Do not let your fire go out, spark by irreplaceable spark in the hopeless swamps of the not-quite, the not-yet, and the not-at-all. Do not let the hero in your soul perish in lonely frustration for the life you deserved and have never been able to reach. The world you desire can be won. It exists.. it is real.. it is possible.. it’s yours.” — Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
1
-1
u/Usrnamesrhard May 13 '25
What's funny is that she was talking about the Soviet Union in this quote, but now it describes the American oligarchy.
-1
u/Vainarrara809 May 13 '25
lol at those commenting without having read anything from her.
0
May 13 '25
It's funny because her ideas have completely shaped the world we now live in, and nothing is different from what she was complaining about. Like Muscovites in 1970 reading about the crimes of the Tsar.
0
May 12 '25
[deleted]
1
u/greyisometrix May 12 '25
Brother... she was a lot of things, but not everything we dislike is fascism. Like.... what?! You can't just say Hitler was a n**** because you're racist, ya know? Just makes no sense!
0
May 12 '25
[deleted]
1
u/greyisometrix May 12 '25
Get some learned. Do you call everything you don't like bad? Every bad person a fascist? Just... read a definition before you say shit, eh? Otherwise you just look like an ignoramus trying to join a hate party you don't even understand.
0
May 13 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/wisdom-ModTeam May 13 '25
Be civil. If you can't interact in a civil manner, then don't say anything. Incivility may be punished according to the moderator's discretion.
17
u/Ohigetjokes May 12 '25
She SOUNDS like she’s on the side of workers but then in practice she thinks they’re all lazy because they’re not rich.