| Home Rand's Books Other Books Magazines Texts Biography Forums Websites Critics Miscellaneous Search Email Us |
| You Are Here: Home > Books > Reviews > Objectivism a Religion? | |
| Stuck in another site's frames? Escape! |
Reviewer: Richard Lawrence
Review Summary: Insufficiently updated rehash of a poorly-argued 1968 critique of Objectivism. Not recommended.
Ayn Rand was not afraid to repeat herself. If she thought that a point she had made before had not been grasped, or was relevant to something else she was talking about, she was happy to make the point again. Sometimes she would try to make the point in a new way, as when she expanded on ideas from her novels in later non-fiction essays. Sometimes she would just quote herself. Whether this was a good habit or a bad one, it was something Rand was not at all ashamed to do.
One might hope that Rand's commentators and critics, some of whom have remarked negatively on Rand's own repetitions, would avoid repeating themselves. But they don't. One form of repetition is the practice of re-releasing old books, somewhat revised and given a new title. John Robbins was the first to do this, releasing an update of his 1974 book Answer to Ayn Rand under the title Without a Prayer in 1997. He was followed by Rand-related rehashes from several other authors, including Nathaniel Branden, Mimi Reisel Gladstein, David Kelly, and Jerome Tuccille. Gladstein's case was somewhat justifiable, since she was updating a reference work that had become dated. Most of the rest could probably have been done without.
Shortly before his death last year, Albert Ellis jumped onto the bandwagon by rehashing his 1968 book, Is Objectivism a Religion?, under the more expansive title of Are Capitalism, Objectivism, and Libertarianism Religions? Yes!: Greenspan and Ayn Rand debunked. One might wonder what purpose is served by reprising 40-year-old book. Certainly it isn't to make money, since the first edition was enveloped in obscurity almost from the day of its release, so much so that even Rand's later critics rarely cite it. Ellis seems to have anticipated a similar indifference to the new edition, since this time he crammed the book’s entire thesis (plus much of its punctuation) into the title. Perhaps he hoped readers would get the point just from seeing the listing on websites. It can be found on plenty, because it was released as an e-book and placed in the public domain.
In his introduction, Ellis gives a numbered list of reasons for writing the book, but most of these are simply part of the rehash, since with one exception they are the same reasons he gave in the original. The one additional reason in the new version rails against "some republicans, libertarians, and the current chairman of the Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan (friend, acolyte of, and coauthor with Rand,)" for wanting to dismantle government programs and "impose massive suffering and death on the world's poor and working class in pursuit of their fantasies." He describes libertarians as "anarchists who believe in no government at all" and identifies such publications as the Wall Street Journal and The Economist as libertarian promoters of "the extreme, religious capitalism of Rand." The notion of the editors at staid, conservative publications promoting anarchism is good for a laugh, but doesn’t say much for the credibility of the new material.
So what is that new material? Despite the new title, what Ellis has provided is basically the old book, with relatively minor updating. Some copyediting has updated the wording, such as using past tense instead of present tense for discussions of Rand, calling Ellis’ therapy method "REBT" instead of the term he was using in 1968, etc. Those sensitive to issues of political correctness will notice that feminine pronouns replace the masculine for non-specific references. Citations are updated to reflect newer sources for the same ideas. (However, this is only for Ellis' ideas -- one looks in vain for any citation of Rand later than 1968.) Alan Greenspan's later status as chairman of the Federal Reserve Board is mentioned. That's about it for most of the book. Considering the amount of time that has passed, the subsequent work of the people he criticizes, the new information available about Rand's own life, etc., one would hope for a bit more modification.
One chapter, on economics, is updated more extensively, with passing references to Enron and other recent events added. (Ellis openly attributes the revision of this chapter to an assistant, which is a good sign of how little he did to the rest of the book.) But still many of the old arguments stand essentially unmodified, even when they are ridiculous in the context of the last 40 years of economic research and historical development. For example, a passage is left in that favorably compares East Berlin to West Berlin based on supposed "economic progress" in the east in the mid-1960s. No notice is taken of the fact that in the subsequent two decades East Berlin was such a pit of despair that people risked their lives to cross minefields and barbed wire to escape it, or of the economic disparity between east and west that became obvious to everyone when the Soviet empire collapsed. Indeed, from the old arguments presented by Ellis, one might never know that collapse ever occurred. Despite his claim in the introduction that his critique extends to "republicans" and "libertarians," he takes absolutely no account of arguments or research from anyone outside of the same handful of Objectivists that he criticized in 1968. If a pro-capitalism argument wasn't published in one of Rand’s newsletters in the 60s, he doesn’t know about it. To some extent this may reflect his ideological blinders, but I suspect it is more reflective of laziness. He simply didn't bother to change the old material very much.
Only in the final chapter does Ellis provide any truly fresh material. Except that it isn't very fresh: it's a series of quotes from other critics of Rand! Many of these are taken from Jeff Walker’s gossipy trashing of Rand, The Ayn Rand Cult, which Ellis heartily recommends. (The fact that Walker is one of the few authors to cite the earlier edition frequently and approvingly might have something to do with this.) Ellis dispenses with Walker's attempts at narrative and just serves up the most negative quotes, thereby achieving the hitherto impossible feat of making Walker seem like a serious journalist in comparison. The most critical statements from the works of Rand's disgruntled former associates are also quoted, although Ellis considers these to be "whitewashes" for not being even more abusive of Rand. (Needless to say, pro-Rand quotes are avoided, and Ellis does not discuss any criticism that has been made of the idea that Objectivism is a religion.) Finally, to pad things out, Ellis throws in excerpts from some articles about Alan Greenspan. Greenspan's name recognition as Fed chairman even gets him promoted to the book's subtitle, despite the fact that Greenspan's tenure at the Fed has little to do with Objectivism and nothing to do with Rand, who died years before.
Since Ellis hasn't bothered to provide much new material, I see little reason to provide any more in the way of a new review. Instead, in the spirit of Ellis' endeavor, here are some quotes from prior commentaries (cherry-picked for negativity just like his quotes are):
It's widely agreed within Objectivist circles that the most intellectually dishonest major book ever written about the philosophy is Is Objectivism a Religion? by Albert Ellis (1968). (Kyrel Zantonavitch)
A major fault of Ellis' critique is his habit of forgetting the Randian meanings for certain words and using more widely accepted meanings instead. In this way he finds many more inconsistencies and irrationalities in Objectivism than are actually there. He does this to the extent that he seems to be deliberately misinterpreting the statements of Miss Rand and her disciples. (Roy Halliday)
His criticisms of the free market are weak. He does not appreciate the difference between people voluntarily saving and investing and people being forcibly deprived of consumer goods as long as what is called "economic progress" is achieved in either case. Since he regards all absolute principles as mere arbitrary assertions, the immorality of slavery escapes him. Because happiness and individual rights cannot be measured empirically, but wealth can be, he is more upset by the possibility of someone having more money than someone else. (Roy Halliday)
Ellis has a positive horror of passing moral judgment on other people. He regards a propensity for judging others as a sign of neurosis. He thinks there is no such thing as a bad person, only bad behavior. For him this is not a platitude but a profound and compelling truth. He goes so far as to say that even Adolf Hitler must not be judged as evil. Indeed, Is Objectivism a Religion? ends with a ringing peroration on the ''bigotry" implied in morally condemning Hitler. […] This viewpoint strikes me as simply bizarre. […] I find Ellis's view too eccentric to justify a more detailed rebuttal, but it may be worthwhile to ask what motivates him to take such an untenable position -- and not only to take it, but to defend it vehemently and make it a centerpiece of his argument, thereby weakening his entire book. (Michael Prescott)
Ellis, a hostile and once-notorious psychotherapist and proponent of "rational-emotive therapy", rips into Rand with gusto but, except for scoring points on her for fanaticism, barely lays a glove on the philosophy. Indeed, he doesn't seem to understand it . (Grant Schuyler)
His techniques, too often, are name calling and circular argument. [...] While this kind of posturing is dramatic, it rests on a logical fallacy taught in most freshman English texts. (Mimi Reisel Gladstein, The New Ayn Rand Companion)
[Ellis] generated antagonism almost instantly by a kind of provocative abusiveness and haranguing that seemed to be the trademark of his lecture style. […] He became angrier and angrier as the event progressed, inspiring the audience to laughter. It was after this debate that Ellis began attacking Objectivism and my psychological ideas with unfailing regularity. (Nathaniel Branden, Judgment Day)
One story Branden told is that Ellis misquotes him as saying "of course I'm a solipsist," when what he'd really said was "of course I'm an absolutist." Anybody philosophically literate and minimally familiar with Objectivism would know better than to think Branden would say the first. (Peter Reidy)
[M]ost of the book gives us, not Ellis the psychologist, but Ellis the wannabe philosopher of science (he was a Logical Positivist) or Ellis the aspiring political economist. His purported arguments against capitalism on economic grounds are embarrassingly bad. He asserted, for instance, that the Soviet Union could easily become as prosperous as the United States. It's too bad that no one interviewed him about his book after the inhabitants of Berlin started taking pickaxes to the Wall... (Robert Campell)
[After quoting a ridiculous statement by Ellis:] Believe it or not, Dr. Ellis presents this as a serious philosophical argument! If we had the space or the stomach, I could present dozens more from this same source. (Joel Katz)
I have plenty of space, but my stomach grows weak, so I'll stop with that.
The philosophy of Ayn Rand, a twentieth-century novelist and philosopher, is known as Objectivism. The Objectivism Reference Center provides resources about Rand, her ideas, her works, and places where those are discussed and debated. Visit the Site Information page for details on site policies. Suggestions for additional materials or additional links are welcomed.
If you have questions, comments or corrections related to this page, email the webmaster. If JavaScript is enabled for your browser, you can check to see when this page was last modified.
Copyright © 1999-2009 by Richard Lawrence. All rights reserved.
| Home Rand's Books Other Books Magazines Texts Biography Forums Websites Critics Miscellaneous Search esoul.com">Email Us |