This excerpt is taken from "Atlas Shrugged" - Ayn Rand's radical novel.
Ragnar: ". . . [Robin Hood] is not remembered as a champion of property, but as a champion of need, not as a defender of the robbed, but as a provider of the poor. He is held to be the first man who assumed a halo of virtue by practicing charity with wealth which he did not own, by giving away goods which he had not produced, by making others pay for the luxury of his pity. He is the man who became a symbol of the idea that need, not achievement, is the source of rights, that we don’t have to produce, only to want, that the earned does not belong to us, but the unearned does. He became a justification for every mediocrity who, unable to make his own living, had demanded the power to dispose of the property of his betters, by proclaiming his willingness to devote his life to his inferiors at the price of robbing his superiors. It is this foulest of creatures – the double-parasite who lives on the sores of the poor and the blood of the rich – whom men have come to regard as the moral idea." ". . . Do you wonder why the world is collapsing around us? That is what I am fighting, Mr. Rearden. Until men learn that of all human symbols, Robin Hood is the most immoral and the most contemptible, there will be no justice on earth and no way for mankind to survive."
Criticism : I am unable to digest how Ragnar is different from Robin Hood in any sense. Ragnar maintains an account for all of "Rand's" heroes so that they he could give them their due - which was taken away by the "looters". Wasn't Robin Hood the same? He took away from rich nobles to give the peasants their due. The peasants had in fact, worked under a nobility which had taken away everything from them. According to Rand's Objectivist philosophy, it is the peasants who actually deserved all the material wealth as they were the ones who did the work. I see a contradiction here, in her criticism of Robin Hood. I may be wrong in my criticism and would like anyone who has read my blog as well as "Atlas Shrugged" to point out any flaw in my argument. I need this because I am trying to evaluate "Objectivism" to see if its a full-fledged philosophy. Any Objectivists reading this blog, please note that the above criticism is a subjective evaluation which may be wrong and any abusive or forceful, irrational language on my blog will not be paid attention to.
3 comments:
You deliberately omitted a crucial line from the preceding sentence -"It is said that he fought against the looting rulers and returned the loot to those who had been robbed, but that is not the meaning of the legend which has survived. He is remembered, not as a champion of property, but as a champion of need, not as a defender of the robbed, but as a provider of the poor."
Guess who wrote the scripts for the 1960 Robin Hood TV series in the 1960's - US communists:
"According to blacklisted writer Robert Lees, “Ring Lardner, Jr. headed one group writing
the show in New York, and Adrian Scott did the same for L.A.” (McGilligan and Buhle
1997, p. 437) Although writers certainly do not have to write characters and situations
that reflect their own political sensibilities, they frequently do. Lardner recalled, “The
Adventures of Robin Hood gave us plenty of opportunities for oblique social comment on
the issues and institutions of Eisenhower-era America.” He even speculated that perhaps
in some small way the political ideas expressed in the show set “the stage for the 1960s
by subverting a whole new generation of young Americans.” (Lardner 2000, p. 141)
Even though Robin Hood was a British production, the blacklisted writers wrote
under pseudonyms to hide their true identities."
Well, the omission was not deliberate. I just thought that there was enough information in the passage. Basically, I now understand that the symbolism of Robin Hood was altered by the communists. So, I guess that I needed to evaluate Ragnar's discourse based on contemporary political and literary developments. The character Robin Hood may not have been created as a champion of need, but as you say it appears that his character was assassinated by the US communists of the 1960s. Ayn Rand published the "Atlas Shrugged" in the year 1957 but still I'll assume that a wrong perception of Robin Hood had begun to form.
What I still feel is wrong is the fact that Rand goes on to say that Robin Hood stole from the nobles and gave to the poor, goods which he had not produced. Rand is now not fighting against the symbolism but now she is directly attacking his actions. This makes me feel that she is also engaging in what the communists did - altering characters and situations to fit her political sensibilities.
We need not consider Robin Hood as contemptible but may be justified in despising other forces that created a perception of him being a 'champion of need'.
This said, I would like to stress that I am no communist. I believe in a capitalistic society but somehow feel that Objectivism takes it to another extreme by depicting everything else as "evil".
Post a Comment