Bessie beach, Objectivism, and other things.

With roaring winds, accompanied by salty sprays of water, tame waves, a beautifully blue horizon, golden sands that seem to run forever, interrupted only by the equally never ending litter and a few stalls selling roasted peanuts; and Davy Jones' locker, Bessie beach is paradise on earth for a relaxed midsummer afternoon in Chennai, as I found out a week ago. Never mind the Chennai heat, the winds and a heady conversation are more than enough to keep one occupied. Of course, there's more to it than that, but a more detailed account would render this post too racy for certain age groups.

Like I was saying, I was there a week ago, with a couple of friends, stuffing used (and littered) quarter bottles with SOS messages dated to the late 18th century, and suicide notes from spurned lovers', and putting them out to sea (if you ever find one of those, let me know). Conversation moved in ebbs and flows, much like an inebriated serpent, from school gossip, to how shallow and absurd it was to go somewhere just to take photos of oneself, to Ayn Rand. Ayn Rand. Why she came up remains a mystery to my painfully inadequate memory. Still, Alisa Zinov'yevna Rosenbaum. Immediately, I found myself reminiscing about a younger me, a time roughly two years ago. And for a change, it was not 'Ach, what a fool I was'. To date, The Fountainhead is not just one of my favourite works, it is also in some ways, an achievement. An achievement, because I found the ideas too absurd to grasp when I started out, and because I wanted to emulate Howard Roark by the time I was done,  albeit for a short period of time. An achievement, because the Rand demanded a certain intensity from her reader. I remember to date, how I would have to read and re-read certain sections of heady prose before grasping the underlying essence. In some ways, it was like an intense, yet pleasurable form of labour.

Rand had a way with her words. She was the kind of author who, in my opinion, could sell just about any theory to her reader. In my case, I found objectivism laughably silly when I started out. It was unrealistic, Roark's approach towards life, it didn't seem humanly possible. The same could be said of Toohey's cold, calculating mind, and his Machiavellian nature. Could humans really be so single minded, and ignore in their entirety, all those little, beautiful things that make this roller-coaster ride we call life? And yet, as I read on, I found myself increasingly convinced about the plausibility of the same. Simultaneously, I found myself more open to her theories. The idea of Atlas shrugging just about drove the message home. Such was her capability. Around the same time, I started reading about Marxism. In its own way, it seemed to make sense as well (at least at first). Yet, the two philosophies sat diametrically opposite one another. As J.K Rowling had once said of Harry Potter and Tom Riddle, it seemed to be a case of 'Neither can live, while the other survives'. On the one hand, coercing the prime movers to 'self sacrifice' would cause the destruction of a society, for beyond a stage, Atlas would have to shrug, and on the other hand exploitation of the masses by a dominant class would result in anarchy. Both ideas seemed to be the perfect recipe for disaster, at least in the eyes of its bete noir.

However, Rand and Marx seemed to be working with different assumptions. That which was axiomatic to one, seemed absurd to the other. While similar, the groups of people addressed in the two theories, were not identical. For instance, Rand spoke of prime movers, while Marx spoke of the dominant class. Obviously, all prime movers are a part of the dominant class, but the converse is not true, especially given the kind of nepotism displayed by homo-sapiens. Rand spoke of men who, in terms of Jungian archetypes had a Self and a Persona that were indistinguishable, men who made decisions solely based on their ideals, men with will power enough to move mountains. Marx, on the other hand, just spoke of people who wielded power, monetary or otherwise. Yet, in Rand's view, members of the dominant class who were not prime movers, would eventually fall out of the dominant class. Similarly, she also felt that the concept of masses didn't really exist, except in the minds of the second-handers. Those who were mentally strong enough, would make it to the top, regardless of circumstances, for in terms of self actualization, they had everything and more. It was evolution, plain and simple as science to her. Evolution though, is not an overnight process. It is in this interim time period that Marx's theory of  exploitation becomes relevant, however reservedly (I'm anti-Marxist, sue me*). So in some sense, neither survives while the other lives. Instead, the two achieve resonance. When I had come to this conclusion, it had never occurred to me that Rand could be wrong, in any way. Like I said, such was her ability. However, disillusionment began to set in. Malcolm Gladwell had written his second book, 'Outliers', and I had turned my undivided attention to it. It was a book about success stories (no, not a self-help book!), a fascinating read, although admittedly not his best. It had analysed in great depth, the stories of the rise of many people Rand would describe as prime movers. Gladwell had taken the stories of people like Bill Gates and the like,  and had proven conclusively that luck, simple old serendipity, had a great deal to do with these people's successes. Admittedly, they had worked very hard to start with, but they also got lucky, and that was the reason they were where they were, Gladwell showed the world. It doesn't make sense for me to explain what he already did, so if you haven't already read the book, try this: Outliers.

In such situations, is it possible to solve all conflicts of the mind with a uniform protocol, or philosophy? Also, for some reason, debates involving Marxism and Objectivism make one completely forget, that humans are still capable of doing each other favours without being coerced, and that not every single member of the so called dominant class is out to exploit the masses. And lastly, as Ayn Rand herself once asked; Who is John Galt?

________________________________________________________________________________
*Why am I anti-Marxist? Tough to explain, but this helps - Remember Danilov from 'Enemy at the gates'? His disillusionment in his dying breaths; "Man will always be man, there is no new man. We've tried so hard to create a society that was equal, where there'd be no reason to envy your neighbor, but there is always something to envy. A smile, a friendship, something you have not, and wish to appropriate, In this world, even the Soviet one, there will always be rich and poor. Rich in gifts, poor in gifts. Rich in love, poor in love."