[lbo-talk] Read Ayn Rand

Gar Lipow the.typo.boy at gmail.com
Sun Aug 15 20:19:04 PDT 2010


On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 1:21 PM, c b <cb31450 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Matthias Wasser
> I read AS at a young age, and I did get several advantages from it,
> not the least of which was inoculation. But it seems to me that it
> wasn't worth the opportunity cost. The Bible is even more
> sociologically important and of far greater literary merit; Hayek
> presents the libertarian case in a far more succinct and challenging
> form.
>
> ^^^^^^
> CB: On that libertarian gut feeling, how about _Robinson Crusoe_ ?
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>

I'm pretty sure Robinson Crusoe was not an ultra-individualist story. Even though Crusoe was able to provide himself food, clothing and shelter he was desperate for company, until he took Friday as a servant. (And even Crusoe's existence on the level of food, clothing and shelter was miserable until he salvaged a great deal from the shipwreck he survived. Minus the salvage of the work of others, he could have provided for himself well even on that level. And even with the salvage,it took him a long time to put together a herd of goats and vineyard and such to make himself truly comfortable on a very crude level.) Of course this a modern reading, but I think it is part of what Defoe intended.

I also think all the stuff I read past at 14 about how much better off men of the "middle sort" are than either the rich or the poor, and his opposition to adventuring, and the need to be satisfied with your place in life, and grateful to God were just as central to his intent.

Crusoe before the shipwreck is clearly intended to be morally lost. Even if the sale as a slave of the boy who has been his loyal companion is not seen as reprehensible (and I don't get the feeling the reader is completely intended to accept Crusoe's claim that the boy told him to go ahead that it was fine with him) Crusoe's self description seems to be clear that in retrospect he considers his self of that time to be a fool. A fool in the sense of taking foolish risks and not looking out for his long term interests. But those long term interests clearly include spiritual interests. Crusoe, pre-wreck, is not paying sufficient attention to God.

And his survival alone on the island is indeed intended to be a triumph of the human spirit. But that triumph is NOT that he survives alone. He has extraordinary pieces of luck, surviving the wreck when nobody else does, ending up in exactly the place where he could survive when (as it turns out) he could have ended up on another island or another place on his island that would have doomed him. He also gets access to salvage, survives illness. And while he does his best, his narrative constantly emphasizes how luck, or as he (and I think Defoe) see it help from God are what helps him survive.

I think the the triumph of spirit I read in Crusoe (and it really looks to me like the triumph Defoe intended) is a sinner achieving true sincere repentance, and achieving true gratitude toward God. (My atheism does not prevent me accepting this in the context of the story.) And the part of the repentance is also accepting his need for society, his place within society, his loyalty toward society. His playing a key role in helping the loyal English crew overcome the mutineers is not just a demonstration of the awesomeness of Crusoe, but of his finally taking risks for something bigger than himself. So Crusoe is no Rand precursor! -- Facebook: Gar Lipow Twitter: GarLipow Grist Blog: http://www.grist.org/member/1598 Static Web Page: http://www.nohairshirts.com



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list