|
"Reisman
insights without George Reisman"
(This
article was written in January 1997. It was sent to The Intellectual
Activist and to some private persons.)
I
will begin by telling a true life story.
About
ten years ago a person I know slightly, who has an interest in Objectivism
and who was also, at that time, employed at a major Swedish newspaper,
wrote a short editorial about a recent case involving racism and
started with the line: "Racism is the lowest, most primitive form
of collectivism." There were no quotation marks, and there was no
mention of Ayn Rand in the editorial.
Ayn
Rand's essay "Racism" (from The Virtue of Selfishness) had
just recently been translated into Swedish. (Incidentally,
by me.) The
same kind of outrage was repeated shortly afterwards, on a much
larger scale: a young Swedish libertarian wrote a long essay on
the subject of racism, which consisted almost entirely of quotes
from Miss Rand's essay (what was not quoted verbatim was paraphrased).
There was no mention of the source of the quotes; Miss Rand's name
was not mentioned. (The
libertarian later apologized for what he had done; not because I
asked him to do so, but because I pointed the facts out to
the editor of the magazine.)
Now,
what do you think of this? Isn't it an obvious case of wanting Rearden
metal without having to acknowledge the existence of Hank Rearden?
Now,
to the subject. The article by Andrew Lewis in the latest issue
of The Intellctual Activist is a very good, hard-hitting
essay, with which I have only one disagreement: it contains identifications
originally made by George Reisman, in his book The Government
Against the Economy, but there is not one word of credit given
to Dr. Reisman, neither in the text, nor in the footnotes.
The
identification on top of p. 16, that "the world is a solidly packed
ball of natural resources" is a direct quote from The
Government Against the Economy, and the exemplification is largely
taken from the same source. And the quote from Cyprian on the bottom
of p. 16 may certainly be found in Jones (to whose work there is
a footnoted reference), but its relevance to the controversy over
"natural resources" is again an identification made in Dr. Reisman's
book.
Other
points in the essay also show a "reismanesque" influence, e.g. the
effect of population growth on production in a division-of-labor
society.
Going
back to my original true life story, I believe that the motivation
behind those gentlemen's action is sheer cowardice. Ayn Rand is
not exactly a popular name with the "establishment"; if one wishes
to use her ideas, they have to be "sneaked in" without also mentioning
her name.
It
has to be the same kind of cowardice that motivates Mr. Lewis, especially
in view of the fact that his essay was written for Leonard Peikoff's
radio show. Mr. Lewis cannot be unaware of the fact that Leonard
Peikoff wishes George Reisman ostracized. Thus, if anything from
Dr. Reisman's works is mentioned on the Leonard Peikoff show, it
has to be sneaked in without mentioning his name. (Dr. Peikoff,
himself, is of course also aware that he is using Dr. Reisman's
identifications.)
This
policy of intellectual thievery and cowardice, I have to say, is
bound to backfire. The relevant passage from The Government Against
the Economy is simply too well known among Objectivists, and
many more persons than I are bound to notice what is going on here.
More and more people will begin to ask themselves (and others) the
question: if George Reisman is such a bad guy that the appearance
of his magnum opus is not even worth mentioning in a publication
like TIA (despite the fact that excerpts from it have been published
in TIA) B how can he also be such a good guy that his intellectual
achievements are worth stealing?
Some
day you guys will find out that the immoral is also the impractical.
PS.
If you want further corroboration, I would suggest that you read
Dr. Reisman's pamphlet "The Toxicity of Environmentalism"
and then read Peter Schwartz' speech "Im Moral Defense of Forestry",
the text of which was recently published on the ARI web site, and
take note of how many points from the Reisman pamphlet are echoed
in the speech, without any single reference being made to George
Reisman. (The speech is excellent, so you might want to read it
for that reason, as well.) Just one example:
Reisman:
"In [a college students' bull session], one might start with
the known consequences of a quarter-ton safe falling ten stories
onto the head of an unfortunate passerby below, and from there go
on to speculate about the conceivable effects in a million cases
of other passersby happening to drop from their hand or mouth an
M&M or a peanut on their shoe, and come to the conclusion that
4.2 of them will die."
Schwartz:
"If a one-ton piano crashing down on you is fatal, does this
imply that a one-ounce feather floating onto your shoulders once
a day for 88 years is also a threat?"
There
is of course nothing wrong with one man using another man's ideas
(or paraphrasing his formulations), as long as proper credit is
given. But what is the moral status of using another man's ideas
while at the same time attempting to deny the very existence of
the man from whom one is borrowing?
Back
to The Night Watchman
Åter
till ärans och hjältarnas
|