EPT
Loose Ends
+ Show Spoiler +
But before I start, I should make mention. Two blog ago, I had said I was writing Entry Part I and would write Part II. However, the ideas of Part II seemed self-evident and I grew bored with the idea. So in brief, I was going to draw out more ideas for Entry Point into a series using Star Wars- Even supposing the prequels were of equal or even better quality then the original, they could not possibly be the first starting point into the series. Episode IV creates the mystery of 'who is Darth Vader' this villain who killed Luke's father. Episode V's structure treats “I am your father” as a Big Deal and a Surprise. None of that is true if you first watched Episodes I to III first. Big Twists dictate where the best Entry Point is in a series.
The other point was if a series is generally connected, but not very tightly, the Best is often used as an Entry Point. For example, out of all the Expanded Universe novels, people will usually recommend the Thrawn Trilogy by Timothy Zahn. So there's the short version.
The other point was if a series is generally connected, but not very tightly, the Best is often used as an Entry Point. For example, out of all the Expanded Universe novels, people will usually recommend the Thrawn Trilogy by Timothy Zahn. So there's the short version.
On to Atlas Shrugged. I was curious about it as it highlighted by so many modern conservatives/ libertarians in the States and yet the book was not thought too highly by an older generation of conservatives such as William F Buckley. I have also heard Atlas reviled by many others (or else claims that the book is interminably boring.) Not content to rely upon others opinions, I had to see for myself.
Initial Interest
To my surprise (because of various negative reviews) I found the beginning interesting. I think that is largely because we have a character, Dagny, who is trying to achieve her goal (rebuild the Rio line) against impossible odds that keep stacking up against her. Unfortunately, once the rail gets built, the story bogs down in frightfully long conversations by incredibly wordy people.
As a story background, a society in decline is usually interesting. Although her protagonists all seem Ubermensch (Dagny, Rearden, d'Anconia, Danneskjold- good looking and self-taught, one and all) and everyone else are the Last Men (James, Orren, Mouch, Ferris- slouching, diminishing humans with university training), living in the end of days and trying to win against the Last Men is good soil to create a story. A story where every well-intentioned solution just makes the economy collapse more and more until people go back to horse and buggy is also an interesting premise.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/MJzEak3.jpg)
And honestly, as much as people have summarized the story as 'the rich take their toys and go home,' the policies enacted are SO bad, that it is little wonder the industrialists simply quit. By the time Directive Number 10-289 comes through, I'm pretty sure I would quit too. But therein lies the problem.
My Rumblings of Protest Begin: Check Your Premises.
Most of the polices don't make sense within the context of the story and this is a big problem for me. Once we have gotten to the collapse of industry, the problems snowball, and I can get on board with the aftermath. The single difficulty is how we get there. And considering the story is about the Fall, selling the Fall is a Big Deal. Check your premises, Ayn Rand wrote and in checking the book's premises, I am quite certain the story has a faulty foundation. Once we are at E, we have an interesting story, but steps A, B, C, and D need to make sense and they just do not.
I literally interrupted my reading, exclaiming “who thinks like that?” Another time, I stormed into the next room and asked my house mates “who ever talks like that?” There are so many times, I just could not understand the steps of A through D.
I cannot fathom the character motivation of the Last Men in the story, so then I reluctantly turn to the idea that it might be directed outward as a Message. I would prefer to interpret the book simply by closely reading the text and the text alone. However, the text doesn't make sense to me and so I am left wondering about outside influences. Thus I come to my central question in which I am need of help:
In the 1950's or earlier, were similar argument actually made in all sincerity? Is Ayn Rand actually responding to real policy ideas in the western world when she published the book in 1957?
As character motivations, they are nonsensical to me. As a topical message, whether applicable or didactic, they seem like strawmen arguments. But perhaps that is only my ignorance- are these real, historical arguments?
Policy Problems
If I could identify the root of my problem with the Last Men's motivations it would be this: Ayn Rand seems to mistake the law of unintended consequences for the primary motivation to enact bad policy. What should be the intended effect is the explicit character motivation. That is the Last Men purpose to destroy the economy rather than accidentally destroy it. And that I find very hard to believe.
On to examples. If quotes are particularly long, I will spoiler them for space.
I am cursed with good fortune and good looks; my greatest weakness is I work too hard.
The initial problem for the protagonist Dagny Taggart is that the Rio Norte line has fallen into disrepair and her brother James is the incompetent boss. Rio Norte connects to Colorado where Ellis Wyatt, found new oil in old wells, turning Colorado into an industrial hub. This, suddenly creates a huge boom and a great demand for more trains- something you would think Jim would be happy about, but he wasn't willing to increase service from one train a week and so a new rival, the Phoenix-Durango run by Dan Conway takes over and he runs
“two tank trains a day down there- and it runs them on schedule.” 10
Fine so far. Jimmy didn't see the opportunity and missed out.
But then we get this from Jim
“I think (Wyatt's) a destructive, unscrupulous ruffian. I think he's an irresponsible upstart who's been grossly overrated.”
“I'm not sure that his oil fields are such a beneficial achievement. It seems to me that he's dislocated the economy of the whole country. Nobody expected Colorado to become an industrial state. How can we have any security or plan anything if everything changes all the time?” 10
“I'm not sure that his oil fields are such a beneficial achievement. It seems to me that he's dislocated the economy of the whole country. Nobody expected Colorado to become an industrial state. How can we have any security or plan anything if everything changes all the time?” 10
What the hell kind of opposition reasoning is this? I can understand opposition to Ellis Wyatt 1) environmental damage 2) exploitation of workers 3) goon tactics on rivals 4) underhanded finances/ accounting. However, instead Jim is upset because demand increased and Jim wasn't smart enough to purchase more trains, and then loses the contract. But he doesn't complain he missed out or that Ellis should have given them a little more time. He complains that Ellis developed at all.
Who thinks like this? Who complains that no one expected X state to become an industrial state for no other reason than it became better for business. . .the very same business that you are connected to. How in the world can you think an industry boom is bad in the very area you already have a railroad connection? And for no other reason that it 'dislocated the economy' right into your own stomping ground? No one thinks like this. Not the most progressively left business owner. (Or am I wrong?) The problem is not that he is opposed to Wyatt's industrial boom, but that it is simply opposition for opposition's sake and thus to me, Jim feels more like a puppet or a prop than a character.
“he wouldn't demand more than his fair share of transportation...” 10
'Fair' is thrown around all over the place when Ayn Rand wants to sneer at views contrary to her own philosophy. I do not think it is ever used in a way that anyone would actually use it.
What does 'fair share of transportation' even mean? And of all the people to be concerned about it, why is it the railroad company owner that is speaking it? I cannot see this ever coming up.
Bad Suppliers
So just how bad is the track? A reliable character, Eddie Willers says
“The Rio Norte is done for. That track is shot. Down the whole line.” 7
“That track is shot. It's no use trying to run trains down there. People are giving up trying to use them.” 8
“That track is shot. It's no use trying to run trains down there. People are giving up trying to use them.” 8
They had an excellent rail supplier:
“Rearden Steel had been the chief supplier of Taggart Transcontinental for ten years... For ten years, most of their rail had come from Rearden Steel. There were not many firms in the country who delivered what was ordered, when and as ordered. Rearden Steel was one of them.” Dagny 19
James tried a new supplier. However, they have waited THIRTEEN MONTHS to receive any rails at all from Associated Steel (pg 8.) Thirteen Months!!!! And is James furious with Associated Steel? Has he even thought about returning to Rearden Steel?
Nope.
“It isn't fair,” said James Taggart. “That we always give all our business to Rearden. It seems to me we should give somebody else a chance, too. Rearden doesn't need us; he's plenty big enough. We ought to help the smaller develop. Otherwise, we're just encouraging a monopoly.” 20
“Why do we always have to get things from Rearden?” (Jim)
“Because we always get them.” (Dagny)
“I don't like Henry Rearden.” (Jim) 20
He sounds like a child. Which as a flawed character, might be fine. But I don't find him a believable flawed character. If this is supposed to be an argument against a political philosophy, what is it except against childishness? And who, exactly, supports the notion that children should run businesses? What business in the WORLD would wait thirteen months and STILL get upset about the idea of returning to their old supplier.
“The human element is very important. You have no sense of the human element at all.” 20
What does this even mean? “Human element” has no meaning when talking about competition between companies. It would have all the meaning in the world if it was talking about ignoring unsafe working conditions for the sake of eeking out a little more profit. Human element would make sense in context of Labour if people are losing life or limb for more profit. That would be the 'human element.' Here it is meaningless. Or am I wrong? Were there people in the 50's concerned about the 'human element' when businesses stuck with one supplier and didn't switch suppliers enough. Because I feel like we're boxing shadows here and 'human element' is misapplied entirely. (In fact, I would say Atlas Shrugged is largely unconcerned about Labour except if they are useful idiots for either the Industrialist Ubermensch or else the Last Men collectivists and looters.)
Also, mark the only reason James opposed switching to Rearden Steel is because he opposes monopolies. It's important.
Expand and Abandon Your Base!
Jim Taggart is opposed to expanding his rail system to keep up with demand created by Ellis Wyatt's oil boom. He instead believes that railways should be built in new regions with little demand.
“I don't see why you're so eager to give a chance to Ellis Wyatt, yet you think it's wrong to take part in developing an underprivileged country that never had a chance.”
“...I don't see why we should want to help one man instead of a whole nation.” 22
“...I don't see why we should want to help one man instead of a whole nation.” 22
This makes no sense either. If he truly wanted to provide railways for all, the best method to do so is double down on where you can make a profit and then use the profits to build infrastructure into areas that are not immediately profitable. Huge profits in one region can support profit loss in other regions.
And if private companies don't want to increase infrastructure in areas of low profit, that's where government can step in.
A good example on how this really happens is that a government offers a contract to a company to expand infrastructure- the BC government gave Telus a 10 year services contract that would expand high speed internet into rural areas. That is, government can invest in infrastructure for the benefit of its citizens that a private company would otherwise not attempt on their own. But nobody is shuffling their feet to keep up with the urban demand for high speed internet if there is profits to be made. The core can pay for the periphery.
Regardless of whether or not government decides to offer contracts, no company would turn down the opportunity for the only reason that they would make money. No matter how progressive a business person is- they are not going to avoid profit for the only reason that they do not want to be profitable. They might choose to make less money if there is some other compelling reason (better treatment of workers or a desire to be more environmentally friendly), but not for no reason whatsoever. As far is I can see Ayn Rand is describing a non-reality, a Utopia in the sense of No Place rather than a Eutopia.
Counterfactual History of Railroads (An Aside)
+ Show Spoiler +
The founder of the Taggart Line is held up as a paragon of individualism, self-reliance, and refusing government aid.
Desperate for funds, with the construction of his line suspended, he threw down three flights
of stairs a distinguished gentleman who offered him a loan from the government. 56
of stairs a distinguished gentleman who offered him a loan from the government. 56
He COULD have just said no. . . Jerk move, imo.
But this is the key quote:
Nathaniel Taggart had been a penniless adventurer who had come from somewhere in New England and built a railroad across a continent, in the days of the first steel rails. His railroad still stood; his battle to build it had dissolved into a legend, because people preferred not to Understand it or to believe it possible.
He was a man who had never accepted the creed that others had the right to stop him. He set his goal and moved toward it, his way as straight as one of his rails. He never sought any loans, bonds, subsidies, land grants or legislative favors from the government. He obtained money from the men who owned it, going from door to door—from the mahogany doors of bankers to the clapboard doors of lonely farmhouses. He never talked about the public good. He merely told people that they would make big profits on his railroad, he told them why he expected the profits and he gave his reasons. He had good reasons. 55
He was a man who had never accepted the creed that others had the right to stop him. He set his goal and moved toward it, his way as straight as one of his rails. He never sought any loans, bonds, subsidies, land grants or legislative favors from the government. He obtained money from the men who owned it, going from door to door—from the mahogany doors of bankers to the clapboard doors of lonely farmhouses. He never talked about the public good. He merely told people that they would make big profits on his railroad, he told them why he expected the profits and he gave his reasons. He had good reasons. 55
Now that's a lovely sentiment to have after a rail line is already built and you are just repairing it. But declining government support rather ignores the historical and geographical realities of building a transcontinental railroad from scratch.
The fact is that North America is massive and at the time the transcontinental lines were built, largely depopulated. There was a huge distance to cross before you could start making profit; it was not as simple as making short connections at a time, connecting the eastern seaboard to Buffalo and Chicago or connecting the Canadas into the American line, expanding as you had cash. Crossing the entire continent had to cross it all at once or there was no profit to make and no company ventured to do so with out government backing- this was true in both the US and Canada. Government bonds were issued, land grants were given, and in the case of Canada a 20 year monopoly was granted. The government had to make sufficient incentives for companies to want to cross the continent and/or capitalists needed to leverage the government in order to get sufficient get sufficient capital to cross the continent.
So it's a bit rich for me to see this glorification of Nat Taggart the man who throws government officials down staircases, when it runs contrary to historical precedent. I'm not saying it's impossible, but I will say that government intervention (in Canada for sure) connected the coasts decades in advance had it been left to corporations- and most likely Canada would be using all American rails.
Which leads to another issue- governments have more objectives than profit motive and the much maligned and misapplied 'fairness' or 'human element.' A fairly large objective is defence of territory and assertion of sovereignty. The CPR in Canada allowed the federal government to quickly put down a rebellion in a matter of weeks, while in the past it took months to reach much closer territory. Territorial integrity was also threatened by the influx of American settlers (always the warning sign for American annexation in those days.)
There was also a desire to connect the newly settled Prairies market with the manufacturers in Ontario rather than see all the business go south of the border (John A Macdonald's National Policy.)
All that to say, I find the lionization of Nat Taggart odd in light of the real motivations and the real difficulties of building a transcontinental rail for the first time.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Ke6FjWj.jpg)
Anti-Dog-Eat-Dog Rule
Here comes the first (new) bad law.
“It was said that while the public welfare was threatened by shortages of transportation, railroads were destroying one another through viscous competition, on “the brutal policy of dog-eat-dog.” While there existed blighted areas where rail service had been discontinued, there existed at the same time large regions where two or more railroads were competing for a traffic barely sufficient for one.” 76
Problem: too many companies competing for two little work and other areas are left alone. Ok.
Pg 77 We have a Railroad bailout/ the idea that it is too big to fail. Ok, something like that actually happens in real life.
So then the solution is. . .
“Forbidden to engage in practices defined as 'destructive competition'; that in regions declared to be restricted, no more than one railroad would be permitted to operate; that in such regions, seniority belonged to the oldest railroad now operating there, and that the newcomers, who had encroached unfairly upon its territory, would suspend operations within nine months of being so ordered...” 78
Granting monopoly. . . to the non-operating company.
Remember- Taggart is the older company and this is the condition of their line
Willis: “We haven't met a schedule for the last six months. We haven't completed a run without some sort of breakdown, major or minor. We're losing all our shippers, one after another. How long can we last?” 8
I can see nationalizing a line, or making it a crown corporation (or US equivalent.) Maybe strong-arming one company into selling its rail line to the favoured rail company. But to shut down the Phoenix-Durango company that is working just fine in the hopes that the ailing company would suddenly start working??? Phoenix-Durango rails and bridges are already built and the trains are already running!!! The Taggarts have to rebuild everything on their line!
Why? Even a Marxist government would not wish to see functional rail line stopped. They might throw out the bourgesois and turn over control to the proletariat (and that might result in a badly run rail company), but what government would purposefully shut down what is already working? Maybe if there was a violent anti-Western revolution like the Khmer Rouge, thus leading to a backlash against technology and intellectualism. But without a violent revolutionary mentality, it just is not going to happen.
As for granting monopolies- that at least is historical. But it's an odd move for a collectivist or the Left, which typically claim to defend Labour. A monopoly gives a lot more power to the owners as the workers can't just walk across the street to find better employment at a rival company. But the worst of it is that James Taggart somehow agrees with this. Now they don't call it a monopoly, but I don't see how “that in regions declared to be restricted, no more than one railroad would be permitted to operate” can be interpreted as anything other than a monopoly. Whatever happened to Jim's anti-monopoly beliefs?
Granted there is this earlier converstion:
Boyle: “Jim, you will agree, I'm sure, that there's nothing more destructive than a monopoly.”
“Yes,” said Taggart, “on the one hand. On the other, there's the blight of unbridled competition.”
“...The proper course is always, in my opinion, in the middle. So it is, I think, the duty of society to snip the extremes, now isn't it?” 48
“Yes,” said Taggart, “on the one hand. On the other, there's the blight of unbridled competition.”
“...The proper course is always, in my opinion, in the middle. So it is, I think, the duty of society to snip the extremes, now isn't it?” 48
But this doesn't jive with Jim's motivation. Strongly anti-monopolist is SUCH an understatement. Jim was willing to sack his entire company to wait thirteen months because of he wanted to avoid monopolies. There was no other reason for that nonsense. Where the hell did that conviction go? His character motivations seem to be more a plot contrivance.
Don Conoway, the owner of the now defunct Phoenix-Durango line apparently concedes, agreeing with the reason to shut down his company
“But who's to decide which way to take, unless it's the majority... Men have to get together.” 80
'Men have to get together' is thrown in there as though it is some truism, but it has no specific meaning in context. Is this something people said in Ayn Rand's time? Because how does 'men have to get together' have anything to do with anything, least of all shutting down functional businesses in favour of failing ones. Who believes that? Your Law Has Sent Us To Destroy!
The idea of well-intentioned laws destroying the economy is interesting. The idea of passing laws that are so bad, they have on discernible purpose BUT to tear apart the economy is not interesting at all. And so we come to the National Emergency law.
+ Show Spoiler +
“The railroads of the country were ordered to reduce the maximum speed of all trains to sixty miles per hour- to reduce the maximum length of all trains to sixty cars- and to run the same number of trains in every state of zone composed of five neighboring states, the country divided into such zones for the purposes.
The steel mills of the country were ordered to limit the maximum production of any metal alloy to an amount equal to the production of other metal alloys by other mills placed in the same classification of plant capacity- and to supply a fair share of any metal alloy to all consumers who might desire to obtain it.
All manufacturing establishments of the country, of any size and nature, were forbidden to move from their present locations, except when granted special permission...” 343
The steel mills of the country were ordered to limit the maximum production of any metal alloy to an amount equal to the production of other metal alloys by other mills placed in the same classification of plant capacity- and to supply a fair share of any metal alloy to all consumers who might desire to obtain it.
All manufacturing establishments of the country, of any size and nature, were forbidden to move from their present locations, except when granted special permission...” 343
What government, ever Left or Right, Democratic, Socialist, or Totalitarian has ever wanted decreased production for no other reason of wanting other companies to pick up the slack, particularly when supply can not keep up with demand. There have been some issues with an over production and raising prices through quotas such as the dairy system. But one of the background problems in Atlas Shrugged is there is shortage of everything. So the problem is NOT that the market is flooded with goods are not getting purchased. Quite the opposite, actually. There are massive shortages.
I don't know, maybe someone has argued to tie down and limit production of the biggest manufactures based on their weakest competitors in a time of huge demand and low supply. But who and when? I am honestly completely at a loss with this policy.
There are times when transportation must go well below their best speeds, but I don't think so their competitors can have more business. For instance BC Ferry's Fast Cats couldn't go top speeds because the wake created was destroying waterfront property, consuming too much fuel, and wrecked their engines due to flotsam. The reasons given in Atlas Shrugged makes no sense.
Running the Table: Directive designed to kill all businesses, ever.
By the time we get to Directive Number 10-289, those in power are really just running the table to try and destroy as much of the economy as they can. I can't think of any other reason why the Directive is sent out except self-sabotage.
+ Show Spoiler [Point One] +
“Point One. All workers, wage earners and employees of any kind whatsoever shall henceforth be attached to their job and shall not leave nor be dismissed nor change employment, under penalty of a term in jail.... All persons reaching the age of twenty-one shall report to the Unification Board, which shall assign them to where, in its opinion, their services will best serve the interests of the nation.” 555
Alright. Fine, I'll buy this one. Typical dystopian totalitarian government.
+ Show Spoiler [Point Two] +
“Point Two. All industrial, commercial, manufacturing and business establishments of any nature whatsoever shall henceforth remain in operation, and the owners of such establishments shall not quit nor leave nor retire, nor close, sell or transfer their business, under penalty of the nationalization of their establishment and of any and all of their property.
Seems rather hard to enforce. . . speaking of which. Law enforcement and the military are largely absent from this book. I would think just based on how terrible everything is that they would be over run with crime or at least mention should be made that the Last Men are so depressed they don't do anything anymore. There's this Danneskjold the self-styled Anti-Robin Hood (I immediately dislike the guy because Robin Hood is one of my favourite stories) that keeps sinking ships heading to the US and the US navy seems entirely absent. But it's not like the Somalian pirates hiding along the coast in their little speedboats. Danneskjold cruising around with a freaking battleship, shelling the US shoreline as he pleases. Where the hell did the post-WWII military go?
+ Show Spoiler [Point Three & Four] +
Point Three. All patents and copyrights, pertaining to any devices, inventions, formulas, processes and works of any nature whatsoever, shall be turned over to the nation as a patriotic emergency gift... The Unification Board shall then license the use of such patents and copyrights to all applicants, equally without discrimination, for the purposes of eliminating monopolistic practices, discarding obsolete products and making the best available to the whole nation...
Point Four. No new devices, inventions, products, or goods or any nature whatsoever, not now on the market, shall be produced, invented, manufactured or sold after the date of this directive. The Office of Patents and Copyrights is hereby suspended.
Point Three. . . interesting that they are rescinding all copyright monopolies, while establishing train monopolies. Copyrights and patents are an interesting, but side topic. However, at one point it was believed that all monopolies were bad, but that copyrights for very limited durations were a necessary evil.
Point Four is crazy talk. Why? What government ever wants no new devices, products, or goods of any nature? Again, you need Khmer Rouge style backlash, directed specifically at materialism, or something. Or maybe you can somehow go the route of Equilibrium. But this point, I have had such issues with the Last Men's reasoning, I have a hard time accepting justification from the text because the ground work has been so shoddy. I will gladly enter into an Equilibrium-type dystopia, but the author has to lead the way or it is fantastical in the derogatory sense of the word.
+ Show Spoiler [Point Five, Six, & Seven] +
Point Five. Every establishment, concern, corporation or person engaged in production of any nature whatsoever shall henceforth produce the same amount of goods per year as it, they or he produced during the Basic Year, no more and no less... Over or under production shall be fined...
Point Six. Every person of any age, sex, class or income, shall henceforth spend the same amount of money on the purchase of goods per year as he or she spent during the Basic Year, no more and no less.
Over or under purchasing shall be fined, such fines to be determined...
Point Seven. All wages, prices, salaries, dividends, profits, interest rates and forms of income of any nature whatsoever, shall be frozen at their present figures, as of the date of this directive.” 556
Point Six loses me again. How do they propose to enforce people spending exactly the same amount of money no more or less from year to year? That's such a weird state control idea that is implemented through self-regulation by it's citizens as though the government just hopes people will change their buying patterns or they'll fine them at the end. Going full totalitarian and collectivizing and redistributing everything makes more sense than this idea.
+ Show Spoiler +
“There's no such thing as the intellect. A man's brain is a social product. A sum of influences that he's picked up from those around him. Nobody invents anything, he merely reflects what's floating in the social atmosphere. A genius is an intellectual scavenger and a greedy hoarder of the ideas which rightfully belong to society, from which he stole them. All thought is theft. If we do away with private fortunes, we'll have a fairer distribution of wealth. If we do away with genius, we'll have a fairer distribution of ideas.” 557
And this is such a weird idea. Was this ever argued? I can catch glimpses of what may have been the original point, but it seems like a twisted, misshapen parody of an idea. But maybe people believe that 'all thought is theft?'
None in the Directive group (Mouch, Jim, Boyle, etc) motivations make much sense except the Union boss, Kinnan. He's a racketeer and that sort exists everywhere. I understand Kinnan is supposed to be honestly dishonest and the rest of the Directive group are dishonestly dishonest. But the execution of that idea leaves them with motivations that no human would have.
The now nearly hysterical Jim Taggart:
+ Show Spoiler +
“Everybody will know his place and his job, and everybody else's place and job- we won't be at the mercy of every stray crank with a new idea. Nobody will push us out of business or steal our markets or sell or undersell us or make us obsolete.
Nobody will come to us offering some damn new gadget and putting us on the spot to decide whether we'll lose our shirt if we buy it, or whether we'll lose our shirt if we don't but somebody else does! We won't have to decide. Nobody will be permitted to decide anything. It will be decided once and for all.” His glance moved pleadingly from face to face. “There's been enough invented already- enough for everybody's comfort- why should they be allowed to go on inventing?...” 560- 561
Again, is Ayn Rand representing anyone's beliefs here? This hatred for invention?
Now, here we do have Kinnan seeing through the self-delusion or hypocrisy with:
“Centralization destroys the blight of monopoly,” said Boyle.
“How's that again?” drawled Kinnan.
Boyle did not catch the tone of mockery... 561
“How's that again?” drawled Kinnan.
Boyle did not catch the tone of mockery... 561
Now, as much as this is a gotcha for all those Looters that don't understand that Centralization is monopoly under a different name. . . that still doesn't excuse Jim Taggart's blindness in regards to the Dog-Eat-Dog law. It's a monopoly and there is no way a Kinnan 'gotcha' can cover for the sad excuse for Jim Taggart's characterization.
Then we have this:
Lawson says:
“Doesn't Point Four mean that no new books are to be written or published from now on?”
“Yes,” said Mouch, “it does. But we can't make an exception for the book-publishing business. It's an industry like any other. When we say 'no new products,' it's got to mean products.'” 562
“Don't be a chump, Gene,” said Dr. Ferris. “You don't want some recalcitrant hacks to come out with treatises that will wreck our entire program, do you? If you breathe the word 'censorship' now, they'll all scream bloody murder.” 563
“Yes,” said Mouch, “it does. But we can't make an exception for the book-publishing business. It's an industry like any other. When we say 'no new products,' it's got to mean products.'” 562
“Don't be a chump, Gene,” said Dr. Ferris. “You don't want some recalcitrant hacks to come out with treatises that will wreck our entire program, do you? If you breathe the word 'censorship' now, they'll all scream bloody murder.” 563
Ok, I can see part of what Ayn Rand is trying to do here. Controlling the message is a tried and true tactic for totalitarian governments in real life and in dystopians. So I can track Ferris' giving the real reason for the policy. But the covering reason has to make sense on its own and it just doesn't. You might say, we need just maintain, so nothing new shall be made. But of course, it is an author or a musician or a film makers job to create new products, so all you are doing is causing unemployment. Who would swallow THAT as a reason? Point Four makes no sense its own terms, which it must do if they are hoping to use it as a cover to censor opposition. There's not even the self-interested reason of- no new products for the lower class, they can't be trusted with it, but we, WE can shoulder the burden of new products. Point Four has one purpose and one purpose alone- societal destruction. And that's just dumb.
The Last Men's solution is that publishers should republish old books:
“There are many very worthy books that have never had a fair chance.” 563
(Again that word.)Although funnily, there are actually groups Like Singularity & Co dedicated to saving out-of-print adventure stories... and it has nothing to do with 'fairness.'
The Clincher
However, even if I could somehow make sense of the Last Men's motivations on their own terms, we have this clincher at the end.
“Say,” asked Kinnan, “how is the emergency to end if everything to end if everything is to stand still?” 556
A very good question, I would think. They are in an emergency, and presumably in a downward plunge. Ostensibly, the Directive is to stop the nose dive and just Maintain. However, they already in a state of emergency. If they are supposed to Maintain and never make anything new, how will they get out? Is there an answer? Can they sell this deadweight of an idea?
“Don't be theoretical,” said Mouch impatiently. “We've got to deal with the situation of the moment. Don't bother about minor details, so long as the broad outlines of our policy are clear. We'll have the power. We'll be able to solve any problems and answer any question.” 566
Gah! There is no answer. There is no plan. The plan is to destroy the economy and call it a day. These are not motivations of any human except the Joker and he at least had the flair for dramatics.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/tfgyYzd.jpg)
Conclusion
(Although I could say much more) I have heard it said that Atlas Shrugged is the key understanding the ills of big government. However, I find the book's premises groundless; I find it hard to find applicability when the world it describes is a non-reality, a No Place. A work may have the trappings of the fantastical- faster than light travel, or perhaps ageless elves, and yet capture an essential truth. From my readings so far, Atlas Shrugged does the opposite. It has the trappings of reality, but it rings false and hollow.
The people in Atlas Shrugged who supposedly are concerned with unfettered Capitalism, never give any arguments regarding specific worker exploitation, but instead use these meaningless catch-phrases like the 'human element.'
Am I wrong? Did people actually talk and think like this in the 50's and earlier? And I don't mean hyper-partisan reinterpretation of views. Is there some truthful commentary represented in the views of the Last Men of Jim Taggart, Mouch, Ferris (I haven't even touched his nonsense philosophy. . . was that supposed to be a representation of post-modernism?), Boyle and company. Because as a work of fiction, and on its own terms, I find it most unbelievable.
