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.
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.
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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.
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
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.
“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
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.
“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.
“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?
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.
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.
“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
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
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.
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.
Rand's Atlas Shrugged highlights more than anything the 'working out' (the development and redevelopment nigh ad infinitum) of her philosophy of Objectivism, the notion that within every human being the nature/nurture aspects combine to produce desires that if acted upon will ensure systematic (continuous and productive) happiness for the individual and for society at large. These desires can be for capitalistic gain, sexual gain, power gain, the whole gamut.
People (society as a whole) did not think like that in the fifties however her work was massively influential among a group of elite policy makers, most of all Alan Greenspan who went on to serve Nixon and Clinton and change massively the economic modes of financial crisis management.
I highly suggest to anyone before launching into The Fountainhead or Atlas Shrugged to watch All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace (Adam Curtis) for an overview of Rand and her ideas to put her work and characters (especially Taggart and Ferris) into context.
There are three sides to Rand. 1) Herself as human being. 2) As philosopher. 3) As novelist. As human being she was very unhappy and unable to follow her own ideas when they contradicted her wishes, for example her failed relationship with a married man and her inability understand him leaving her. Surely he was just following objectivism to leave her as he desired another woman. Yet Rand near killed him and was bitter the rest of her life over his 'betrayal.'
It is of my opinion that objectivism was born out of her immense intellect (and let's be clear here - she was a genius) to justify her own view of herself as greater than the rest of humanity and why she should be able to follow her desires regardless of consequences.
As a novelist she is amazing. Her stories are large and all encompassing. They feel to me like modern versions of Goethe's Faust part two. Like tragedies of industrial/ technological and social development. As a companion read I always recommend 'All that is solid melts into air' by Marshall Berman.
To this day the Randian hero is the poster child, the target market and the goal of production of every advertising campaign launched since her novels hit the shelves. Rand's ideas are alive and well.
PS: I liked your take on the book, I agree 95% with you when you said "there is no plan." But my understanding is Rand was trying to illustrate "there is no end plan only end ideas."
Big post, still reading through it. I'm 3/4 way through the book and won't spoil anything you haven't read.
Re: Jim. He is a looter like Mouch and the rest of the Washington gang. Ayn wrote the book as a statement to Objectivism which is heavily influenced by laissez faire capitalism.
The looters are against this. They want to take the work of others as their own achievement. The looters are not smart enough to do the job of the Ubermensch. This type of person has and always will exist. You've probably had co-workers who weren't as productive at the same job as you. However they want the same recognition and reward. This degrades human achievement.
That's why Jim calls Wyatt a "destructive, unscrupulous ruffian". He isn't smart enough and is intimidated.
Here is a present day example. Elon Musk is an American industrialist. In one of the companies he runs, he sells electric vehicles. If this becomes widely adopted by the general public (by free/open market forces, see the dialogue in the trial of Hank Rearden) it will unsettle a large, existing billion dollar industry.
Tesla, the electric vehicle company which Elon Musk is CEO of has been refused the opportunity to sell cars direct to public. Let me say that again, an American car company is unable to sell a car to the public. He is forced to use car dealerships instead. Why? Because there are lobbyists who spend a lot of money to keep it that way. Those lobbyists are the looters you read about in Atlas Shrugged. Same mentality.
They are not smart enough to create an electric vehicle as Tesla has. They want to hold onto the old ways of 'how things were done'. The sentiments of Jim Taggart accurately reflect this. When the directive comes in that forbids growth he is like "Oh perfect, now we can do business without having to worry about someone changing everything". I don't know the exact quote, but that's the message he conveys.
You say "Why doesn't Jim embrace the good fortune to his business?" You aren't thinking like a looter. Looters dislike innovation. They realise that if someone like Hank or Ellis or Francisco comes along, they could upset their comfortable way in life.
I just wanted to post about your thoughts on Jim, I'll read the rest after work
I'm not familiar enough with the political climate of the 1950s to comment on that. I resent Atlas Shrugged more as Rand's poor attempt to ape Nietzsche without his wit or insight into human nature.
On April 23 2015 12:16 AxiomBlurr wrote: As a novelist she is amazing.
I would disagree on that. In terms of character development and command of prose, she is a rank amateur in my eyes.
Ayn Rand is an extremist, she hade limiterad power but an extremist still. Also she should have gotten a ghost writer, because it's worse writing than Twilight.
That's why Jim calls Wyatt a "destructive, unscrupulous ruffian". He isn't smart enough and is intimidated.
Intimidated by what, exactly? I could understand resentment of Dan Conoway because he is a rival and seized the opportunity better. I could see it being part of his character flaw to blame Dan rather than himself. I could see him intimidated by Dan because Jim isn't smart enough.
But it makes zero sense to blame Wyatt. Wyatt lobbed a softie to him and whether Jim swings or lets it fly by, there is nothing to be angry at. He's not angry that Wyatt exploits workers or damages the environment or has better lobbyists, or uses graft. He's angry because Wyatt created business opportunities right on Jim's doorstep. And it's not like it's even too late (even assuming none of the dumb laws are passed) the oil boom is carrying on and so Johnny-come-lately can still play catch up. It feels like plot puppetry/ bad character motivation rather than a flawed character.
You say "Why doesn't Jim embrace the good fortune to his business?" You aren't thinking like a looter. Looters dislike innovation. They realise that if someone like Hank or Ellis or Francisco comes along, they could upset their comfortable way in life.
I'm not thinking like a looter, but I am wondering who does exactly? Do these people exist that are against all innovation, ever? There are specific cases- maybe oil companies would prefer if alternate energies don't cut into to their market. Or perhaps the Luddites specifically resented the loom, the specific piece of technology that replaced them as workers. But the hate of innovation tends to be very specifically directed at the innovation cutting into their own profits/ well-being. The hatred is very narrow in scope. Unless there is an anti-materialist aestheticism movement, most people like innovation, especially if it directly benefits them. Wyatt's innovation of sucking oil out of dead wells, directly benefits Jim, even if he does exactly nothing except maintain his current line. Just due to economic spin-off, his trains ought to be packed every trip, guaranteeing profit- except that he is dumb and is sitting on his hands for thirteen months because he wants to avoid a very hypothetical Rearden Steel monopoly.
edit And yeah, sorry it's super long. It's just over 6000 words, but I think 2000 of those are quotes and another 500 or more are html formatting.
I always thought 'Dagny Taggart' was a stupid character name.
My interpretation of the book is a bit simple, but this because I am a simple person. The idea in the book is that capitalists and capitalism build society, and unions are leeches that slow down progress. Additionally, the idea also says that anyone who is opposed to capitalism is opposed to the progression and building of civilization, but that politicians use the notion of disenfranchisement to persuade labor to support their campaigns, and paint businesses as 'the enemy'. By doing this, the anti-capitalists procure their own power, but at the cost of capitalists who want to build their businesses, and create an atmosphere of distrust among the lower class and laborers towards capitalists.
I tried reading "Atlas shrugged" once and had to put it away about 300 pages in. It's not a very good novel, both its language and the characterization of the protagonists are clumsy. For my taste, it's also too ideological. I just can't read hundreds of pages of ramblings about things I disagree with on a fundamental level.
If I weren't about to enter the depths of law school exams, I'd add my voice to the cacophony of Rand disapproval. But Falling did a plenty fine job :D
She once said that Kant was the most evil person in history. Given that Alan Greenspan, Former Chairman of the Reserve Bank in the US counted her as a mentor and much of his economic policy can be attributed to Rand's "philosophy" of Objectivism; and that such policy, which riled against regulation furtheredthe damage done by the global financial crisis which saw the collapse of economic systems in Greece, Ireland, Iceland, Spain, Italy and major damage to the US, France, UK and German banking systems...I count Rand herself as a despicable person.
It seems to me that Ayn Rand may have been a batshit crazy loony who would have done the world a lot more good by leaving it a long time before writing anything. Better late than never I suppose.
On April 23 2015 21:42 Phil0s0pher wrote: She once said that Kant was the most evil person in history.
That's coherent with Objectivism, as Kantian deontology opposes it in many ways. However, that was also a superficial reading of Kant's ethical system as a whole.
From what you described, I assume the idea of blaming Wyatt is meant to be read as: "there is something wrong in my life? THE ECONOMIC SYSTEM IS CRUSHING ME, I HATE THE SYSTEM" And we, as smart readers, are supposed to notice that it's actually this guy's failure, not the system's, and all come together to mock anti-capitalist views...
A simplistic explanation, sure, but it looks like a simplistic portrayal too.
I heard that the reason that Ayn Rand thought up Objectivism was because she felt guilty about being a selfish asshole and wanted to justify her selfish assholeness.
The Fountainhead is a much better book than Atlas Shrugged, which as many have pointed out is lackluster writing with questionable philosophy. I do however think the amount of hate Atlas Shrugged garners is a bit excessive.
On April 24 2015 03:29 Carnivorous Sheep wrote: The Fountainhead is a much better book than Atlas Shrugged, which as many have pointed out is lackluster writing with questionable philosophy. I do however think the amount of hate Atlas Shrugged garners is a bit excessive.
Oh come on, when fairly broad audiences can agree to hate something for reasons other than faith, ethnicity, or national origin, we might as well celebrate with a collective bit of heehawing.
The Fountainhead is only marginally better than Atlas Shrugged and I think most of this can be chalked up to the fact that audiences are generally fascinated with architects a la George Costanza. That being said, I do think that a critique of Rand that doesn't pay considerable lip service to her background as a communist expat and how that likely played a huge role in her brand of literary politics is probably incomplete. Furthermore, there are some fascinating opportunities for exercises in comparative literary analysis that are only made possible by the fact that people like Rand have written books that some people thought were good (for example, try and force an intertextual comparison between Atlas Shrugged and Eco's The Name of the Rose and and attempt to reconcile the incredibly stiff and disjunctive prose of the former with the practically fluidic and ambiguous nature of the latter and see what shakes out!).
If Fountainhead is the better book, why are politicians in the States waving around Atlas Shrugged? Is it the essay-like monologues that I'm running into now that more easily distill her philosophy?
I've just passed a monologue describing the destruction of the communist 20th Century Motor Company, which at least I can agree that wouldn't work so well. Though I wouldn't see it as applicable to any western economic system.
On April 23 2015 17:10 virpi wrote: I tried reading "Atlas shrugged" once and had to put it away about 300 pages in. It's not a very good novel, both its language and the characterization of the protagonists are clumsy. For my taste, it's also too ideological. I just can't read hundreds of pages of ramblings about things I disagree with on a fundamental level.
It's meant to be ideological, it's the entire point of the book. But I agree that it's a tough read because everything lines up for her doesn't it? The fictitious evens line up to fit her views in a way that wouldn't in reality, human nature is mischaracterized to the point where it looks like a big caricature of the point she's trying to defend.
The book and objectivism are largely ignored by intellectuals for good reason, it only reinforces the beliefs of people naive enough to believe in those ridiculous turns of event.
I believe you are missing the point of the book and the storytold within. The irrationality in the decisions and plotlines is a caricature of the irrationality of people in our world, taken to the extreme. In a sense everything in the book should be looked at like a carricature of the real world.
Seeking "a point" in the actions of the characters which the book has decided to paint as irrational is utter pointless, as the underlying message is that in an irrational world mindnumbingly crazy outcomes are possible.
With that in mind, the genius of the book becomes very apparent if you end up living in a corrupted "developping" country or work in an uncompetitive workplace where the events and characters described in the book become painfully real.
On April 24 2015 07:44 Kranyum wrote: I believe you are missing the point of the book and the storytold within. The irrationality in the decisions and plotlines is a caricature of the irrationality of people in our world, taken to the extreme. In a sense everything in the book should be looked at like a carricature of the real world.
Seeking "a point" in the actions of the characters which the book has decided to paint as irrational is utter pointless, as the underlying message is that in an irrational world mindnumbingly crazy outcomes are possible.
With that in mind, the genius of the book becomes very apparent if you end up living in a corrupted "developing" country or work in an uncompetitive workplace where the events and characters described in the book become painfully real.
Much like Rand, I believe you are missing how storytelling and the real world actually works. A book's ideological front is bollocks if it portrays all characters as caricatures, which it does (in particular, her description of the heroine's sex scenes are so shockingly turgid and ludicrous you forget a woman wrote them). Furthermore, "irrational actors" do not exist. That is simply a word used to discredit those who don't adhere to whatever values and belief systems one holds. Note this is different from being wrong (which requires outside criteria to resolve) or doing irrational actions (which are whether they correspond to the agent's desires and values).
On April 24 2015 04:08 Falling wrote: If Fountainhead is the better book, why are politicians in the States waving around Atlas Shrugged? Is it the essay-like monologues that I'm running into now that more easily distill her philosophy?
I've just passed a monologue describing the destruction of the communist 20th Century Motor Company, which at least I can agree that wouldn't work so well. Though I wouldn't see it as applicable to any western economic system.
Probably because Atlas is more of a modern day fable that unashamedly pushes objectivitism by exploring it through the lens of society as whole (and therefore through corporations and governments), whereas the Fountainhead is about exploring objectivism through the individual.
I think that Atlas being far more absurd then the Fountainhead is the entire point. She deliberately chose to make it extremely polarizing so you would either really enjoy the book (and its message) or dislike it immensely.
As for the practical side of Atlas in regards to economics, I have no idea. If I were to take a guess, I would say its a mixture of her expressing her dislike for socialism brought on by her upbringing, along with trying to show how objectivism would work in regards to managing that sort of thing. I doubt its supposed to be taken literally.
On April 24 2015 04:08 Falling wrote: If Fountainhead is the better book, why are politicians in the States waving around Atlas Shrugged? Is it the essay-like monologues that I'm running into now that more easily distill her philosophy?
I've just passed a monologue describing the destruction of the communist 20th Century Motor Company, which at least I can agree that wouldn't work so well. Though I wouldn't see it as applicable to any western economic system.
both her big books are works of fiction. by their nature they are impractical.
for a more practical application of objectivism to current real world events i recommend "The Ominous Parallels" by Rand's intellectual heir, Leonard Pieikoff.... it is interesting to see what Peikoff got right and wrong in this intriguing look at the USA and its eroding constitution.
On April 23 2015 11:25 Falling wrote: 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?
Socialism versus Capitalism was a huge battle in the 1950s. THe USA took a hard left turn politically and in economic policy in the 1950s.
for an idea of the political climate of the day.. .check out some of Ronald Reagan's speech "A Time For Choosing"
Reagan's impassioned plea in this speech involves ZERO philosophy. Only Rand provides a philosophical defense for Capitalism.
Until Rand the USA constitution and Capitalism had never been defended on a philosophical level. Both were just said to be "practical".
On April 24 2015 04:07 farvacola wrote: The Fountainhead is only marginally better than Atlas Shrugged and I think most of this can be chalked up to the fact that audiences are generally fascinated with architects a la George Costanza.
orginally Atlas Shrugged was to begin with a marine biologist who was pissed off about government regulations screwing with his research.. this is why Costanza pretended to be both professions.
On April 23 2015 11:25 Falling wrote: 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. \
Rand took big public shots at the conservatives who were in her age range. She wrote stuff like "what is it conservatives are trying to conserve?".
Rand felt these conservatives were basically a fraud because they didn't defend the US system from a philosophical perspective. Kinda like how Catholics hate other Catholics who have a slightly different interpretation of the bible.
Rand was very public about her disdain for the right wing people in her age range. This is why guys like William F. Buckley didn't like her.
Her circle of friends were highly educated 20-somethings at the time of writing Atlas. It's kinda cool to see how this little group of followers turned out.. Alan Greenspan highlights the list.
On April 23 2015 11:25 Falling wrote: 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.
again, check out Ronald Reagan's speech "A Time For Choosing" .. it was 1964 but it'll give u a good idea of how the Capitalism versus Communism debate was going in 1957 when Atlas Shrugged was published.
in the 1950s , 1960s , 1970s the US-propaganda-media-machine made it seem that the entire world becoming communist was a distinct possibility.
On April 23 2015 12:16 AxiomBlurr wrote: As human being she was very unhappy and unable to follow her own ideas when they contradicted her wishes, for example her failed relationship with a married man and her inability understand him leaving her. Surely he was just following objectivism to leave her as he desired another woman. Yet Rand near killed him
Ayn Rand nearly killed Nathaniel Branden? with what weapon? you got a source on that? having read Branden's Judgement Day and his account of their break up i find that hard to believe.
if u mean she "near kill"-ed his career.
Her flip-flopping on Branden's "The Psychology of Self Esteem" only increased the publisher's interest in making that book a reality. so she came no where close to a "near kill" on Branden's career or his book which launched him into the position as the "father of the self esteem movement".
Probably because Atlas is more of a modern day fable that unashamedly pushes objectivitism by exploring it through the lens of society as whole (and therefore through corporations and governments), whereas the Fountainhead is about exploring objectivism through the individual.
I suppose its didactic nature is fable-like, but it seems to be missing the animal component of a fable (and it is hardly short.)
But I don't think that's an excuse for such contradictory motivations. Humans may not be animal rationale, but rather rationis capax. But all the non-industrialists don't seem even capable of rationality. And if extremes are used to satirical effect, I think a solid understanding of the opposition is necessary before Swiftian satire can be wielded. And I don't know that she has done that (hence my question.) If you look at something like the Great Society ideals, it's targeted at poverty in the lower class, racial injustice, environmental damage, and education for children. Now whether government is the best method to deal with these problems is an entirely separate subject- my point is that the Last Men don't use those sorts of arguments. They use such strange, convoluted, and self-evidently contradictory arguments that it seems more like gross mischaracterization rather than a reasonable caricature.
both her big books are works of fiction. by their nature they are impractical.
I don't know what you mean by impractical, but I maintain that it is a hand wave to say that fiction naturally does not have realistic motivations because it's fiction. Rather, I think that is the difference between good fiction and bad fiction. I also reject a lot of hand waving in fantasy fiction when there are clear self-contradictions. "It's just fantasy" diminishes fantasy rather than defends it. I don't attack the notion of America devolving down into horse and buggy- I like the idea and would love to read a good story that does that. I attack the reason it got there.
Thanks for the Reagan video, I will watch the rest of it when I have time. But I'm not sure that Atlas Shrugged is targeting Communism for the most part. Or if it is, then I fail to see why so many politicians think it is so applicable as big government in a capitalist country is VERY different than communism. There is the one 20th Century Automotive company that was blatantly communist- 'From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Or perhaps she sees all forms of big government in light of communism, but I would very much disagree with that, even if I would prefer a reasonably small government. But regardless of the efficacy of big government and whether it has much in common with communism (for the anarcho-capitalist, I'm sure it does) the Last Men don't really use communist arguments from what I am aware. They aren't concerned about the proletariat or the exploitation done by the bourgesois- they NEVER talk about the average worker. They intentionally embrace irrationalism as some sort of philosophy.
I believe that people can and do embrace wrongheaded notions and can and do support policies that are actually bad for them. Humans have great self-destructive capabilities. But there is another explanation or justification that they believe to be more valid, or some sort of interfering emotion or something. I do not see an adequate counter-justification given that any emotional human capable of rationality would accept.
btw, I've now reached what must be Galt's Gulch, though it has not been named as such. Big reunion for all the industrialists.
On April 24 2015 15:28 Falling wrote: Thanks for the Reagan video, I will watch the rest of it when I have time. But I'm not sure that Atlas Shrugged is targeting Communism for the most part. Or if it is, then I fail to see why so many politicians think it is so applicable as big government in a capitalist country is VERY different than communism. There is the one 20th Century Automotive company that was blatantly communist- 'From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Or perhaps she sees all forms of big government in light of communism, but I would very much disagree with that, even if I would prefer a reasonably small government.
many objectivists view adding even 1 small government regulation as "the slippery slope of falling into a communist dictatorship".
Remember, Rand fled a country which turned from free market to communist in a matter of a year or two. and this book was published during the Mccarthy era. people were going to jail for "being communist sympathizers"
in her eyes you can go from free market democracy to communist dictatorship in a heart beat. the Red Alert RTS series of games did a humourous take on this possibility.
As a side note, I'm not sure why Conservative Christians would be advocating the philosophies contained in this book, as she seems rather deliberately against common Christian teachings, such as self-sacrifice and for caring for the least of these. Or her very strident defence of Hank Rearden and Dagny Taggart's adulterous relationship. Combine that with the justification given for Hank ignoring his wife because he find ultimate fulfillment in his work- I can think of few Christian teachers that would advocate that sort of prioritization. But I don't think it is a footnote in her philosophy, I think it's intricately tied to her philosophy of caring for self first. So in marriage relationship, one cares for self first rather than mutual sacrifice. I don't think you can separate it out.
If Ayn Rand wrote Tolstoy's Anna Karenina, we would be asked to sympathize with the Count Karenin, who is buried in his work, neglecting Anna, and then we'd listen to the justification of Karenin's adulterous relationship. I had a hard time with the Hank-Dagny relationship because Hank started neglectful. I think part of what makes Anna Karenina works because it is Anna that is being neglected, not doing the neglecting. That, and although my pace of reading was much slower in Tolstoy, his characterization is infinitely better. Horrendous mistakes are made, but the characters makes sense even if they have fits of emotions, irrationality, or are just plain stubborn or impetuous. And this, even if he also goes off on massive tangents on the nature of Russian peasantry and industrialization.
On April 24 2015 15:57 Falling wrote: But I don't think it is a footnote in her philosophy, I think it's intricately tied to her philosophy of caring for self first. So in marriage relationship, one cares for self first rather than mutual sacrifice. I don't think you can separate it out.
i wouldn't read into that one incident that you must always attend to ur work stuff first and your own single minded pursuits first and foremost according to objectivist ideology.
Objectivism does not provide a recipe or flow chart for decision making in the relationship with ur spouse and family.
from my convos with John Ridpath ...in a really good marriage its all about work//family life balance. so if something really important comes up with ur wife ... u attend to that. if something critical comes up at work and nothing critical is going on at home.. u attend to that.
from what i've seen of John Ridpath's and Nathaniel Branden's marriages they were just like marriages of non-objectivists with the same tough choices and decisions... and no real formulae
a point in your favour though... maybe these 2 guys were "being bad objectivists" by being so good to their wives... LOL.
On April 24 2015 16:20 kingcastles wrote: watered down nietschke
Oh please, Nietzsche is worth better than that.
Every time I hear of AS, I think of that quote from John Rogers:
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs."
On April 24 2015 16:20 kingcastles wrote: watered down nietschke
Oh please, Nietzsche is worth better than that.
Every time I hear of AS, I think of that quote from John Rogers:
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs."
Alan Greenspan, Ed Snider, Nathaniel Branden, and Barry Goldwater did not have a lifelong obsession with Atlas's unbelievable heroes.
Alan Greenspan had the longest reign at the top of the Fed of all time... 19 years.
On April 24 2015 15:57 Falling wrote: As a side note, I'm not sure why Conservative Christians would be advocating the philosophies contained in this book, as she seems rather deliberately against common Christian teachings, such as self-sacrifice and for caring for the least of these. Or her very strident defence of Hank Rearden and Dagny Taggart's adulterous relationship. Combine that with the justification given for Hank ignoring his wife because he find ultimate fulfillment in his work- I can think of few Christian teachers that would advocate that sort of prioritization. But I don't think it is a footnote in her philosophy, I think it's intricately tied to her philosophy of caring for self first. So in marriage relationship, one cares for self first rather than mutual sacrifice. I don't think you can separate it out.
If Ayn Rand wrote Tolstoy's Anna Karenina, we would be asked to sympathize with the Count Karenin, who is buried in his work, neglecting Anna, and then we'd listen to the justification of Karenin's adulterous relationship. I had a hard time with the Hank-Dagny relationship because Hank started neglectful. I think part of what makes Anna Karenina works because it is Anna that is being neglected, not doing the neglecting. That, and although my pace of reading was much slower in Tolstoy, his characterization is infinitely better. Horrendous mistakes are made, but the characters makes sense even if they have fits of emotions, irrationality, or are just plain stubborn or impetuous. And this, even if he also goes off on massive tangents on the nature of Russian peasantry and industrialization.
rand's characterization always read to me as plot and ideology coming before character, like she had her philosophical boxes to tick and that mattered to her more than trying to justify any of her paper-thin characters. you don't need counterarguments really when you classify non-selfish acts as immoral right out the gate, it slams the door shut on pretty much any conception of humanity that you'd see from any other literary source.
I think my best contribution to your thread would probably be to note that I, like I would assume many have been, got targeted by the ayn rand institute when I was most of the way through high school. they advertise scholarships, have you write essays on the general awesomeness of howard roark/dagny taggart et al., and even if you don't win, they happily send you a brand new personal copy of atlas shrugged so you can go evangelize with it. it is so unfathomably creepy to me, then and now, how intimately objectivists understand that the perfect age and time to hook young people with the ideas that others don't matter, and charity is a vice, is right before you actually go out into the world and really have to cope with other people's viewpoints. I'm not smart enough to give a non-speculative answer about the weird amalgam of christianity and objectivism, but both movements know damn well to get 'em young if you can.
ultimately though, it's more a belief system than a cogent philosophy. you're really only asking for pain if you want to dissect AS so you can argue with people about it - though there are a lot of surprisingly polite responses in this thread - because you're going to hit the bedrock of conservatism eventually with anyone who takes rand seriously and not have anywhere to go.
On April 24 2015 16:20 kingcastles wrote: watered down nietschke
Oh please, Nietzsche is worth better than that.
Every time I hear of AS, I think of that quote from John Rogers:
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs."
Alan Greenspan, Ed Snider, Nathaniel Branden, and Barry Goldwater did not have a lifelong obsession with Atlas's unbelievable heroes.
Alan Greenspan had the longest reign at the top of the Fed of all time... 19 years.
Greenspan believed the market was magic and that the most you deregulate finance, the better. He ended up lending money for basically nothing to banks, create that great bubble that ended up with this wonderful mortgage crisis and the utter mess we are in. Now if you need a hockey guy and the founder of the self esteem movement to tell me how great Rand supporters have been, we are in a mess. What I know is that AS is the bible of that part of the American right that has completely lost touch with facts and reality. Starting from Paul Ryan, and extending to all those nutcases from the Tea Party.
Another good summary of Atlas Shrugged was given by Krugman on his blog a while ago:
"After all, what is Atlas Shrugged really about? Leave aside the endless speeches and bad sex scenes. What you’re left with is the tale of how a group of plutocrats overthrow a democratically elected government with a campaign of economic sabotage."
That being said I haven't finished the book (haven't had the strength), so I am talking in ignorance.
"After all, what is Atlas Shrugged really about? Leave aside the endless speeches and bad sex scenes. What you’re left with is the tale of how a group of plutocrats overthrow a democratically elected government with a campaign of economic sabotage."
I finally got it : it's a caricature (lol) of how Stalin's propagand depicted koulaks. Ayn Rand is a genius.
"Pretty funny. I've read Atlas Shrugged twice, and I'm convinced that anybody who enthusiastically embraces Objectivism and Rand's view of an ideal world either doesn't really understand it or is (in the literal sense) touched with some greater degree of psychopathy."
Ok, falling, finally read your whole post^^ I'd like if you spend all that energy on a book I've actually liked and read No dout it will come. Also, on the one hand I think deciphering Ayn Rand is a waste of time, on the other hand, there are people who actually swear it's a good book. Just very rarely in France, so I guess I can't feel the need. Also props for having so much patience because 500 pages of this sounds like quite the journey.
What I know is that AS is the bible of that part of the American right that has completely lost touch with facts and reality.
Rand's ethical system is founded upon the constant alternative of life and death that every living creature faces every second of day. that is real. when is the last time someone close to you died? if its never happened its hard to relate.
if out-of-touch morons have chosen to use AS as their excuse for doing really stupid things.. so what... that's their problem.
On April 25 2015 18:33 Biff The Understudy wrote: That being said I haven't finished the book (haven't had the strength), so I am talking in ignorance.
there is only a small part of Galt's speech u need to understand .. to understand the foundation of objectivism.. its all about the alternative of life and death.
Greenspan believed the market was magic and that the most you deregulate finance, the better. He ended up lending money for basically nothing to banks, create that great bubble that ended up with this wonderful mortgage crisis and the utter mess we are in. Now if you need a hockey guy and the founder of the self esteem movement to tell me how great Rand supporters have been, we are in a mess. What I know is that AS is the bible of that part of the American right that has completely lost touch with facts and reality. Starting from Paul Ryan, and extending to all those nutcases from the Tea Party.
when u r at the top for 20 years you make mistakes. however, to remain at the top longer than any other chairman in history you get stuff right as well. i'm just waiting to hear what a failure Ed Snider, Nathaniel Branden and Barry Goldwater were... and those 3 guys really are just the tip of the iceberg..i'm sure John Ridpath .. u can get some shots in about him.
"a self esteem guy" : try to find anything about self-esteem written in the 1960s. LOL and Étienne de Harven is just another one of those electron microscope guys.
so far based on your posts your knowledge of intellectual history is very low... might i recommend a course curriculum authored by John Ridapth
What I know is that AS is the bible of that part of the American right that has completely lost touch with facts and reality.
you read any of Branden's work? how many times have you met him? sry man, he and his work are as real as real gets.
how about you write something .. and get it published in say 2020 in whatever your 2nd language is. and then let's see if it sells 445,000 copies in 2075.
this is part of John Galt's speech that forms the climax of the book
There is only one fundamental alternative in the universe: existence or non-existence-and it pertains to a single class of entities: to living organisms. The existence of inanimate matter is unconditional, the existence of life is not; it depends on a specific course of action. Matter is indestructible, it changes its forms, but it cannot cease to exist. It is only a living organism that faces a constant alternative: the issue of life or death. Life is a process of self-sustaining and-self-generated action. If an organism fails in that action, it does; its chemical elements remain, but its life goes out of existence. It is only the concept of ‘Life’ that makes the concept of ‘Value’ possible. It is only to a living entity that things can be good or evil.
On April 24 2015 15:57 Falling wrote: As a side note, I'm not sure why Conservative Christians would be advocating the philosophies contained in this book, as she seems rather deliberately against common Christian teachings, such as self-sacrifice and for caring for the least of these. Or her very strident defence of Hank Rearden and Dagny Taggart's adulterous relationship. Combine that with the justification given for Hank ignoring his wife because he find ultimate fulfillment in his work- I can think of few Christian teachers that would advocate that sort of prioritization. But I don't think it is a footnote in her philosophy, I think it's intricately tied to her philosophy of caring for self first. So in marriage relationship, one cares for self first rather than mutual sacrifice. I don't think you can separate it out.
If Ayn Rand wrote Tolstoy's Anna Karenina, we would be asked to sympathize with the Count Karenin, who is buried in his work, neglecting Anna, and then we'd listen to the justification of Karenin's adulterous relationship. I had a hard time with the Hank-Dagny relationship because Hank started neglectful. I think part of what makes Anna Karenina works because it is Anna that is being neglected, not doing the neglecting. That, and although my pace of reading was much slower in Tolstoy, his characterization is infinitely better. Horrendous mistakes are made, but the characters makes sense even if they have fits of emotions, irrationality, or are just plain stubborn or impetuous. And this, even if he also goes off on massive tangents on the nature of Russian peasantry and industrialization.
rand's characterization always read to me as plot and ideology coming before character, like she had her philosophical boxes to tick and that mattered to her more than trying to justify any of her paper-thin characters. you don't need counterarguments really when you classify non-selfish acts as immoral right out the gate, it slams the door shut on pretty much any conception of humanity that you'd see from any other literary source.
This is my sense as well. I resisted thinking that way initially as I wanted to get a fair assessment, but by the time I got to the Directive it seemed very conclusive that character motivation was subordinated to ideology. . .barring some historical argument that perhaps I wasn't aware. Hence my question as I did/ do not want to close that door entirely.
On April 25 2015 22:54 corumjhaelen wrote: Ok, falling, finally read your whole post^^ I'd like if you spend all that energy on a book I've actually liked and read No dout it will come. Also, on the one hand I think deciphering Ayn Rand is a waste of time, on the other hand, there are people who actually swear it's a good book. Just very rarely in France, so I guess I can't feel the need. Also props for having so much patience because 500 pages of this sounds like quite the journey.
Thanks The first part didn't require that much patience. However, the deeper I go, the more I find my pace slowing and requiring much more patience. Perhaps, I will become inspired to write about why a story I like works. For me it's interesting to figure out why a story does or does not work.
I don't care one bit for or about objectivism, but I must say I took Rand herself a bit closer to my heart after watching a documentary about Putin's Russia and the preparations for the Olympic Games. If Rand came from a society with leaders as corrupt as that portrayed in the documentary, I think her mindset is more understandable.
Atlas Shrugged opens well, but I always get bored and stop reading about half way in or so. I forget exactly where.
I got banned from the Ayn Rand facebook page for asking a critical question. They were promoting the elimination of public education at the time. No wonder everything on there is so ra-ra-Rand. Everything else gets deleted ;(
Every philosopher I've asked, and I mean professors, doesn't take her seriously. One directed me to her essay "The Virtue of Selfishness," and broke apart her main premise: value requires life, therefore the definition of value is that which promotes life, a logical error.
I like some parts of it mind you. She's appealing because of what she promises, not what she delivers, imo.
Check out her Ayn Rand Campus courses btw, very interesting,if biased, stuff in there. Especially "Philosophy: who needs it," and the "History of Philosophy."
On April 27 2015 06:29 HewTheTitan wrote: Every philosopher I've asked, and I mean professors, doesn't take her seriously. One directed me to her essay "The Virtue of Selfishness," and broke apart her main premise: value requires life, therefore the definition of value is that which promotes life, a logical error.
John Ridpath takes her seriously... that's just 1 guy.. but i know a few others.. and i'm just 1 guy.. there must be plenty of others.
I do not think her wider generalizations are correct. However, i think the deepest foundations of the philosophy are bang on the money. Specifically, her meta-ethics and epistemology.
The closest approximation to my views on what is right and wrong with Objectivism are stated by Nathaniel Branden in his work "The Benefits and Hazards of Objectivism".
I've been to a few of these "Objectivism Club Meetings". And, the majority of the people at these things do not understand that basics of her philosophy.
On April 26 2015 15:33 Falling wrote: This is my sense as well. I resisted thinking that way initially as I wanted to get a fair assessment, but by the time I got to the Directive it seemed very conclusive that character motivation was subordinated to ideology. . .barring some historical argument that perhaps I wasn't aware. Hence my question as I did/ do not want to close that door entirely.
her characters are 2-dimensional projections of her philosophical principles. they don't really develop or change.
For example: Eddie Willers is the man of good ethical character ( in her view of what good is) but only average ability.
From 1957 to 1968 the book was dedicated to Nathaniel Branden. and he echoed this exact criticism even when the book was still dedicated to him.
her 2 big books are almost like one of those deterministic simulation programs with interacting physics objects that you might create in a 2nd year university computer science course... and her characters are simply objects in the simulation.
i made a little mini solar system. it messed up once some of the planets hit the edge of the screen though
any how, her books, to me, feel like a giant deterministic simulation.
Atlas Shrugged... some people love it other hate it. I read through ti and the biggest take away I found was that she was wrong. Specifically her views on philanthropy. I am glad that others don't share her views that widely.
@JimmyJ That's an interesting interpretation for her characters as projections and simulations. However, if true I submit the book lacks applicability in any meaningful sense as it doesn't factor in real human behaviour. So I don't really see it as taking her ideology, plunking in humans and seeing how they would operate. The simulation seems stacked to get a certain outcome. Character motivations are sacrificied I guess if you agree with her ideological premises, the book has some meaning, but because the characters lack truth, it is a much harder sell for me. I don't mind reading books that have a different ideology than myself. I do mind if any ideology (even one that I am sympathetic to) interferes and imposes upon characterization and dominates storytelling. I don't that is good art. Or at least, that is not what I look for in good secondary world creation.
As a libertarian I found Atlas Shrugged crude and ineffectual. My favorite literary work of fiction is probably The Moon is a Harsh Mistress. As for the history of railroads, you're wrong insofar as you proclaim that there was no transcontinental railroad funded and built without Government assistance of some kind - the Great Northern Pacific was entirely private and was of such superiority that they out-competed the other railroads even with all of their advantages and monopolies from the Government (e.g. land grants, subsidy, Government-security, et. al). As an aside, James J. Hill was quite the guy - there's a bit of good reading about him if you're so inclined.
Ah. I stand somewhat corrected by the Great Northern Pacific. However, it seems to me that even he benefited from government assistance when he bought up the St Paul and Pacific Railroad which itself came into being through massive land grants that they still had possession of at the time of Hill's purchase and that rail was also built using government backed bonds. Now while true that rail line went bankrupt, the rails on the ground got there by earlier government intervention.
There was also the 1887 Treaty of the Sweetgrass lands that benefited Hill as they could use timber and stone found in the 75 foot right of way.
Did he not benefit from a Minnesota Land Grant as well?
But certainly it was built with the least amount of government intervention and certainly not be request, but he seems rather strategic in purchasing and harnessing former government intervention agreements.
On April 28 2015 04:35 Falling wrote: Ah. I stand somewhat corrected by the Great Northern Pacific. However, it seems to me that even he benefited from government assistance when he bought up the St Paul and Pacific Railroad which itself came into being through massive land grants that they still had possession of at the time of Hill's purchase and that rail was also built using government backed bonds. Now while true that rail line went bankrupt, the rails on the ground got there by earlier government intervention.
There was also the 1887 Treaty of the Sweetgrass lands that benefited Hill as they could use timber and stone found in the 75 foot right of way.
Did he not benefit from a Minnesota Land Grant as well?
But certainly it was built with the least amount of government intervention and certainly not be request, but he seems rather strategic in purchasing and harnessing former government intervention agreements.
I think that rather is bit specious. As long as Government exists, it'll have its hands in ways that you can make argument that 'nothing' is truly private then. Buying up industry assets is not Government assistance, even if those prior assets had used Government. Is it preferable? Not really, those assets/properties should have been relinquished to their prior rightful owners, and/or put up for homesteading, but that wasn't really an option then. At a certain point you start to fall into fallacy territory.
As for the Minnesota Land Grant, I'm almost positive, no. The point was that there was a railroad without the use of Government, and it was certainly achievable. I mean, private industry can build all sorts of advanced things, but they can't built some straight tracks on some land or in modern terms, a road? It's pretty silly.
Anyways, I'd recommend giving The Moon is a Harsh Mistress a read. It's superb.
On April 27 2015 15:56 Falling wrote: @JimmyJ That's an interesting interpretation for her characters as projections and simulations. However, if true I submit the book lacks applicability in any meaningful sense as it doesn't factor in real human behaviour. So I don't really see it as taking her ideology, plunking in humans and seeing how they would operate. The simulation seems stacked to get a certain outcome. Character motivations are sacrificied I guess if you agree with her ideological premises, the book has some meaning, but because the characters lack truth, it is a much harder sell for me. I don't mind reading books that have a different ideology than myself. I do mind if any ideology (even one that I am sympathetic to) interferes and imposes upon characterization and dominates storytelling. I don't that is good art. Or at least, that is not what I look for in good secondary world creation.
i agree AND. Rand's #1 "disciple"/"intellectual heir" , the late Nathaniel Branden, on a very basic level agrees with you. his full answer to ur points would be 10 pages long
if u want a practical application of how the libertarian and/or objectivist perspective on life manifests itself in real world behaviours and action strategies ... and just plain old human living .. consult Branden's books. Rand's stuff. though sometimes mildly entertaining won't really help much.
if objectivism were properly applied to human psychology by Ayn Rand (it never was) the result would've been an archive of Psychology books very, very similar to the books Nathaniel Branden wrote throughout his life.
Here are his major stuff... but the guy wrote dozens of books..
Branden was a brilliantly effective psychotherapist...
Rand is all about suppressing conflicting thoughts.. Branden is all about bringing that stuff to the surface... and then sort of .. throwing it all out there.. and letting ur conscious mind sort of "cook on it".
The best part about Branden's work is that the guy is as practical .. as practical gets.
its too bad the guy is dead
From 1957 to 1968 Atlas Shrugged was not dedicated to her husband. it was dedicated to Nathaniel Branden.
the best part of AS has been the people it attracts and the people aroudn teh book as it was published. ironic that the characters in the book are almost mathematical representations.
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.
Buckley was one of them that kept Objectivists & Rand out of the conservative circle he helped build. Libertarians generally like the book much more than conservatives.
That's the reason, right there. She has these operatic caricatures, these superheroes, and it plays out like an explosions-first (and second and third) action movies. The antagonists are no different. But now, I'm aping what I think was the best Conservative take on Rand ever written. It's Whittaker Chamber's review on the book
The Children of Light are largely operatic caricatures. In so far as any of them suggests anything known to the business community, they resemble the occasional curmudgeon millionaire, tales about whose outrageously crude and shrewd eccentricities sometimes provide the lighter moments in Board rooms. Otherwise, the Children of Light are geniuses. One of them is named (the only smile you see will be your own): Francisco Domingo Carlos Andres Sebastian d’Anconia. This electrifying youth is the world’s biggest copper tycoon. Another, no less electrifying, is named: Ragnar Danesjöld. He becomes a twentieth-century pirate. All Miss Rand’s chief heroes are also breathtakingly beautiful. So is her heroine (she is rather fetchingly vice president in charge of management of a transcontinental railroad). So much radiant energy might seem to serve a eugenic purpose. For, in this story as in Mark Twain‘s, “all the knights marry the princess” — though without benefit of clergy. Yet from the impromptu and surprisingly gymnastic matings of the heroine and three of the heroes, no children — it suddenly strikes you — ever result. The possibility is never entertained. And, indeed, the strenuously sterile world of Atlas Shrugged is scarcely a place for children. You speculate that, in life, children probably irk the author and may make her uneasy. How could it be otherwise when she admiringly names a banker character (by what seems to me a humorless master-stroke): Midas Mulligan? You may fool some adults; you can’t fool little boys and girls with such stuff — not for long. They may not know just what is out of line, but they stir uneasily.
The Children of Darkness are caricatures, too; and they are really oozy. But at least they are caricatures of something identifiable. Their archetypes are Left Liberals, New Dealers, Welfare Statists, One Worlders, or, at any rate, such ogreish semblances of these as may stalk the nightmares of those who think little about people as people, but tend to think a great deal in labels and effigies. (And neither Right nor Left, be it noted in passing, has a monopoly of such dreamers, though the horrors in their nightmares wear radically different masks and labels.)
In Atlas Shrugged, all this debased inhuman riffraff is lumped as “looters.” This is a fairly inspired epithet. It enables the author to skewer on one invective word everything and everybody that she fears and hates. This spares her the plaguey business of performing one service that her fiction might have performed, namely: that of examining in human depth how so feeble a lot came to exist at all, let alone be powerful enough to be worth hating and fearing. Instead, she bundles them into one undifferentiated damnation.
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.
It does nothing to explain the ills of big government, though maybe smearing a general theme in a kid's cartoon fashion. If the opera were toned down and some vacuous expanse cut, it might even make a silly children's book with all its villains and heroes.
Tonight I'm not really pulling up any noteworthy academic introductions to the ills of big government. You already likely know ten authors that pulled for small government. While I'm thinking of him, Witness by Chambers is a fine read on a particularly human change from belief in the State (USSR) to opposition to its power and influence. If you were to read it, Falling, I think by the end of the journey you'd recognize the sickness of big government. Rand's fiction is just a sickness of a related type.
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.
Buckley was one of them that kept Objectivists & Rand out of the conservative circle he helped build. Libertarians generally like the book much more than conservatives.
That's the reason, right there. She has these operatic caricatures, these superheroes, and it plays out like an explosions-first (and second and third) action movies. The antagonists are no different. But now, I'm aping what I think was the best Conservative take on Rand ever written. It's Whittaker Chamber's review on the book
The Children of Light are largely operatic caricatures. In so far as any of them suggests anything known to the business community, they resemble the occasional curmudgeon millionaire, tales about whose outrageously crude and shrewd eccentricities sometimes provide the lighter moments in Board rooms. Otherwise, the Children of Light are geniuses. One of them is named (the only smile you see will be your own): Francisco Domingo Carlos Andres Sebastian d’Anconia. This electrifying youth is the world’s biggest copper tycoon. Another, no less electrifying, is named: Ragnar Danesjöld. He becomes a twentieth-century pirate. All Miss Rand’s chief heroes are also breathtakingly beautiful. So is her heroine (she is rather fetchingly vice president in charge of management of a transcontinental railroad). So much radiant energy might seem to serve a eugenic purpose. For, in this story as in Mark Twain‘s, “all the knights marry the princess” — though without benefit of clergy. Yet from the impromptu and surprisingly gymnastic matings of the heroine and three of the heroes, no children — it suddenly strikes you — ever result. The possibility is never entertained. And, indeed, the strenuously sterile world of Atlas Shrugged is scarcely a place for children. You speculate that, in life, children probably irk the author and may make her uneasy. How could it be otherwise when she admiringly names a banker character (by what seems to me a humorless master-stroke): Midas Mulligan? You may fool some adults; you can’t fool little boys and girls with such stuff — not for long. They may not know just what is out of line, but they stir uneasily.
The Children of Darkness are caricatures, too; and they are really oozy. But at least they are caricatures of something identifiable. Their archetypes are Left Liberals, New Dealers, Welfare Statists, One Worlders, or, at any rate, such ogreish semblances of these as may stalk the nightmares of those who think little about people as people, but tend to think a great deal in labels and effigies. (And neither Right nor Left, be it noted in passing, has a monopoly of such dreamers, though the horrors in their nightmares wear radically different masks and labels.)
In Atlas Shrugged, all this debased inhuman riffraff is lumped as “looters.” This is a fairly inspired epithet. It enables the author to skewer on one invective word everything and everybody that she fears and hates. This spares her the plaguey business of performing one service that her fiction might have performed, namely: that of examining in human depth how so feeble a lot came to exist at all, let alone be powerful enough to be worth hating and fearing. Instead, she bundles them into one undifferentiated damnation.
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.
It does nothing to explain the ills of big government, though maybe smearing a general theme in a kid's cartoon fashion. If the opera were toned down and some vacuous expanse cut, it might even make a silly children's book with all its villains and heroes.
Tonight I'm not really pulling up any noteworthy academic introductions to the ills of big government. You already likely know ten authors that pulled for small government. While I'm thinking of him, Witness by Chambers is a fine read on a particularly human change from belief in the State (USSR) to opposition to its power and influence. If you were to read it, Falling, I think by the end of the journey you'd recognize the sickness of big government. Rand's fiction is just a sickness of a related type.
her stated goal for writing Atlas Shrugged was the projection of the ideal man. and PROJECTION is her word, not mine. i'm not going to say the guy's name because its a spoiler , but if you've read the book you probably know who the "ideal man" is. interestingly, some people read the book and don't know who it is.
people try to turn AS into something else. ills of government run and regulated industry .. the decline of the USA .. what happens when the gold standard is abandoned etc etc... and its none of those things..
re: all your "big government" talk... and its treatment in AS. + Show Spoiler +
its never the "government guys" versus "the industrialist guys" as a core conflict of the book that conflict is a giant smoke screen created by our international man of mystery. its that mysterious man versus "teh industrialist guys"... that form the primary conflict as the USA crumbles before our very eyes. the "government guys" are impotent and useless and can only be used as puppets by our international man of mystery..
government agents/advnocates and statists in Atlas Shrugged are.. once all the curtains are lifted IRRELEVANT in this book.
do not expect her to present big government or any form of statism as having any power at all
in this book .. big government and statists proponents are the running back and the 2 guards pulling out wide left.. meanwhile the QB out of the wishbone formation has tossed the ball to the left wide receiver and he is streaking towards the right sideline.
all statist proponents in this book are just 1 giant misdirection play... the football is far far away.
this is awesome stuff guys... can we put this in Madden 2016 or what?
In terms of plot style: Atlas Shrugged is a murder mystery. Few fully grasp this though...even though its printed right on the sleeve.
I think everyone should read the book (or better: The Fountainhead) just because it has had a definite impact on the way people think and it should at least challenge you to think about some of your premises about the world and how to live in it. Of course Rand gets the answers terribly wrong, but the questions behind what she brings up are actually good questions. The characters aren't realistic, but that's common in writings like these (Candide comes to mind). The only really true thing, to me, is that there are definitely people and organizations that act in ways very much like the "looters" and these should be struggled against. Things like Axiom's examplt of Tesla Motors, or telecom companies are real, and while they are usually much milder than shown in the book, they happen. Usually these sorts of decision are committies, lobbyist, congresses, and not given a singular voice like Jim Taggert, but they do exist.
The rest of it is pretty much bunk, but I read to expand my ideas, not to just read everything I already agree with.
Well I haven't read Atlas Shrugged.. I merely watched part one movie. But I'm reading Fountainhead at the moment and I find the hating for Ayn Rand pretty harsh.
Sure she's a little over-romanticized and the development(story or character) is sometimes jumpy. But I like how she can point out some patterns in society and human characters.
I think her concern was that the progress was stopped by men in power and that the average replaces the better. Which in my opinion is true in nowadays society. However I would argue that "progress is all good at it's core" is not true which is the definition Rand has probably set her ideals on.
Edit: Also what she displays is that many people/organizations are driven not by logic but by irrational pulses = ideologies, innate hate or love for somebody... and she puts them into play. And I agree that finding logic in human behavior is pretty senseless. That's also why economy as a science discipline does not work. It's set up on people acting rationally in the model.