The whole premise of Atlas Shrugged** is that government control of the economy isn't the motor of the world: rather it's the creative individual who is the motor of the world.
If ever Americans are to see a better future, we each will have to do two things: First, stop envying creative individuals. Second, understand that America has a mixed economy, not a capitalist economy. Our economy is part fascist, part socialist, and part capitalist. This last part is dying at an accelerating rate.
Envy is the desire to harm another person (or thing) because you perceive something good about them (or it). Ayn Rand wrote an article entitled 'The Age of Envy', in which she noted that envy is 'hatred of the good for being the good'. If you are to find your own talents and purpose in life, you must first learn to admire people with talent, and dump any desire to harm them. Ask them how they got so good at what they do, compliment them, and recognize that without creative individuals, we would have no material values in the world at all.
Atlas Shrugged has a principal character who is the embodiment of an envious second-hander. (A second-hander is one who makes decisions based on what others think, not based on their own thinking). James Taggart is President of a railroad, but he refuses to make any major decisions or take any responsibility in his career, and instead enviously relies on his sister, Dagny, to take initiative as Operating Vice President to keep the railroad running. As the novel goes on, James progressively reveals his desire to destroy the primary hero of the novel.
Capitalism is an economic system where no person, no group of persons, nor the government has any right to initiate force against a person. This means every adult has the right to handle his own economic affairs, to run any business he might create as he sees fit, to choose any career he may want to enter, to keep the results of his effort, to determine who he will do business with, and to set his prices through the voluntary exchange of services and products with others.
Atlas Shrugged is not a novel about capitalism versus socialism. It is not a diatribe on economics. It's a dramatic story of creative people going on strike, and what happens to society when the creative mind is absent from that economy. If you can imagine an America where people with creativity and initiative to solve the problems stop working to their fullest capacity, then you have an idea of the events that take place in Atlas Shrugged.
Without creativity, without problem solvers, industries close their doors, or fade away into disrepair and uncompetitiveness. Innovations are no longer made. Infrastructure crumbles. Transportation becomes more hazardous, expensive, and unreliable. The social fabric unravels, and people have no good will toward their fellow man. Mutual respect has devolved into mutual distrust, fear, or contempt.
Of course, in the novel, the government responds to the mounting economic disasters by attempting to seize control of the economy, but the ineptitude of the bureaucrats only causes greater disruptions and problems in the economy.
One man, John Galt, is responsible for the disappearance of the creative individuals. The most talented artists, scientists, inventors, businessmen, financiers, doctors, philosophers, musicians, etc., have joined John Galt on strike and hide in a mountain valley, on the private land held by the financier, 'Midas' Mulligan. The valley isn't a utopia model of a capitalist society. It's simply a place where individuals all agree that the unearned is never granted, and that no adult is obligated to live for the sake of another.
Ayn Rand wrote Atlas Shrugged (and all her fictional novels) because she enjoyed writing about her type of man. She didn't write Atlas Shrugged to save the world, she didn't write her fiction in order to tell people how to live their lives. She wrote each because she had an interesting story to tell, she enjoyed writing about people of ability, and she wanted to write stories that showed the world as it could be, and ought to be. All good literature, in her view (and in Aristotle's view), shows the world as it can be and ought to be.
Anyone that you hear who is slamming Ayn Rand or Atlas Shrugged is either
a) very envious of her success as a first-generation immigrant and proud American,
or
b) very upset that in twelve (12) pages of Atlas Shrugged, a character blasts the Marxist slogan "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" sky-high*
or
c) very threatened by her principled philosophy which rejects statism, rejects brute force, rejects altruism, and rejects a Platonic universe.
A capitalist society without envy has never existed on earth. It's time we all renounce initiation of force from the economic and personal affairs of individuals. If America doesn't, we're all in for more economic and social pain, for years to come.
*While Ayn Rand didn't write a treatise on capitalism versus socialism, she took the time to demonstrate the failure of the Marxist slogan to be practiced in reality (being a refugee of the soviet takeover, system, and purges, she was eminently qualified to render an objective judgment on it). In the large paper-back or hardcover read pages 660 to 672, beginning with the tramp talking with Dagny on the train, where the tramp says that he may have started the slogan 'Who is John Galt'.
**First published in 1957, it's still a best-selling novel more than 50 years later. I recommend to anyone to read Atlas Shrugged and enjoy it while you can. One day it will probably be a banned book.
Related:
The FairTax is an unnecessary Federal Slave Tax
Scared Shitless: Precursor to America's Presidential Campaign of 2012
Who is a John Galt Republican (or Democrat or Libertarian)?
Ayn Rand: The missing Libertarian Ingredient, the secret Ron Paul ingredient
A Respectful Suggestion to Dr. David Kelley and the Board of Directors of The Atlas Society
Moral Individualism and Objectivism for Liberty
The Atlas Society and 'Open Objectivism' : A wrong choice of words.
A suggested Ron Paul alliance with President-Elect Barack Obama
©2008 Nickalis N. Tower, all rights reserved. You must have written permission from the author in order to republish this work.
Published: Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Last modified: Wednesday, November 26, 2008
The views expressed in this article are those of Nickalis N. Tower only and do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Nickalis N. Tower is solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Report violation by Nickalis N. Tower of Nolan Chart LLC's terms of use policy.
| More Articles By Nickalis N. Tower |
Reader Comments:
Posted By: the original jason
Date: 2008-11-13 04:05:43
"Without creativity, without problem solvers, industries close their doors, or fade away into disrepair and uncompetitiveness. Innovations are no longer made. Infrastructure crumbles. Transportation becomes more hazardous, expensive, and unreliable. The social fabric unravels, and people have no good will toward their fellow man. Mutual respect has devolved into mutual distrust, fear, or contempt."
Does this sound familiar?
Look at the last sixty or so years, and ask yourself: "Where have I seen this before?"
Believe me, its not in a book.
Industry as a whole has been shutting down, selling out, and consolidating since before I was born. No direct competition, and no practical way for startups to break into any of the markets has lead to huge, monolithic entities that sling around billions of dollars like so much confetti. Billions! Three commas, ten digits- decimal points really don't matter at that level. That is more money than any hundred average people will even see in their lifetime, let alone possess. There is no competition here.
And since when has anyone invented something even remotely useful in their garage? (No, the cooler-scooter does not count. It is not a tool it's a toy.) All of the research I have seen in my lifetime was either upgrading existing designs within a company, or in quantum physics. Until Schrödinger's cat crawls into my computer and does/doesn't die, or some company comes up with a new design (not just a smaller version) I'm going to have to say innovation has stalled.
As far as infrastructure... Do I really have to spell it out? Bridges were just the start. Levees broke with a vengeance all over the Midwest, budgets in Iowa and Illinois are getting tight along with the rest of the country, and airports are going through a veritable s#!t storm of closures and congestion. There are almost 2 Trillion dollars in repairs needed that we can't afford to make, but can't afford to ignore.
The social fabric hasn't unraveled entirely yet, but with ground wars in Iraq, and Afghanistan, and a very quiet New Cold War brewing between the Russian Federation and the US Federal Government, and the economy going down the pipes I don't suppose it will take very long.
Posted By: Mark Plus
Date: 2008-11-13 15:49:18
"Anyone that you hear who is slamming Ayn Rand or Atlas Shrugged is either a) very envious of her success as a first-generation immigrant and proud American, or b) very threatened by her principled philosophy which rejects statism, rejects brute force, rejects altruism, and rejects a Platonic universe."
Neither, in my case. I "slam" Rand because she wrote a novel that doesn't map human behavior in the real world. For example, her "principled philosophy" also rejects the fact that humans remain vulnerable much of their lives for reasons out of their control, hence the absence of children and the hostility towards aging parents (for example, Rearden's mother) in Atlas Shrugged. (Ironically Rand did not acquit herself well during her last illness, from what I've read, because her own philosophy implicitly writes off and has nothing to offer people with terminal illnesses.) Not to mention that none of Rand's heroes plans to marry and have children, even though Francisco d'Anconia near the end of the novel laughs when he imagines how the new world they plan to build will enable young people (coming from whom or where?) to look towards their futures without fear, or words to that effect.
Posted By: Mike Blevins
Date: 2008-11-14 09:57:58
Excellent treatise on Ayn Rand and her wonderful novel, Atlas Shrugged! I concur with your position that AS was not intended to showcase a struggle between capitalism and socialism, nor is it a book about economic systems. (Although I contend that the story's implication is that capitalism is to be preferred over socialism) Perhaps we could think of AS as a contrast between libertarianism and communitarianism. (Yes, I'm aware that Ayn Rand was not fond of libertarianism--but the basic principles are similar her objectivism) Communitarians emphasize society rather than the individual and believe that group responsibilities (to family, community, nation, the globe) should trump individual rights. This is the disease that infected Europe after WW1 and is spreading alarmingly in America today.
Posted By: Master C
Date: 2008-11-15 10:26:02
Dear Nick,
I'm afraid that your article neither "rebukes" nor properly interprets Atlas Shrugged. You seem to see it as a documentary or an historical recreation of events rather than seeing it as the fairy tale that it truly is.
This is a novel as fictional and as intellectually slanted as Dante's "Inferno", Milton's "Paradise Lost", and Thomas More's "Utopia". The problem with your understanding of the book is that you seem to think these characters are REAL and that the events which transpire do so because of the TRUTH and WISDOM of Ms. Rand's observations. That's like saying that Santa Claus is REAL because of the poem about "The Night Before Christmas"! Ho! Ho! Ho! If you can't tell the difference between FICTION and FABLE, then you're apt to find yourself thinking that JAMES BOND and SUPERMAN can SAVE THE WORLD! Ha! Ha! Ha!
The book is NOT about the "creative individual" ~ which would also make it about Picasso, Gustave Eiffel, or even a "creative" writer like Jules Verne ~ it's (primarily) about INDUSTRIALISTS who take ALL the credit for the success of their businesses without ever recognizing their dependence upon a GOVERNMENT that provides water and sewage, police protection, schools for their children (although they are nearly ALL so selfish and caught up in themselves that they don't even HAVE any children ~ Hank even DISOWNS his), streets, airports, libraries, prisons, et. al, and who fail to acknowledge the contributions of those NON-OWNERS who actually make the trains run, lay the rails, mix the steel, and even build the homes that they live in.
This is a book about SELFISHNESS and GREED, and tries to make the case that these qualities are GOOD. The kind of LOVE you find in it are more versions of IDOLATRY and ADMIRATION than expressiveness and the sharing of affections. Dagny Taggart is the kind of TRAMP who sleeps with other women's husbands, and has SEX with at least THREE of the male characters (Hank, Francisco, and Galt). All of what YOU call the main characters are EGOTISTS who relentlessly brag, hoard their fortunes, fight against those who think differently than they do, insist upon having things done THEIR way even when it goes against laws that are passed, and who are as DELUDED by their own MAGNIFICENCE as NARCISSUS was with his. Watch them MARVEL at their own GREATNESS like a SUPERMODEL starring into a MIRROR! This is self-adoration as massively promoted as a beauty cream that will make you feel young! It's like a COUNTRY CLUB of elite whites (there are no BLACKS or other ethnic characters who have ability, or even strong women characters except for Dagny). This must certainly be a commendable trait for someone like NICK who applauds this book so vigorously that he hasn't time to see any of its deficiencies. omissions, and distortions.
These characters are not trying to make the world a better place, they're trying to make the world THE WAY THEY WANT IT. This will certainly make the world a better place for THEM, but it will only make the rest of us SLAVES to their economic dominance brought upon by the collusion, favoritism, secret deals, and elitism which powers their ADVANTAGE and ENRICHENS their egos.
These people are the ROBBER BARONS of earlier times, and Ms. Rand sings their praises like one might sing of BILL GATES, WARREN BUFFET, or MARK CUBAN. If you think these are paragons, you surely don't know what UNVIRTUOUS pagans these people are.
Ayn Rand is like a STATUE of STEEL ~ no heart, no brain, no depth, no emotions. Only a glistening facade, worshipped by the rigid, the selfish, the delusional, the self-important, and waiting for more pigeons to cover it with the appropriate defecation.
Master C
Posted By: chichemo
Date: 2008-11-15 20:04:06
Excellent article! Though I didn't particularly like the book, your assessment is spot on. The best thing about Rand's work is seeing the goofy reaction from statist types whose convoluted reasoning is shredded by her pen. Peace
Posted By: Mike Blevins
Date: 2008-11-15 22:09:18
Master C--God--I don't even know where to start dismantling that diatribe! I could care less what you think about Atlas Shrugged or Ayn Rand; but your apparent contempt for the industrialist is hard to understand. Where would the modern age have come from if not for people like Henry Ford, Alex Bell, Tom Edison, and Bill Gates, et al? Who cares if they were greedy or godly? What counts is that we live in a world where it doesn't take weeks to get from St. Louis to San Francisco, a person can have clogged arteries and still live into his or her nineties, and you can take a hot bath without having to bail and boil the water. No government has ever created anything that revolutionized the way people live in the world. I am not an anarchist--government certainly has its place. But it doesn't create anything.
Posted By: Master C
Date: 2008-11-16 02:45:53
Dearest Mike,
You're drinking the kool-aid, man! You think Henry Ford BUILT or even DESIGNED those cars? You think Mr. Bell BUILT or even DESIGNED the production process for making those telephones? You think Bill Gates had anything to do with CREATING DOS? He just bought it from the Seattle Computer Company and SOLD it to IBM!
You're a worshipper! You think the Chinese and the Russians ~ and anyone else you can think of ~ don't have the same stuff? And, many of them had it BEFORE we did and certainly have it BETTER than we do. You probably believe that it wasn't GERMAN scientists who produced the rocket fuel we use, it was some guy at NASA!
Ha! Ha! Ha! Some people love to bow down and worship a LONE CREATOR. Others of us know that it takes a TEAM of workers, not just ONE man. You think Michael Jordan ~ or any other GREAT basketball player ~ could beat a team of nobodies by HIMSELF?
That's the POINT, Mike. It isn't INDIVIDUALISM, it's COLLECTIVISM but you ~ and Ms. Rand ~ won't admit it. We're ALL really SOCIALISTS deep inside. Some countries just try to create a MYTH that they can do it by themselves. Long live GEORGE WASHINGTON! Long live ABRAHAM LINCOLN! Long live RONALD REAGAN! They did it by THEMSELVES! Ha! Ha! Ha! They call it HERO WORSHIP!
Master C
Posted By: Mike Blevins
Date: 2008-11-16 20:55:09
The only place socialism works is an American university classroom.
Well, I certainly don't question the value of collective effort. That in no way recommends socialism. Socialism always fails to produce sustainable collective effort. Indeed, many of the greatest feats in history have been the collective effort of many, but not without a unifying vision--a vision usually provided by a single individual. The quality and sustainability of the collective effort is always determined by the quality of the original vision. Vision is what the industrialist provided, and it is absolutely essential to any sustained enterprise. The success of the American capitalist system (though certainly not perfect) clearly establishes this.
Any collective effort quickly deteriorates into anarchy and disorder without a unifying vision. The question is: How does one unleash the genius of the INDIVIDUAL in reaching the collective goal. The answer is: Capitalism accomplishes this by giving each individual a direct stake in the vision. Otherwise, each individual will not continue making the high quality of contribution necessary to fulfill the vision. Without a direct stake in the outcome for each INDIVIDUAL in the collective, the effort inevitably falls victim to entropy. If the individual does not feel a direct stake in the outcome, he or she will not apply the necessary personal genius to the process. Each individual in the collective begins to make only mediocre contributions. The entire process fades and shuts down. A clear minded assessment of the Soviet Union and all other socialist systems clearly illustrates this.
In short, though not perfect, capitalism is the most compassionate of systems possible. Where it has been practiced freely, it has produced the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Socialism dooms everyone to the same egalitarian misery. It is the most heinous of systems, since it has produced the greatest misery for the greatest number of people.
Posted By: Roga
Date: 2008-11-16 22:24:02
Master C - I'm new to this site, and I've read a lot of your comments. You make good points if taken with a cool head, but your tone is really a put-off. For instance, I agree completely that Atlas Shrugged is an allegory at best - those characters could not exist in the real world. Rand was a borderline sociopath and it shows in her writing that she either lacked understanding of the core concept of value, or she deliberately chose to skew it to make her point.
Let's cut through the bullshit: there is no one man who could possibly invent and industrialize something like Rearden Metal. So the idea of a few "creators" is self-centered and ridiculous. Fortunes like Bill Gates' and Henry Ford's were skimmed off contributions to technology that were as great as their own, but less well-rewarded. Each also stumbled up on lucky circumstances, where nearly identical risks taken by contemporaries led to personal ruin.
However... I do not reject Rand's points completely. Creativity and risk must offer commensurate reward. I do reject completely, however, that that reward must be monetary or that wanting to share the rewards is evil. Most people do not raise children to get annual parenthood payments at age 50. And most engineers and doctors in wealthy countries don't do what they do solely because the money is good.
Great gobs of money must will concentrate somewhere, it's a self-emerging order. Whether the money is owned by the holder (capitalism) or simply controlled by him (communism), someone will have that power. I personally prefer the money to be conterbalanced by the controllers of legitimized force (government), rather than having them be the same person. Whether that happens through fascism or communism, the end result is always bad.
Posted By: Creuter
Date: 2009-07-17 02:02:02
Master C -
If you think those processes and designs just materialized from nowhere, you are out of touch with reality. You're right though, those companies wouldn't get very far without the people who work on the factory floor. What you have mistaken, however, is that those people are replaceable. They are paid fairly for their worth, and if you think they deserve the same amount as the men and women who developed the very ideas that keep them employed you're sadly mistaken.
Whether Bill Gates is the genius behind everything microsoft is beside the point. Someone initiated those ideas, someone acted upon them, someone created that spark. To say that those people are unworthy or somehow subhuman is just a flat out lie.
Also, I bet Michael Jordan could beat a team of nobodies by himself. George Washington, Martin Luther King, Thomas Edison: these were great men. Just because you'll never be a hero doesn't mean heroes don't exist.As for the characters not realizing their dependence on a government, this is also untrue to the story. As I understand it taxes would not be a problem so long as you are putting them towards things that will benefit you. Payment for products, in this case water, sewage, gas, electric, etc. is appropriate. When you begin paying bureaucrats ludicrous amounts of money, allowing them to define their own raises, and essentially abuse their power, that is where the problem arises.
Also, I bet Michael Jordan could beat a team of nobodies by himself. George Washington, Martin Luther King, Thomas Edison: these were great men. Just because you'll never be a hero doesn't mean heroes don't exist.
"insist upon having things done THEIR way even when it goes against laws that are passed"
I would like to direct you to Kohlberg's stages of moral development. The reasoning you've pointed out here is somewhere around stages 3-4. Conventional thinking. The characters in Atlas Shrugged operate using what is essentially stage 6, or Post-Conventional morals, on Kohlberg's scale. If a law is made to obstruct justice, there is no reason to follow it. To do so would be condemning yourself. This is essentially the same reason Dagny is not a "tramp" for sleeping with another man's husband, as you said. There was no love between Hank and his wife. If there is no love their marriage is meaningless. If it was meaningless nothing was violated. Why shouldn't you idolize the ones you love? I could go on for ages about some of the things you've written here. It's hard for me to tell if you're being serious or just trolling.