Why ‘Atlas Shrugged’ Matters
by Mike BaronWhen I mentioned to friends I was reading Atlas Shrugged their response was uniform: “Oh that. I read it in college but now I have moved on to adult subjects.” These were liberal friends, you understand, and I couldn’t help but wonder why they would want to discourage me from reading a literary classic that is selling better now than at any time in its history. In fact, it has recently moved up to become Amazon’s 37th best-selling novel. Last week it was 44. By the time you read this it will have moved higher.
The reason becomes immediately apparent upon reading. It might have been written yesterday. Rand’s description of a socialist state taken over by “looters,” people who cannot create or produce but who seize power under the rubric of “fairness” is so spot-on accurate of today’s administration it’s scary. At over one thousand pages long, Atlas Shrugged is not a weekend read and made me question whether my fun-loving liberal friends actually read it, or read the Cliff’s Notes version which is also selling at unprecedented levels.
In a fictional United States, three giants of industry struggle with a government of venal bureaucrats, “looters,” Rand calls them, that closely resemble our present administration. The three industrialists are Dagny Taggart, Vice President in Charge of Operations for mighty Taggart Transcontinental, steelmaker Henry Rearden whose Rearden Miracle Metal puts steel to shame, and the Chilean play boy Francisco D’Anconia who inherited the world’s richest copper mines and proceeds to turn them into dust, shocking all who know him and invested in his supposedly rock-solid enterprise.
The reasons D’Anconia liquidates his empire in secret become increasing clear as the new administration strips away individual rights.
These are larger-than-life characters acting out their passion on an international stage. Has there ever been a more dynamic woman literary character than Dagny? There’s a reason Angelina Jolie is eager to play her in the upcoming film. (This will only intensify rumblings that our Most Holy of Hollywood Couples are secret libertarians.)
Dagny meets her match in Henry Rearden whose measure of a man’s worth is what he can produce. When Rearden’s miracle metal puts other steel companies in danger, they band together, start buying off politicians and go to Washington. Rearden is a man of utter rectitude whose word is gold. He hates incompetence more than anything. His men love him and willingly give their all because they know he values their contribution and will reward them accordingly.
It’s an enormous story with an enormous backdrop revealing Rand’s vast knowledge of steel-making and railroads. She slips her objectivist philosophy into the narrative seamlessly by showing — by talking, not so much. Characters make speeches that go on for days, most notably, D’Anconia’s passionate defense of money, any paragraph of which would have served as a synecdoche for the whole thing, and John Galt’s “I Am John Galt” speech which is 20,000 words and literally takes three hours to deliver.
Rand anticipated the situation in which we now find ourselves.
Dagny holds a press conference to announce she’s leaving Taggart Transcontinental to build a spur railroad called the John Galt Line:
The reporters who came to the press conference in the office of the John Galt Line were young men who had been trained to think that their job consisted of concealing from the world the nature of its events. It was their daily duty to serve as audience for some public figure who made utterances about the public good, in phrases carefully chosen to convey no meaning… They could not understand the interview now being given to them.
The government comes to see Dagny’s feckless brother Jim, President of Taggart Transcontinental to complain that TT’s superior rails and service are endangering the other railroads.
“Well consider the unions’ side of it,” whines one of Atlas’ interchangeable politicians. “Maybe you can’t afford to give them a raise, but how can they afford to exist when the cost of living has shot sky-high? They’ve got to eat, don’t they? That comes first, railroad or no railroad.’ Mr. Weatherby’s tone had a kind of placid righteousness, as if he were reciting a formula required to convey another meaning, clear to all of them…
“And then consider the public. The rates you’re charging were established at a time when everybody was making money. But the way things are now, the cost of transportation has become a burden nobody can afford. People are screaming about it all over the country.”
So the government forces TT to increase wages to the unions while lowering rates to the customers “in the public interest.”
The delightfully named Stanley Mouch (“Mooch”) serves as First Secretary to the mysterious Mr. Thompson, the head of state.
Mouch had summoned them all to Washington, as his friends and personal advisers, for a private, unofficial conference on the national crisis. But watching him, they were unable to decide whether his manner was overbearing or whining, whether he was threatening them or pleading for their help.
“Fact is,” said Mr. Weatherby primly, in a statistical tone of voice, “that in the twelve month period ending on the first of this year, the rate of business failures has doubled as compared with the preceding twelve month period. Since the first of this year, it has trebled.”
“Be sure they think it’s their own fault,” said Dr. Ferris casually.
“Huh?” said Wesley Mouch, his eyes darting to Ferris.
“Whatever you do, don’t apologize,” said Dr. Ferris. “Make them feel guilty.”
“But it is their own fault,” said Eugene Lawson, turning aggressively to Dr. Ferris. “It’s their lack of social spirit. They refuse to recognize that production is not a private choice, but a public duty. They have no right to fail, no matter what conditions happen to come up. They’ve got to go on producing. It’s a social imperative… There’s no such thing as a persona matter-or a personal life. That’s what we’ve got to force them to learn.”
“Well, if you want to talk practice,” said Fred Kinnan, “then let me tell you that we can’t worry about businessmen at a time like this. What we’ve got to think about is jobs… If you want my advice-ohm, I know you won’t go for it, but it’s just a thought-issue a directive making it compulsory to add, say, one-third more men to every payroll in the country.”
Can’t you just see Rahm Emanuel, Paul Begala, Obama, Pelosi and Axelrod saying these things? Speaking of Pelosi:
Last week I almost quit. It was over Chick’s Special. Mr. Chick Morrison of Washington, whoever the hell he is, has gone on a speaking tour of the whole country-to speak about the directive to build up peoples’ morale… He demanded a special train for himself and party-a sleeper, a parlor car and a diner with barroom and lounge. The Unification Board gave him permission to travel at a hundred miles an hour-by reason, the ruling said, of this being a non-profit journey. Well so it is. It’s just a journey to talk people into continuing to break their backs at making profits in order to support men who are superior by reason of not making any.
So who is John Galt? He’s one of three pupils of the great moral philosopher Hugh Akston. The other two are D’Anconia and the pirate Ragnar Danneskjold. Galt is the inventor of a new energy source that would revolutionize civilization. But rather than turn it over to the government, he walks away. It is Galt who vows to stop the motor of the world. And he does.
Ragnar is Robin Hood in reverse. “Until men learn that of all human symbols, Robin Hood is the most immoral and the most contemptible, there will be no justice on earth and no way for mankind to survive.” Robin Hood, you see, stole from men who knew how to create wealth and gave it to people who didn’t.
Ragnar tells Rearden:
I cannot compute all the money that has been extorted from you-in hidden taxes, in regulations, in wasted time, in lost effort, in energy spent to overcome artificial obstacles. I cannot compute the sum, but if you wish to see its magnitude-look around you. The extent of the misery now spreading through this once prosperous country is the extent of the injustice which you have suffered.
Dagny picks up a hobo who used to be a factory worker. He tells her what happened:
We voted for that plan at a big meeting, with all of us present, six thousand of us, everybody that worked in the factory. The Starnes heirs made long speeches about it, and it wasn’t too clear, but nobody asked any questions. None of us knew just how the plan would work, but every one of us thought that the next fellow knew it-and because they made it sound like anyone who’d oppose the plan was a child-killer at heart and less than a human being.
The government under Stanley Mouch draws up a bill called Directive 10-289 which, “in the name of the general welfare,” forbids anyone to quit their jobs under penalty of prison terms. All business must remain in operation. If the owners try to retire, the industry will be nationalized.
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 by means of Gift Certificates to be signed voluntarily by the owners of all such patents and copyrights.
The government sends polite goons around to collect the certificates. The directive also forbids any new inventions. But the National Science Institute does manage to come up with an original idea of its own: a sonic ray that turns flesh to mush.
The government nationalizes health care:
I quit when medicine was placed under State control, some years ago,” said Dr. Hendricks. “Do you know what it takes to perform a brain operation? Do you know the kinds of skill it demands, and the years of passionate, merciless, excruciating devotion that go to acquire that skill? That was what I would not place at the disposal of men whose sole qualification to rule me was their capacity to spout the fraudulent generalities that got them elected to the privilege of enforcing their wishes at the point of a gun.
I could go on. Rand certainly does. This book might have profited by some serious editing. This was her last work of fiction before devoting herself entirely to laying out her philosophy of objectivism, which holds that there are absolute truths and objective means of measuring them. The very word “objectivist” is anathema to liberals who deal in endless “sophisticated” variations of gray.
The solution Rand offers is for the men and women of industry and business to simply withdraw their skills and energies from the market rather than place them in the service of an evil socialist state. In “Atlas Shrugged” they go to a secret valley in the mountains. In real life, millions of Americans are reevaluating their efforts in light of the Obama administration’s punitive and senseless tax and spend policy. It is a viable option and one which every right-minded American must consider. And by right-minded, I mean Americans who understand the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, to whom the pursuit of happiness is holy but the guarantee of happiness is a cruel joke perpetrated by the present gang of looters in the White House and Congress who couldn’t make a buck if their lives depended on it.







Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
932 Comments
Ayn Rand was an intellectual giant who, though being of a totally different religious and belief system saw the Christian concept of modern business, as invented by the Templar Knights in the 12th century as the absolute
in a modern society. Therefore, she came up with Objectivism, which essentially is Christian fellowship without the dogma and advocated one's own self interest as the great bond we can have with one another.
In the SpecOps community you will find many devotees of Rand, so it's not just entrepenurial sorts. Her reasoned and passionate rebuttals of collectivism have always rung true; today more than ever. If one listens closely they wil hear the murmur of many John Galts right now…
I need to get around to reading that I just have to look the other way when it comes to her atheism I suppose.
the atheism isn't the issue- it's the fact she was able to intellectualize the concepts of God, honor, nobility… had she been Christian, or even observant, it wouldn't carry the same dispassionate intellectual heft an outsider can bring. Read it- and 'Atlas Shrugged' as well. Watch the Gary Cooper film on TCM, too. Angelina Jolie wants to do the film; she has enough clout to bring it to screen. And, she would make a potent Dagny…
Off topic: I wanted to let you guys know how much I love the variety and content on the site.
Also, a question: I visited some older posts and they had no comments or way to comment? Until I visited this post I thought perhaps you'd disabled that functionality…
Vic
If you have a problem with the atheist thing, it has help me tremendously to read the Stoic philosophers, Epictetus, Epicurean, and Aristotle, there are many more. There seems to be a correlation between these intellectual writers and philosophers and their ideas of logic, science and ethics without the religious overtones or religious bashing.
John Piper, a reformed Christian theologian and "Christian Hedonist," considers Rand as one of his influences. The Lord truly works in mysterious ways. If you have time, Piper's essay "The Ethics of Ayn Rand" is worth reading.
It's located here: http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Articl...
Another interesting Christian-Objectivist is John W. Robbins. His book "Without a Prayer" is a devastating limb-by-limb take down of Objectivism from a reformed, Calvinist worldview. Worth a read, for Rand lovers and haters.
I live in a little town in Arizona that got Galted about twenty-five years ago. We have one of the biggest copper mines in the world, with major deposits of gold, silver, and molybdenum besides. The union (a thoroughly corrupt group) decided to strike. The company said that they couldn't make money if they gave a raise at that time. The union ignored them. Then, the company said that they would close the mine for good if there was a strike. The union called their bluff and struck. The company wasn't kidding. They closed the mine and put the whole town out of work. Population dropped from around 8,000 to just over a thousand. . Now, we have a lot of retirees, some artists, the odd drug smuggler and the border patrol, but never got back to even half of what the town was before. The mine stand idle, waiting for socialism to go away so the great wealth it contains can be profitably brought to the surface.
Anyone who thinks Atlas Shrugged is a fantasy should drop by sometime and see what a capital strike looks like in real time.
Ayn Rand saw the future, and it wasn't pretty. I imagine she would have taken strong and vocal political action if she had witnessed what we are seeing now. This new american "king" as he seems to think he has been proclaimed, is addicted top his own adulatoray press, and despite many proclamations to the contrary has no clothes at all. The shocking thing is his popularity and the incredibly vapid press corps who seems to be so caught up in the worship Barack frenzy that they have forgotten how to ask anything even remotely tough of him. AND if anyone opposes him that person is somehow unpatriotic, or rooting for him to fail. I disagree. I throw the same reasoning they used back at them. I fight what I know to be wrong no matter how they gussy it up, and I am not about to sit still while they pick the US treasury over and bankrupt us for foolhardy programs they could never pass one at a time. Vilify the successful, while appealing to us-the newly vilified- for help in investing in the market to save his sorry excuse for a presidency? Not on your life bub. The idiot talked down the economy for months, until BILL CLINTON wised him up. Yeah, he is a real sharp one allright. Somehow our new emergency is so exigent that we cannot have a constitutionally guaranteed debate? Isnt that what the dems were so uptight about the war about? I know, we'll blame bush for our current troubles, and then spend three times what he did while saying it's all his fault. Twisted logic of the first order. Bush lied and people died? Now the shoe is on the the other foot, and they want us to look the other way? Not happening here. If one takes the time to look, one can see Barack Hussein Obama is nothing but a grinning fool with an incredible gift for reading a tele-prompter and spewing populist pap fed to him by his cronies-all of whom are orders of magnitude sharper than he is. Every time he speaks extemporaneously he falls apart and falls into mostly unintelligible, ums, ers, ahs, and "now listens", like he is somehow our father…while he tries to collect what he calls his thoughts. He made fools of the entire US and we the people let it happen. If people cringed at Bush's abuse of powers, how can they sit silent while this guy makes bush like a junior leaguer when it comes to defiling the constitutional protections we are supposed to enjoy? The press should be taken out and shot for their silence on this in my opinion. The funny thing is, the dems have taken the onus upon themselves of being responsible for perhaps the biggest loss of individual liberties in Americas entire 200+ year existense, and it will have come at the hands of those who call themselves "progressive". I FIND IT AMUSING THAT HE CLAIMS TO BE HALVING THE DEFICIT an that anyone buys it. It's a shell game. Ever been to Times Square?
Ms Rand's athiesm is interesting to me because she advocates a method of living that is almost wholly Godly. Her only failure is the discussion of Charity in the life of humans. She forcefully defends the objectivist idea of living for onesself excusively, but forgets (or ignores) the value that charity brings to soul.
Ms Rand's athiesm is interesting to me because she advocates a method of living that is almost wholly Godly. Her only failure is the discussion of Charity in the life of humans. She forcefully defends the objectivist idea of living for onesself excusively, but forgets (or ignores) the value that charity brings to soul.
I think it's so popular because the public is looking for someone who can articulate these themes. The Republicans certainly can't.
thanks for the heads up- we will check it out… as practicing Christians we have absolutely no quibble with Objectivism, quite contrary, she has performed a wonderful service for Western thought and should be considered in the same class as Burke, Aquinas and More. To our knowledge no one else has deconstructed
any other religious concept to the level of pure logic… surely not Mohammedan…
Any Rand needed an editor. That Galt speech went on for 12 pages in the book I read, yet she insisted that the entire thing go in a movie. I believe Al Ruddy had the rights at a time he was making movie after movie, but no, that whole speech had to go in the movie. So it never got made. The Fountainhead with Cooper and Patricia Neal (never more beautiful onscreen) was a great statement about political correctness before anyone hardly thought of it. Still, giving Ms. Rand's sensibilities, I'm shocked it ever got made.
I remember that my oldest brother had this for a book report, or he was terribly bored, in high school. I thought the title was funny. Now that I'm older and have paid more attention to things, I'm wanting to read it. From what I've heard about it, it does seem to parallel our situation that has been growing over the past 16 years or so. Lots of people who believe they are owed a living at the expense of others. Just seems like a foreign concept to me.
I remember that my oldest brother had this for a book report, or he was terribly bored, in high school. I thought the title was funny. Now that I'm older and have paid more attention to things, I'm wanting to read it. From what I've heard about it, it does seem to parallel our situation that has been growing over the past 16 years or so. Lots of people who believe they are owed a living at the expense of others. Just seems like a foreign concept to me.
I've never read it, but I intend to.
I've never read it, but I intend to.
You know if Hollywood did a version of this, they'd turn the Looters into Republican characters faster than some screenwriter hack could turn Taggart into a thinly veiled reference to Halliburton.
She was a prophet, and a sad one as well… if Card Check is passed you will see this done on a wholesale level.
Sorry about your town. Union goons begone!
Nah, like nearly every celebrity, she'd be an Obama fan. LOL.
Nah, like nearly every celebrity, she'd be an Obama fan. LOL.
the Stoic philosophers were not so much atheists as pagans- and it is indeed interesting how Aristotle was able to find pure logic in that environment…
Todd, you'll be shocked how much it parallels events today. You will see all your favorite democrats, taking the same actions the bad guys take, using the same justifications the bad guys use, getting the same horrible results, and responding in the exact same manner. In many ways, Rand provided a textbook for how to hide yourself among a herd liberal.
Skip, I've never seen the movie. I LOVED the book and I didn't want my image of it ruined by a movie adaptation. I take it you recommend the movie?
Exactly dcase.
I've heard that Wal-Mart has done this too. If their employees organize, they close the store.
When I first heard about Atlas Shrugged I hadn't even heard of her. It must have been at the very beginning of the rumblings on the web about the book. As I looked into the book and Rand, I ran into the smears of her and her philosophy. Things like "the book was commissioned by the Illuminati", or "written by Satan himself" all kinds of BS. I'm still reading it and a few days ago in the book they had just passed an act or directive. I put the book down and turned on the news. They were talking about something congress has been up to or just passed, arguing about it or whatever. It as if I was still reading the book, the arguments for the measure and the measure itself took the exact same tone as the book. It was really creepy. It seems I'm reading this thing at a pace that matches world events, like something out of The Twilight Zone. The more I read it the more it seems to get traction and pop up everywhere. I've never read anything like it and I've noticed a change in the way I deal with people since I started it, standing up for myself more and getting more proactive. It's all very strange.
Atlas Shrugged in the context to today’s America are truly prophetic. Really a must read for any freedom loving American. It’s a tuff read until you get into the characters then it moves along nicely. I would love to see the movie made the last I heard they had Angelina Jolie as Dagney Taggart, Brad Pitt, as John Galt, and Russell Crowe as Hank Rearden, is this true or is it internet chatter?
I think intense debate was broken earlier. It seems buggy lately, anyone else experiencing slow, muddy text input?
the charity issue is her most interesting deficiency, in her pure logic charity was not compatible with selfish self interest… yet she freely embraces brotherhood when it is in your interest; at the end of the day helping your neighbor build his barn will be rewarded by his helping fix your car- still noble deeds yet in synch with Objectivism. One supposes that charity is an individual choice and should be done only when necessary- 'tis better to teach a man to fish, as they say…
She had nothing against charity, as long as it was voluntary and not forced on you. I've seen many interviews with her and she has been consistent when it comes to charity. If giving voluntarily makes you feel good (which some would consider selfish because you are doing it for yourself), then go for it.
Well she did see first hand the result of communism she new what she spoke about.
Andy, we recommend the film. Highly. A side note: the morning of the inauguration of the teleprompter in chief
TCM had it on, so we took advantage of turning the channel and were rewarded with 2 hours of anti-Obamunism…
Yeah, there would have to control or liberal Hollywood would screw it up.
I haven't read "Atlas Shrugged" all the way through since college. But the message stuck with me, sometimes consciously, and sometimes beneath the surface when I was trying to make a point. I thought "The Fountainhead" was a very fine movie, and I hope Hollywood can do as well with "Atlas Shrugged." Just a fun sidenote, about the time I was graduating from UC, the collectivists had a little saying: "Ronald Reagan is Ayn Rand in drag." They thought it was an insult. He knew better.
I goofed, my friends. It's Wesley Mouch, not Stanley. Thanks Bosch.
I'll give it a chance. I've rarely found that truly good books adapt well to the screen, especially books like the Fountainhead, which are more about belief and depth of character than action sequences.
I’m jealous you got to have Reagan as a Governor and President.
I have no hopes that modern Hollywood can do Atlas Shrugged. The villains will be bankers and hedgefunds. I'd bet money on it.
Of all the looters in the novel, no one knew exactly what their policies would do except the union boss (whose name I can't recall), and he knew what a bunch of dolts the looters were.
I read the novel three or four years ago not knowing exactly what it was about, but knowing it was an influential work, and as I was reading it, I was thinking these looters were exactly what the left represented, and John and Dagny, et al., were what the right represented. And over the passed years, I saw this wonderful country head more and more toward the People's State.
No wonder this book was voted second most influential book right behind the Bible.
Actually… I commented on another recent article (the writer of Rock-n-Roll High School, who got black-listed out of Hollywood). I went back two hours later, and I can't find my comment.
And, I didn't use any profanity or anything… honest!
(Maybe they couldn't believe there were any conservatives in Madison, Wisconsin. Seemed too suspicious?)
The big question is how he will half the deficit, over our dead bodies perhaps, taxes, taxes, taxes…
Here is a great link of Ayn Rand's "Textbook of Americanism". I've read a lot of her work and seen interviews with her and am always astounded at how much love she had for America. She was so terrified that we would go down the same road as the USSR. I once saw an interview she did with Phil Donahue where she said Atlas Shrugged was not a prediction of America's future but rather a reliving of the Soviet Union's past with America in it's place. It was written as a warning that we, the silent majority, chose not to heed.
http://www.enterpriseintegrators.com/flint/4thR/T...
I haven't read Atlas yet (but will) – There is the current news story about FedEx threatening to cancel lucrative aircraft orders to Boeing if the Card Check legislation goes through Congress successfully and gets signed.
I bet there are a number of companies that are on the edge right now that would completely fold if they had to pay the "livable" union wage. Everyone agrees it would be nice to pay everyone $25+ per hour for any kind of job. The reality is, we are in a global economy – competing with many other non-union countries. We just could not compete if most US companies were union. This is the fundamental point socialist just DO NOT GET. It is so true that the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.
Sadly, that's easy Stan. First, he spends twice as much as we already do. Then he cuts back to where we are today. He will then tell us how much he cut spending. That's the current plan, though his budget projections don't make the cut back until 2013.
This populism thing is beginning to make me very nervous. Both sides of the political aisle in Congress were falling all over themselves trying to out-populist each other over the AIG mess. Populism is simply class envy socialism for the feeble-minded. For that reason, it probably has more traction on the left than on the right, but I saw a lot of purple-faced Republicans ready to suspend the Constitution in order to punish those rich evildoers who got the outrageous bonuses. It's that kind of demagogic hysterics that feed populism, socialism, and all-around bad government. Bush had trouble finding his veto pen, and Obama doesn't even own one. I'm a conservative with libertarian leanings, and I think Rand belongs in the ranks of the great prophets.
One last neat tid bit is this amazing article she wrote while with the MPA after the HUAC testimonies. It was meant to guide writers to uphold American ideals in film and to recognize Communist propaganda. If this doesn't give you a cold chill check your pulse. This should be linked off the home page of this site from here to eternity.
http://archive.lib.msu.edu/DMC/AmRad/screenguidea...
[...] Why ‘Atlas Shrugged’ Matters [...]
I liked the movie. It's pretty faithful to the novel, albeit truncated (but what do you expect, given the size of Rand's novel). The movie certainly upheld the integrity idea and Cooper portrayed it perfectly. Patricia Neal played her petulant princess perfectly, maybe more so than Rand was comfortable with frankly (Rand had her personal problems). But Rand wrote the script so she had no one to blame.
At one point, I was friends with Michael Edwards, a successful model and soap star who was living with Priscilla Presley. He tried to get me involved with a real estate investment in West Virginia on a river island where he'd loved going to summer camp as a kid. I pitched the idea to them of remaking The Fountainhead as a miniseries, getting a developer involved, and actually build some of the homes designed by "Howard Roark" in the novel. I wanted to tell more story than the movie told. I think if anyone makes a movie about Atlas Shrugged, no one could make most of the fans of the book happy.
And get current Hollywood to make Atlas Shrugged? That's the best joke I've heard this year.
My sister works at Starbucks in a grocery store. She's paid by the store. Until recently she would take her breaks in the cafe there. A few days her boss told her that she had to take them in the break room because the unions were going to start soliciting. they tried a few times but it got voted down, looks like they are getting ready to pounce.
it's excruciatingly bad writing though, any way you cut it. great political philosophy. horrible novel.
The irony for me is that I was one of the students whom Governor Reagan was referring to when he said "Well, if they want a bloodbath, let's give them a bloodbath." Even as a mindless radical at the time, I couldn't help but admire Reagan's ability to cut to the chase. By the time he ran for President, I had morphed into a Reagan Democrat, and his "evil empire" speech clinched it for me. If only there were some Republican today with his simple (not simplistic) messages, clear thinking, immense charisma, and complete lack of concern for what the liberals, radicals and Europeans thought and said about him.
Yeah, Andrew. But where are you going to get the money for the bet? We're all broke.
Absolutely. Populism is basically another word for vilification. It advocates torturing those we do not like as a way to make ourselves feel better. That's wrong on so many levels. Unfortunately, it's also very easy for politicians (left and right) to slip into it because it is an easy way to "fire up" the base.
I'm afraid of the exact same thing. It most likely won't even resemble what was written.
One thing that Washington politicians love is being a Washington politician, and power. Our “servants” are off their leashes and it truly is unnerving. Huey Long would be so proud?
I read The Fountainhead because how many books have an architect as protagonist? (I'm an architect) And I didn't see the film until just recently. And I loved it. My small quibble is this, Cooper does a great job as Roarke (as expected), but he just didn't look young enough early in the pic. But yes, Neal was exquisite, and Raymond Massey was excellent too. I never thought of Abe Lincoln once! And they did a great job protraying visually the conflicting ideas about what architecture should be.
I agree about current Hollywood and Atlas Shrugged. They won't be able to resist making the bad guys into bankers, hedgefunds, and corrupt Republicans. Also, they will never understand the reasoning behind the story itself. I expect to see some jumble about lobbyist created legislation (bad) v. pure, well-intentioned, socialist legislation (good).
I'm a fan of cool architecture and I would love to see someone make Roark homes. Talk about a tourist attraction! Colorado should build a Galt City.
Thanks for the info on the Fountainhead movie. One of the problems I have with remakes of great books like this, is that they always want to interpret the book — and they rarely get it right. It's like they understand the style, but never the substance.
I can't argue with that but like most of what are our most influential books it was less about the style of the writing and more about it's substance.
Ayn Rand likes to ignore a few subtle truths in her works. Most of the truly productive people who make great advances in science, medicine, industry are not at the top of the food chain, for every Dean Kamen out there, there are 1000 people who see little profit to their ideas which make companies millions, Scientific advance requires capitol, of which most individuals don't have large enough amounts to do their research. Ayn Rand apeals to people who think they are the prolific producers (Which obviously most are not). Does society give bill gates a raw deal? What would really happen if Warren Buffet decided to stop working…….Somone else would step in, and that person might now be quite as good, or they might be better. The idea behind Ayn Rands work is being a selfish bastard is ok, becuase other people will have to let you be or society will fall apart, and those people care too much too let society fall apart, so screw them. Obviously not a philosophy you would want your neighbors living buy, we live in communities, and there are communal responsibilities, as much as people would like to think they do everything on their own they don't this world has gotten to complicated for Ayn Rand to apply in any way but as a reminder of how selfish people can justify their own selfishness.
I read recently that Jolie and Pitt lost interest. Anyway, the novel could not possibly be represented by a standard Hollywood film. A 10 or 20 part series would be needed.
I read some of Rand's straight philosophy books years ago and it did transform my thinking and no doubt accelerated my political views. Once you see the negative effects of altruism ( and the fraudulent nature of most of the underlying philosophy) you are on "the other side" forever. For most liberals, altruism is their GOD, which is why Rand is anathema to them.
Atlas Shrugged, I got for my i-pod – 50 hours of audio unabridged, and it is timely. Ayn Rand is brilliant but not a prophet; Rand lived under communism and understood it completely, and there is only one direction things go once altruism and "looters" get control.
I'm waiting to get my "fair share" from the government. When I say "money" I really mean "Obamastamps".
Ya know, a voice from heaven just spoke to me and pointed out that Ronald Reagan was the first great politician to come up with the concept "Don't feed the trolls." He simply ignored them, they continued to sputter for awhile, then died of starvation. Unfortunately, they left offspring who are feeding off the words of reasonable people who can't resist feeding them today.
Taxes are in this man’s DNA. He believes that the tax code is the great equalizer. You are right this creep is a great believer in slight of hand, or bait and switch, if you will. As a business owner I am concerned.
Oh, give me a break.
She took selective chunks from Neitzche, dumped in a bit of good old fashioned classism, added a touch of economic ignorance (The Gault's of the world work for "Wal-martish" CEO's who had only one idea in their lives. Cheaper wages.) and tossed in a solid "I got mine, screw you".
Intellectual giant by aching posterior.
Oh, give me a break.
She took selective chunks from Neitzche, dumped in a bit of good old fashioned classism, added a touch of economic ignorance (The Gault's of the world work for "Wal-martish" CEO's who had only one idea in their lives. Cheaper wages.) and tossed in a solid "I got mine, screw you".
Intellectual giant by aching posterior.
Well, Ann Coulter, God bless her beautiful heart, posted the goods on Wall Street, "Gordon Gekko Is A Democrat," http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?fc_c=13869... not that anyone in Hollywood would read it. Substance? The only thing that Hollywood does with substance is abuse it.
I wanted to read it — there wasn't a single word in it I disagreed with — but I gave up about two-thirds of the way through. Sold it to a used bookstore and bought gas for my car.
I’d forgotten that. For such a soft spoken man he could be tough. I guess that comes from a person that has the courage of his convictions.
I can hear The Kingfish chortling in his grave (and I'm three thousand miles away).
Skip, I always love reading your comments/contributions because I love your word play: "The only thing that Hollywood does with substance is abuse it." Fantastic!
I started reading Rand when I was a teenager, and loved her novels. Still do. In matters of personal honor and integrity, I often think, what would Howard Roark do?
However, my interest in Objectivism ended a few years ago, because of the endless attacks on religion by the ARI and TIA. I wasn't religious at the time, but still found the attacks tiresome. I was also disturbed by the increasingly bitter tone of many of the articles and by what seemed like a tacit defense of hedonism (which Rand did not promote as a virtue). The final straw was an article defending partial-birth abortion as pro-freedom. Even as an agnostic, I found this a perversion of the notion of freedom. I cancelled my financial support for TIA, and was done with Objectivism. They were wasting an enormous amount of energy that would've been more effectively directed elsewhere.
I would caution Objectivists to nix the anti-religious crusade if they haven't already. I'm heartened that sales of Rand's novels are at an all-time high, but America is still largely a Christian nation. To persist with the attacks against religion would be to waste an opportunity that may never come again.
Amen. I found the writing in this book to be the most simplistic, boring, rote and repetitive style of any major book I've read. Even the names of the characters were outstandingly bad. Balph? There was a guy named Balph in it! No problem with the themes expressed or objectivism in general, but her skills as a novelist were lacking.
http://www.alistz.net
Howard Roarke's ideas about architecture are loosely drawn from the ideas of Frank Lloyd Wright. During the time Rand was researching "Fountainhead", Wright had just returned from an extended stay in Europe where he ran off to with his mistress after abandoning his first wife and 6 kids. He returned to the US virtually broke and companionless. So he drifted up and down the California coast, attending various social events and looking for commisions. It was during this period that he met Rand and struck up a friendship. And Rand took many of his ideas about architecutral theory and architecture (FLW wrote extensively on both) and built the architect portion of Roarke around them. If you want to see what "Roarke-ian" architecture would look like, just check out the works of FLW.
Amen
The Galt speech was actually 20 pages in a size 6 font, very long indeed. Strangely Atlas never got close to being on the screen the incident I believe you are referring to is from the Fountain Head with Gary Cooper's finale speech. They tried several times to get her to trim it (I believe it ran about 8 minutes) and she threatened to pull her name from the project and publicly rebuke the film if they changes so much as one syllable. The studio relented and the movie closed exactly as she had written it. Gutsy on her part compared to today's integrity starved, take the money and run writers.
That would work on websites (and I promise I will do my best to resist the temptation), but I wouldn't try that in the public policy sphere. Silence equals consent in the world of politics.
This book changed my life and, along with the Book of Revelation, is the blueprint for our future.
Ayn Rand was able to "prophesy" what is happening today because the path to socialism always takes the same path. Sadly, we are way into the final chapters now.
It's a hard read no doubt. It is the longest book written in any western language and considered by most to be it's most difficult read but I tell you it was well worth it. It's rare that something can really reset your perspective the way that book does.
My girlfriend who speaks English as a third language has read it twice and plans on reading it a third time. She absolutely loves that book and has read now most of Rand's popular works and several of her papers. She says it sinks up beautifully with her Budhist upbringing of personal accountability.
Frank Lloyd Wright and Ayn Rand doing the wild thing! LMAO. Good thing they didn't get married; he would have become Frank Rand. Crazy, I always thought the architecture she wrote about sounded like Wright. Thanks for the info, Dom.
I just finished "Atlas Shrugged" and was captivated by the story and the writing style. I was considering reading "The Fountainhead", can anyone offer a short review of that book? Thanks.
Excuse my ignorance for not having read "Atlas," it is now cannot-do-without reading for me. However, the entrepreneurs you describe from the book actually do create something, which is something the current titans of Wall Street by and large do not do. They create money, and eliminate jobs and create nothing more in the process. Nothing. The best advice anyone could take is to not take any advice from Wall Street analysts, and if possible don't go public unless what you really want to do is eventually cash out. Wall Street preaches expansion, consolidation, absorbing "weaker" competitors, "efficiency" and "growth." They focus on increasing share price (Orwellianly described as "value") with any eye toward eventual sale/cashing out. Then they counsel spinning off divisions (whether they are profitable or not doesn't seem to matter) and refocusing on core businesses. Then they start pushing consolidation again. All in the name of making money but this is NOT genuinely entrepreneurial at all. It's gambling with people's livelihoods and retirement.
wow, you cant even spell "Galt" right.
that was an original reason for me not picking up the book. However, having completed it last month, I can say without a doubt that it was frighteningly familiar. I would HIGHLY recommend it to anyone thinking of reading it.
Ayn Rand wrote Atlas Shrugged to prevent itself from coming true. In real life, individuals "going Galt" is not an effective 'solution' to approaching dictatorship, but a piecemeal *reaction* to the increasing punishment of producers. Ayn Rand saw instances of this reaction in her lifetime, which is part of what gave her the idea for the book.
In Atlas Shrugged the strike is not a mere reaction. It is part of a radical long-term plan by a genius. But for a reader, the strike's function is not as an instruction manual. It is a *literary device* to dramatically demonstrate why it is suicidal for a nation to shackle and scapegoat its producers.
Unfortunately, too few people have yet digested the message of Atlas Shrugged, which is much deeper than politics and economics. We are now close to the scenario in AS precisely because its most critical message is ethical, and we are (apparently) slow (hopefully not too slow) to reject the ancient morality of altruism, and to learn a new ethics of rational egoism.
Howard Roark's speech in The Fountainhead goes on for 12 pages. John Galt's speech in Atlas Shrugged went on for more than 60 (it can be found in the chapter "This is John Galt Speaking" in Part III. I skimmed the comments but didn't see the correction, but Gary Cooper starred in the film version of "The Fountainhead;" Atlas has never been made into a movie.
[...] Why Atlas Shrugged Matters Share and Enjoy: [...]
Check out YouTube for the the entire Ayn Rand appearance on Phil Donahue's show back in the late 70's. It's a hoot watching Donahue and his audience trying (in vain) to get Ayn to abandon reason with appeals to her compassion. It reminded me a lot of Hank Rearden's family in Atlas Shrugged.
I wasn't suggesting silence. I was suggesting we be vocal in the Reagan mode. Don't argue with people who are working from scripts, Cliff notes, and teleprompters. Come up with good ideas. Ignore their agenda, and set your own. Speak boldly and proudly of your plans and concepts. Identify the enemy and attack him, not his disciples.
Ronald Reagan's most devastating responses to the opposition usually began with "Well, there you go again." Then he would ignore the nonsense that just sprewed out of the other guy's mouth, and go on with his own presentation. If you don't like the question, ignore it and answer your own question instead. The milestone "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall" was said against the advice of all his writers. And "Mr. Moderator, I paid for this microphone" wasn't half-bad either. Ronald Reagan was rarely silent, and he only consented to ideas he had usually laid out in the first place.
Oh, I forgot. Your mother wears army boots.
Sorry if I got the numbers wrong. When I think about reading those speeches, my eyes blur over.
I see where you're going and yes she endorses selfishness but you are over simplifying and adding a lot of gray. Ayn Rand believed as Thomas Jefferson did that people should be free to pursue happiness without the shackles of tyranny and that we are all born with an inalienable right to express our free will.
This idea of communal responsibility, as you expressed it, is a red herring. The only true way to enforce responsibility is law and regulation so at it's core responsibility not backed by law is a personal choice. Using the example of a neighbor's home burning you may (as most of us would) view it as your responsibility to try and help but you would not be punished if you didn't, that is free will. Ayn Rand never opposed helping others, she dedicated her life to trying to help others see the dangers of Communism she witnessed first hand but it was her choice. In the Randian philosophy charity is given of free will and out of a sincere desire to help not out of some contrived sense of having to serve others or out of force.
Continued..
Using your mention of producers not being wealthy, that is true but wealth is not the point. If you are doing what you love, what you "selfishly" want to do then money will not matter. People who are giving their lives to medicine and science as you mentioned by in large are doing it because they want to help not because they want to be millionaires, these people are as much victims of looters and moochers as Galt was. Do others profit from these workers efforts? Of course. This is how a market is built, mutual consent of free will. Without the large company the scientist would never have the financial means to do the work they have dedicated themself to and without the scientist the large company would never have the innovation to profit from. You are viewing the workers as endentured servants rather than willing participants in a mutually beneficial arrangement.
One thing to ask yourself regarding moochers and looters. Look at how much money the government is taking from you and ask yourself what have you gotten in return and what have they done to earn it? We have gotten to comfortable with being forced to sacrifice our labor and hard earned rewards for nothing.
The populism thing definitely has me scared. Half our household income comes from big corporation. We could wind up on the wrong end of that anger.
I suppose if Superhero stories can pass as serious film, then Ayn Rand must be serious literature. It certainly reads like a comic book. Or as William F. Buckley said, it's "a thousand pages of ideological fabulism." Whittaker Chambers destroys the book here:
http://www.nationalreview.com/flashback/flashback...
We need someone like Daniel Hannan.
Speaking of Chambers, if you want to read a 1,000 page book by a coservative that can actually WRITE, you might try his masterpiece of am auto-biography, 'Witness'.
I think I've heard that about FedEx as well.
Capitalism in the fifties was more stark than today, and corporations were not multi-national and as government-dependent as they are today, so in a sense you are right that Rand's innovators are not as applicable today. But Buffet would be considered more of a looter by Rand, I think, while Gates is indeed an innovator (though not a pristine character by any means). Besides Gates, who is an extreme, millions of people gain profits from their work in America – especially those who actively pursue a dream and have talent.
You misunderstand Rand if you think she promotes selfishness as a vice. She promotes it as a virtue – that in the end when you help yourself, when you improve yourself, when you are strict with yourself, you contribute to society as a natural outcome, because we do live in communities and trade with each other. Rand never celebrated independence per se, the idea is achieving something that ultimately contributes to society (otherwise it would not be celebrated as a success, right?) It IS a philosophy I want my neighbors to live by. Paint your house take care of your yard (and don't go into foreclosure) and don't be looking out your window trying to figure out how to "help" me. When you focus on helping, or improving others, you do them and yourself a disservice.
Capitalism in the fifties was more stark than today, and corporations were not multi-national and as government-dependent as they are today, so in a sense you are right that Rand's innovators are not as applicable today. But Buffet would be considered more of a looter by Rand, I think, while Gates is indeed an innovator (though not a pristine character by any means). Besides Gates, who is an extreme, millions of people gain profits from their work in America – especially those who actively pursue a dream and have talent.
You misunderstand Rand if you think she promotes selfishness as a vice. She promotes it as a virtue – that in the end when you help yourself, when you improve yourself, when you are strict with yourself, you contribute to society as a natural outcome, because we do live in communities and trade with each other. Rand never celebrated independence per se, the idea is achieving something that ultimately contributes to society (otherwise it would not be celebrated as a success, right?) It IS a philosophy I want my neighbors to live by. Paint your house take care of your yard (and don't go into foreclosure) and don't be looking out your window trying to figure out how to "help" me. When you focus on helping, or improving others, you do them and yourself a disservice.
You must be logged in to post a comment.