With the excitement this Summer, the AYP results and the School Board elections, I have fallen behind on my book reports... My sabbatical read was Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. If you are a fan of Speed Gibson, you have heard mention of it before with good reason. It is an excellent book that is filled with love, hate, suspense, fear, joy, sensuality, intrigue, explosions, caring, greed, philanthropy and philosophy.
It tells the story of what may happen to the world if the industrial leaders, innovative experts and wealth creators finally get tired of carrying and paying for the looters that despise and mistreat them. The looters in this case are those that believe they are owed "something for nothing" and pass laws to ensure they get it. In summary, it is an enjoyable read about the benefits/detriments of capitalism and socialism.
I was speaking to someone in the education business that had read it in college. My perception is that he did not find the philosophy very compelling. I mentioned that he may want to try it again now that he is older, and with the following perspective adjustment.
The people he perceived as self centered, uncaring and self serving "industrialists" in the book. Well, they are always willing to make time for and support people that want to learn about the importance of rationality, honesty, justice, independence, integrity, productiveness, and pride. They just don't have any time for those that do not want to try, or those that want to get something for nothing...(ie oppose the listed values)
Specific examples are when Dagny Taggart offers to help her sister in-law, when Hank Readen helped the boy who was his company's "Wet Nurse" change his philosophy, or when John Galt speaks to the country. They definitely believe that teaching people to fish is more important than giving them a fish.
If you have not read it, it is definitely worth the time. If you have, what critical ideas am I missing? (pro or con)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
24 comments:
I have thought about reading "Atlas Shrugged" but I haven't, and I haven't read any other Ayn Rand either. The closest I have gotten to it is watching the movie "The Fountainhead", a TCM regular, which is by turns interesting, boring, and at certain moments, unintentionally hilarious in ways I won't go into on a family message board.
The notion of the corporate leader as some sort of generator of wealth and goodness goes in and out of fashion. With the collapse of the stock market, the timing of the resurgence of interest in Rand is interesting. Could it be that Rand's book is now seen as a blue print of what can go wrong with our economy as opposed to what can go right.
The leaders of the last wave or prosperity, at least the last wave that shows any signs of lasting, were computer guys. Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, people like that. In passing, I would note that as much of anything, their vast wealth is based on the invention of tools that create and extend a sense of global community while giving even the most modest individual who can reach a computer linked to the internet the power to speak to the world.
Interesting, I think you are discounting all the normal folk who make America run by living by the values Ayn believed in. The farmers, miners, scientists, engineers, entrepeneurs, soldiers, mechanics, machinists, welders, etc that expect to work hard and provide true value in exchange for the money they earn. The high profile "industrialists" and our country would be nothing without them.
As compared to those that think the hard earned money should be looted from the "hard working" and given to the "less diligent"... Instead of helping the "less diligent" to understand the importance of rationality, honesty, justice, independence, integrity, productiveness, and pride.
Learning the irony that the looters rely on and use the "hard working" folk's high values to guilt them into supporting the "less diligent" folks learned helplessness was a neat point of the book.
"I think you are discounting all the normal folk who make America run by living by the values Ayn believed in."
Not at all. I think with her vision that society moves forward because of the actions of visionary and heroic leaders, what to me translates in modern terms as the cult of the CEO, I think it's Ayn Rand who discounts them. The cult of CEO has fallen on really hard times lately for some very good reasons.
"The farmers, miners, scientists, engineers, entrepeneurs, soldiers, mechanics, machinists, welders"
I think these are all great people, but I don't think hardy self reliance is what characterizes any of them. Farmers are dependent on a variety federal subsidies. Scientists are dependent on funding provided by others, miners are saved from the vicious predations of industrialists by their unions. Whenever I drive by the new ballparks, I think they aren't there because of the unique vision of some sort of Howard Roark characer, but because their owners were able to find a place for themselves on the pubic dole.
I don't really mind helping out with all those things. On the whole I think they are for the best. I don't even expect much and humility from those folks who are so dependent on the rest of us. But when reminded at least, sometimes I can't help notice that sometimes those qualities aren't as fully present as perhaps they should be.
Jon,
I think you should read the book.
Ayn uses characters that are employed in all positions and levels as her heroes. Also, the Industrialists/CEOs are portrayed pretty evenly as heroes or looters. It just depends on their belief system and actions, not their position.
As for your perspective that most folks are vicious or looters, we will have to agree to disagree. I think most folks truly want to be fair with their employees and earn their income. (ie not be on the "public dole") Hopefully we can convince more people to live by these values. It worked pretty good for the first 200 years.
"As for your perspective that most folks are vicious or looters, we will have to agree to disagree."
I don't think most people are vicious looters. I think we live in communities and that all of us are mutually interdependent. I would never choose the adjective "vicious" to characterize those relationships. Nor do I see them as a form of looting.
I think it's interesting that Rand draws a distinction between heroes and looters. How does one tell the difference? In the 1990's the leaders of Enron looked very much like heroes. Men of bold vision, always asking "why?". Those within and without the company who raised questions about their hero status, were disparaged as inside the box thinkers, corporate parasites, in general the sorts of people who would have been the villains in the movie version, at least, of "The Fountainhead". It turns out that vision was wrong.
If Rand's hero/looter dichotomy can't be used to identify who are the heroes and the losers, if in fact these roles are constantly shifting depending on events, of what use is it?
As I said earlier. Read the book and it will make sense.
I like to go the track, and place the occasional bet on a horse. But one of the irritating things about the track is that they don't allow you to place bets after the race is completed, or in fact after it starts. It would be a lot easier to make winning bets if they did.
What Ayn Rand has done, in my opinion, in her thousands of pages of prose, and in her lifetime of philosophizing, is construct a very elaborate and complex intellectual structure, that can predict with absolutely certainty, and total reliability which horse has won the race after it has been run.
It's an awesome achievement, but how much of that effort was really necessary?
"I think it's interesting that Rand draws a distinction between heroes and looters. How does one tell the difference?"
I am not sure that Ayn would really characterize people as heroes. Heroes are generally people that are looked up to, which is not something that Ayn would wish on any of her characters. I believe that Ayn would more likely characterize people as either moral (your "heroes") or immoral(in the book referred to as "looters"). Ayn's 'moral' characters could care less what any of the 'looters' would think of them. They would only care about those they considered as equals (any other moral person). If you read the book you will come to see that those you think of as the heroes ("I think with her vision that society moves forward because of the actions of visionary and heroic leaders") Ayn would consider looters. The goal of the 'moral' does not include any wish to 'move society forward'. The goal of the moral is to be true to themselves and to 'pay their own way' in all things.
The book is very long but I believe it is so because the concepts Ayn is trying to bring out are very complicated and hard to grasp.
As for "Could it be that Rand's book is now seen as a blue print of what can go wrong with our economy as opposed to what can go right.", her whole book is dedicated to what can go wrong with the economy. Right now she is looking very much like a prophet. With this current government, it won't be too long before the 'looters' run out of things to loot.
In my opinion, the main point of the book is that those who continue to provide 'stuff' for the looters to loot have not yet attained a high morality.
If you were to read one book by Ayn, I would read 'The Atlas Shrugged' instead of 'The Fountainhead'. They both are really the same story, Ayn just didn't think she told it well enough the first time ('The Fountainhead'). I actually prefer 'The Fountainhead' but your comment about it being a bit boring at times is spot on. She seems to drag a couple of the points out too much. She did a much better job of that on 'The Atlas Shrugged'.
I am using the term "heroes" in the sense of people capable of extraordinary accomplishments, not necessarily that they be people who are admired for their accomplishments.
In the movie at least, Howard Roark is quite testy and not very likable. He is not unadmired but not widely admired, appreciated only by a few exceptional individuals, some of whom go to great lengths to hypocritically attack him in public.
My sense is the Fountainhead is the less widely referred to book these days, is because it is more philosophically problematic. The architect as self reliant hero has problems because architects are so dependent on others, most of whom are offscreen in the movie but very present in real life.
It might be true that Rand based Roark on Frank Lloyd Wright. Wright fits the hero mold of famous architect probably better than anybody. And like Roark, he was pretty much of a jerk.
Whenever I am in New York, I visit the Metropolitan Museum of Art. And when I do, I visit the display of a room there, taken from a Wright designed house in Wayzata. It's a beautiful room that gives me a thrill every time I see it. But every time I go there, I ask myself, why is this room here at the Met, and not back in some house in Wayzata. The answer is always obvious to me; as beautiful as that room, for various reasons it would be impossible to live in. And that's seems to me to be true of many Wright buildings. They are beautiful, and wonderful, they lift the heart, but they are almost never used for the purposes for which they were originally intended, or if they are they don't suit them very well.
I think that's the irony that frustrated Roark in "The Fountainhead" and one he was never able to successfully resolve.
Famous Wright story. He was in court testifying on something other when the attorney asked him:
"Mr. Wright, are you the greatest architect in the world?"
"Yes", Wright replied, "I am."
"Aren't you being immodest?" the attorney asked.
"Well, sir", Wright answered, "I am under oath."
I haven't read Atlas. I have read a few other pieces but my philosophy reads are the more traditional sense. A little Nozick, Rawls, Locke and Adler is more of my taste. From the debate perspective I steer the kids away from Rand as well - tough to use the ideas at times.
Maybe I'll have to give Atlas a read after debate is done. Busy reading about standardized testing scores right now.
DJ
G2A - posted the contact info as well.
Another cool read is Sopie's World. It is a fiction book that teaches the history of most/all philosophical theories. It is pretty cool and entertaining.
By the way, being an avid book reader of philosophies and beliefs, I am open to new titles that you found "incredible". In other words, they shattered your existing paradigms, or helped you understand things or people differently.
Add a comment or drop me an email with the title. Thanks
My favorite philosopher was always Plato, or maybe Socrates as depicted in the dialogues of Plato. Not so much the Socrates depicted elsewhere in Greek literature such as the plays of Aristophanes.
What we, or at least, I have been talking a lot about here is what do we know, and how do we know it? In philosophy the study of such things is called epistemology. I tend to believe that we think we know more about things than we actually do. We tend to read significance or meaning into numbers that isn't there or can't be justified. There are lots of philosophers who specialize in that sort of thing but I haven't read them in a long time. What I do read with a lot of interest is the magazine articles of Malcolm Gladwell who talks about these issues in all kinds of different and pragmatic ways. They are collected at his website Gladwell.com.
So who are the real world equivalents of Rand's fictional Atlases, past or present? John D. Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie? Henry Ford? William Durant? Charles Ponzi? Alfred Sloan? Thomas Watson? Bill Gates? Steve Jobs? Ken Lay? Bernhard Ebbers?
Who are the builders, and who are the looters, and do the two categories ever overlap? At any given moment how do we tell one from the other?
My answer to who is Atlas is a question...(suprise)
Whose absence would damage our economic and productivity engine the most?
Without this engine, the wealth used "for the good of society" would not be available. My personal belief is there are some big players, yet it can apply to all people that belive in the values and act according to them.(Bar Stool Economics)
As for the looters, reverse the question and think about who beats the guy that is buying the drinks???
FYI, I have now finished Gladwell's "Tipping Point". Here is how I rank them:
#1 Outliers (Must read)
#2 Tipping Point (OK)
#3 Blink (OK)
All three will open your eyes to some new paradigms.
Whose absence would damage our economic and productivity engine the most?
Steve Jobs possibly. But as De Gaulle said, "The cemeteries are full of indispensable men."
Whose absence would damage our economic and productivity engine the most?
And of course, given the current state of affairs, another way to ask that question is, who or possibly what are we missing?
I agree, the indispensable people are replaced by more indispenable people. Who ironically continue to believe and act similarly...
Now if the looters demotivate some of the indispensable people to the point where they think the looting belief system and actions look okay. Leaving fewer indispensable people to loot.....
This cycle can only end badly...
The upside is that after the pain, it is likely the next generation, country, civilization will return to the work and "everyone earning their keep matters" values.
Bring it back to simple work teams. If a team consists of 8 workers and 2 free loaders, it can hobble along. Now if it degrades to 5 workers and 5 free loaders, it is only a matter of time until something blows up. How long til the explosion depends on if the employee's Managers are workers or freeloaders themselves...
I forgot. Another factor that determines how long before the explosion is the intensity and urgency of the competion, survival, etc.
A company that tips towards free loaders becomes financially not viable and enters bankruptcy or goes out of business sooner in a competitive and unforgiving market.
the indispensable people are replaced by more indispenable people. Who ironically continue to believe and act similarly.
Which is perhaps one of the flaws in Rand's analysis. If her builders walked away, their places would be quickly taken by those eager to replace them and whose advancement, they had previously blocked.
For whatever it's worth, my own personal experience is that the Atlases tend to hang on too long rather than not long enough, and sometimes the exceptions prove the benefits of that. John D. Rockefeller essentially walked away from Standard Oil in his mid 50's. Bill Gates is increasingly remote from the operations of Microsoft these days, leaving the company hopefully to younger and hungrier men, who probably didn't analyze the tax consequences, when deciding whether to accept the opportunities presented to them.
We don't live in the world of Ayn Rand's fictions or philosophies. We live in the world which is real, and that's challenging enough.
The perspective of many people is that our American reality is moving closer to Ayn's fiction at a faster and faster rate. I assume they feel this progression really started accelerating in the 1930's. Many citizens from all parties and walks of life are putting coal in the locomotive via their politicians.
My perspective is that all civilizations have risen and fallen, sometimes multiple times. (ie Chinese, Roman, Mayan, Egyptian, Moors, etc)
I hope the American citizens can find a way to break this historic cycle. Unfortunately I do not think supporting/encouraging free loading and the National Debt is the way to do it. At least not based on the highly negative impact that it has on work teams, companies, neighborhoods, cities, etc.
Let's hope the citizens start thinking this through sooner than later. It would be nice if America was more than a chapter in a history book in 3000 years. Past performance says this will be difficult to attain.....
The upside is that America is quite different all past civilizations.
"The perspective of many people is that our American reality is moving closer to Ayn's fiction at a faster and faster rate.
My own sense is that it comes and goes. Randian ideas were in fashion a decade or so ago, but seem to be receding as so many Atlases of the 1990's are currently doing time here in the 2000's. Alan Greenspan, once a member of Rand's inner circle, is perhaps the most famous example of someone whose reputation, once very high, is now in shreds.
Concerning freeloading, we are an aging society, where the ratio of those retiring to those working is growing. I am not going to dismiss those folks as freeloaders, or pretend that we don't have obligations to them.
I wouldn't see folks that worked hard and invested in social security as free loaders either.
It is too bad their invested money (ie principal) was spent elsewhere. I hope the current working citizens will be able to pay those folks back their principal and a fair rate of return. This would be in alignment with Ayn's values.
Ironically, my folks get somewhat less of their money back than some other citizens since they worked hard, saved aggressively and invested well... So apparently the looters are capable of feeding off even the retired "workers". It is very unfortunate and unfair...
Maybe we should improve this situation...
Social Security is a difficult to analyze because it serves at three different and sometimes overlapping functions. It's a retirement plan, an insurance plan, and a form of welfare. It probably doesn't perform any of those three functions as well as a stand alone program in each of those areas might, but there isn't anything comparable that performs all three functions. During the bull market, I heard a lot of people talk about how much better off they would be if they could invest their Social Security money themselves. I hear less of that talk during bear markets.
Post a Comment