Atlas Shrugged: Yer Doin It Wrong
“The hardest thing to explain is the glaringly evident which everybody had decided not to see.” –Ayn Rand
Perhaps you’ve heard the chatter, the tweets, the blogs, the blurbs. Ayn Rand is back, in a big way. Sales of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead soared after the election of Barack Obama, and 2009 saw the highest sales of Atlas Shrugged ever—sales reached the peaks of the Amazon bestseller list for Fiction and Literature at position 6. This resurgence of interest in Rand is a measure of the backlash from the government bailouts, the stimulus plan, and the move toward increased regulation on Wall Street in the wake of the economic collapse. But while Rand sales spike predictably whenever the government intervenes with the market, this time around the effect has been record-breaking. Two full-length biographies of Rand were released last year within a week of each other when only one had existed previously, and on Saturday, June 12 cameras began rolling on the first installment of the feature film version of the novel. So what’s all the fuss about? C’mon, hop on the bandwagon, and BananaWho will lead you on a magical history tour of the book, the woman, and the strange irony of the Ayn Rand phenomenon.
A Ridiculously Condensed Summary of Atlas Shrugged and Objectivism
In case you haven’t read it, Atlas Shrugged is the main vehicle for Rand’s signature philosophy, Objectivism, or as she called it, “the Virtue of Selfishness.” Set in an unspecified time in a dystopian America, wealthy railroad heiress Dagny Taggart has worked all her life to take over her father’s company. In a time when much of the United States was still undeveloped, this little lass’s dream is to globalize the railroad, and expand its service continentally. Standing in her way is a criminally incompetent government and the entropic heavy-hitters of industry who have made it their business to obstruct industrial development and expansion. These privileged cretins aren’t as industrious or intelligent as their counterparts who threaten their hold on industry, so they aim to dumb down the rest of the world so they won’t have to wise up.
In reaction to the suffocating political climate, a strange epidemic sweeps the nation where hoards of “deserters” leave their jobs and disappear (hence the novel’s original title, The Strike.) Fearful of becoming obsolete, the government issues a series of “directives” that are increasingly Communistic, seizing property and assets, and further limiting companies’ ability to expand. Their tacit goal is to stamp out the true innovators, or Prime Movers, but they only succeed in bringing about a devastating economic and intellectual collapse.
In the midst of all the chaos, Dagny and steel magnate, Hank Reardon, discover the remains of a revolutionary motor that could change the face of industry forever, but the government promptly rains on their parade and shuts down development of the motor. Finally, after much exhaustive searching, she crashes her plane (she’s an aviator, too) into a mountain Utopia where she finds her ideal man, John Galt—the fabled instigator of the strike—who will lead the Prime Movers to revolution! It was HE who invented the magic motor only to destroy it because he refused to share his genius with a system that was so broken. So with lovers aplenty and America sunk into an economic and intellectual mire so deep only the Prime Movers could pull them out, Taggart and Galt must find a way to bring about a revolution, and oust those who would seek to limit their brazen genius!!!
Rand stresses the need for reason above all else, the sanctity of the self, capitalism, and the pursuit of dollar bills as a measure of personal success, generally shirking loyalty, altruism, and religion. And this gets them all really horny.
Now, I’m not an Ayn Rand scholar and I haven’t read her books in a few years, but I have read them all. I, like most young girls, embraced her philosophy in my early 20s, seduced by the promise of individualism and a boundless future. I hoped she was right as I envisioned her utopian, sexy world, where only the most hardworking, virtuous, and innovative people achieve success, regardless of their beginnings. But as it turns out, I, like most people who grow to reject Rand’s philosophy, realized that Objectivism simply doesn’t hold water in the world stage. Her philosophy places too much trust in the virtue of individuals, and vastly underestimates the power of greed, earning her the moniker, “the Evel Knievel of jumping to conclusions.” So I’m here to punch some holes in her reasoning, and by proxy, expose the Tea Party and the new Objectivists who have so righteously, albeit erroneously, claimed Rand for their own.
Non-Contradiction
“I am not primarily an advocate of capitalism, but of egoism; and I am not primarily an advocate of egoism, but of reason. If one recognizes the supremacy of reason and applies it consistently, all the rest follows.” – Ayn Rand
Although Ayn Rand’s reasoning is celebrated for being “airtight,” contradictions flow freely through her work like crude oil in the Gulf. The most immediately problematic part of her philosophy is that her ideas are perfectly hewn for the world they exist in—a fictional world. Her philosophy operates on the assumption that all people are treated equally in society: that everyone has equal access to education and the same chance at upward mobility—all one has to do to succeed is work hard. This is a titanic assumption to make even by today’s standards, but it seems frankly naïve and dare I say unreasonable to assume such equality existed in 1957 where “supremacy of reason” met white supremacy. The America she describes in Atlas Shrugged is a world with infinite natural resources, a world without hot wars or environmental disasters or human-caused health risks, and as a staunch anti-environmentalist, Ayn Rand has got some explaining to do. In essence, Objectivism only functions in a Utopia. The same could be said for Communism, right? Yes, Communism, the reviled political structure that seized her family’s pharmacy when she was growing up in Russia and sent her galloping for the capitalistic U.S. of A. to seek her fortune.
Find her fortune she did, and not from a lack of trying. Young Rand immigrated to Hollywood where she churned out screenplays and stage plays, and eventually wrote four novels and several books on Objectivism, all by the virtue of her work ethic. Condemning handouts and shortcuts, Rand sang the praises good old fashioned blood, sweat, and tears, but a daily dose of amphetamines sure gave her that kick in the pants she needed! When it was discovered that Rand had been addicted to amphetamines for most of her life she reasoned that the drugs were to control her weight. Even if that were true, shouldn’t she have toiled the old fashioned way to lose her chub rather than take a prescription short cut? (She also reasoned her way through a lifetime of cigarette smoking, celebrating the cigarette as a device by which man could control fire at his fingertips. Rand contracted lung cancer in 1974.)
Either-Or
While Objectivism is an invented model, examples of the philosophy in action exist in the real world. Let’s take for example, a remedial study of the development of the computer as a household item. Though IBM made early advances in creating the computer as we know it, Apple Macintosh was the computer forerunner in the early days with the monochromatic screen and manual code entry, until PC introduced the mouse. The mouse was a revolutionary invention that made computer use vastly more accessible and convenient. Then along came Bill Gates and the Windows operating system whose overwhelming success so crushed Apple the company was teetering on the brink of obsolescence. So to compete with the PC, did Apple buy up patents to assets the PC needed to limit its development? Did Apple use intimidation, blackmail, or bribery to squash the competition? It’s unlikely. Instead, Apple developed superior, accessible, and intuitive operating systems and devices that eliminated all the problems posed by PC usage: viruses, incompatible software, and circuitous navigation. Apple emerged as the leading computer company once again, and you’d better believe the Windows people are in their labs right now trying to come up with the next computer revolution. Not to go all Malcolm Gladwell on my readers, but these programmers, people like Steve Jobs and Bill Gates, et al, are perfect examples of the Prime Movers of Ayn Rand’s books. Their inventions have touched all of our lives, and their competition in the market has ultimately benefited all of us because we have amazing, delightful, and useful computer machines. Well done.
So it’s true, there are real-life examples of Objectivism functioning in our world and benefitting the whole. But if we look at the energy industry, our findings will demonstrate Objectivism failing catastrophically.
Rand enthusiasts are outraged anew that Obama made BP put $20 billion in escrow for oil spill-related claims, and they strongly oppose his moratorium on deep-sea drilling. A neo-Objectivist would say the moratorium is limiting the development of an industry, but isn’t Obama the one relentlessly urging us to move forward in developing clean renewable energy sources? As Rand championed change and modernity, is Obama the Objectivist in this situation? He is the one spurring oil companies to create safer drilling technologies and better clean-up techniques. But still, the Objectivists run to the oil companies’ defenses. After all, big oil has gotten to be so profitable simply because they are the most innovate companies we’ve got, and oil is a cutting-edge modern form of fuel. Right?
An expert would say it is thoroughly un-Objectivist to stamp out a nascent industry by any means other than creating a superior product. So it would be wrong to occlude an invention like the electric car by snapping up patents to batteries and other parts an electric car would need to function solely to hinder its development, promoting, instead, gas guzzling SUVs and Hummers the size of living rooms. But this is exactly what big oil has done. It is also un-Objectivist to accept hand-outs, but the oil industry is subsidized by the American government to the tune of $10s of billions annually. These are just a few measurable violations of Objectivism big oil employs that doesn’t include the unadulterated bribery, intimidation, gifting, profiteering, and swindling that has made big oil so big. Innovation? Sure. They can drill 10,000 ft. beneath the ocean’s surface now, but the product is the same old oil. If you’d actually read and understood Atlas Shrugged, you wouldn’t defend companies like this.
Ironically, the hero of Atlas Shrugged who swore he would stop the motor of the world, that lil rabble rouser John Galt, also turned to energy to make his fortune. His greatest contribution to mankind was the invention of a motor that had the capacity to extract static electricity from the air and convert it into usable energy. This sounds to me like he invented a form of CLEAN RENEWABLE ENERGY!!! In Rand’s world, the oil industry would rise to the challenge and try to develop something even faster, cheaper, and cleaner than the electric motor, taking it in stride that Galt’s invention could destroy their empire. In our world, Galt would have to go into hiding.
Rush Limbaugh wrote a “Limbaugh Letter” highlighting the “eerie” parallels between the fictitious economic collapse in the novel and our own economic shit sandwich. (The letter is entitled “Atlas is Shrugging.” Great title, Rush!) It seems like an awfully inopportune moment to embrace Objectivism as the antidote to economic collapse, especially since our current recession was caused by capitalism run amok, the exact opposite scenario that plays out in Atlas Shrugged. The only eerie parallels evident here are the ones between Rush Limbaugh and one Ellsworth Toohey, the villain from Rand’s The Fountainhead, a columnist and a cultural enthusiast of sorts who had his fingers in so many political honey pots that by the end of the novel he emerges as the puppeteer of a party that exists to promote bad art and obscure reason in order to empower an oppressive political regime. I haven’t read the book in a while but I could have sworn he had a radio show, too…
Ultimately, Rand may call herself an Objectivist, but at her roots she is an idealist whose beliefs defy party lines. And you simply can’t invoke John Galt on a protest sign without inferring the whole of her politics and personal ideals, and sadly, Rand probably wouldn’t have appreciated it. Members of the Libertarian Party who most often align themselves with Rand weren’t even in her good graces. In 1976 Rand said of Libertarians, “They are not defenders of capitalism. They’re a group of publicity seekers… most of them are my enemies.” And, ” […] this party plagiarizes some of my ideas, mixes them with the exact opposite–with religionists, anarchists and every intellectual misfit and scum they can find–and call themselves libertarians and run for office.”
Rand would have similarly rejected the Tea Party who’ve so named themselves in homage to pre-revolutionary colonial America. This reactionary stance is in direct opposition to Rand’s belief that we aren’t here to rehash the movements of our predecessors, we are here to innovate and contribute to the legacy of humanity. It’s counterproductive to pine for the past.
So why hasn’t the left turned to dark premonitions of the future in fiction? There are plenty of brilliant dystopian authors who portended as much or more about the future of the Western world than Rand did (Huxley, Orwell, Atwood, Wallace to name a few.) The answer to this question seems obvious: when a fiction writer is your main touchstone for a political model there is bound to be trouble. Have you, Dear Reader, heard of L. Ron Hubbard?
Atlas Shrugged: The Movie
In 2006, Lionsgate Entertainment conceived of bringing Atlas Shrugged to the big screen for the first time. Randall Wallace, screenwriter of Braveheart, came on to pen the script, and in 2007 he graced the cover of Script Magazine in an interview highlighting his struggle to wrestle the beastly 1100-page novel into a single-sitting feature. Vadin Perelman (House of Sand and Fog) signed on as director, as did Angelina Jolie in the part of Dagny Taggart, with Brad Pitt expressing interest in the part of John Galt. It was the stuff of Rand’s dreams—true talent in each facet of the developing picture. But! Oh happenstance. 2008 rolled around with Barack Obama ascending to the presidency, his opponents reached for Rand, the economy crashed and BOOM! Almost overnight, the project became a political hot potato that went sailing out of the ranks of a high budget blockbuster and rolled to a stop somewhere on One Tree Hill, where star and sometimes-director Paul Johansson scooped it up and threw it back into hasty development with only $5 million to its name. With a cast of mostly television actors and a little-known screenwriter, Atlas Shrugged splintered into a trilogy, and rushed into production lest the producers lose the creative rights to the project. Nothing spells awesome movie like a 50-year old project hastily adapted to the screen in 5 weeks by career television actors. Per Rand, if success can be measured in dollars, the market will judge thee.
A Isn’t Always A
All criticisms aside, I wouldn’t have read Rand’s entire oeuvre if I didn’t enjoy her books. They are compelling and highly readable even if they are a bit effusive and never quite enter the realm of real literary merit. Her breadth of vision is truly incredible, her unshakable faith in mankind is a refreshing stance, and she had some inspired insights about power structures. Rand herself is a fascinating figure—she invented herself as a Jewish-Russian immigrant in a decidedly anti-Semitic man’s world. She was a confusing feminist who took for granted women’s place alongside men in the world of business and industry, and yet condoned rape as a feasible means to get a girl to like you. (Don’t worry—it’s all a part of taking what you are entitled to. SeeThe Fountainhead).
Perhaps the reason she speaks so loudly to young readers is because she is so focused on the self. With all her attention to individualism, she reaches those scouring out identities for themselves, trying to find their place in an overcrowded, threatening world. It is something college-age people need to hear, which is why I recommend Objectivism to fans of a la carte faith—you can take what you want from her books and leave the rest.
What you can’t do is scrawl “Who is John Galt?” on a sign and believe you walk a straight and narrow path.
-Christianne Hedtke
Nice perspective. Pretty much sums up what bothers me so much about people who embrace a crack-philosophy that they have never been able to examine past its showy facade. The concept of self-reliance/rugged individualism espoused by neo-Cons, Libertarians, and Tea Party members is, at its core, self-deception.
“Her philosophy operates on the assumption that all people are treated equally in society: that everyone has equal access to education and the same chance at upward mobility—all one has to do to succeed is work hard.”
I challenge you to find citations in the oeuvre of Ayn Rand to support this accusation. Objectivism defines the nature of man and the prerequisite conditions for the fulfillment of that nature to the best of one’s ability given one’s situation and opportunities and subject to the limitations imposed by events beyond one’s control. It holds that success and the actions by which one should pursue it as well as the definition of its achievements are identical for all men in principle, but Objectivism makes no assumptions whatsoever about the resulting concrete instances.
The specific task and goals of pursuing “success” are vastly different for a 40 year old prisoner in Auschwitz with less than a month left in his life than for a 40 year old acceding to the chairmanship of his family’s billion dollar industry. But the principles outlined by Objectivism are identical for both of them and equally applicable.
Your error lies in being concrete-bound.
———————–
“The America she describes in Atlas Shrugged is a world with infinite natural resources, a world without hot wars or environmental disasters or human-caused health risks, and as a staunch anti-environmentalist, Ayn Rand has got some explaining to do. In essence, Objectivism only functions in a Utopia.”
More concrete-bound false assumptions. Disasters and calamities and problems of every kind differ only concretely. In principle, the challenge is always the same. Rand reduced all political questions to the one alternative that is at the base of them all: freedom v. force. Her capitalism (that you have mistaken to be some equivalent of the present mixed economy) advocated but one task for government: to rid society of initiated force or the threat thereof to guarantee that all human action shall be voluntary. In the absence of force, there is no disaster that man cannot conquer through applying reason to production and voluntary trade.
Furthermore, Objectivism condemns utopianism altogether, citing the inherent contradiction in pursuing an unreachable ideal.
———————–
“But if we look at the energy industry, our findings will demonstrate Objectivism failing catastrophically. … If you’d actually read and understood Atlas Shrugged, you wouldn’t defend companies like this.”
Your example of Jobs v. Gates is not only an example of Objectivism at work, it is also how capitalism works. So why did you not see that the energy debacle is an example of socialism (specifically fascism) at work in which the government colludes with and controls an industry to the benefit of both simultaneously precluding successes like Jobs’s?
Look at the principle in action: Everything that occurred and resulted in your first example was the product of all affected human parties acting, each in their own interest, and interacting with each other voluntarily. If the energy industry were required to operate in the same way, the successes would be equivalent and you would be singing their praises also.
———————-
“In Rand’s world, the oil industry would rise to the challenge and try to develop something even faster, cheaper, and cleaner than the electric motor, taking it in stride that Galt’s invention could destroy their empire. In our world, Galt would have to go into hiding.”
You have made the same error as Alan Greenspan. Objectivism does not pretend to offer any guarantee that men will be rational or infallible in a free market — only that one can be and should be rational. And your assumption that any industry could buy protection from competition in a truly free market is naive. When companies attempt in a free market to withhold values from the market to sustain their own less valuable product, entrepreneurs invent their way around them.
“It is also un-Objectivist to accept hand-outs, …”
Not necessarily. Objectivists point out that taxation is theft and all who support it for any purpose whatsoever are accomplices. Since thieves and their accomplices have no claim to the booty, only Objectivists and others who oppose taxation completely and consistently may claim the benefits of government taxation as restitution.
———————
I do not believe that you or any other person who became enthralled with the philosophy grew up out of Objectivism. It is more likely that you and they gave up in the face of the work it would require to master it at a time when the pressures and demands on your time were expanding exponentially. You appear, as a result, to know a lot about the content of her fiction, but little of the non-fiction that fills in the fundament under the ideas her novels represent. Blogger Jeff Montgomery captured the problem on Anne Heller’s blog:
“However, I also don’t hold non-Objectivists to the same philosophical standard as those who have been studying the philosophy by itself for an extended period of time. Even some alleged Objectivists don’t understand her philosophy, and apply it poorly. It is deceptively simple, yet actually profound, and confounds anyone who views it through the lens of common premises and colloquial definitions.”
Michael M. above:
I was very impressed by your defense of Objectivism. Would love to network with you and discuss Objectivism. You can email me at proudgayconserv@aol.com if you like.
Hi Christi! Your crazy libertarian friend Tim here! I enjoyed your article, well written, but obviously I have a few things to say. By the way, good response Michael above, even though I am not an objectivist.
1. Your example of real world objectivism with apple and microsoft: I don’t think this has to be associated with objectivism, it is pretty basic capitalism and the free market at work. But you choose it almost as it is a rarity and doesn’t happen that often, but I think this choice is made because it is a sexy choice and the obvious choice. “Apple computer and its cools products.” But things like this are happening all the time when the free market is allowed to work. All the things we take for granted. Buttons on our shirts, lead in our pencils, tuperware, efficiency of grocery stores, scotch tape, the list goes on.
2. “especially since our current recession was caused by capitalism run amok, the exact opposite scenario that plays out in Atlas Shrugged.” I know this debate can go on and on, but I would love for someone to explain to me how the economic crisis was “capitalism run amok.”
Is a federal reserve system that artificially pumped billions of dollars into the economy by keeping rates low causing a housing bubble and the misallocation of resources capitalism? NO. *Ironically, Alan Greenspan, Rand’s former disciple was the engineer of this. What I always find funny about this is, Greenspan, by being the chairman of the federal reserve, obviously turned against his beliefs in Rand as any good libertarian or Randian knows the harm the federal reserve causes. But it is always funny because people who like to bash Rand point to Greenspan that her philosophy of capitalism and free markets failed. This is like saying because Hilary Clinton was a young republican once (she was in college), she still shares those sames views.
Is a government that recklessly encouraged home ownership and “government sponsored enterprises” like Freddie Mae and Freddie Mac who distorted the housing market capitalism? “Hey, invest in this mortgage, and if it fails, don’t worry, we will bail you out!!!” That is called privatizing the gains and socializing the losses. Moral Hazard. Capitalism? NO
Yes, Wall Street is dangerous, but Wall Street is basically another arm of the government. The government incentivized risky behavior for wall street. Who wouldn’t go crazy taking risks if they knew the government was going to be there to bail they out? Again, Moral Hazard. Corporatism, not Capitalism. Wall Street did some crazy stuff, but when you are in bed with the government, capitalism doesn’t apply. If it is your own ass on the line and you are not going to be bailed out, you fail, that is capitalism and this wasn’t the case. Did you know this was Citibank’s 3rd bailout? Their last one in the early 90’s? Privatizing gains and socializing losses is not capitalism. Wall street and big banks operate on this. If your parents gave you 10,000 dollars and said to go to vegas and if you win, you can keep the money, but if you lose, it is ok, we will reimburse you for that 10,000, what would you do? The federal reserve creates money out of thin air and gives it to wall street to play with. THIS IS NOT CAPITALISM. Which is funny, Michael Moores’ movie “Capitalism: A love story” could of gotten it right if it was titled “Corporatism: a love story.”
And I would also point out, the only people who really predicted the economic crisis were Austrian Economists(libertarians).
Like Peter Schiff who basically got laughed at when saying these things: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2I0QN-FYkpw
And Ron Paul(you know u love him!) who predicted the the housing crash way back in 2003: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRek-0vjMtA&feature=related
The sad part about all of this is, Free Market Capitalism will always get the blame for these bubbles and problems that are created by the government, who will in return create their “solutions” which will create even more problems. I guess it is the only way they can stay in business as politicians, no? It is the easiest scape goat and the best way for politicians to get more votes and an easy storyline for the media. Lets solve the problem of too much spending and debt by spending even more and putting ourselves into even more debt!!! Its not enough for Paul Krugman though, we need to be spending more!! And here it goes again. Once the economy really collapses after all this current artificial stimulus dries up, Keynesians like Krugman will say it was because we didn’t spend enough!! Buy Gold, my friends.
3. Your remarks about the energy industry and how it is objectivism or what you should rather say, capitalism failing remarkably: First off, the energy industry is highly regulated and more fascist and corporatist than capitalist. Big energy companies have their cronies in government. Incentives are disorientated. The prices of energies are distorted.
For example on incentivizing risk, BP and the oil spill. The government specifically passed laws that gave the oil companies incentives to drill far offshore — that is, in deeper water where risk is presumably higher. Stepping back from all this and taking a look from a free-market perspective, it is clear that the incentives put in place by the state — undoubtedly at the behest of lobbyists for oil companies — led to drilling in deep water, leading to increased risk. The incentives encouraged drilling in water that had been previously deemed economically unattractive by those same companies.
This goes against your claim that “He (Obama) is the one spurring oil companies to create safer drilling technologies and better clean-up techniques.”
As a great article from the Ludwig Von Mises Institute stated:
“A liability cap of $75 million for the oil companies was put in place by law. This is an incredible use of the control of the political means to make favorable dealings for oneself in the economy. In fact, it is the very definition of corporatism: First, individuals within a company work to get laws passed to reward companies for taking risks previously deemed unworthy of the time, energy, and capital expenditures. Then, those same individuals within the company work to get other laws passed to limit liability when things go wrong.”
Obviously, non of this is mentioned in the media and the “unfettered free market” is to blame and it is a sign of the failure of the free market. Again, back to the point of Moral Hazard and encouraging risk: maybe in a free market, if BP had to bear the full responsibility of its actions, private insurers for BP would not have allowed for such a shoddy inspection record on the safety of a very complicated and difficult operation.
Not to defend BP, I think they are responsible and should pay for all the damage they have done and caused. And like you said, they are cozy with the government, accepting handouts, etc. Corporatism, not capitalism or objectivism. But it is naive to think the failures in finding renewable energy sources or the bp oil spill is a failure of objectivism or capitalism. Number 1, in that we have already determined like you said, BP isn’t a completely capitalist company and the energy market is highly regulated, fascist and corporatist. If renewable energy sources were economically viable at this point in time, A GREEDY CAPITALIST would see this and try to develop it. The facts are, “clean energy sources” are just not here yet as an economically viable alternative. The electric car not being developed is not a result of big oil snapping up patents, trying to destroy the competition (are they even “cleaner”? Those batteries will enjoy dripping a lot of lead and acid into the ground.)
The fact is, presidents have been talking about energy independence and renewable and clean energies since the 1970’s. Its a basic talking point in every political debate since the 70’s along with “doing stuff for the children.” There is no conspiracy that big oil is keeping these things coming to the market place. Sure, it could be in BP’s interest to not see these thing compete with their oil business, but come on, BP has (or should I say, HAD), billions of dollars that they could be using to develop renewable energy sources. Why wouldn’t they develop them and claim a monopoly on them? Its just that they are just not economically viable yet! Oil is the most efficient, cheapest energy source on the planet and until it starts running out, it will stay that way. Along with coal. I am not saying this is right or wrong, it just is. Who will buy the electric car for 60,000 dollars when they can buy a great gas car for 15,000?
And you have to ask the question: if these renewable and clean energies are so efficient, why do they need to be subsidized? Answer: they’re not so efficient. Energies that require massive subsidization benefit absolutely no one, the only reason they need to be subsidized is that they cannot compete on the open market. That fact alone tells you everything you need to know about them: they’re simply not good enough yet. When they are, the free market will adopt them naturally.
Anyways, great post, I enjoyed it, well written. I hope they actually make a good atlas shrugged movie and not butcher it.
Also, the tea party is dumb. Not true libertarians. Once a republican is back in office but continues to spend like a drunken sailor, they will all shut up. Just like the liberals on the IRAQ war after Obama was elected. What happened to the anti-war left? Oh yea, Obama is king and he can do no harm. Peace Prize yea! Partisan hacks, everyone!
Also, Kid Curmudgeon, don’t put NEO-Con and Libertarian in the same sentence. Neo-cons are war mongering statists and have noting to do with libertarians. Neo-cons have nothing to do with rugged individualism/self-reliance, their belief is to spread American style democracy (whatever that is) around the world through military means. And they actually started on the left in the 70’s.
Hi Tim! Thanks for not deleting my blog. I always enjoy hearing your points about economics—you are far more informed than I am and can provide the language I am looking for. I’m just some schmuck with a blog! And while I am just some guy’s assistant, I write fiction in my spare time. It’s as a fiction writer that I object so strongly to invoking Atlas Shrugged in a political context, which is my main goal with this article: to address the phenomenon of the adherence to Rand’s pop fiction in a political arena. If you support capitalism, great! But if you start quoting Rand that’s a whole can of worms, which I’ve outlined as best I could.
Yes, Tea Parties are lame, and I’d like to point out that I personally have nothing against Libertarians: Rand did. Contradictions in Rand’s reasoning being one of the cheif themes in my article, why would a party adhere to a “philosopher” who rejected that party and said they were applying her ideas incorrectly? (Hence Yer Doin It Wrong. Also a reference to LOL Cats!)
Please permit me to respond a little to your comments:
1.) Apple versus Microsoft. I agree that example is sexy and obvious. (Gimme a break! I called it remedial!) But if you think Atlas Shrugged isn’t sexy you’re taking crazy pills. Rand’s whole body of work is sexy! There is lots of sex in all four of her novels! But I also picked this example because I think that if there are Prime Movers among us they are thinkers like Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Terence McKenna, et al, the pioneers of computers and the internet. Buttons on your shirt are great and quite useful, but they didn’t singlehandedly change daily life for an entire population. I mean, buttons are competing with snaps, laces, hooks and eyes, zippers! Pullovers threaten their existence entirely! But I don’t think their creators are real Prime Movers, whereas the internet is such a psychedelic, abstract idea that to bring it from a far-out idea to a reality and make information sharing instantaneous is truly revolutionary. The internet is my favorite!
2.) You make really good points about Corporatism and Moral Hazard. Really good points. Thanks for explaining those details and providing the language. Based on your response, would you agree with Rand that the economy crashed because of government interference?
3.) It’s true that most energy sources are not immediately economically viable—true and extremely problematic. It is this issue of immediacy and finite resources that capitalism sidesteps, as does Rand. Ideally, in a truly capitalist society we only spend on what is immediately gratifying, consequences be damned, because capitalism is “designed” to clean up its own messes. Eradicated industries give birth to new markets and services that will fill in the gaps left by previous ones. This idea is consistent with Objectivism, but this wanton production and consumption is ruining the planet, and I am not okay with that. (Rand is.) Capitalism only accounts for the future in terms of investments, and then only in solid numbers. What of the things that aren’t quantifiable like biodiversity, clean air and oceans, and a livable climate? Ruining the planet is certainly setting up the system to fail catastrophically on a shorter timeline than anyone seems willing to admit. (Is it any wonder that calculating economic growth and the spread of epidemics is taught in the same section in Calculus?) Rand is Humanistic at her core. She believes humans are here to take, which is how she can justify crazy stances like anti-environmentalism and rape. I have never agreed with Humanism, for the same reasons I don’t agree with rape or even eating animals or genetic pollution. This is one instance (and it’s a major one!) that when the market swings in the opposite direction it may be too late.
This is all part of my essential problem with Objectivism that it brings everything back to money. Is that all there is? Is that really how to measure how successful someone is? I’ve worked in the entertainment industry long enough to know that a lot of people who create utter swill are raking it in, which brings the onus back to the consumer, and on and on and on.
Anyways, I really liked reading your response and you provided some great insight about economics that I’ve literally been asking people to explain to me. Perhaps you could expand for me on another day the distinction between capitalism and corporatism. Thanks!
-C
Hello Mike,
Thanks for responding to my article. I have to admit, I didn’t know the term “concrete-bound” as it pertains to Ayn Rand. Following a rudimentary google of the term, here is a definition in her own words: “…concrete-bound mentalities, seeking to by-pass the responsibility of thought, attempt to transform abstract principles into concrete prescriptions and to replace creation with imitation.”
Given that definition, yes, for the purposes of this article I am concerned with the concrete. I am concerned with what happens in the real world and what will happen, not in ideas for ideas sake. (That is the perfect place for FICTION!)
Per your Auschwitz analogy: The principles outlined by Objectivism state that the amount of money you make is in direct relationship to how successful you are. What kind of Randian success can a concentration camp victim derive other than the pursuit of their own happiness? You are talking about existentialism. Rand may have echoed the concept, but it is existentialist.
Per the rejection of Utopia: Galt’s Gulch (such an unfortunate use of alliteration) is a utopia. It is a wonderland where only the most talented artists and intellectuals in the world reside and they all share identical belief systems. Everything functions perfectly. There is no disagreement. They have a common cause. And it’s a total sex farm. This is exactly my point: Rand may tell you her points are fool-proof, but that should be your first indication to question whether she is lying. And yes, “Rand reduced all political questions to the one alternative that is at the base of them all: freedom v. force.” Her reasoning is reductive to the point of losing meaning.
You may just be right about my energy example, Michael. Please see my response to Tim regarding energy.
You said, “I do not believe that you or any other person who became enthralled with the philosophy grew up out of Objectivism. It is more likely that you and they gave up in the face of the work it would require to master it at a time when the pressures and demands on your time were expanding exponentially.” You could say the same for any religion. You could say I gave up on Christ, or God, or Scientology before I could really master the concepts and let Christ (or God or Scientology) into my heart. The assumption that this philosophy will undoubtedly win me over if I worked hard enough to understand it is a form of faith. It goes without saying, this contradicts Objectivism.
Although I’ve already outlined what I took away from Rand’s work in my article, I personally think designing your own philosophy for life and the way the world should work is ultimately the most valuable, and Rand would agree with me that choosing a philosophy should be voluntary. That’s why I’m not an Objectivist, nor a Republican or Democrat, Christian, Jew, or Wiccan. I’ve chosen to design my own worldview, and there is no error is that.
Having said all that, this is one of the very few articles I have written for BananaWho where I used the first person, primarily because interpretations of Rand’s work vary and one’s relationship to philosophy, politics, and economic is personal. Though we may not agree on this point, I truly appreciate your comments. And if you like movies, c’mon back to BananaWho!
-C
“I am concerned with what happens in the real world and what will happen, not in ideas for ideas sake.”
Ideas and principles are abstracted from “the real world” and reapplied to it on an as needed basis. They are not only a superior means to formulate and hold knowledge than an endless line of separate concrete instances, they are the fundamental means by which human beings identify and evaluate reality. Shunning abstract thought and evading ideas are acts of self destruction.
————————————
“The principles outlined by Objectivism state that the amount of money you make is in direct relationship to how successful you are. ”
A citation is in order or an apology is due. This is a false assertion.
————————————-
“Galt’s Gulch (such an unfortunate use of alliteration) is a utopia.”
No, it would be more appropriately characterized as an ideal. A utopia is an ideal too, but an unrealizable one that can be approached, but never achieved. There is nothing about the Objectivist positions on the appropriate ethics or politics for human beings that cannot be achieved. If you think there is, name it.
————————————–
“Rand may tell you her points are fool-proof, but that should be your first indication to question whether she is lying.”
She never pretended to infallibility and she specifically warned her fans to never adopt any of her ideas without independently verifying them on their own. The question of whether Rand earned her confidence in her proofs of her philosophy’s principles can only be answered by testing their validity. Your suggestion that she could have been lying is made without any attempt by you to find an instance of such. Your recklessness does not become you.
—————————————–
“Her reasoning is reductive to the point of losing meaning.”
It is implicitly the goal of every philosopher to identify fundamental principles. Contrary to your characterization, such reductions do not lose meaning, because they subsume all less fundamental principles and all concrete instances below them. If you think that the issue of whether human beings ought to be free to apply their reason to their efforts in the service of the quantity and quality of their lives or they ought to be coerced by other individuals or gangs of individuals is not the most fundamental issue of politics, pray tell us what is.
—————————————–
“The assumption that this philosophy will undoubtedly win me over if I worked hard enough to understand it is a form of faith.”
I made no such assumption. I was pointing out that you tried to get away with the cheapest criticism of Objectivism that is ubiquitous throughout the blogosphere: namely that it is a philosophy for naive youths that is unsustainable into adulthood. None of the comments of those who hurl that accusation ever contain any evidence that they ever had much of a clue about the actual ideas of the philosophy and their applications. Yours is no exception.
The reason that they find this one so easy is that the Ayn Rand Institute has a free book program for teachers and an annual essay contest in which students can win scholarship money. Teachers are currently requesting over a half million copies a year, so a multitude of students are reading her novels. This naturally exaggerates the proportion of young people who might become enthralled with some of her ideas but not follow through later. But the relevance of that to the validity of the philosophy is zero, just as your own claim to have outgrown it is belied by your less than mature accusations.
—————————————-
“Rand would agree with me that choosing a philosophy should be voluntary. That’s why I’m not an Objectivist, nor a Republican or Democrat, Christian, Jew, or Wiccan. I’ve chosen to design my own worldview, and there is no error is that.”
Yes she would. She actually requested that those who agreed with her and adopted her ideas not refer to themselves as Objectivists or Randians, a notion the internet has dropped into the bin of historical trivia. But what matters in the long run is not what you do or do not call yourself. It is whether your identifications of the nature of yourself and the rest of the universe are valid or not. And to every philosophical question there can be many answers, but only one that is valid — that coincides with reality as it really is. That means that in any case in which Rand is right, stubbornly pursuing the opposite idea for the sake of being independent of her would be foolish indeed.
Hi Christi,
Thanks for your comment. I guess I am defending capitalism and freedom more than objectivism. I never really took that much of objectivism from Rand’s books, more her ideas on freedom vs government control. I guess the one defense of objectivism and Rand’s philosophy that i will make is that you say that in Rand’s mind the only measure of success is the amount of money you make. The hero in The Fountainhead was Howard Roark, and his heroism had nothing to do with the amount of money he made.
to respond to your points.
2. I totally believe the economy crashed because of government inference and distortions of the market. I take an Austrian economics viewpoint of why the economy crashed, which is the economic school that has really only ever made sense to me. I view the federal reserve as playing a large roll in the crash by keeping interest rates artificially low and creating a housing bubble. When assets are mis-allocated because of government distortions in the market ie artificially low interest rates, incentives to lend money to people that can’t afford it in the name of “home ownernship”, the securitizing of mortgages that were guaranteed by fannie and freedie, etc. This is not to say wall street had a large role. But they were operating under an environment where if they screwed up, they didn’t have to pay, the government would bail them out. There is nothing capitalistic about ensuring fat cat bankers that they can take crazy risks and if they screw up, everything will be ok, the government will bail them out. All those firms should of went bankrupt, but with their friends in government they are still alive. Not capitalistic at all. Basically the government and the federal reserve created an environment where for their friends on wall street, capitalism applied to profits, but not to losses. Corporatism. Libertarians have no sympathy for corporations that are in bed with the government and need the government to survive. We are afraid of a trend where in order to be successful in the market, it is not about how productive you are, but about how much political clout you have, how many buddies in government who can write the laws to your favor.
3. No, in a capitalist society you have an incentive to save for the future and prepare for the future. But when incentives are distorted, that is where you run into problems. When it is mixed with government, everything is about the short term, because politicians need to show they are “doing something” in order to get re-elected. For example, if we really wanted to be honest with ourselves, we would be going through a depression right now and feeling a lot of pain. The world needs to deleverage. But instead, we put off the pain by running the printing press, putting off the eventual real big crash and just making it worse. Basically the Chinese are funding our government, what happens when they stop buying our debt? The party is over. Yes, feeling the pain right now would be hard for a lot of people, but all we are doing now is putting it off to the future when it will be much worse. And all the politicians have to do is say, “we didn’t spend enough, or it is the free market’s fault.” They never get the blame.
But back to energy, you can’t just assume there is some magical energy solution that isn’t being developed right now because some capitalists don’t want it to be made. Do you know how much a new cheap alternative to oil would be worth? What person would not want to have their hands on that?
But capitalism doesn’t assume any type of infinate resource. Capitalism is free people trading value for value privately. Capitalism can exist in an advanced society or a tribal society. Capitalism is “i have this good, do you want to buy it for a mutual agreed price that is beneficial to both parties?” I don’t think capitalism has anything to do with there needing to be infinate resources. In a communist society you still have the same planet with the same resources.
Also another thing to point out, people often dismiss the benefits of capitalism to the environment. When people OWN land, they have an incentive to take care of it. When land or a building is owned by no-one, there is no incentive for somebody to take care of it. This is called the tragedy of the commons. People who own land have an incentive to not have that land being polluted, because it will be worth less. This doesn’t take into account every aspect of the environment, but it is an important point.
I agree with you totally that we need new forms of energy. But how is that going to happen. Can the government magically discover and make these new forms of energy economically viable? Basically, there is no easy answer. No one is just going to stop consuming. We are all part of this. But I am optimistic that capitalism will be able to provide the technology that will be able to make our lifestyles less earth killing. I love the outdoors and love the earth and think we should do what we can to not pollute and destroy the earth. But I think environmentalists are nothing but religious fear mongers who are at their core are anti-capitalist, anti-human who just want to run other peoples lives and tell them what to do. Or others support it because they are set to make big money from things like cap and trade.
But anyway, since we both agree it would be nice to advance to a stage where humans can live more in harmony with the earth, how can this be done? Through capping some CO2 that the US emits which countries like china and india will just keep admitting? Or do we cut off their strong economic growth and tell them they can’t emit anymore and they need to stay poor while we enjoy our nice lifestyles? I don’t know, I just see all this as anti-human. Why don’t we just kill half the human population? I mean that would really solve the problem. Or kill everyone except for a small group of environmentalists who can live on the earth in harmony. Or why don’t we just all stop driving, taking trips on airplanes, eating food that was transported using trucks, stop using electricity, grow our own vegetables.
I don’t consider myself a humanist or a naturalist or an environmentalist, i guess just a realist or a rationalist. I think environmentalists like to find problems in things to support their religion. Every day you see in the news a new thing that is causing global warming. “A man shut down his ice skating rink, contributing to global warming. What we need is a new law so people have to keep their ice skating rinks open year round!!” This is a joke, but i have seen stuff that is almost as crazy as that.
I don’t really see the energy problem as a capitalistic problem because we are addicted to oil. Venezuela, a socialist nation, sells its oil to capitalist nations to pay for its socialist programs, while at the same time denouncing capitalism, while capitalism is the very lifeblood that keeps their fragile socialist society alive. It just is what it is. We are humans on this crazy earth. I dunno, in the minds of environmentalists, North Korea must be doing things a lot better because they consume less energy. I just can’t get my head around the contradictions. Too many people take for granted what this evil capitalistic society has provided for them. Basically their comfortable living has giving them the opportunity to complain. 100 years ago people were concerned about where their next meal was going to come from. Now it is that McDonald’s offers toys to kids in the form of a happy meal. Not that we shouldn’t be trying to make the world a better place, but some people are fucking insane.
About Rand and Libertarians, I could be wrong, but I think she was opposed to the Libertarian Party which is an actual political party, which is different from just having a libertarian philosophy.
@ MichaelM
Your vigorous and somewhat mean-spirited defense of Objectivism does not in any way illustrate any useful logical fallacies in the prose of the original piece. Rather it shows that you are a zealot first and a student of philosophy second. Your defense is full of non-sequitur, circular reasoning, and contradiction much like the work and life of Rand which is perhaps what draws you to her work in the first place, the recognition of likeness.
It should concern you that you have not discovered anything implicitly wrong with Objectivism as a philosophical oeuvre. A student of philosophy should attempt to examine works like hers from an objective standpoint instead of swallowing them whole and attempting to steamroll anyone who questions your faith. There are gaping holes in Objectivism…read some more about it by authors other than Rand. And while I’m sure you could easily convince the sheep in the political right of the awesome truth of Objectivism you’ll be less successful elsewhere with people who are naturally skeptical of those who claim to have all the answers.
If your true passion is following someone else’s ideals instead of attempting to arrive at the truth in your own way then you should check out religion or even Scientology; the latter is even relevant to film which would be great for commenting on this blog.
Perhaps I’ll see you in the future talking to me about how Jesus saved your life or trying to sell me a copy of Dianetics. I doubt you’ll still be interested in Rand though.
These posts are turning into the length of Atlas Shrugged!
1) mean-spirited defense
attempting to steamroll anyone
2) does not in any way illustrate any useful logical fallacies
3) it shows that you are a zealot
4) Your defense is full of non-sequitur, circular reasoning, and contradiction
5) like the work and life of Rand
6) It should concern you that you have not discovered anything implicitly wrong with Objectivism
7) swallowing them whole
9) your faith
10) There are gaping holes in Objectivism
11) you could easily convince the sheep in the political right
12) you’ll be less successful elsewhere with people who are naturally skeptical
13) those who claim to have all the answers
14) following someone else’s ideals instead of attempting to arrive at the truth
15) Perhaps I’ll see you in the future talking to me about how Jesus saved your life or trying to sell me a copy of Dianetics
16) I doubt you’ll still be interested in Rand though
Kid Curmudgeon is the prototypical critic of Objectivism. Although it is a comprehensive philosophy consisting of specific ideas about metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, politics, and ethics, none of them are cited in his reply, let alone any bit of knowledge that would undermine the explanations and demonstrations found in the writings of Rand and countless others including myself in this thread.
Instead, there are in just 10 sentences 16 unsubstantiated assertions and/or connotation laden characterizations — lots of emotion, that is, but no content. Critiques like this are an insult to every honest mind in the audience of a blog. The unavoidable implication of such unsubstantiated condemnations is the expectation that validating or invalidating facts to back them up are not necessities. Just uttering them should suffice, and they should be accepted on the authority of the utterer.
The first two virtues Rand cites in her ethics are Rationality and Independence. It is more than just appropriate that her opponents so often avoid reasons and rely instead on authoritarian means.