FReeper Book Club: Atlas Shrugged, The Theme

A Publius Essay | 17 January 2009 | Publius

[Publius]

FReeper Book Club

Atlas Shrugged

Part I: Non-Contradiction

Chapter I: The Theme

Ping! The thread has been posted.

Earlier threads:
Our First Freeper Book Club: Atlas Shrugged

[SpaceBar]

"Who is John Galt?"
The light was ebbing, and Eddie Willers could not distinguish the bum's face.
.
.
.

[IronJack]

Jim Taggart is the weak scion to a great empire. He is gullible, arrogant, and cowardly, the dissipated heir to a fortune made by a man of steel. In many ways, he represents inherited wealth, the beneficiary of a set of values that he shames with his lassitude. A modern example would be the Kennedys, although their wealth was ill-gotten from the beginning.

Jim also represents the mediocrity that Galt & Co. shun. Left to his own devices, Jim Taggart could not make the railroad run, any more than the mediocrats in other industries can keep them working. Yet they reject the strict ethic that breeds excellence, in favor of a more inclusive, "democratic," egalitarian philosophy that ignores merit. It is that "altruism" that Rand considered the greatest threat to mankind's ultimate success. And it is a theme that will be repeated ad infinitum throughout the book.

[rlmorel]

Ping for later...

I work in a hospital, and I saw a beat up copy of Atlas Shugged on a countertop, in a tech area. When I asked who was reading it, a young hispanic guy said he was. Couldn’t have been more than twenty.

I asked if he was reading it for a class or something, and he said no, just reading it because someone suggested it to him.

When I asked him what he thought of it, he said: “Kind of sounds like what is going on today...”

From the mouth of babes.

[Publius]

He is gullible, arrogant, and cowardly, the dissipated heir to a fortune made by a man of steel.

And the first time I read the book, I had this urge to punch Jim Taggart into the next state.

[Publius]

Would you like to be pinged to this FReeper Book Club?

[Publius]

Consider yourself pinged.

[rlmorel]

Eddie Willers remembers a tree at the Taggart estate that had been struck by lightning, revealing a hollow core destroyed by dry rot. He connects this with the unrepaired spire, the brake failure in the New York subway, Doc’s typewriter and the shortages of goods. But what about moral rot? What behavior in this chapter, and by whom, exemplifies moral failure?
The tree with the hollow core is our Government and the value system of our populace. The moral rot is exemplified by Jim Taggert and his scorn for the concept of profit.

Jim Taggart obsesses about stability, planning and maintaining an atmosphere of stasis. Change is to be avoided, even if it improves conditions. What parallels can be drawn to current events?
The parallel is the obverse of Jim Taggert's position, that change for the simple sake of change can be even more harmful. Many people vilify conservatism with the slander that conservatives don't like change. The truth is conservatives don't believe in change just because it is different, we ask for evidence that change will be beneficial. (At this point, liberals usually get huffy)

Jim believes that priority of corporate effort should be determined by need, putting emphasis on helping the disadvantaged people of Mexico who never had a chance. Is there an echo of this in American foreign policy today, particularly with respect to delegating blame?
I don't see this in Foreign Policy as much as I do immigration and domestic policy.

FReeper Billthedrill made this interesting observation about the book: “...her villains are drawn so perfectly it's almost painful to read them and a newspaper too close together.” The first villain the reader meets is Jim Taggart. Does he resemble anyone today and, if so, whom?
He resembles Barney Frank, Chuck Schumer or nearly any liberal you can think of.

Is there anything disturbing about the Mayor of New York wanting the current date displayed on a large calendar mounted on a skyscraper? What are the implications of this?
Liberals think that people are too stupid to think for themselves and take responsibility for knowing what the date is.

[rlmorel]

Indeed...that would be great, thank you.

[CottonBall]

This is my first reading of the book and I ran out to B&N yesterday to get a copy for this book club. She does such a great job of creating the atmosphere of indifference that I have been as frustrated while reading the book as I have been trying to have a discussion with liberals. I'd especially like to pinch Jim Taggart's head off, as he reminds me of so many civil servants or union members or corporate bureaucrats I've had to deal with.

It is that "altruism" that Rand considered the greatest threat to mankind's ultimate success. And it is a theme that will be repeated ad infinitum throughout the book.

It's one of those 'virtues' that can be very self-serving for the doer and actually harmful for the receiver, depending on the intent. Libs have carried it to the extreme by confiscating money from others to use it to build their own egos. BTW, she's in excellent company. Thoreau didn't look kindly on philanthropy either, even back in the 1800's when it wasn't carried to an extreme (from Walden):
There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root, and it may be that he who bestows the largest amount of time and money on the needy is doing the most by his mode of life to produce that misery which he strives in vain to relieve.

Philanthropy is almost the only virtue which is sufficiently appreciated by mankind. Nay, it is greatly overrated; and it is our selfishness which overrates it.

The philanthropist too often surrounds mankind with the remembrance of his own castoff griefs as an atmosphere, and calls it sympathy.

[Publius]

The moral rot is exemplified by Jim Taggert and his scorn for the concept of profit.

Good start. But what about the train crew on the Comet? Profit is not a part of their world, but look at their behavior. This is a different kind of rot, and it shows up again and again in the book.

The parallel is the obverse of Jim Taggert's position, that change for the simple sake of change can be even more harmful.

This opens up an intersting idea. When Al Pearlman ran the New York Central, he would look at procedures on the railroad, and if one had been observed too long, he ordered that the procedure be re-thought. Pearlman feared any kind of stasis.

I don't see this in Foreign Policy as much as I do immigration and domestic policy.

Don't you see some of this in the Blame America First impulse? Our capitalism has made the world miserable, therefore we are at fault for things going wrong elsewhere.

Liberals think that people are too stupid to think for themselves and take responsibility for knowing what the date is.

Very good. I was looking for a lnk to government paternalism and the nanny state. And the fact that it was an elected official who did this.

[CottonBall]

Is there anything disturbing about the Mayor of New York wanting the current date displayed on a large calendar mounted on a skyscraper? What are the implications of this?

Liberals think that people are too stupid to think for themselves and take responsibility for knowing what the date is.

I was wondering about that question. Good answser.

[Publius]

Consider youself pinged.

[CottonBall]

But what about the train crew on the Comet? Profit is not a part of their world, but look at their behavior. This is a different kind of rot, and it shows up again and again in the book.

I've seen this attitude while (very briefly) teaching. The book uses the word 'indifference' in the first chapter many times. That's exactly what I found most teachers to be. The young, new, and excited ones, IMO, eventually also become indifferent because the socialist atmosphere in schools is stifling. The pay will be the same no matter how hard or how little one works, adminstration typically couldn't care less about academics as long as no waves are created, and a teacher coaching a sport is considered much more important than one that can, say, teach physics or calculus extremely well.

[CottonBall]

BTW, with our next book, could we have a couple of week’s notice before the first ‘meeting’ to have time to get a copy of the book?

Your synopsis is great too. It’s a great way to remind me what I’ve read - I was wondering if I should take notes while reading because I have such a bad memory. Now - I don’t need to and can enjoy the book more.

[Publius]

I've seen this attitude while (very briefly) teaching.

Good comparison.

But what about the students? Don't you see the same thing? Are all students excited and ready to learn? Or are many there because they have to be and are just marking time, considering their school time akin to prison time?

Isn't there some rot there?

[RWB Patriot]

“Jim believes that priority of corporate effort should be determined by need, putting emphasis on helping the disadvantaged people of Mexico who never had a chance. Is there an echo of this in American foreign policy today, particularly with respect to delegating blame?”

“I don’t see this in Foreign Policy as much as I do immigration and domestic policy.”

Obama’s Global Poverty act comes to mind.

[wizr]

IMHO, “the bottom line” has ruined this country.

For over 30 years, management types have looked for ways to increase profit and eliminate “waste”. Their underlings bonuses depended upon cutting costs, and jobs of others, wherever possible.

To me, there is no service any more. Very few will take a problem and solve it. Pass the buck seems to be the order of this day.

The beginning of the chapter reminded me of the old adage:

Nothing works, and nobody cares.

[Publius]

Pass the buck seems to be the order of this day.

Pithy and right on the mark.

And what kind of society lives by that slogan, and why did it get that way?