Half a**ed critique of "Atlas Shrugged"

mine | Mr. PolishHammer

[Mr. Polish-hammer]

Just read "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand. Here is my take:

I think we all agree on the basic tenet that capitalism is good, and anything else is bad. However, Ayn Rand seems to take this to a whole new level, one which I don't like. She places capitalism into her own moral egoist philosophy; capitalism is not a means to an end, but an end in itself, a moral one. Acting in ones self-interest is moral, altruism is immoral. So donating to charity, in her mind, is immoral. To me, donating to charity is perfectly moral. What is immoral is when the government, or any other third party, forces one to be charitable. Any action done on voluntary terms, or any deal, is perfectly moral, and to call it immoral is non-sensical, if not scary.

To Ayn Rand, the lazy and incompetent, those without ambition, are immoral. Even if they seek no harm, mind their own business, and violate no ones rights, they are still immoral. Their only sin is to not be productive, which only harms society as a whole. It seems that Ayn Rand deems immoral that which does not benefit her, her being part of society.

Another strange aspect to her writing is her animus toward religion. Religion takes a beating in "Atlas Shrugged", being accused of fostering socialist mentality. Paradoxically, she praised the USA, especially its first one hundred years, as being the closest to her ideal. If religion fosters socialism, how does she explain the religous founding, and continuing religous existence of the USA? Moreover, why is it that the strongly socialist countries (USSR, Sweden, etc.) are strongly atheist, or have governments that despise religion?

Many inconsistencies are present in her writing. I'd be interested in hearing her defense. I know there are many fans on this forum.

[Storm Orphan]

And, her personal life and the whole imbroglio with the Brandens and her husband reminds one of Rousseau's despicable abandonment of his children to orphanages.

Your encouragement to read criticallly is sound at all times.

But the difference with this imbroglio and Rousseau is that this involved consenting adults.

And Ms. Rand's personal failings do not represent a failing of her philosophy.

[lelio]

The book basically consists of cardboard characters regurgitating huge chunks of Rand's philosophy
I did find that annoying, but you have to consider that she doesn't write wishy washy characters that wring their hands over what to do (well she does, and they are the evil ones). She didn't set out to write about how man is but what man can achieve.

[lelio]

The book basically consists of cardboard characters regurgitating huge chunks of Rand's philosophy
I did find that annoying, but you have to consider that she doesn't write wishy washy characters that wring their hands over what to do (well she does, and they are the evil ones). She didn't set out to write about how man is but what man can achieve.

[gjenkins]

"Such is the case of Objectivists, as the Randites call themselves."

What about the non-Randite Objectivists? Your over generalizations belie a point of view which you apparently don't 'critically' examine.

[TBP]

Corporations should not be taxed; nor should they be allowed to contribute to politicians in ANY way. (that means all PACS are closed) No, just the corporate and industry PACs, and then only if you also ban any and all contributions of any kind from labor unions, which also corrupt our government. But issue PACs (such as NCPAC, Fund for a Conservative Majority, etc.) are a whole different ballgame. These are individuals pooling their resources to advance the election of candidates who generally share their political philosophy. That must not only be allowed, but encouraged.

[A. Patriot]

Another strange aspect to her writing is her animus toward religion. Religion takes a beating in "Atlas Shrugged",

She was an athiest. Her philosohy of "objectivism" was her religion and she was her own god. I have an athiest friend who is the same way, so I know of what I speak.

(Sorry if I have offended some people. This is just my opinion. I have read Atlas and I really liked it, I just do not subscribe to all of her philosophy.)

[That Poppins Woman]

You are much too broad however to paint all corporations with this brush. I have founded 2 corporations but we were very small and hold no political sway over our government.

I am an ardent and strident capitalist, and believe firmly in the superiority of capitalism. That said, I thought it was understood that what I was addressing were the problems of the "elephants", not the "ants".

I can agree with the "anti-capitalist" crowd to the degree that major, global corporations are destructive of the freedoms in exploited countries. HOWEVER, the solutions proposed by the "anti-capitalist" crowd are pure TYRANNY and I will fight them to the death to protect our Constitution and capitalism.

Agreed. They are the same tyranny as the militant right-to-lifers, the militant environmentalists, and the militant Islamics.

The solution to corporate corruption comes from re-asserting the integrity of the US Constitution. From top to bottom it has been violated.

Amen.

Corporations should not be taxed; nor should they be allowed to contribute to politicians in ANY way. (that means all PACS are closed). Lets face-it PACS practice institutional bribery.

Good suggestion.

[r9etb]

1. Many libertarians do not champion the current legal status of corporations which give them extra rights and powers with relation to individuals ... especially when they are propped up by corporate welfare.

OTOH, under a libertarian system, what is to stop a corporation from doing what "[m]any libertarians do not champion"? If we go by Atlas Shrugged, the use of raw economic power to defeat competitors (e.g., WalMart vs. Mom&Pop) is presented as the highest good. (In reality, a free society is probably much better served by having a lot more business owners than a WalMart universe would permit.)

2. Ayn Rand's idealizations never depicted a corporate polit' bureau which was efficacious. All of her successes were characterized by strong central figures and not political posers.

That's one of Chambers' main points. Real life is full of strong and competent villains, and not a few of them start out as good guys.

[r9etb]

And Ms. Rand's personal failings do not represent a failing of her philosophy

You've got that exactly wrong. To hear Barbara Brandon tell it (and she was there), Rand and Nathaniel Brandon announced their affair to the respective spouses, and strongly justified it precisely on the grounds of Rand's philosophy. Nathaniel Brandon's mind, it seems, was the only one on a high enough plane to earn Ms. Rand's sexual talents. (Not an appetizing thought, actually.)

Rand, of course, was completely hypocritical even in this: when Mr. Brandon later found a new lover, Rand denounced and excommunicated him, rather than "accepting" it, as she expected her husband and Ms. Brandon to do.

[logician2u]

You need to understand, that is exactly he way Ayn Rand wrote her novels. She created heroes and villains, and if they seem like comic-book characters by today's standards, you have to put it in the context of the 1950s when things were much more uncertain and subtlety was a 14-lb sledgehammer.

Forget the drama, the pseudo-sci-fi and the love stories intertwined throughout the book and concentrate, if you can, on the message.

John Galt put this radical notion forward, and too many critics (Chanbers included) choose to ignore it:

"I swear--by my life and my love of it--that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine."

(I think he meant women, too.)

If ever there was an anti-collectivist credo, this is it.

[Aquinasfan]

As I said, I find both paragraphs equally unsatisfying.

You might find these links helpful, particularly the "first cause" argument in the first link:

Whether God exists?
Whether primary matter is created by God?

Some good general reference:

aquinasonline.com
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/

[Storm Orphan]

I'm afraid I disagree.

No one doubts the wisdom of Benjamin Franklin's axioms and advice just because
he was a drinker and womanizer.

Ayn Rand was not a saint, and misapplied her own code in her life.

This is nothing more than a personal failing, not a failing of Objectivism.

[Storm Orphan]

"I swear--by my life and my love of it--that I will never live for the sake of another man,
nor ask another man to live for mine."

It cannot be said enough.

$

[CoolPapaBoze]

I believe she was an atheist.

[RightWhale]

The most interesting point about reactions to Ayn Rand's 2 big books, especially Atlas Shrugged is that there exist about as many interpretations as there exist people who have actually read the book. Of course my own interpretation is the only correct one. Ayn Rand was a genuine babe. Everything else is beside the point.

BTW, Fountainhead is the better book, read it first in any case.

[Anamensis]

I loved Dominique's assessment of one of the nouveau-riche palaces of the day in The Fountainhead. I wish I could remember it by heart... something like "the cherub's plaster feet are very prettily done, unless you just can't stand to see dimpled soles every time you look out the window to see if it's raining, but you can always go upstairs and look out of that window into the cast-iron rump of Mercury..." or something like that. I 'bout died laughing.

[BillyBoy]

I had to read Anthem in high school and it almost put me to sleep. Her stuff reads like a 3rd rate version of a far SUPERIOR book, George Orwell's 1984 . Rand's version was longer, duller, redundant, and keep hitting you over the head with the theme as if her readers were too dumb to figure it out for themselves. The dialogue was so manufactured to fit the theme ("a society with no individuals"), it came off and silly and trite. Skip Rand. Try Orwell or Bradbury. Now THOSE guys are writers!

(And as for Atlas Shrugged , the line "Who is John Galt" gets a little tedious when you see it for the 80 millionth time!)

[r9etb]

Ayn Rand was a genuine babe. Everything else is beside the point.

I'm really hoping you forgot your < /sarcasm> tag....

[Slayer]

True, but I think We,The Living and The Foutainhead were better at combining storytelling and her philosophy. Granted, her prose isn't that great, but at least the characters were a bit more believable. Atlas Shrugged featured way too many instances when the plot would come to a shuddering halt in order for a character to deliver a twenty page lecture about the evils of collectivism.

Considering Rand pretty much sumarized the point of the book with "This is John Galt Speaking" chapter, I think she really could have spent less time on reiterating that collectivism is wrong and more on character development. Her ideas are powerful enough to make the book worth reading, but it could have been so much better.