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.

[Prodigal Son]

is there anywhere that her out-of-print stuff is archived?

I don't know. It's been ages since I've read any of Rand's main books. When I was in my late teens and early twenties I read most of her body of published work. You can find her focusing on specific issues in her non fiction work such as The Romantic Manifesto, The New Left- The Anti Industrial Revolution, Capitalism- The Unkown Ideal and the Virtue of Selfishness. Also a while back I read The Early Ayn Rand which had short works from early in her career.

I haven't really dug into her archived works that much but I can relate an anecdote. I read the book "Hanta Yo" by Ruth Beebe Hill when I was about 12 or 13. Loved it. Years later I found out that Miss Hill and Ayn Rand were actually fairly good friends while Hill was doing her research for Hanta Yo. Went back and reread Hanta Yo and it's interesting to note some possible Objectivist influence in the book, which is interesting as Hanta Yo is a book about Native Americans living on the plains and just starting to be influenced by the white man.

As far as the archives go, Leornard Peikoff, as her heir, has total control over them. It is not known for certain how much he has or what exactly it amounts to. I do know that he has iniated legal action against writers who have tried to publish books concerning Rand and her philosophy. If you really want to dig into it more, I would suggest doing a Google search for the terms "objectivist campfire" which is a running forum for Objectivists. You can sign up and talk to some of those guys about it. But be warned, it's best to have your arguments squared away before you go diving in- they can be pretty harsh if they find inconsistencies in your points.

Cheers.

[WolfsView]

http://www.fullcontext.org/Objectivism/table.htm you can look here for some info. It seems to me that Rand believed in a soul, but that man and the soul were intigrated as one. If I had to guess I would say she was atheist at least to the western sense of religion. If she did believe in a God then I would say it was Aristodleian (is that a word?) like the concept of the "great clock maker" a being that created the world and set it into motion but then simply stepped back and is hands off.

[Cato]

What reply did you reply to??

[Conservative til I die]

She did not personaly like religion becuase of the herd mentality it causes.

That is kind of funny, considering Objectivism and Libertarianism, two ideologies associated with her are pretty cultic.

[Mudboy Slim]

"Libertarian revisionist history holds that the United States was actually founded by hemp-smoking Judeo-Christian-despising athiests and deists on the principle that Judeo-Christianity is a collection of detestable superstitions that are anathema to liberty."

I must assume you are joking, but seeing as this has become an interesting thread that I may want to pass on to non-FReepers for their perusal, I am compelled to go on-record as saying WHAT AN IGNORANT PILE OF STEAMING EXCREMENT YOUR STATEMENT IS!!

So, please, Mr. Curry, come on back and point out to others that you simply forgot to add your "/sarcasm" tag.

MUD

[Mudboy Slim]

"I have read the book Atlas Shrugged three times now. Each time I get something different from it. The first time I read it, my imagination was fired up and suddenly there seemed to be a point to life. I began to really look at my life. The first things that I began to do were to ask myself what I believe and why. Then I began to actually live what I believe instead of floating along. It must have been about 1993 when I read it for the first time. I had never heard of Rush Limbaugh at the time. After finishing the book, I was telling a friend about the ideas that were swirling around in my head, and she handed me Rush's first book from her bookshelf. That was my introduction to logical thought and my being part of this world and paying attention."

Quite interesting, my Newbie FRiend...welcome to FreeRepublic, you promise to be a welcome addition to our Tribe.

"Hope this made sense. I sometimes have trouble putting my ideas and thoughts on paper."

Your post belies a misplaced humility and inaccurate self-characterization vis a vis your writing ability.

Sincere FReegards...MUD

[xm177e2]

[Mudboy Slim]

"The morality and practice of Objectivism can seem quite intimidating at first. But after reading Atlas Shrugged many times and following the literature of Objectivism . . . and classical liberalism . . . you will see that there are many reasons to believe that such a society would be both advanced and benevolent."

Sounds like a cult to me."

Read a little deeper, my FRiend, and I believe you will come to a different conclusion.

FReegards...MUD

[Mudboy Slim]

ROFLMAO!! Cartoons can be great eye-openers. A new favorite of mine is a recent "SpongeBob SquarePants" cartoon in which SpongeBob and Mr. Snerdley (the octopus) have joined together to go on strike to force their employer, Mr. Crab, to give them a raise. Mr. Snerdley fills the naive SpongeBob's mind with Leftist platitudes about the oppressive Owner Class holding down the Working Man and the corresponding Evils of Capitalism. Then, while Mr. Snerdley and Mr. Crab go off by themselves to renegotiate a raise for Mr. Snerdley and SpongeBob, the confused SpongeBob takes it upon himself to vandalize/destroy his place of employment--the Krusty Krab--as his Blow against Capitalism. When Mr. Snerdley and Mr. Crab return to the smoldering pile of rubble that once was the Krusty Krab, it still fails to dawn on SpongeBob that without the Owner/Employer Class, there is no Worker/Employee Class, and therefore no income for any of them.

On another level, my three-year-old and my six-year-old thought the episode was hilarious, as did their dad.

SpongeBob SquarePants ROCKS...MUD

[Mudboy Slim]

"It's quite obvious from your critique that you really didn't read the book. Is this the kind of shoddy effort you turned in at school when you were too busy partying to actually read the assigned material?"

SHEEEESH...aren't we the bitchy one this evening?! LOL...He called his critique "hall-a**ed", did he not? And look at the wonderful thread that resulted. Please get a good night's sleep and come back and join us when you're feeling better, my FRiend.

FReegards...MUD

[xm177e2]

If you look up, you'll see pinlighter beat me to posting that cartoon. It's the first thing I thought of when I hit this thread, I checked to see if it was posted, I guess I didn't check very well.

Cartoons can contain very big messages in very small packages and be very funny, all at the same time. I love them.

[Mudboy Slim]

"I agree about the negative influence of MAJOR corporations (call it Fortune 500 if you like). They are corrupt and have corrupted our government almost completely. 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."

So, my broad-brush-strokin' FRiend, are you implying that if either of your two corporations creates products and/or services that enough Consumers find worthy of purchasing to make yours a Fortune 500 Company, your corporation will be--by your definition--automatically corrupt?! If so, at what point would the Corporation's Founder have become corrupt? Or do you already consider yourself to be corrupt?

FReegards...MUD

[Mudboy Slim]

Great cartoon, my FRiend...MUD

[Mudboy Slim]

"Cartoons can contain very big messages in very small packages and be very funny, all at the same time. I love them."

Yep...unfortunately, there are many Leftist cartoonists who use this motif to spread their Collectivist drivel and far too many of the Publik-Skewl-Ignorantized Sheeple are too intellectually-unsophisticated to see through their propagandist jingoism.

FReegards...MUD

[Dan Day]

This is the best critique I've seen

Actually, that's an incredibly lousy critique.

In Atlas Shrugged, when the industrialists went "on strike" so that they would no longer be supporting the bloodsuckers, they took up work flipping hamburgers in a diner, tilling the soil, working a small mine, building houses by hand, and other menial labor -- which they all considered noble work, and more honorable than making millions "professionally" if those millions were going to be sucked on by the political parasites.

It's remarkably dishonest to portray them as effete snobs who wouldn't know how to cook a meal or who would rely on "underlings" to do such things for them.

[Misterioso]

I have to ask (if it hasn't been already) did you read Galt's speech all the way through, or did you skim after a few pages. Or did you, like many, skip it and read it afterward?

[Misterioso]

It's quite obvious from your critique that you really didn't read the book. Is this the kind of shoddy effort you turned in at school when you were too busy partying to actually read the assigned material?

It is also quite obvious that he read the new Cliff Notes, and not the book. Game's up, Mr. Polish-hammer.

[Misterioso]

It is my understanding, from extensive reading, that Ayn Rand made a pretty mean borscht. She could definitely cook.

[Misterioso]

Half a**ed critique of "Atlas Shrugged"

Philosophy
Source: CliffsNotes
Author: Mr. PolishHammer
Posted on 10/12/01 4:02 AM Pacific by Mr. Polish-hammer