Well, that explains why it's still an effective review.... ;-)
Seriously, Chambers points out in capsule form the real and damning difficulties with Rand's philosophy, as it's laid out in Atlas Shrugged.
For example, there is a plentitude of empirical evidence to support Chambers' contention "that the pursuit of happiness, as an end in itself, tends automatically, and widely, to be replaced by the pursuit of pleasure with a consequent general softening of the fibers of will, intelligence on 'man as a heroic being' 'with productive achievement as his noblest activity.'"
Chambers also pinpointed something else: "In the name of free enterprise, therefore, she plumps for a technocratic elite (I find no more inclusive word than technocratic to bracket the industrial-financial-engineering caste she seems to have in mind). When she calls 'productive achievement' man's 'noblest activity,' she means, almost exclusively, technological achievement, supervised by such a managerial political bureau."
We can agree that productive achievement is a good thing. However, it is inescapably true that the efficiency and financial power of huge corporations (e.g., WalMart) -- which many FR libertarians champion, and which are indeed a logical outcome of Rand's philosophy -- have also ushered in the "managerial political bureau" Chambers warned us about. (At this point people like Ron Perleman and Bernie Schwartz spring to mind....)
Well, I disagree about there being a plenitude, but that is why competing philosophies, religions and mores serve to self-correct in a free market place of ideas.
Chambers also pinpointed something else: "In the name of free enterprise, therefore, she plumps for a technocratic elite (I find no more inclusive word than technocratic to bracket the industrial-financial-engineering caste she seems to have in mind). When she calls 'productive achievement' man's 'noblest activity,' she means, almost exclusively, technological achievement, supervised by such a managerial political bureau."
Throwing in "political bureau" suggests that the growth of powerful private interests would somehow have power over those who choose not to deal with them. As Rand advocates a laissez-faire capitalism, government would not be involved with business at all (as it too often is today). You would no more be compelled to deal with Microsoft than you would the corner grocery down the street that donates to the Brady Center.
We can agree that productive achievement is a good thing. However, it is inescapably true that the efficiency and financial power of huge corporations (e.g., WalMart) -- which many FR libertarians champion, and which are indeed a logical outcome of Rand's philosophy -- have also ushered in the "managerial political bureau" Chambers warned us about. (At this point people like Ron Perleman and Bernie Schwartz spring to mind....)
At present, some of these corporations have undue power to compel because of government interference in the market, not in spite of it.
Absent the power to compel (i.e. government power), a corporation, no matter how large, cannot make you do or buy anything you don't want.