Fear and Loathing

[wlotus]

I am reading Atlas Shrugged, by Ayn Rand, and the book is stirring anger and fear in me. I am about 1/4 through the book, and there is an overwhelming theme of mediocrity being rewarded, while those who do not walk in lockstep are pushed down until they surrender. When the person who is shining brighter than the rest does not quietly accept pleas from friends to step back, people in authority step in to create rules to force them to submit. The rules are created in back rooms and under tables, and the jealousy and hatred that fueled their creation are whitewashed...in this case with empty words about social responsibility and the need to even the playing field so everyone can achieve. Furthermore, those who do not fall in line are told they are selfish and wrong to fight the power.

Not only does this remind me of current political events in this country, it reminds me of some of my experiences in corporate America. I know it is just a book, but it is pushing all sorts of buttons.

Comments

Re: I See What You Mean

[wlotus.livejournal.com]

If I go just by what Rand has written, as you suggest, the only reasonable conclusion is that while Eddie Willers believed in Dagny, he also went along with the leaders of the day. He and the rest of the general public obeyed, however grudgingly. It is that obedience that made Galt say, "This is what you must have wanted, because you let it happen. Now own the consequences of what you have allowed. We will come back to fix things the right way once the world has crashed under the weight of what you have allowed."

Which is quite kind, all things considered, even in light of the fact that they would do it as part of seeking their own pleasure, not out of a sense of moral obligation to the weak. The industrialists could have chosen to not rebuild society at all and left the others, Willers included, in the dark ages their lack of initiative had brought about.

I don't have to agree with all of the premises of their stance to feel they are right in their strike. I don't believe income taxes are theft, for all of the reasons you stated. But I agree with their decision to walk away from a society that wanted them to cut themselves down to placate people who had no desire to work as hard, who did not recognize their achievements as such, unless they would personally benefit from them, and who expected them to carry people who were too spineless to stand up for themselves.

Of course, being a novel, it is idealistic. In real life, the looters of the government would not suffer the consequences of their dishonesty, nor would they have traumatic epiphanies of just how depraived they were the way Jim Taggart did in the end. My main problem with the book is the pollyanna notion that justice will ultimately prevail and those who are evil will get what's coming to them. The book would have been more believable, if those who had left society had stayed away and lived peaceful lives in their hidden community while the rest of the world continued on its separate path.

Re: I See What You Mean

[jane-etrix.livejournal.com]

But if we go by what Rand wrote, it's obvious Scott Willers did not go along with the looters and was horrified by their actions. He is devastated when he realized Dagny had disappeared. Unlike Dagny, Francisco, Reardon, etc., Willers is not given the option of joining the strike. The industrialists aren't just told of it; they are lobbied to join, but no one even mentions the possibility to Willard, in spite of the fact that his beliefs are in line with Dagny's, and he behaves no differently than she with regard to dealing with the looters.

However, it's not so much about whether or not the strike is justified in the Randian universe, but whether Rand allows me to suspend disbelief enough to accept her universe. Since she isn't just writing a novel, she's elucidating a philosophy, she has to convince me her philosophy is right or at least reasonable to justify the strike.

Since I, personally, cannot divorce the work from it's historical context (as a critique and response to Socialism), it becomes impossible for me to accept the Objectivist universe. I think the world is full of contradictions; I know for a fact people who hold leftist political beliefs are not "looters" nor are they unwilling to work hard. I don't accept the elevation of selfishness to a virtue; I don't buy the idea that altruism is motivated by either selfishness or fear, and I don't think things like welfare or income taxes are akin to stealing. I have to at least be able to believe that the accomplishments of Dagny, Francisco and Reardon were the result of their own, personal merit, and I don't, particularly in the case of Dagny and Francisco.

What is interesting to me about AS is that Rand seems oblivious to the fact that her protagonists feel just as entitled to the labor of others as their antagonists. They all completely ignore the contributions other people (and the state for that matter) have made to their success, just as they don't recognize the benefits they will directly or indirectly derive from contributing to something beyond their own, personal gratification.

Personally, I don't feel it's a kindness for Galt, et al. to return to society and establish a fascist utopia, and I think it's significant that Dagny's first act as part of this strike is to kill a man and feel absolutely nothing.