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]

I agree it would be empty, if there was no thought for others. But part of the premise of Galt's vow is that you don't sacrifice others for your own means, just like you ought not sacrifice yourself for others' means. The ones who are doing whatever they want, no matter the cost to others, are the people of the outside world...who, by the way, are claiming to care about a greater good when they are really just lining their own pockets and protecting their own interests.

Galt and his followers, while honest about taking pleasure in making money, were also honest about what others do for them and about not taking advantage of others. Ellis Wyatt talked not only about making money, but also about making enough for his needs (no more or less) and for being fair in how he traded with those from whom he needed things. The others said similar things. The only ones who displayed a sense of entitlement were the people in the outer world who demanded more and more sacrifice from everyone but themselves. They are the ones who talked bitterly about what was owed to them and who scorned those who did not see things their way. Galt's folks, on the other hand, lived their own lives amongst like-minded people and left everyone else alone to live however they saw fit.

Of course, just like any ideal, it wouldn't work in real life, because life isn't that simple. But it's a mistake to simplify Galt's followers down to a mere opposite of those they called "the looters". That society is written as far more grey than blank & white.

Re: I See What You Mean

[jane-etrix.livejournal.com]

To be clear, I agree that the "looters" are doing the same thing I'm fussing about the industrialists doing; they are bitter and grasping, and their cries of "greater good" are just so much noise.

However, I disagree the industrialists don't share this sense of entitlement, and I think it is important not to discount their repeatedly expressed lack of interest in anything larger than themselves and their "enjoyment" of life. The whole idea behind the strike is one of entitlement, and if Rand's thesis of world collapsing is correct (and we can assume in the AS universe it is), then they abandon all the people who work for them, who helped them become successful, whom they claim to want to treat fairly. Ultimately, no one matters to the industrialists- except themselves.

While I think you are right to point out the Industrialists declare their desire to deal fairly with people from whom they needed things, I think it does bear noting they are very seldom including the people who work for them in this statement- usually they are referring to other industrialists. I believe Reardon is the exception. However, even if we assume they mean everyone, how do the actions of the characters bear out these claims?

Did Dagny even give a second thought to Scott Willers? Nope, she leaves him behind, in spite of his contributions to her success, because he wasn't an Atlas. When his mines are nationalized, Francisco blows them up. There are reasons, other than adherence to a "looter" philosophy, for 3rd world countries to nationalize their resources, but for Francisco, if he can't have the mines, he'll blow them up, no matter what the cost to the people who worked in the mines and relied upon their existence for their livelihood.

Galt's folks, on the other hand, lived their own lives amongst like-minded people and left everyone else alone to live however they saw fit.

Well, not exactly. If you've gotten to Galt's seemingly interminable radio address, you'll know what I mean.

Re: I See What You Mean

[wlotus.livejournal.com]

I could not bear to read that whole monologue last night; I'm curious enough to give it a shot today, though. I've made it through two pages, I think. :-)

The argument the industrialists have for leaving the others behind is their willingness to blindly swallow what they were told by the leaders, rather than standing up to them. Dr. Stadler of the science institute is a good example; he knew what was being done in his name was wrong, but he was too spineless to stand against it. Now in reality, there will be little people who would be willing to stand up and fight--I suppose the various workers who abandoned the mills and the railroads in droves would fall into that category...nothing was said of their fate, except for the vagabond Dagny met on the Comet just before she crashed Galt's party--but in the fictional universe of AS, the people were lemmings who either went along or killed themselves (or were killed, like Wet Nurse), because they saw no other way to survive. In reality, I believe those who stood up to the powers that be would have been welcomed into Galt's clan. But like you said, Rand was trying to make a point, and to do that she painted things more extreme.

Re: I See What You Mean

[jane-etrix.livejournal.com]

Almost everyone I know has read AS at one time or other. I do not know a single soul who has read through Galt's radio address in one sitting and very few who have actually read the whole thing.

In reality, I believe those who stood up to the powers that be would have been welcomed into Galt's clan.

Okay, there's a two-fold problem with this view. First, it is disproved by Scott Willers; he believed in Dagny, not the looters, but Dagny abandons him. The second problem is more abstract. The universe of AS is self-contained, and Rand believes it is an ideal. With this in mind, we cannot say "well, if this really happened Galt would act differently than he did in the book" because it did really happen in the fictional world Rand creates, and Galt exists in no other place. One has to deal with the text she has provided us, and he acts just as she wishes him to act. Had she thought Galt, et al. would ask sympathetic Prols to join them, she would have written it into the novel. There is no mention of the fate of these workers because, in Rand's world, they don't really count.

There are a lot of premises one must accept to feel Galt, et al. are justified in their strike and subsequent establishment of a Dictatorship of the Verbose. For instance, Ragnar Whatshisname, the Norwegian pirate decided that income taxes are not just, and therefore, he has a right to steal from other people who aren't fighting against an income tax in order to reimburse the wealthy folks who pay income taxes. Again with the entitlement, and even if we assume income taxes are theft (which I will not because all of the industrialists would have benefited from programs paid for with income tax dollars- roads, public works, schools, etc), the wealthy aren't the only people to pay them, but you don't see Ragnar setting up bank accounts for everyone who pays income tax- just for his extra-super special friends.

AS contains this Superman idea, which is inherently fascist (note all the existing states have looter governments, all of which are known as "People's States," which indicates a form of Socialism), and it's very unpalatable for me.

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.