Ayn Rand is an author I came late too in life - I first read Atlas Shrugged only about 13 years ago, and was shocked to find how much it resonated with met (although to be fair, I do not know that if I had read it 10 years earlier I would have understood it or had the patience for it). Her fiction is as logical as it is frightening; you can literally see the events playing out from the facts that she presented.
The part I always found most amazing about the fictional account she wrote - really, the most frightening- was that it all seemed very real, like it could happen in real life. Now, looking at events, it seems that we may be almost there.
When a society reaches the points that she lists above - when society reaches the point where the expectation is that individuals will sacrifice their industry and their creativity for the good of the society - when government has become nothing more than an enabler of itself in the name of the people -one knows that sooner or later, that society is indeed over.
It would be un-notice at first, perhaps: individuals who could do more in the "work world" but do not, instead spending their energy and creativity on the side; people who quietly step aside when the plate is passed or volunteers are sought to help alleviate societal ills; people of skill and effort who quietly disappear from the major operations of society. The sort of thing that is not noticed, until suddenly things are not working quite as well, or there are not as many goods and services available, or the great creative and business talents of the age have all seemingly disappeared and the remaining culture is homogenized.
We seem so very, very close to this.
Sadly that I am aware of, there no "Galt's Gulch", no place where the skilled and independent and makers can flee to - or perhaps if there is, I do not rate. It seems more likely that such people - more of us out there than many believe, perhaps - will move away if we can or if we cannot, slowly sink into the pavement and soil, being outwardly as unremarkable and non-enthusiastic as the rest of the society around us, reserving our real callings and gifts for our internal lives or a very small group around us.
Much like in Atlas Shrugged, if it comes to that such people will be missed and called for. And, like in Atlas Shrugged, they will not be found.
Yep. I ran into her about the same time, and had the exact same reaction. I’ve run across any number of people that hate her with the heat of 1000 hells, but they never seem to be able to articulate that hatred coherently.
ReplyDeleteI had to work at it, Atlas was not an easy read... but I didn’t find one thing really wrong about the book or objectivism per se. it’s pretty much common sense. About the only thing Ayn got wrong about the assault from the left ... is how the captains of industry are taking part. The tech giants, the billionaires and millionaires are literally doing their level best to facilitate socialism in North America.
We ARE going to face that looming “reset”... but I don’t think that it will unfold the way the socialists think it will...
Glen - I know you and I have chatted on Rand in the past. There is a lot about her philosophy that I do not agree with - her religious views (athiest) and sexual mores. That said, many of the other elements of her philosophy made a lot of sense to me.
DeletePeople do hate her - "with the heat of 1000 hells" is a nice way to put it. And like you, I do not know that they can fully express why. I wonder if it is not due to the fact that she is so cold and clear in her statement of how she sees "the looters" that many turn away, recognizing in their own philosophies elements of the same.
As to captains of industry taking part - for what it is worth, I think she did address that. In some cases, they stayed as long as they could (how long did Hank Rearden and Dagny Taggert try to make things work?), in other cases the founders left. There plenty of remaining business leaders in place - Jim Taggert, for example - but they were of the mendacious type (arguably much more like what we are seeing currently).
One thing Rand did not foresee - could not, when she wrote the book - was the significant change in the nature of our economy. We have moved from industrial to post industrial to service, thus stretching out our supply lines and making us much more dependent on people and places much more out of our control. I would argue the economy is much more fragile than even she would have thought possible.
Yes, thanks for the reminder: she was a sexual degenerate, and I suppose that Objectivism is flawed in that it cannot account for or accommodate faith and probably encourages or at least abides some immorality.
DeleteHmmmmmmmm.... As for the billionaires and millionaires... Maybe. But Zuckerburg, Dempsey, Bezos, Gates... they are self made men, TB. They buy and sell our govt officials out of pocket change and they are no friends to the middle class. It really is the darndest thing - they’ve bought and paid for our political left and weaponized it to facilitate vulture capitalism. As the pundits say - follow the money. I need to think about this: would Dagny and Hank have off-shored their workers’ jobs? Or decimate community level economies with big box stores, that use artificially low tariff free trade and cheap Chinese imports? Would Hank and Dagny buy politicians to facilitate open borders and cheap immigrant labour? Would they have supported and contributed to govts that support late term abortion, ridiculous welfare entitlement sexual degeneracy and other attacks on the family and middle class? Is that ethical? There are times when the difference between politics and economics are merely conversational.
The closest to a coherent critique that I ever heard was that she was an elitist. Obviously I disagree... but to say the current system makes people equal is laughable. From what I am seeing... vulture capitalists are going to use socialism to secure there futures and throw the rest of us under the bus.
But whadda I know...?
Interesting question about offshoring Glen. When Rand wrote this work, the concept did not really exists so it was not even a question in her mind (I think, anyway). The thought was that you primarily employed those of your country.
DeleteI assume a great many people attempt to use a political system to their own ends. But all political systems are ultimately based on economic systems that support them. What happens when the economic system fails?
When the economic system fails anything can happen. Contemplating this sends me off down another rabbit hole. Consider the old USSR. When it fell... it was fairly bloodless. Things actually improved for the common man. Their political process may be flawed... but it succeeds with the basics and keeps the country running.
DeleteDo you remember the 'Pussy Riot' demonstrations during the Olympics, TB? Those idiots set up their carny act, and wanted to use the sporting event to protest. The cops were sent in, they told the group to disperse... and when they refused, they were kicked and slapped into a paddy wagon and hauled away.
Our protests often turn into full blown riots. The cops will stand by and let you get beaten to death by rampaging mobs. If you defend yourself, the judiciary will come after you with all out lawfare. Is this democracy? Is this the best we can do with it...? I think there is a happy medium between law enforcement and the right to protest... and we in North America have lost sight of it, maybe...? I suppose this devolves into politics... but that's another thing too. Nowadays EVERYTHING devolves into politics it seems...
Glen, one of the (in my opinion) critical reasons the USSR finally failed was the fact that people had given up on it. Yes. economically it was a mess, but ultimately there was no belief in the state (even now, the former members relates to each other as nations, not states). And I think we are dangerously close to reaching the same place ourselves.
DeleteDemocracy is not allowing full blown riots to occur. Unfortunately we have reached the point that any attempt to push back on a protest will ignite a riot. Which should tell us all about how people think things get accomplished anymore. It is not through the ballot box.
I have heard of Atlas Shrugged and Ayn Rand, mostly through the daily crossword in the newspaper where her first name comes into play quite often. But I have sworn off fiction until such time I run out of non-fiction that interests me so and with no signs of running out, it will probably be a long time before I read this. But it doesn't sound like something I have worried about for a long time. People are becoming more and more dependent on the government to provide for them that soon they won't be able to survive without it and it becomes a dependency death spiral. But I think it is not my problem anymore as I am old enough that I can survive the end days in comfort or die having lived a relatively free and happy life. My kids though, should probably be worried.
ReplyDeleteEd - I suspect that yours is a familiarity that many have - and to be fair, very understandable. Atlas Shrugged clocks in at 1069 (densely written) pages (and if you are reading only non-fiction, it will be a very long time again).
DeletePeople becoming dependent on the government - I had not thought of it in those terms specifically but yes, it is becoming very true. And as you suggest, once that truly occurs the death spiral is certain as government does not create anything, it only redistributes what it takes. I would like to believe that this is probably something we do not have to directly worry about, but it does not help that the government is actively trying make people dependent (and people are willingly doing it).
"Now, looking at events, it seems that we may be almost there." TB, our "representatives" in DC refer to the Capitol Building as a "sacred place." That would infer that the reps themselves consider themselves deities. ...I think we're quite a ways past "there..."
ReplyDeleteI think Galt's Gulch is metaphorical. I live in a town that people moved to from the city, bringing the city with them. You can talk to a person here and tell right away if they're "new town" or "old town." Galt's Gulch is just that; people who have "gone gray," and have gone underground. They're there, but you have to look for them, or perhaps follow the people there as Dagny did, finding herself amazed that she didn't see what was right there in front of her the whole time. At that point, a person has to make the decision; "go Galt," or try to keep the railroad running... ...I'm with Galt...
Pete, you raise an excellent point. There is nothing "sacred" about any government institution (unless it takes place is a temple or religious center, I suppose).
DeleteIt certainly can be metaphorical. At The Ranch (or rather the area that it is in), you will quickly find the same thing: the difference between the old salts and the new relocations is obvious. Perhaps time to pay more attention indeed.