I first read Atlas Shrugged in 2000 and I bought into it on more of an emotional level than I should have; I felt angry and wronged, but of course, I was the fatalistic target audience of the book: a big headed kid with a passionate dislike for authority.
Looking back on it I can see that Ms Rand was also somewhat fatalistic in her actions. She was hurt and lashed out at a system that she had felt wronged her just as I felt after finishing this book. So in reaction to being oppressed by Communism she created an equally extreme and opposite philosophy from Communism. This is much like any person might do as a result of oppression under any fundamentalist ideals be it cultural, superstitious, philosophical or authoritarian.
When first reading the book there was a constant nagging thought this is completely removed from reality and this is perhaps the books biggest failing. The actions described in this book and the philosophy just don't cross that fundamental pragmatic barrier that so many have (correctly) faulted Communism for failing to achieve.
To further support my point, others have also identified the absolutism of the "end of the world" strategy as a major failing. So much so the abridged copy I saw modified the ending to have less of an apocalyptic feeling to it. Instead was more of a feeling of hope and a potential for a fast recovery for the world instead of the feeling that everyone bunkering up in Colorado waiting for complete and total collapse of society.
Another problem with the ideals spelled out in Atlas Shrugged is that they have helped validate the actions of crony capitalism in todays society and this has indirectly brought moral and financial ruin to our world economy. With a lack of proper regulation and the sense of a moral high ground the financial industry today seems almost justified in immoral behavior. I understand that Ms. Rand does not approve of cronies but what other option does she leave while working under a corrupt system? Are we supposed to feel validated when we see Hank Rearden begrudgingly engage in cronyism and succeed? Of course we are!
Lets imagine your the CEO of a national bank, for a moment. Do you engage in crony capitalism and continue to enjoy a comfortable life or do you stick to your morals, refuse to participate and become a sort of wanderer? ...I think if you look at all of the CEOs around, the answer is clear.
I would also like to mention this argument should be strikingly similar to how 'The Selfish Gene' was misconstrued to provide a moral right for the actions committed by the leaders of Enron except my argument is for the banking / speculation industry and Atlas Shrugged. The Selfish Gene helped validate the actions of Enron in the sense that "Everyone else be damned selfishness is a biological drive! I can't help it, I'm made that way!". But in this case the validation is more of an eye for an eye. "I have been wronged and toyed with by the government and these unjust rules, so I will use that same system that has wronged me to fight back!"
To be more explicit on Objectivism's impact on society I will use Allen Greenspan. Did Objectivism influence AG's economic policy? Of that, there is little doubt, he was part of Rand's inner circle. Has AG, himself even admitted that his idea on how economics works was fundamentally flawed? Yes. Was AG influenced by Objectivism when he recommended Ben Bernake? Yes.
To be more explicit on Objectivism's impact on society I will use Allen Greenspan. Did Objectivism influence AG's economic policy? Of that, there is little doubt, he was part of Rand's inner circle. Has AG, himself even admitted that his idea on how economics works was fundamentally flawed? Yes. Was AG influenced by Objectivism when he recommended Ben Bernake? Yes.
So remember, as long as the music is playing, you've got to get up and dance...
2 comments:
I don't believe a person with average intelligence could read Atlas Shrugged and then write what you have written.
I have updated my argument, perhaps you will find this even less to your liking Curtis.
Post a Comment