Posted on 09/21/2009 9:24:56 AM PDT by AnalogReigns
Several years ago, Miss Ayn Rand wrote The Fountainhead. Despite a generally poor press, it is said to have sold some four hundred thousand copies. Thus, it became a wonder of the book trade of a kind that publishers dream about after taxes. So Atlas Shrugged had a first printing of one hundred thousand copies. It appears to be slowly climbing the best-seller lists.
The news about this book seems to me to be that any ordinarily sensible head could not possibly take it seriously, and that, apparently, a good many do. Somebody has called it: "Excruciatingly awful." I find it a remarkably silly book. It is certainly a bumptious one. Its story is preposterous. It reports the final stages of a final conflict (locale: chiefly the United States, some indefinite years hence) between the harried ranks of free enterprise and the "looters." These are proponents of proscriptive taxes, government ownership, labor, etc., etc. The mischief here is that the author, dodging into fiction, nevertheless counts on your reading it as political reality. This," she is saying in effect, "is how things really are. These are the real issues, the real sides. Only your blindness keeps you from seeing it, which, happily, I have come to rescue you from."
Since a great many of us dislike much that Miss Rand dislikes, quite as heartily as she does, many incline to take her at her word. It is the more persuasive, in some quarters, because the author deals wholly in the blackest blacks and the whitest whites. In this fiction everything, everybody, is either all good or all bad, without any of those intermediate shades which, in life, complicate reality and perplex the eye that seeks to probe it truly. This kind of simplifying pattern, of course, gives charm to most primitive storyknown as: The War between the Children of Light and the Children of Darkness. In modern dress, it is a class war. Both sides to it are caricatures.
The Children of Light are largely operatic caricatures. Insofar as any of them suggests anything known to the business community, they resemble the occasional curmudgeon millionaire, tales about whose outrageously crude and shrewd eccentricities sometimes provide the lighter moments in boardrooms. Otherwise, the Children of Light are geniuses. One of them is named (the only smile you see will be your own): Francisco Domingo Carlos Andres Sebastian dAntonio. This electrifying youth is the world's biggest copper tycoon. Another, no less electrifying, is named: Ragnar Danesjold. He becomes a twentieth-century pirate. All Miss Rand's chief heroes are also breathtakingly beautiful. So is her heroine (she is rather fetchingly vice president in charge of management of a transcontinental railroad).
So much radiant energy might seem to serve a eugenic purpose. For, in this story as in Mark Twain's, "all the knights marry the princess" — though without benefit of clergy. Yet from the impromptu and surprisingly gymnastic matings of the heroine and three of the heroes, no children — it suddenly strikes you — ever result. The possibility is never entertained. And, indeed, the strenuously sterile world of Atlas Shrugged is scarcely a place for children. You speculate that, in life, children probably irk the author and may make her uneasy. How could it be otherwise when she admiringly names a banker character (by what seems to me a humorless master-stroke): Midas Mulligan? You may fool some adults; you can't fool little boys and girls with such stuff — not for long. They may not know just what is out of line, but they stir uneasily. The Children of Darkness are caricatures, too; and they are really oozy. But at least they are caricatures of something identifiable. Their archetypes are Left-Liberals, New Dealers, Welfare Statists, One Worlders, or, at any rate, such ogreish semblances of these as may stalk the nightmares of those who think little about people as people, but tend to think a great deal in labels and effigies. (And neither Right nor Left, be it noted in passing, has a monopoly of such dreamers, though the horrors in their nightmares wear radically different masks and labels.)
In Atlas Shrugged, all this debased inhuman riffraff is lumped as "looters." This is a fairly inspired epithet. It enables the author to skewer on one invective word everything and everybody that she fears and hates. This spares her the playguy business of performing one service that her fiction might have performed, namely: that of examining in human depth how so feeble a lot came to exist at all, let alone be powerful enough to be worth hating and fearing. Instead, she bundles them into one undifferentiated damnation.
"Looters" loot because they believe in Robin Hood, and have got a lot of other people believing in him, too. Robin Hood is the author's image of absolute evil — robbing the strong (and hence good) to give to the weak (and hence no good). All "looters" are base, envious, twisted, malignant minds, motivated wholly by greed for power, combined with the lust of the weak to tear down the strong, out of a deepseated hatred of life and secret longing for destruction and death. There happens to be a tiny (repeat: tiny) seed of truth in this. The full clinical diagnosis can be read in the pages of Friedrich Nietzsche. (Here I must break in with an aside. Miss Rand acknowledges a grudging debt to one, and only one, earlier philosopher: Aristotle. I submit that she is indebted, and much more heavily, to Nietzsche. Just as her operatic businessmen are, in fact, Nietzschean supermen, so her ulcerous leftists are Nietzsche's "last men," both deformed in a way to sicken the fastidious recluse of Sils Maria. And much else comes, consciously or not, from the same source.) Happily, in Atlas Shrugged (though not in life), all the Children of Darkness are utterly incompetent.
So the Children of Light win handily by declaring a general strike of brains, of which they have a monopoly, letting the world go, literally, to smash. In the end, they troop out of their Rocky Mountain hideaway to repossess the ruins. It is then, in the book's last line, that a character traces in the dir, over the desolate earth," the Sign of the Dollar, in lieu of the Sign of the Cross, and in token that a suitably prostrate mankind is at last ready, for its sins, to be redeemed from the related evils of religion and social reform (the "mysticism of mind" and the "mysticism of muscle").
That Dollar Sign is not merely provocative, though we sense a sophomoric intent to raise the pious hair on susceptible heads. More importantly, it is meant to seal the fact that mankind is ready to submit abjectly to an elite of technocrats, and their accessories, in a New Order, enlightened and instructed by Miss Rand's ideas that the good life is one which "has resolved personal worth into exchange value," "has left no other nexus between man and man than naked selfinterest, than callous "cash-payment."' The author is explicit, in fact deafening, about these prerequisites. Lest you should be in any doubt after 1,168 pages, she assures you with a final stamp of the foot in a postscript:
And I mean it." But the words quoted above are those of Karl Marx. He, too, admired "naked self-interest" (in its time and place), and for much the same reasons as Miss Rand: because, he believed, it cleared away the cobwebs of religion and led to prodigies of industrial and cognate accomplishment. The overlap is not as incongruous as it looks. Atlas Shrugged can be called a novel only by devaluing the term. It is a massive tract for the times. Its story merely serves Miss Rand to get the customers inside the tent, and as a soapbox for delivering her Message. The Message is the thing. It is, in sum, a forthright philosophic materialism. Upperclassmen might incline to sniff and say that the author has, with vast effort, contrived a simple materialist system, one, intellectually, at about the stage of the oxcart, though without mastering the principle of the wheel. Like any consistent materialism, this one begins by rejecting God, religion, original sin, etc., etc. (This book's aggressive atheism and rather unbuttoned "higher morality," which chiefly outrage some readers, are, in fact, secondary ripples, and result inevitably from its underpinning premises.) Thus, Randian Man, like Marxian Man, is made the center of a godless world.
At that point, in any materialism, the main possibilities open up to Man. 1) His tragic fate becomes, without God, more tragic and much lonelier. In general, the tragedy deepens according to the degree of pessimism or stoicism with which he conducts his "hopeless encounter between human questioning and the silent universe." Or, 2) Man's fate ceases to be tragic at all. Tragedy is bypassed by the pursuit of happiness. Tragedy is henceforth pointless. Henceforth man's fate, without God, is up to him, and to him alone. His happiness, in strict materialist terms, lies with his own workaday hands and ingenious brain. His happiness becomes, in Miss Rand's words, "the moral purpose of his fife."
Here occurs a little rub whose effects are just as observable in a free-enterprise system, which is in practice materialist (whatever else it claims or supposes itself to be), as they would be under an atheist socialism, if one were ever to deliver that material abundance that all promise. The rub is 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, spirit. No doubt, Miss Rand has brooded upon that little rub. Hence in part, I presume, her insistence on man as a heroic being" With productive achievement as his noblest activity." For, if Man's heroism" (some will prefer to say: human dignity") no longer derives from God, or is not a function of that godless integrity which was a root of Nietzsche's anguish, then Man becomes merely the most consuming of animals, with glut as the condition of his happiness and its replenishment his foremost activity. So Randian Man, at least in his ruling caste, has to be held "heroic" in order not to be beastly. And this, of course, suits the author's economics and the politics that must arise from them. For politics, of course, arise, though the author of Atlas Shrugged stares stonily past them, as if this book were not what, in fact, it is, essentially — a political book. And here begins mischief. Systems of philosophic materialism, so long as they merely circle outside this world's atmosphere, matter little to most of us. The trouble is that they keep coming down to earth. It is when a system of materialist ideas presumes to give positive answers to real problems of our real life that mischief starts. In an age like ours, in which a highly complex technological society is everywhere in a high state of instability, such answers, however philosophic, translate quickly into political realities. And in the degree to which problems of complexity and instability are most bewildering to masses of men, a temptation sets in to let some species of Big Brother solve and supervise them.
One Big Brother is, of course, a socializing elite (as we know, several cut-rate brands are on the shelves). Miss Rand, as the enemy of any socializing force, calls in a Big Brother of her own contriving to do battle with the other. 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. She might object that she means much, much more; and we can freely entertain her objections. But, in sum, that is just what she means. For that is what, in reality, it works out to. And in reality, too, by contrast with fiction, this can only head into a dictatorship, however benign, living and acting beyond good and evil, a law unto itself (as Miss Rand believes it should be), and feeling any restraint on itself as, in practice, criminal, and, in morals, vicious (as Miss Rand clearly feels it to be). Of course, Miss Rand nowhere calls for a dictatorship. I take her to be calling for an aristocracy of talents. We cannot labor here why, in the modern world, the pre-conditions for aristocracy, an organic growth, no longer exist, so that the impulse toward aristocracy always emerges now in the form of dictatorship.
Nor has the author, apparently, brooded on the degree to which, in a wicked world, a materialism of the Right and a materialism of the Left first surprisingly resemble, then, in action, tend to blend each with each, because, while differing at the top in avowed purpose, and possibly in conflict there, at bottom they are much the same thing. The embarrassing similarities between Hitler's National Socialism and Stalin's brand of Communism are familiar. For the world, as seen in materialist view from the Right, scarcely differs from the same world seen in materialist view from the Left. The question becomes chiefly: who is to run that world in whose interests, or perhaps, at best, who can run it more efficiently?
Something of this implication is fixed in the book's dictatorial tone, which is much its most striking feature. Out of a lifetime of reading, I can recall no other book in which a tone of overriding arrogance was so implacably sustained. Its shrillness is without reprieve. Its dogmatism is without appeal. In addition, the mind which finds this tone natural to it shares other characteristics of its type. 1) It consistently mistakes raw force for strength, and the rawer the force, the more reverent the posture of the mind before it. 2) It supposes itself to be the bringer of a final revelation. Therefore, resistance to the Message cannot be tolerated because disagreement can never be merely honest, prudent, or just humanly fallible. Dissent from revelation so final (because, the author would say, so reasonable) can only be willfully wicked. There are ways of dealing with such wickedness, and, in fact, right reason itself enjoins them. From almost any page of Atlas Shrugged, a voice can be heard, from painful necessity, commanding: "To a gas chamber — go!" The same inflexibly self-righteous stance results, too (in the total absence of any saving humor), in odd extravagances of inflection and gesture-that Dollar Sign, for example. At first, we try to tell ourselves that these are just lapses, that this mind has, somehow, mislaid the discriminating knack that most of us pray will warn us in time of the difference between what is effective and firm, and what is wildly grotesque and excessive. Soon we suspect something worse. We suspect that this mind finds, precisely in extravagance, some exalting merit; feels a surging release of power and passion precisely in smashing up the house. A tornado might feel this way, or Carrie Nation.
We struggle to be just. For we cannot help feeling at least a sympathetic pain before the sheer labor, discipline, and patient craftsmanship that went to making this mountain of words. But the words keep shouting us down. In the end that tone dominates. But it should be its own antidote, warning us that anything it shouts is best taken with the usual reservations with which we might sip a patent medicine. Some may like the flavor. In any case, the brew is probably without lasting ill effects. But it is not a cure for anything. Nor would we, ordinarily, place much confidence in the diagnosis of a doctor who supposes that the Hippocratic Oath is a kind of curse.
http://www.nationalreview.com/flashback/flashback200501050715.asp
How does it do that? Are you equating libertarianism with objectivism?
I always loved that review. Chambers nails the book and the bare fact that the objectivists are as shrill and dictatorial as the collectivists.
The libertarian movement (big L or small l) will never truly gain serious traction until they give up their romance with Rand.
The biggest problem I had with Atlas Shrugged was it seemed to assume that capitalism, without moral underpinnings, still works. It does not. Capitalism lacking in morality always leads to communism. Just as an engine without some sort of governor with eventually blow up. In other words, capitalists who do not throttle their desire to make money with a moral governor actually empower those who wish to destroy capitalism.
Utter and complete claptrap written without a shred of any kind of proof, historical or otherwise.
Whittaker Chambers offers an excellent review of Atlas Shrugged. I loved reading both Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead as a teenager and enjoyed them both. However, now when I look back on it I see the validity of Chamber’s critique. Atlas Shrugged, in particular, was filled with unrealistic characters making these long winded speeches and lectures. The good guys are virtually superhuman and without flaws and the bad guys are cartoonishly evil buffoons.
I recently read Chamber’s own book, Witness. Now there is a book for ALL conservatives. A true story based on Chamber’s tumultuous life as a young communist who transformed into one of the greatest conservatives of all time who famously locked horns with Alger Hiss in a titanic struggle which has divided conservatives from the liberal/left ever since. With Chambers you see the human condition in its totality warts and all beginning with himself. Therefore, his work, writings, and life experiences are much more grounded in reality.
Read Atlas Shrugged for fun and entertainment—and yes Miss Rand was light years ahead of her time predicting socialism coming to America no matter how silly and unrealistic her characters were. But read Witness for getting to the truth and a real life experience of one man’s ascent from darkness and evil to the truth and seeing the light. One work is quite juvenile, the other is manifestly profound and deeply spiritual.
It seems Miss Rand was a good deal more correct than anyone could have imagined back in 1957.
L
Lurker, you are witnessing it now.
I don’t see how Rand proposes capitalism without morals.
I’ve been reading Capitalism by Rand right now and she’s quite explicit that it is only capitalism which is in fact moral.
Well said!
However, with morality based on a higher power, Man is naturally throttled back in his desires. Ownership and control may still be valued, but there is a sense that there is more to life and that giving of one's self and of one's possessions is not so very bad.
I don't think Rand saw this, and I've known a lot of Libertarians who don't see it either. In my experience, such people become very shrill and dictatorial.
Actually, no. Her world was one of black and white cardboard characters.
The world is far more shady and complex than anything she imagined and she totally failed to predict the rise of Islamic Jihad. Churchill, in contrast, predicted it quite well.
I didn’t mean she “proposes” capitalism without morals. She seems to “assume” capitalism is moral by it’s very nature. When, in reality, capitalism is a tool, like an axe, or a hammer. It can be used to support freedom, or it can be used to enslave.
NYC snob author?
Author cant even get D’Anconia’s name right while when making a point with the name. Oy.
Yea that whole 'good and evil' thing is just so....confining.
she totally failed to predict the rise of Islamic Jihad
That wasn't the point of the book. Duh.
Arguing that capitalism is moral and arguing that capitalism requires morals are not remotely like the same thing.
I’m laughing at the posters in this thread who clearly have no idea who Whittaker Chambers is.
My husband and I recently listen to it on CD as we drove to Texas. It was so true that I could barely stand to listen to it at times. Ellesworth Toohey is such a worm.
Both were great thinkers who disagreed. Chambers was a great man, but he laid an egg with this review.
A fantasy dinner party would include both of them. Hold the whipped cream pies, though.
Very well stated! We are now seeing the combination of humanism with capitalism scam the world and shake down our treasury.
But there are a couple of things fairly clearly wrong with Chambers's thesis here - first, that the entire point of the book was the morality behind capitalism, not its amorality, and second, that - I'll be delicate here, because I respect Chambers deeply and it's a fairly inflammatory suspicion to express toward a literary critic - but I don't think he actually read the book.
You don't have to, really, to argue its salient points, but you do to get them right. In Chambers's case I suspect his religious epiphany made him more skeptical of the atheist Rand than her actual narrative justifies. Despite her nominal rejection of God she is drawn time and again back to seminal religious issues in developing her own ethical system: virtue, soul, sin. Her realization that Original Sin is a central topic in Christian theology is quite correct; her actual apprehension of the issues inherent is superficial and embarrassingly in error. I'd like to have read Chambers's views in that regard instead of this. All IMHO, of course.
Oh please, Rand didn’t have the intellectual capacity and was so historically illiterate as to be unable to see past the scope of her own era.
What cracks me up is how many posters on this thread don’t seem to recognize the name of Whittaker Chambers.
Her followers certainly follow the example she set.
True but I wasn't aware that Churchill had ever reviewed a Rand work.
Equating? No. Linking? Yes.
I used to work for one of the most respected, influential & established libertarian think tanks in America. It was full of objectivists--from the top down.
Objectivism, and other forms of libertarianism--not as dogmatically atheist--have the same weaknesses.
My thoughts exactly. The pendulum swings back and forth between the extremes of communism and ruthless capitalism. Neither side can seem to see that one causes the other.
And, as history has shown, Rand was right and Mr. Chambers was wrong.
Atlas is beginning to shrug.
You're pretty close to being out to lunch on that one, L.
I certainly agree that "communism" will not be the inevitable result of a capitalism that is uninformed and unconstrained by morality.
I would suggest, rather, that capitalism unconstrained by morality would instead devolve into a utilitarian system based on "Might Makes Right."
Indeed, morality is the only thing standing between capitalism and "nature, red in tooth and claw."
I've long suspected that Ayn Rand's entire philosophy was rooted in her atheism -- which itself seems to have been rather infantile.
Certainly her basic premises don't pass logical muster -- they're not even consistent among themselves.
To take just one: "Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself."
Only a person without children could possibly take that as a statement of objective fact.
The secret behind the stunning "recovery" of Germany in the 1930s, was the Nazis' ability to use the capitalist systems in place, even while taking over "the rest of life" with their militaristic-totalitarian-racialist-socialist vision.
When, in reality, capitalism is a tool, like an axe, or a hammer. It can be used to support freedom, or it can be used to enslave.
Very well said.
It is freedom of conscience or religion if you will, that is the bulwark of all other freedoms.
Economic freedom, while a good thing surely, is no guarantee at all for other freedoms. Since the world is not in fact solely material--materialistic visions, such as Rand's--(or Marx's) do not and cannot ensure liberty.
I read that years ago. Some of Chambers’ claims about the book are true. But it doesn’t matter. Atlas Shrugged, with all its aesthetic difficulties, conveys more simple truth, more powerfully, and to a larger audience than nearly anything ever written by people like Chambers.
I read the book 30 years ago and have since gotten friends and family to do likewise. Overall, we don’t care about the book’s dictatorial tone and we skimmed over the 80-some-odd page “Galt’s speech,” the part that so many Objectivists view as the key feature of the book. For us, the key point was about the mob, yes “the looters,” using words, laws, and finally guns to steal value that they could never earn from those who had created it.
I’ve always thought that National Review should apologize for that inane review.
The post I was responding to was her prediction of the future. Her predictions are pale nothings compared to Churchhill’s prescience concerning Islamic threats to western civilisation or even Orwell’s own 1984 germiad about government tyranny.
She was intellectully simplistic and limited in her scope and understanding of both human nature and historic trends.
What was Chambers wrong about?
See George Sorus.
Whittaker Chambers and William F. Buckley seems more dated to me than Ayn Rand with all her problems.
Part of the problem is that Alinsky tactics does work much more effectively against the Buckley model of Conservatism than the Randian Objectivism in my opinion.
Agree on the good guys, but those very same cartoonishly evil buffoons (in both parties) are now running our government, so how much of a satire could Atlas Shrugged really have been? :)
I don’t view BHO & Co as buffoons. Jimmy and Billy Carter may have been buffoons but BHO and his crowd are hardcore dedicated Saul Alinsky trained Marxists. I wish they were buffoons. They are utterly ruthless and very focused and determined in their efforts to make this a socialist country. There is nothing in the least bit amusing about Rahm Emanuel, David Axelrod, Van Jones, Valerie Jarrett, Cass Sunstein, or Yosie Sargent. If find them about as amusing and entertaining as Hitler’s brownshirts.
bttt
In “Capitalsim” she takes pains to note that we (even back then in the 60’s) do not have a capitalism in the US. Instead we have a “mixed” system of capitalism and gvt intervention.
This, she point out, is essentially fascism, as opposed to socialism.
The capitalists still ~own~ the means of production, however the gvt really controls them.
“Unfortunately, this leads to unthrottled desires for ownership and control and over time can turn into the very thing it despises.”
As long as one abides by the morals of objectivism, I dont see how that could “turn into the very thing it despises”.
LOL!
Those were my two thoughts too!
Proof? Proof? We don't need no stinking proof!
“her actual apprehension of the issues inherent is superficial and embarrassingly in error.”
Can you elaborate?
To me, her point re original sin is that it is intended to teach you right from the get go that your life is not your own. You owe it to someone.
And conveniently, organized religion can act as the collection agency. Hard not to see that as little more than another “moocher”.
“Oh please, Rand didn’t have the intellectual capacity and was so historically illiterate as to be unable to see past the scope of her own era.”
Did you forget the sarc tag?
Original Sin states that we're all sinners because of something someone did shortly after God created the world. Talk about your collective punishments...
It's laughable.
Yesterday Barack Obama accomplished a tour de force in his marathon television appearances without putting a foot down wrong and it is about time that we knowledged the true talents of our enemy. Those of us who think that we can send anybody up against Barack Obama in a debate forum and expect automatic victory, simply will not deal with reality. Sarah Palin fans, of whom I count myself one, ought to think about this long and hard.
While Obama was utterly unqualified for the office his problem for us is not inexperience. I for one am astonished at the level of competence of this administration. Unfortunately it is competence bent in the service of evil. But it is as much a disservice to ourselves and to our cause to complain that Obama is incompetent as it is to complain that he lacks forensic skills.
Obama is an extremely dangerous man in the most powerful position in the world and he is supported by a very able and sinister staff. Beyond that lurking in the darkness is the figure of George Soros whom no one in his right mind would call incompetent.
Fortunately, Gov. Dukakis had it wrong when he said his election was all about competence. Elections usually are about ideology often disguised as issues. The election of 2010 will be about ideology as no election in recent memory.
hence my question mark.
“I would suggest, rather, that capitalism unconstrained by morality would instead devolve into a utilitarian system based on “Might Makes Right.”
But you’re not claiming Rand espoused capitalism without morality. Are you?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.