16 Mar 2012

Atlas, Flubbed

Economics, Krugman 79 Comments

Daniel Kuehn, March 15, 2012:

My reaction to the story itself (I’ve only read the first 100 pages or so of the book, and that was many years ago) was the same as the suspicions about it that I shared on here a couple months back after seeing the trailer: Ayn Rand really reaches for the low-hanging fruit with this story, and yet somehow it’s an epic libertarian tale.

Think about it – who are the “bad guys” in Atlas Shrugged?: Blatantly corrupt businessmen and politicians. A lobbyist. Obnoxious dead-beat family members. A wife that insults you to your face. These are the bad guys.

Who are the “good guys” in Atlas Shrugged?: Innovative entrepreneuers. The people with a can-do attitude. The creative people who just want to earn money and make a better life for themselves.

You don’t have to be an Objectivist or a libertarian to be on the same page as Rand on this one!

Anyway – I thought the movie was entertaining enough. It’s a story about entrepreneurs who withdraw from society when they don’t think they can earn a profit anymore, and it’s a story that criticizes the rentier class which doesn’t build and create things for the money they enjoy. What Keynesian wouldn’t enjoy a movie like that???

Paul Krugman, December 28, 2010:

Paul Ryan requires that his staffers read Atlas Shrugged. I mean, I was inspired by Isaac Asimov, but I don’t think I’m Hari Seldon — whereas Ryan, it seems, really does think he’s John Galt.Time to bring out the classic quote:

There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.

Future historians will giggle at our expense.

I’m giggling already, but I’m sure I must have misunderstood what Krugman really meant here. Apparently I do that a LOT.

79 Responses to “Atlas, Flubbed”

  1. Rick Hull says:

    People complain about Rand’s cardboard characters in Atlas Shrugged and her prose, generally. I’m no literary expert, but it seems that Atlas Shrugged compares pretty well to Orwell’s Animal Farm on the former charge.

  2. Rick Hull says:

    Also, it’s a bit of a low blow to declare Paul Ryan to be living out his John Galt fantasy. It seems much more likely that, as a legislator, he wants to make sure he and his staff don’t hamper the John Galts in the private sector.

  3. Daniel Kuehn says:

    Well THAT Keynesian can find something not to like in anything!

    The one thing that’s less appealing about the story, which I left out, is the glorification of selfishness. Don’t worry, I’m not going Objectivist on you.

    But I am amazed that Rand’s well known views that legitimately DO turn people off are so good at obscuring the fact that the basic plot points of the story ought to garner pretty wide support.

    Hitchens had an interesting criticism of Rand too – he said she was making too much of a banal point. Self-interest can be good – everyone is self-interested, etc. True, to a certain extent Hitchens said – but since when has it been our self-interest that’s needed reinforcing? It’s kind of beating a dead horse.

    • Rick Hull says:

      Rand’s insight, true or not, is that it’s not simply OK to indulge in self-interest (contra Puritans, socialists, etc) but in fact desirable and should be encouraged. My sense is that this was a fairly radical notion to espouse from on high.

    • Carrie says:

      O_O

      I do not mean to ridicule, but I’m not sure where to begin responding to this because your comment reflects a grave misunderstanding of the theme of Atlas Shrugged. I’ve attempted a longer comment below.

      In short:
      The plot is driven by the characters’ motivations. The story thus not only shows a decline in the standard of living due to statism vs. a flourishing capitalist society– but it shows how those kinds of arrangements arise as a result of a collectivist or an individualist mindset. More fundamental than that, the difference between collectivism and individualism stems from the difference between an altruistic vs. a self-interested morality.

      I do know of quite a few non-Objectivists who like the basic plot line; these people generally call themselves conservatives. (In terms of “garner[ing] pretty wide support,” a quick look at the comments on Krugman’s post and the one he links to reveal that, as you say, many people do not agree with even the superficial theme. They believe Rand took delight at seeing homeless people starve, for example.)

      Regarding self-interest– I would say this is the one trait most lacking in the world! Most people do not consistently act for their self-interest; humility, not pride, is considered a virtue; sacrifice, not achievement; providing for the weak at the expense of the capable; etc. Where do you see people with the moral conviction that self-interest is proper? I don’t think I know even 5 such people.

      • Daniel Kuehn says:

        Carrie –
        I’m not sure what you think is missing, cause you’re presenting pretty much my understanding. And my disagreement with Rand is simply that I don’t think the collectivist/individualist dichotomy translates as seamlessly to the altruistic/self-interested dichotomy as a lot of Randians think.

        If you think that support for capitalism and individualism is limited to Randians and conservatives, I think you’re mistaken.

        re: “Where do you see people with the moral conviction that self-interest is proper? I don’t think I know even 5 such people.”

        I don’t know if you consider yourself an Objectivist or not. I find that Objectivists usually stumble in assuming that because someone thinks altruism is proper, they don’t think self-interest is proper. If you really can’t think of five people either fate has drawn you a bizarre sample of acquaintances, or you’ve put a very strange spin on what it is you’re looking for. If what you’re looking for is Randians out there I’d agree – the proportion of those that you’ll find is low. But that’s not what you were talking about.

        • Carrie says:

          I’m not allowed to call myself an Objectivist because I believe voluntarism, not limited government, is consistent with individual rights. In all other branches of philosophy I do agree with the Objectivist view.

          Altruism and self-interest are mutually exclusive. This has been explained by others (Rand, for one, as well as some bloggers here in previous entries) so I will not go into details here.

          I don’t know people who are CONSISTENTLY self-interested. To the extent that any person chooses to remain alive, he/she is demonstrating some degree of self-interest and self-sufficiency. People bother to fill their cars with gasoline, go to work, eat their lunch, pay their electric bill, etc.

          But when they have a spark of interest in doing something grand and marvelous beyond the daily routine, their lack of confidence or initiative leads them to watch TV instead.
          When they could work on a creative project, they instead go to the bar to engage in mindless fun.
          When they win an award at school or work, they say they are “humbled” rather than “honored” or “proud.”
          They give up their dreams and ambitions and become soccer moms. 20 years later they say they wish they’d done such-and-such, and when you tell them it’s never too late to start, they say they’re too old, too unskilled, too tired– and that I’m too idealistic.
          They donate money to buying remedial materials for “underprivileged” children in the name of the virtue of altruism, rather than encouraging above-average students.
          They complain that they’re overweight and unhealthy, but don’t make the effort to eat well and exercise. They give up easily.

          These are the people I see. Where is the self-interest and heroism?

  4. Daniel Kuehn says:

    Just for people who don’t get sarcasm:

    I wasn’t saying “obviously all Keynesians love Rand”.

    I was saying “if you think about it, there’s no reason why a Keynesian shouldn’t enjoy the basic plot line of Rand”.

  5. RPLong says:

    Kuehn’s strikes me as a strange reaction. Sort of like saying, “I read the part of Genesis that covers the whole Garden of Eden story. Satan is depicted as a clever demon, and God is depicted as a benevolent creator. You certainly don’t have to be a Christian fundamentalist to sign on to that story!”

    • Ken B says:

      In fairness he was saying that this makes the story clumsy. Like how easy it is to see Darth Vader or Simon Legree as bad guys ruins Star Wars or Uncle Tom’s Cabin (thus expalining their unpopularity). Unlike Raskolnikov or Milton’s Satan.

      • Daniel Kuehn says:

        Well not exactly. I think what makes it unpopular is some other excesses of Rand.

        Iconic bad guys and archetypes are what make things popular, not unpopular!

        • Ken B says:

          I was just inserting a little ironic snark there DK with the popularity comment. It’s like a twitch; I cannot control it. 🙂

    • Daniel Kuehn says:

      Well, a lot of people do appreciate the Bible that aren’t Christians despite accusations they sometimes get about being cultural vandals – so it’s a decent enough analogy.

      But actually, the spin you put on the Garden of Eden is even less removed from what I’m saying. [I think] you’re saying that someone can appreciate cleverness and reject dictatorship, and thereby completely miss the point of who the good guy was and who the bad guy was.

      But it’s not even that with Rand and non-Randians. We non-Randians appreciate a whole bunch of the qualities that she celebrates in her good guys, and we denounce a whole bunch of the qualities she denounces in her bad guys. We’re very much on the same page when it comes to the basic structure of the story – most in the liberal tradition will be.

      What people don’t like about Rand is that they think she takes a good point and ruins it with hyperbole that ends up neglecting other important liberal values.

      • RPLong says:

        The disconnect is that you consider Rand’s depiction to be hyperbole, and people who agree with her consider it to be the literal truth.

        Opponents of Rand’s ideas frequently misunderstand that to Rand good = anything that objectively supports life; bad = anything that objectively inhibits it.

        So the point isn’t that politicians are bad because they disagree with “freedom.” No, the point is that the specific policies espoused by “the average Wesley Mouch” are what Rand considered to be anti-life.

        Atlas Shrugged was Rand’s exploration of the possible reasons why someone would espouse an anti-life philosophy. Through the characters, she explores their underlying arguments and rationale and ultimately concludes that on some philosophical level they prefer death to life.

        Love it or hate it, that’s the moral of the story. I understand that leftists will want to say, “But no! You don’t understand! We’re not anti-life, we just think life could be best-supported if we undertook a series of statist policies…”

        But if that is the retort, then I think the person who makes it has failed to properly understand Rand’s book. She’s basically calling statists evil. It’s not a “misunderstanding.” It’s not a matter of how fair she’s been to the other side. It’s a question of basic premises.

        If someone wrote a book about “Why I think RPLong is a big jerk,” and then I wrote a review of the movie on my blog that said, “Wow, this person has some great prose – anyone can see that!” then I might be right or I might be wrong, but it would still leave a few folks nonplussed.

        Hence my comment. Now do you see why I said that I shouldn’t have elaborated on my point? 😉

        • Ken B says:

          Oh dear god RP, has that title been taken already?!? And I’m more than halfway finished!

          🙂

          • RPLong says:

            And I love it already, because the development of the central character is so complete!

        • Daniel Kuehn says:

          re:“The disconnect is that you consider Rand’s depiction to be hyperbole, and people who agree with her consider it to be the literal truth.”

          Right! Probably more of a disagreement than a disconnect though. We’re all aware of what each other think, after all (well… roughly speaking/more or less).

          Here’s the thing about your example – if the point of a movie is “Ryan Long is a jerk” I would (based on the scant evidence I have), disagree not just with the extent but the very direction of the argument.

          Insofar as we’re saying “statism is evil”, I AGREE with that. That’s the liberal tradition in a nutshell, after all.

          We wouldn’t all put it in the same way Rand does, but then again – not all libertarians would put it in the same way Rand does. That seems OK to me.

          • RPLong says:

            It’s perfectly okay, but obviously both Robert Murphy and I were moved to say the blogosphere equivalent of the phrase “Whaaa?”

            haha…

            And now, thanks to Hal Varian, any Google search for Atlas Shrugged will be forever married to the concept that I am a jerk. This is the exact opposite of what I wanted to happen!

        • Gene Callahan says:

          “The disconnect is that you consider Rand’s depiction to be hyperbole, and people who agree with her consider it to be the literal truth.”

          Well, those people are one can short of a six pack, aren’t they?

          • Carrie says:

            Yes, because people who live to pursue their rational self-interest recognize that they do not need to drink six beers in order to enjoy life.

            • MamMoTh says:

              But are there larger packs?

    • Daniel Kuehn says:

      And my reaction at the end – about Keynesians – is a more specific point about profit expectations, investment demand, and that sort of thing. The only thing that’s missing is a more explicit discussion of marginal efficiency of capital, and you’ve got some pretty standard Keynesian problems with the Atlas Shrugged economy.

      No RBCs here.

      • Major_Freedom says:

        Except the marginal efficiency of capital, as espoused by Keynes, is riddled with errors.

    • Daniel Kuehn says:

      Anyway Rod, my point is I enjoyed the movie a lot and a big part of why I enjoyed it was I liked the characters and their conflicts and – surprise, surprise – I liked exactly the characters that Rand wanted me to like for precisely the reasons that Rand wanted me to like them.

      You can’t really think that’s so strange, can you?

      • Ken B says:

        Actually I can. John Cage complained about the Hallelujah Chorus from Messaih. “Don’t you like to be moved?” he was asked. “I like to be moved. I dislike being pushed.”

      • RPLong says:

        Ryan, not Rod, but thanks for the vote of confidence. 😉

        I think if I further elaborated on my point, I’d do a disservice to it. The whole point of Atlas Shrugged is its characters. If you liked them for all the reasons Rand wanted you to, then it is no surprise that you liked the story. That much I understand.

  6. Mark Geoffriau says:

    My problem with Rand’s “self-interest” idea is that it requires redefining all kinds of other terms and concepts.

    The classic counter-example (a mother sacrificing herself to save her child) is typically answered with the response that the mother’s selfish desires include a desire to preserve the life of her child. Therefore, she’s not being altruistic or self-sacrificial; she’s simply fulfilling her own selfish desires.

    But if we accept this formulation (seemingly altruistic acts are really just fulfilling personal desires in accordance with one’s priorities), then all we’ve really done is just rename what we already know — people act in according to their desires, and those desires can include the desire to see justice done, or a loved one’s life saved, or the greater public good served, even at an apparent personal cost.

    At that point, I fail to see the utility in redefining terms so fundamentally just for the novelty of saying things like “selfishness is good.”

    • RS says:

      “At that point, I fail to see the utility in redefining terms so fundamentally just for the novelty of saying things like “selfishness is good.””

      This is because you, like many others, have fundamentally misunderstood Rand’s formulation regarding what she actually meant when one acts in ones own self-interest.

      Rand draws a distinction between the standard required for man’s survival as a rational being vs. everything else.

      Simply acting to fulfill ones desires, whatever they may be, does not constitute a standard, it’s the exact opposite of one.

      The question is not ,what do you desire?

      The question is, if you desire to live as a human, what conditions and actions are necessary for you to do so?

      The people who will inevitably respond by asserting that their desire or even their “right!” to live as a non-human is just as moral a choice as someone who desires to live as a human have committed the fallacy of the stolen concept.

      “Morality” and “rights” only apply to those who wish to live, not to those who wish to commit slow suicide.

      • Mark Geoffriau says:

        Oh, I’m quite familiar with how Rand dismisses any counter-examples (like the self-sacrificial mother) as being irrelevant or unimportant in her writings. I’ve also watched numerous Objectivists attempt to explain away the virtue of altruistic acts via the redefinition of terms as I noted above.

        As such, Rand’s rational egoism either claims too much or nothing at all — in either case, it’s of no use to me.

        • Major_Freedom says:

          Objectivism is not about redefining terms unless you yourself want to argue over definitions.

          Definitions cannot be “redefined” in your mind unless you insist that everyone agree to your definitions and if they don’t it means THEY are “redefining” terms. From their perspective, you are redefining terms.

          So where does that get you? It gets you nowhere, which is why you believe you have no use for it.

          Now, if you instead understood what Rand actually meant by altruism, and what in the real world she was actually referring to when she explained it, then you will drop the semantics infused pretensions, and you will instead recognize what is being referred to in the real world.

          So, to take your example of a mother saving her child at the expense of her own life. Rand would say this is a legitimately selfish act if the mother truly values her baby, and consider the survival of her baby as a higher value than she puts on her own life.

          She would say it is altruist if the mother does not truly value her baby, and yet sacrifices her higher value that is her life, for the lower value that is the life of her baby.

          As an example of the former, Rand’s character Galt was willing to submit to torture and death, rather than betray his love or serve the state. If he died, then that would have been a selfish act to Rand.

          Altruism is to Rand the IDEA that selfishness is morally evil, and selflessness is morally good. How can this be observed in practise, if it seems like Rand would consider what you consider to be altruist actions (mother saving her baby) are really selfish? By not merely looking at people’s actions, but inferring the morality behind it, finding out which values are being sacrificed for which other values, and recognizing what is the moral code that is being advanced by a particular action.

          Examples of societies that contain violent self-interested people who nevertheless believe that selflessness is the moral ideal, and that selfishness is a moral evil, are fascist and communist societies. In both these types of societies, the IDEAL is that individual is to be sacrificed as such, for the good of “society” as such. If that means some have to act irrationally self-interestedly (in Rand’s conception), of using brute force to sacrifice others, then this is still altruism.

          The crucial thing here is that while you want to INSIST that a mother saving her baby that she values is an altruist action, and you get miffed that Objectivists are trying to “redefine” that into being a selfish action, and that rather than understand what the other party means by altruist and selfish, you are unfortunately not understanding the argument they are making. They are not trying to win by definition, they are trying to explain to you what in the real world they call altruism and what in the real world they call self-interest. If you instead look at what they are referring to, then you would not be so focused on word definitions.

          • Mark Geoffriau says:

            Glad to see you confirming that the foundation of this ethical philosophy is a renaming of commonly understood concepts.

            Let me ask you this: if the mother sacrificing herself for the life of her child can be a “selfish act” because she places greater value on the child’s life than on her own (and thus fulfills her desires), then is it not true that everyone, in every act, is always selfish?

            When does someone ever act against their desires? I’m not talking about reconsidering their decision later, or regret — I’m talking about, at the time they choose an action, it must ALWAYS be in accordance with their greatest desire, otherwise they would not have chosen it. The very fact that they chose it reveals that, however complex and varied their reasons may be, ultimately their greatest desires were fulfilled in that action.

            If I’m deciding between an egg sandwich and a ham sandwich, I may deliberate. But whichever sandwich I choose, that choice will reveal which sandwich I ultimately desired the most (or placed the greatest value on). I cannot later say, “Well, I actually wanted the ham sandwich, but I chose the egg sandwich because I knew you preferred ham.” That’s a lie — what I really mean is that I ultimately wanted the egg sandwich the most, when all factors had been weighed, including my desire to please both of us.

            Again, what we have is nothing more than Rand stipulating terms to everyone else, and then complaining when nobody else wants to change commonly understood terms to fit her ethical philosophy.

            • Carrie says:

              When does someone ever act against their desires?

              What does this have to do with the morality of self-interest? People act on all sorts of desires that cause them harm in the long run. You are claiming that acting on whim is equivalent to acting in one’s self-interest, and this is not the case.

          • Joe Esty says:

            You’re all over the place, Gladys Kravitz.

            • Major_Freedom says:

              Fixed that train wreck yet?

          • Major_Freedom says:

            Glad to see you confirming that the foundation of this ethical philosophy is a renaming of commonly understood concepts.

            Again it’s not “renaming” unless you insist that everyone name things the same as you, which is not philosophy at all, but semantics.

            Objectivists are referring to the same things in reality as you, they are just calling it something else. If you know what they mean by certain words, and they know what you mean by certain words, then there is no excuse for you to avoid addressing the substantive arguments being made.

            Let me ask you this: if the mother sacrificing herself for the life of her child can be a “selfish act” because she places greater value on the child’s life than on her own (and thus fulfills her desires), then is it not true that everyone, in every act, is always selfish?

            No, because Rand held that people can voluntarily choose to act in ways detrimental to themselves as well.

            She particularly spoke of people with low self-esteem, who are guilt ridden into acting for the good of others at the expense of themselves, which is to be distinguished from people with high esteem who act for the good of others NOT at the expense of themselves. Then there are the people who are forced to act for the good of others, which I am sure even you will agree is definitely at their expense. She said people of low self-esteem make it easier for evil to spread.

            When does someone ever act against their desires? I’m not talking about reconsidering their decision later, or regret — I’m talking about, at the time they choose an action, it must ALWAYS be in accordance with their greatest desire, otherwise they would not have chosen it. The very fact that they chose it reveals that, however complex and varied their reasons may be, ultimately their greatest desires were fulfilled in that action.

            This is Mises’ conception of “rational” behavior. To Mises, ALL voluntary action is at the point of action intended to improve the actor’s situation, or else the actor would not have done the action.

            Rand on the other hand rejected that view, and held that even a freely acting individual can act contrary to their own interests. She distinguished, within the voluntary acting sphere, “rational” and “irrational” behavior. In her view, rational self-interest is to be distinguished from irrational self-interest, despite the possibility of the action being voluntary and uncoerced.

            The foundation of objectivism is not, despite your continued semantic protestations to the contrary, a “renaming of commonly understood concepts.” Rand just identified the same things as what you are identifying, and interpreting them differently.

            She will say yes, actions can be uncoerced and voluntary. But she will distinguish those actions into “rational” and “irrational.” You might disagree with her on this, but your disagreement is not that she engaged in semantics. She is merely claiming that there exists voluntary and unceorced behavior that is nevertheless contrary to the happiness and well-being of the individual. Her philosophy is not a philosophy of action, it is a philosophy of human LIFE. She held that in order for human LIFE to exist, humans can’t do just any old thing even if it is all voluntary. They ought to do certain things and behave in certain ways, and especially think in certain ways if they are going to live as a human can live, rather than just biologically surviving.

            It’s not surprising that in your criticism of objectivism, you have displayed conclusive evidence that you have not even grasped it well enough to critique. You hand wave at it solely because the definitions are slightly different than what you’re used to. Well that is just a sign of your intellectual weakness. Those who refuse to even address an argument unless it is semantically translated into their own euphemisms and definitions, have no business even discussing philosophy.

            I bet you don’t even read 19th century philosophy or economics for precisely this reason. You refuse to get past the “strange” definitions and language.

            You’re only hurting yourself by the way. You’re in no way providing any good criticism of objectivism.

            • Mark Geoffriau says:

              Wow, you are incredibly good at extrapolating personal histories from limited internet comments. You’re right! I DO hate 19th century philosophy and economics! Such weird words and stuff! Why didn’t those guys include more LOLcats?

              And yes, I do insist that people use the same words to refer to the same concepts, within reason (heh). To do otherwise is to be intentionally unintelligible, to purposefully subvert communication. If new definitions must be stipulated, it should be done out of necessity (expansion or contraction of meaning to enhance precision), not simply shifting meanings in order to force-fit common concepts into a clunky and poorly structured philosophy.

              What’s amazing is that Rand rarely merits even a minor footnote in histories of philosophy, and yet her proponents constantly claim that its everyone else who’s poorly educated, intellectually weak, and so on.

              • Major_Freedom says:

                Wow, you are incredibly good at extrapolating personal histories from limited internet comments. You’re right! I DO hate 19th century philosophy and economics! Such weird words and stuff! Why didn’t those guys include more LOLcats?

                Maybe they used a different definition for them back then, and you thought that meant they were secretly trying to spread LOLcats by calling them “prosperity” instead. Good thing you’re refusing to move past the definitions and quibbling over semantics. You’re not going to be hoodwinked by the demagogues! No siree!

                And yes, I do insist that people use the same words to refer to the same concepts, within reason (heh).

                The same words as what? Yours? That’s you quibbling over semantics, rather than the substantive arguments being made.

                To do otherwise is to be intentionally unintelligible, to purposefully subvert communication. If new definitions must be stipulated, it should be done out of necessity (expansion or contraction of meaning to enhance precision), not simply shifting meanings in order to force-fit common concepts into a clunky and poorly structured philosophy.

                It is precisely out of necessity that Rand defined her terms in the way she did Oh semantic quibbler extraordinaire.

                You’re clearly just using the definitions argument as an excuse to cover your actual position, which is that you disagree with her philosophy and you refuse, or, what is more likely, you are unable, to challenge or refute her on substantive argumentative grounds.

                What’s amazing is that Rand rarely merits even a minor footnote in histories of philosophy, and yet her proponents constantly claim that its everyone else who’s poorly educated, intellectually weak, and so on

                Are you talking about Rand or her followers now?

                That Rand rarely “merits” a footnote in the history of philosophy, is not an argument against her philosophy. It’s just another antagonism that you are using as an excuse to cover your refusal (probable inability) to address the actual arguments.

                But sure, keep going with insisting that we all argue over the semantics. It’s a sign you’re knowledgeable in that which you choose to criticize.

    • Carrie says:

      Do you think there is a moral distinction between the following two scenarios:

      1. A mother willingly undergoes some bodily harm– say, losing an arm– to save her child, because her child is of greater value to her than is her arm.

      2. A mother willingly undergoes some bodily harm– say, amputating her arm– to donate it to a child in a third-world country, because she feels guilty about possessing wealth and she believes pain and suffering are virtues.

      Do you consider both of these to be altruistic and self-sacrificial?

      • Ryan says:

        The 2nd situation is the one Rand objected to. Her point was that there is no reason for the woman to feel guilty about having more than other people. If she makes a choice based on the pursuit of her own values, Rand would say this is a “good” choice. If she makes a choice based on guilt or obligation, Rand would say this is a “bad” choice.

  7. joeftansey says:

    I wish the left had a bunch of silly childish novels to make fun of.

    Oh wait, they do. I guess no one jokes about it because they were never taken seriously in the first place.

  8. Joe Esty says:

    I’m a libertarian and an Austrian School devotee (Rothbard’s the greatest), but I’ve always thought Atlas Shrugged turgid, solipsistic, and unreadable. Whittaker Chambers’ 1957 critique of Atlas Shrugged in National Review was spot on. Whenever someone suggests I give Atlas Shrugged another try, I suggest he gives Chambers’ critique a try.

    • Carrie says:

      Solipsism:
      the idea that only one’s mind is sure to exist. Epistemologically, anything outside of one’s own mind is unsure. Metaphysically, the world and other minds do not exist.

      Objectivism 101:
      reality exists independent of consciousness. Human beings have direct contact with reality through sense perception. One one can attain objective knowledge from perception through the process of concept formation and inductive logic.

      ??

      • Major_Freedom says:

        Joe is just trying to flamebait, not have a legitimate argument.

      • Joe Esty says:

        H.L. Mencken:

        “Philosophy consists very largely of one philosopher arguing that all other philosophers are jackasses. He usually proves it, and I should add that he also usually proves that he is one himself.”

  9. Ralph Raico says:

    The review of Atlas by the ex-Commie spy Chambers was laughably stupid. He wrote, for instance, that on every page of the book you can hear the order being given, To the gas chamber go! My letter was among many criticisms published in NR. I asked, on exactly which pages of Rand’s great novel can you hear that order being given? Naturally, not Chambers nor anyone else chose to answer. Buckley’s promotion of Chambers was part of his campaign to purge the Right of everyone who didn’t hew to his line. The arch-poseur tried that on my good friend Murray Rothbard, as well, with what success anyone can see for himself.

  10. Joe Esty says:

    That’s fine, Mr. Raico, but that doesn’t change my view. Dense two-point type and science fiction caricatures, at least through the first 100 pages I could tolerate. I’ve been told Julia Roberts is a beautiful women by many. I don’t get that either. Laughably stupid? Maybe.

    By the way, Mr. Chambers spoke of Ms Rand’s intolerance. How tolerant was Ms Rand? Was there a falling out between Mr. Rothbard and Ms Rand over Murray’s Christian wife?

    • Major_Freedom says:

      That’s fine, Mr. Raico, but that doesn’t change my view.

      and

      By the way, Mr. Chambers spoke of Ms Rand’s intolerance. How tolerant was Ms Rand?

      Did anyone else giggle?

  11. Carrie says:

    It seems that the majority of people who read Atlas Shrugged do not understand its theme, which results in strange and otherwise unlikely alliances.

    The idea that the story is about “blatantly corrupt businessmen and politicians” who get in the way of the “people with a can-do attitude,” who then “withdraw from society when they don’t think they can earn a profit anymore,” is a completely superficial understanding of the actual theme. That basic plot line does appeal to many conservatives, libertarians, “ANN” Rand fans, rich people who actually didn’t earn their wealth, and, seemingly, whoever worked on the 2011 movie.

    However, the actual theme of Atlas Shrugged is brought together in John Galt’s speech—the part of the book which, sadly, those who don’t see the deeper elements of the plot tend to skip over.

    The theme of Atlas Shrugged is the role of man’s mind in directing the course of his life. The greater the capacity and use of his mind in furthering his rational interests, the greater his achievements and the greater his happiness. Rand’s heroes are not primarily motivated to have money but to create wealth.

    The low-level villains such as James Taggart do not understand where wealth comes from, and seek to have its results (riches and admiration) without its cause (production). The high-level villains such as Dr. Pritchett do understand where wealth comes from (production) and seek to destroy its cause (the men of the mind). The less powerful but equally evil villain Lillian Rearden was not simply a “wife that insults you to your face.” She did not merely insult (or ignore!) Hank; rather, she fully recognized his greatness and sought to undermine and destroy him by treating his greatest achievements and his greatest guilts. These villains are NOT the obvious bad guys and there is much greater depth to those characters than might be seen on first glance.

    Similarly, the heroic characters are NOT the obvious good guys to a new reader. After all, aren’t James Taggart and Wesley Mouch (weasely mooch) businessmen, just like Hank and Dagny? Defending capitalism with a moral, self-interested approach is not the standard argument. Yes, Atlas Shrugged does show the surface/practical consequences of statism; Galt’s Gulch flourishes as it is free, and the USA collapses as it is regulated. However, those utilitarian concerns are secondary to the moral principles behind a free vs. controlled society. The heroes in the novel do NOT “withdraw from society when they don’t think they can earn a profit anymore.” Earning a profit was NOT their primary concern; being free to create and to retain the MORAL claim on their work, was. Francisco D’Anconia’s money speech is revolutionary in presenting this theme.

    Another common misconception is that Atlas Shrugged criticizes those who don’t “build and create things for the money they enjoy” or disparages those with lesser ability. It is true that such individuals will not be able to attain the same level of pride and happiness as a Hank Rearden, for example—but consider three “good guys” who aren’t particularly magnificent but are quite believable as decent, responsible people: Eddie Willers, Miss Ives, and Cheryl Taggart. All three recognize greatness in the full heroes; all three are of basic/average intelligence and skill; yet all three are good guys because they work and produce to the extent they are capable. They understand that moral pride results only from productive work.

    So yes, from the perspective of superficial plot events, various people can appreciate (or resent) Atlas Shrugged. But all of those details are secondary to the motivations and moral character of the characters. There is the person who likes or dislikes the basic plot and either sees some good in it or thinks Ayn Rand is “mean.” Then there is the rarer person who understands the deeper theme, and either lives with rational self-interest and happiness, or seeks to destroy, mock, and undermine the joy of such creators. I believe there are all four types of readers on this blog, which makes for lively discussion.

    • Daniel Kuehn says:

      Wow – you REALLY read a lot into those couple sentences didn’t you. I was just explaining who I liked and didn’t like in the movie and a brief reason why. I think it holds up pretty well for the purposes of the point I was making, don’t you think?

      • Carrie says:

        An analogy that came to mind was that, as a child, I really liked “The Sound of Music.” My explanation of why I liked it focused on largely irrelevant factors: the gazebo, a girl climbing through a window at night, singing on a bed during a thunderstorm, swinging from trees wearing clothes made of curtains. My parents made me go to bed about halfway through, but from what I saw, I liked it. I had no idea that the main theme of the movie was political.

        Now, I know you have a solid academic background and are obviously well-read and intelligent, so I hope my analogy does not come off as dismissive. My point is that, based on your description in the entry Bob quoted, you seemed to like parts of Atlas Shrugged for surface-level reasons, while missing the main theme. I would further venture to say that the majority of people who like Atlas Shrugged take that view, as well, so this is not a criticism directed particularly at you.

      • Carrie says:

        You said “Ayn Rand really reaches for the low-hanging fruit with this story, and yet somehow it’s an epic libertarian tale.” You then proceeded to give examples of how her good and bad guys were low-hanging fruit. Therefore, no, I don’t think I’m reading too much into those sentences, because all your examples showed is that you were focusing on superficial characteristics and not the characters’ deeper philosophical motives.

        • Daniel Kuehn says:

          Right – there is a basic narrative superstructure that is spun as this radical story, when really it’s not.

          On top of that is laid some Objectivist claims about charity that are just goofy.

          But one can appreciate the fact that Rand was goofy on a few points and still get a lot out of the story. Which makes me curious – why don’t more people embrace the story? Nobody really takes Objectivism seriously – not even most hard core libertarians. So the thickly ladled Objectivism need not be that big of an obstacle. But it is. I can understand that – there’s a lot that’s objectionable about it. But it’s still a shame, because there’s a nice story in there.

          • Carrie says:

            Which makes me curious – why don’t more people embrace the story? Nobody really takes Objectivism seriously

            If I proceeded to answer that I’d get accused of psychoanalyzing. My short answer is because most people lack fundamental self-esteem, and/or do not believe they deserve happiness, and/or do not believe happiness is possible in this life.

          • Major_Freedom says:

            Right – there is a basic narrative superstructure that is spun as this radical story, when really it’s not.

            Really it is radical. It’s one of the major reasons why it’s consistently held as being the 2nd most influential text ever written, behind the bible, which is REALLY radical.

            On top of that is laid some Objectivist claims about charity that are just goofy.

            “Goofy” is not a proper argument.

            But one can appreciate the fact that Rand was goofy on a few points and still get a lot out of the story.

            There’s that “goofy” again.

            Which makes me curious – why don’t more people embrace the story?

            Because the story is not the main focus of the book. The story is but an allegory.

            Nobody really takes Objectivism seriously – not even most hard core libertarians.

            The same thing can be said about the core principles of Keynesianism before the age of mercantilism.

            • Joe Esty says:

              What are you, the wandering Web site critic? Not an original thought of your own, but critique everyone else’s.

              • Major_Freedom says:

                Awww, somebody’s all mad.

              • Carrie says:

                … says the person who leaves four irrelevant comments personally attacking another commenter, and two comments quoting or referencing famous authors.

                One of the joys of the internet is that bloggers like Bob are interested in discussing ideas– and in having an open forum where people can share their perspectives, be challenged, and learn from the exchange. Your comments so far have not been helpful in that process.

    • Daniel Kuehn says:

      re: “After all, aren’t James Taggart and Wesley Mouch (weasely mooch) businessmen, just like Hank and Dagny?

      Ummm… if you think James and Mouch are indistinguishable from Hank and Dagny to the average reader, you REALLY don’t have much faith in the intelligence of your fellow man.

      Anyway – none of the details you’ve filled out change my point. I can get behind Rand on “being free to create and to retain the MORAL claim on their work” too. I think you just came here looking for a fight, Carrie.

      • Carrie says:

        I did not come here looking for a fight, because that is not a good use of my time (and, believe it or not, in real life I’m generally considered a really nice and mousy kind of person). Instead, I hope to encourage people to give Atlas Shrugged a deeper read because there is so much more to appreciate about it than just the business and political aspects of the plot!

        Most Americans do NOT make distinctions between different types of businessmen. They cannot conceive of a self-made man who doesn’t lie, cheat, steal, lobby, and destroy others on his way to the top. The Occupy/99% movement, as one example, seems to think all people with money owe it to others. Read the comments on the link from Krugman’s post, and you’ll see 200+ people who hate any and all businessmen. I do not think they recognize any distinction between a Taggart and a Rearden; they are both businessmen “out to make money” and are therefore both evil.

        I’ve not read enough of your blog to know your political views. But whatever % of people affiliate with one of the two major political parties– maybe 80-90% of people?– do NOT believe we have the moral claim to the results of our work (hence taxation, or proclaiming the virtue of charity).

        • Daniel Kuehn says:

          I would have thought the 99% movement demonstrates precisely the opposite!

          Anyway – let me know when you find someone confused about whether Dagny or James is the sympathetic character.

          re: “200+ people who hate any and all businessmen.”

          Oh you guys really are cute. Sentences like this are precisely why Rand fans get teased.

          re: “do NOT believe we have the moral claim to the results of our work (hence taxation, or proclaiming the virtue of charity).”

          And this again is where you run into problems Carrie. To proclaim the virtue of charity is not to deny a moral claim to the results of our work. To support taxes is not to deny a moral claim to the rights of our work.

          Yes, if we redefine all of these things to mean “think like Ayn Rand thinks” then you’re exactly right – very few people think that way.

          • Carrie says:

            I would have thought the 99% movement demonstrates precisely the opposite!

            What? How?

            Regarding the 200+ blog people, yes, obviously that is not the majority of the country. But YOU said,
            if you think James and Mouch are indistinguishable from Hank and Dagny to the average reader, you REALLY don’t have much faith in the intelligence of your fellow man., and I was referencing some examples of average readers who DO resent all people in business.

            Donating to charity is neither moral nor immoral at face value. Creating hardship for oneself and donating to charity for altruistic purposes is generally considered moral: it is considered virtuous to give to the lowest, most undeserving recipients. This I view as immoral. On the other hand, donating to people you admire and value, when it does not cause harm to yourself, is a proper use of your money. I was a proponent of donating to Japan after the earthquake because I was able to do so and because I knew the money would not go to good, productive use. I would also donate to science fairs, etc. for advanced students.

            To support taxes is not to deny a moral claim to the rights of our work.
            Explain, please? A person goes to work and makes money, but is forced to give a portion of it to people and causes he does not support. This seems to deny a moral claim to one’s own work output.

            • Carrie says:

              sorry, the money to Japan *WOULD* go to good use…

            • Daniel Kuehn says:

              re: “What? How?”

              Because the 99% movement has outlined in great detail precisely what it is they don’t like in businessmen – there’s not this “all businessmen are bad” attitude.

          • Major_Freedom says:

            I would have thought the 99% movement demonstrates precisely the opposite!

            To proclaim the virtue of charity is not to deny a moral claim to the results of our work.

            Rand wasn’t against charity. She was against putting charity as a virtue above the virtue of self-interest, that’s all. In other words, she supported charity, as long as the individual did not put the morality of charity above the morality of self-interest. For example, she would think it’s OK to give one’s money to the poor, but she was against holding it as a moral virtue above the self-interest of the charity giver. You might think this is impossible if people are free to choose, and I would agree with you, but Rand warned that putting the morality of charity above self-interest, invariably leads to force being initiated against those who put the virtue of self-interest above charity.

            To support taxes is not to deny a moral claim to the rights of our work.

            This is quite literally the dumbest thing you have ever said, and that’s…well nevermind.

            I always laugh at tax supporters who try to defend it and integrate it into a morally individualist society. If you support taxes, then you cannot logically also hold that the individual has a moral claim to the rights of their work. Taxation is the forced confiscation of property from the individual owner.

            If I did what the state did when it comes to disrespecting property rights, then I would rightly be considered someone who is acting directly against the morality that individuals have a right to keep what they earn. I would be contradicting that morality.

            • Joe Esty says:

              Keep up the good work, Gladys Kravitz.

              • Major_Freedom says:

                What is this, find all of Major_Freedom’s post and flamebait him?

                It ain’t gonna work, princess.

  12. Tel says:

    … it’s a story that criticizes the rentier class which doesn’t build and create things for the money they enjoy. What Keynesian wouldn’t enjoy a movie like that??? …

    There’s an amazing number of bureaucratic hangers-on who don’t think of themselves as part of the “rentier class” and really don’t appreciate having it pointed out to them.

  13. Bob Roddis says:

    Commenter Ralph Raico is a great libertarian writer whom I have been reading for almost 40 years. I just rediscovered an old piece he wrote in 1979 about Trotsky and the Bolsheviks, but it could apply today to the Keynesians and the MMTers just as well:

    One slight obstacle was encountered, however, on the road to the abolition of the price system and the market: “Reality,” as Trotsky noted, “came into increasing conflict” with the economic “system” that the Bolshevik rulers had fastened on Russia. After a few years of misery and famine for the Russian masses — there is no record of any Bolshevik leader having died of starvation in this period — the rulers thought again, and a New Economic Policy (NEP) — including elements of private ownership and allowing for market transactions — was decreed.

    The significance of all this cannot be exaggerated. What we have with Trotsky and his comrades in the Great October Revolution is the spectacle of a few literary-philosophical intellectuals seizing power in a great country with the aim of overturning the whole economic system — but without the slightest idea of how an economic system works. In “State and Revolution”, written just before he took power, Lenin wrote,

    “The accounting and control necessary [for the operation of a national economy] have been simplified by capitalism to the utmost, till they have become the extraordinarily simple operations of watching, recording and issuing receipts, within the reach of anybody who can read and write and knows the first four rules of arithmetic.”

    With this piece of cretinism Trotsky doubtless agreed. And why wouldn’t he? Lenin, Trotsky, and the rest had all their lives been professional revolutionaries, with no connection at all to the process of production and, except for Bukharin, little interest in the real workings of an economic system. Their concerns had been the strategy and tactics of revolution and the perpetual, monkish exegesis of the holy books of Marxism.

    The nitty-gritty of how an economic system functions — how, in our world, men and women work, produce, exchange, and survive — was something from which they prudishly averted their eyes, as pertaining to the nether-regions. These “materialists” and “scientific socialists” lived in a mental world where understanding Hegel, Feuerbach, and the hideousness of Eugen Duehring’s philosophical errors was infinitely more important than understanding what might be the meaning of a price.

    http://mises.org/daily/4515

Leave a Reply to Ken B

Cancel Reply