An AnarchObjectivist's Guide to Atlas Shrugged


JamesShrugged

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 78
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

http://anarchobjectivist.wordpress.com/2013/09/07/an-anarchobjectivists-guide-to-atlas-shrugged/

"Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand is the story of a group of anarcho-capitalists, led by inventor John Galt, who struggle against and eventually destroy the state and its allies in business. "

Really?

Thanks for clearing it up for me...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://anarchobjectivist.wordpress.com/2013/09/07/an-anarchobjectivists-guide-to-atlas-shrugged/

"Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand is the story of a group of anarcho-capitalists, led by inventor John Galt, who struggle against and eventually destroy the state and its allies in business. "

One of the godfathers of Galt's Gulch is busy re-writing the Constitution of the United States. That does not sound like an anarchist to me. That would be the character, Judge Narrigansett.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://anarchobjectivist.wordpress.com/2013/09/07/an-anarchobjectivists-guide-to-atlas-shrugged/

"Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand is the story of a group of anarcho-capitalists, led by inventor John Galt, who struggle against and eventually destroy the state and its allies in business. "

Reading this review, it again strikes me how reminescent Rand's work is of revolutionary liberalism and socialism. Her inversion of Comtean positivism and Communist economic theories is striking enough to call it Bizarro Narodism. New Capitalist Man will arise to stunning heights, everyone using his reason to become an Aristotle or Mozart. It's an excellent Promethean tale (which, of course, is a shared heritage with socialist mythologies).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The linked article is a classic case of cherry-picking a text to prove a foreordained conclusion. In opposition there are plenty of references in Atlas to the once ideal U.S. government. Francisco, for example, says, America was “built on the supremacy of reason – and for one magnificent century, it redeemed the world.”

That aside, one can make the case that the strikers' hideout, Galt's Gulch, is a proprietary community of choice rather than anything resembling the Founding Fathers' vision. It certainly comes closer to anarcho-capitalism than, say, the Jefferson administration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The linked article is a classic case of cherry-picking a text to prove a foreordained conclusion. In opposition there are plenty of references in Atlas to the once ideal U.S. government. Francisco, for example, says, America was “built on the supremacy of reason – and for one magnificent century, it redeemed the world.”

That aside, one can make the case that the strikers' hideout, Galt's Gulch, is a proprietary community of choice rather than anything resembling the Founding Fathers' vision. It certainly comes closer to anarcho-capitalism than, say, the Jefferson administration.

Rand (like many people on the American Right) had a somewhat mythological view of American history. While I sympathize with some of the philosophical currents of the Enlightenment, it won't do to ignore the connexion to theology it had, or how dramatically and easily it drifted into bureaucratic statism even amonst fairly radical persons. This probably had to do with the liberal-humanist-republican belief in public virtue (i.e., virtuous citizens make virtuous politicians) when anarchists would be more likely to believe that public office turns virtue to the service of vice; i.e. the more natural talent a man has the more evil he can do in office.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In Rand's fiction there had to be heroes and villains in stark white and black. The same apparently held true in her interpretation of world history. Look, to take one egregious example, at the introduction to For the New Intellectual. Ancient Greece good. Middle Ages evil. Renaissance good, etc. No room for shades of gray here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rand as a romantic novelist and idealist,was driven politically only by what she was against-- she should never have been put in the position of prescribing what kind of world she was in favour of, since that world was always imaginary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In Rand's fiction there had to be heroes and villains in stark white and black. The same apparently held true in her interpretation of world history. Look, to take one egregious example, at the introduction to For the New Intellectual. Ancient Greece good. Middle Ages evil. Renaissance good, etc. No room for shades of gray here.

I liked her comment comparing things that aren't purely black or white to zebras. History is a single zebra. For instance, Athens had direct democracy. Not a system she'd ever like. Then we got Sparta several miles away from the polis. The first super militaristic society and an example of proto-fascism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The linked article is a classic case of cherry-picking a text to prove a foreordained conclusion. In opposition there are plenty of references in Atlas to the once ideal U.S. government. Francisco, for example, says, America was “built on the supremacy of reason – and for one magnificent century, it redeemed the world.”

That aside, one can make the case that the strikers' hideout, Galt's Gulch, is a proprietary community of choice rather than anything resembling the Founding Fathers' vision. It certainly comes closer to anarcho-capitalism than, say, the Jefferson administration.

This struck me as bizarre when I first encountered Objectivism. I couldn't understand how the founding of America was based in egoistic principles (though it certainly wasn't based in altruistic principles, either). Rand's knowledge of the FFs came first from Isabel Paterson.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rand as a romantic novelist and idealist,was driven politically only by what she was against-- she should never have been put in the position of prescribing what kind of world she was in favour of, since that world was always imaginary.

Ayn Rand knew better than to invent a utopia. A free market consists of a bunch of creative minds working in synergy. No one mind however great can equal that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was at the Ford Hall Forum in Boston when Rand spoke once. During the Q&A, she was asked about the possibility of the world turning into a Galt's Gulch and she responded something like Galt's Gulch was a private estate, not a country, and besides, doing that would be boring.

I don't remember the exact words (maybe someone can dig--they are probably right here on OL in Robert Campbell's critique of the Q&A book), but they surprised me at the time.

This evaluation doesn't surprise me anymore. I agree with her.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with "boring".

I had never quite appreciated the idyllic 'perfection' of Galt's Gulch, but I see her purpose in portraying it. A safe haven for people of reason, for a while. Your anecdote recalls my debates with people who crossly asserted that the Gulch would definitely have individual rights implemented.

For whom? Against whom? For how long?

Doesn't AS end with "We are going back to the world"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with "boring".

I had never quite appreciated the idyllic 'perfection' of Galt's Gulch, but I see her purpose in portraying it. A safe haven for people of reason, for a while. Your anecdote recalls my debates with people who crossly asserted that the Gulch would definitely have individual rights implemented.

For whom? Against whom? For how long?

Doesn't AS end with "We are going back to the world"?

Realistically people, a bunch of libertarian nerds who are also industrial professionals could probably manage to hang out indefinitely without seriously requirement 'rights' enforced. Annoying each other too much just wouldn't be worth it. Galt's Gulch doesn't really say anything about anarchy, except insofar as one thinks you can extrapolate individual person relationships into wider social behavior.

However, a bunch of dudes and one chick could go south.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with "boring".

I had never quite appreciated the idyllic 'perfection' of Galt's Gulch, but I see her purpose in portraying it. A safe haven for people of reason, for a while. Your anecdote recalls my debates with people who crossly asserted that the Gulch would definitely have individual rights implemented.

For whom? Against whom? For how long?

Doesn't AS end with "We are going back to the world"?

Realistically people, a bunch of libertarian nerds who are also industrial professionals could probably manage to hang out indefinitely without seriously requirement 'rights' enforced. Annoying each other too much just wouldn't be worth it. Galt's Gulch doesn't really say anything about anarchy, except insofar as one thinks you can extrapolate individual person relationships into wider social behavior.

However, a bunch of dudes and one chick could go south.

All depends on the chick.

To return to how boring it would be, we well know that human beings have a need for variety, I suppose for stimulation and challenge (might be my ADD talking) but moreover, for what the experience of others teaches us about 'the human condition'. But I think there's a limit to how far one "can extrapolate individual relationships into wider social behaviour." It's as if one's attention span ( ha) can only extend finitely for closer relationships, with levels above levels in those. Outside that, Objectively speaking, the Trader Principle in all things as well as trade - respect for respect, appreciation for appreciation, etc. - answers well to any conscious person's needs, I believe.

So without contradiction to Rand's framework of rational men and women, it seems she acknowledged the important dynamics of a varied and active society around one, with her "boring" remark.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I won't.

Life without passion has nothing to offer me I could possibly care about.

Boredom is not an option in my world.

Michael

Ah, Michael, where I'm sitting you might be so un-bored you'd be exhausted most of the time! I am.

The dubious "delectations of democracy" here, could send any half-aware person's blood pressure into orbit.

No, I take your point, but mine is that it is not for my State to keep me on my toes. It's Government which should be as boring as possible, leaving it up to each of us to chase his own passions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I won't.

Life without passion has nothing to offer me I could possibly care about.

Boredom is not an option in my world.

Michael

Never thought about it like that. With neighbors like Dagny, Ragnar, Francisco, Hank and Johnny, life would have less passion than a bowl of cold oatmeal.

Get me back my red-blooded American politic with its envy-driven progressives, theocratic Republicans, gun-hating soccer moms, and bomb 'em first nationalists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I won't.

Life without passion has nothing to offer me I could possibly care about.

Boredom is not an option in my world.

Michael

Never thought about it like that. With neighbors like Dagny, Ragnar, Francisco, Hank and Johnny, life would have less passion than a bowl of cold oatmeal.

Get me back my red-blooded American politic with its envy-driven progressives, theocratic Republicans, gun-hating soccer moms, and bomb 'em first nationalists.

Soccer moms. Watch out for that group.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I won't.

Life without passion has nothing to offer me I could possibly care about.

Boredom is not an option in my world.

Michael

Never thought about it like that. With neighbors like Dagny, Ragnar, Francisco, Hank and Johnny, life would have less passion than a bowl of cold oatmeal.

Get me back my red-blooded American politic with its envy-driven progressives, theocratic Republicans, gun-hating soccer moms, and bomb 'em first nationalists.

Soccer moms. Watch out for that group.

It's all that Kant they're reading. As they reject the external world, they believe that violence is only an imaginary evil, while the hostility embodied in the use of weapons is an evil against one's own Noumena. Once we understand that guns aren't real, we'll understand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now