Poking Fun at Atlas Shrugged

[Rodney]

I found it funny, because such a strip could just as well have been written by a dedicated Objectivist.

The reason is that for the sake of a joke, a humorist often takes a stance he knows to be wrong, and that the audience knows he knows is wrong. It's just a temporary pose struck, as it were. Since I, the reader, do not know the views of the cartoonist, I just regard it in that way. Among friends, I am given to such playfulness myself.

Am I the only one who noticed that Ayn Rand is pictured--the "GENIUS"?

Edited November 20, 2006 by ashleyparkerangel

[Reidy]

The best evidence that whoever drew this didn't read the book is that, in the valley sequence, the characters showed that they knew all that.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I came across the site of Bob the Angry Flower, which is where this comic comes from. Go to Archive if you want to see more comics. Many of them are not very funny, but some of them gave me a quite a chuckle. Here are three I liked for personal reasons.

Have you ever used Norton Anti-Virus? If you have, then you will most likely understand the following sentiment:

We have had several discussions about reductionism on OL. The following comic reminded me of how I felt at times during them.

The finally there was the issue of cartoon boobs.

That's enough for now. Back to writing.

Michael

[stevenotley]

Er, hello. I'm Stephen Notley, cartoonist of the "Atlas Shrugged 2: One Hour Later" cartoon. I discovered this thread on the Internets and I registered and logged in to say a couple of things.

1) I had not read the book. I'd read a proposed screenplay based on the book. I'm *now* reading the book, which caused me to go on the wee Googling trip that brought me here.

2) I am a socialist.

3) No, really. But my definition of socialism is: Human efforts are put to best use in societies. More specifically, I do not subscribe to the battle between labor and capital over who made the wealth as though we were contending over the results of a zero-sum game. I believe that social behavior has a *multiplicative effect* on production rather than an additive effect. That is, when labor and capital work together, they create more than the sum of their individual separate efforts. Capitalists and laborers both, if forced to work without society, will spend their lives on subsistence. If they work together they will create wealth in abundance, more than what both of them together put in.

Everyone gets more out of society than they put in. Take the wealthiest, a Bill Gates. He spends 8, 9, 10 or more hours a day of meetings, decisions, at this point in his career likely few technological contributions, but perhaps some. He gets back food, clothing, shelter, transportation, entertainment, the whole panopoly of human creation. Now take the poorest, some bum on the street. He spends 8, 9, 10 or more hours a day putting in virtually nothing except the service of extorting money through guilt from people on the street. And even he gets food, clothing, shelter, transportation, entertainment, a much smaller slice but still far more than he contributes towards the whole panopoly of human creation. We *all* get more out of it than we put in. It's multiplicative.

So, given that hooking ourselves into a social system allows us to generate vastly greater wealth than what we'd make alone, how shall we divide the spoils? There is an adversarial relationship between labor and capital, just as there is an adversarial relationship between the defense and the prosecution in a court of law. But both sets of adversaries, while competitors, are also partners in a system with a greater purpose. For defense and prosecution, the purpose is justice. For labor and capital, the purpose is wealth. The system relies on balance between the adversaries. That sounds wishy-washy librul, but it simply means that any powers, rights and privileges accorded to one side of the equation must also be accorded to the other. Seeking the ascendancy of one over the other is asking for a big ol' disaster in the face, it seems to me.

Edited June 13, 2008 by stevenotley

[Mike11]

There is an adversarial relationship between labor and capital,

For the time being...

Anyway, welcome to OL. You sound pretty Objectivist actually.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Stephen,

What a delight!

Welcome!

I really enjoyed your cartoon.

Since you are now getting familiar with Objectivist thought, take your time. I am pleased to see that these ideas are important to you.

There is one thing I want to highlight right now, more as a guidepost than as preaching. (I intensely dislike preaching, despite the obvious preaching tone in the speeches in Atlas Shrugged. I actually dislike preaching dogma, but I even have distaste for preaching truth. I just don't like the profession. )

You will find Objectivism to be more about denying a moral sanction to using force against creators of wealth (goods and services) than about distribution of wealth per se. This real issue is wealth and force, not just wealth. And at even more depth, the fundamental social issue is force versus reason as a standard of setting the rules.

Actually, the synergy of accumulated wealth on a social level you mentioned is covered almost in the same manner by Ayn Rand. In my own view, we are now right smack in the middle of an information revolutuion that is multiplying wealth and toppling dictators in a manner unprecedented in human history. I attribute this effect to that synergy.

btw - I don't mind the label "socialist." You will probably find a few people who give a kneejerk reaction without looking at the ideas you mean, but in general, I think you will find friendly people around here. (On OL, independent thought is a high value, so everyone speaks for himself, not for any organization. That leads to some interesting disagreements.) You might want to look into what the definition of socialist is later, or at least check the precision of the definition you use.

Anyway, I do hope you will look around. I am sure you will find some great premises to check and, who knows, help us check some of our own.

EDIT: I corrected a broken link in the opening post, so now your cartoon shows up.)

Michael

[studiodekadent]

Er, hello. I'm Stephen Notley, cartoonist of the "Atlas Shrugged 2: One Hour Later" cartoon. I discovered this thread on the Internets and I registered and logged in to say a couple of things.

1) I had not read the book. I'd read a proposed screenplay based on the book. I'm *now* reading the book, which caused me to go on the wee Googling trip that brought me here.

2) I am a socialist.

3) No, really. But my definition of socialism is: Human efforts are put to best use in societies.

Mr. Notley,

Your definition of Socialism is technically false. The actual meaning of Socialism is "A political-economic system within which the means of production are controlled by the State." Note that this is not a special Objectivist definition but rather a definition widely agreed upon by economists, political scientists and philosophers of many different viewpoints.

Speaking as a qualified economist, both Socialists and Classical Liberals believe that the system they advocate (Socialism and Capitalism respectively) actually does put human efforts to the best use within society. In other words, by your definition of "Socialism," both Classical Liberals and Socialists claim to be "Socialist" (again, by your definition).

The difference between Socialism (academic definition) and Capitalism is, with respect to your definition, one of means. i.e, what 'mechanism' puts human efforts to their best uses. Socialists advocate using the State to do this, Classical Liberals advocate allowing individuals to sort out the matter by themselves through voluntary dealings with eachother.

More specifically, I do not subscribe to the battle between labor and capital over who made the wealth as though we were contending over the results of a zero-sum game.

Good.

I believe that social behavior has a *multiplicative effect* on production rather than an additive effect. That is, when labor and capital work together, they create more than the sum of their individual separate efforts. Capitalists and laborers both, if forced to work without society, will spend their lives on subsistence. If they work together they will create wealth in abundance, more than what both of them together put in.

Again, you are correct.

So, given that hooking ourselves into a social system allows us to generate vastly greater wealth than what we'd make alone, how shall we divide the spoils? There is an adversarial relationship between labor and capital, just as there is an adversarial relationship between the defense and the prosecution in a court of law. But both sets of adversaries, while competitors, are also partners in a system with a greater purpose. For defense and prosecution, the purpose is justice. For labor and capital, the purpose is wealth. The system relies on balance between the adversaries. That sounds wishy-washy librul, but it simply means that any powers, rights and privileges accorded to one side of the equation must also be accorded to the other. Seeking the ascendancy of one over the other is asking for a big ol' disaster in the face, it seems to me.

That doesn't sound like Socialism to me, indeed it makes some important points. However there are a few things I would advise you to look out for.

First, the distinction between labor and capital is getting very blurred. The Marxist concepts of labor (proletariat) and capital (bourgeois) are only applicable in the context of an early-to-mid-stage industrial economy where capital is so rare and expensive that to accumulate it requires vast wealth. In the west today, a very common item of capital (for example, the PC) can be found in the vast majority of homes. People can run businesses with nearly no barriers to entry now thanks to the online economy. Indeed, the dichotomy between labor and capital is basically obsolete.

Second, Rand did not preach the ascendancy of capital over labor. She saw all production, including labor, to be a product of that producers mind (even menial labor requires some mind to be carried out), and thus the producer had complete sovereignty over it. Thus, if a single producer wants to trade his product for money by working for someone else, thats fine.

Third, Rearden made his own alloys!

[BaalChatzaf]

I got a laugh out of it.

How to eat in Galt's Gulch was not covered in Atlas Shrugged and I never even thought about that myself during all these years. (Also, I have "shrugged" in my life and then had to figure out how to eat. It's a problem.)

Michael

Several of the Titans in addition to running industries were farmers (I am sure they had farm machinery) and some even raised hogs (Dwight Sanders IIRC). The man who designed and manufactured airplanes and heavy industrial motive power also knew how to butcher hogs. So food was raised the old fashioned way.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Brant Gaede]

I got a laugh out of it.

How to eat in Galt's Gulch was not covered in Atlas Shrugged and I never even thought about that myself during all these years. (Also, I have "shrugged" in my life and then had to figure out how to eat. It's a problem.)

Michael

Several of the Titans in addition to running industries were farmers (I am sure they had farm machinery) and some even raised hogs (Dwight Sanders IIRC). The man who designed and manufactured airplanes and heavy industrial motive power also knew how to butcher hogs. So food was raised the old fashioned way.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Wasn't there somebody down at the lake fishing?

--Brant

[syrakusos]

Dagny cooked and sewed.

Hugh Akston cooked an outstanding hamburger.

Wasn't there somebody down at the lake fishing? --Brant

Would that not require that she actually own the lake, lest she be poaching or perhaps tragically using the commons?

Q: How many Objectivists does it take to change a lightbulb?

A: We have agreed among ourselves not to change the lightbulb until the income tax is repealed.