|
Josh
read and liked
Emily's
review of Atlas Shrugged:
This review has been hidden because it contains spoilers. To view it, click here.
Instead, society leaders promote an "altruism" referring to August Comte's ethical doctrine that there is "a moral and political obligation of the individual to sacrifice his own interests for the sake of a greater social good." What frustrated me for most of the novel was the hypocrisy of society leaders claiming "altruistic" goals and forcing the "heroic" characters of the book to submit to their doctrine, yet the same leaders' actions were in direct opposition to their claim. They applied their social rules to others but did not follow it themselves. Instead they used language like "altruism" "charity" "social welfare" "good of the people/society" to selfishly increase their wealth and influence.
This was incredibly frustrating to me not only because of the unchallenged hypocrisy, but also because I defined altruism as simple benevolence or charity, and it wasn't until John Galt's speech that I realized exactly how they were defining certain terms and that, indeed, charity and benevolence can still exist in John Galt's world. At one point in the valley, he spoke scornfully of the word "give" (and I got angry again), but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt that he was referring to the type of "giving" that is solicited and expected by the receiver by means of guilt. I had trouble with that passage, because I enjoy and find value out of giving of my own free will, time, and resources because I want to help another person. I felt at that point that the whole concept of giving in any sense, according to John Galt was deserving of scorn, and made me feel like throwing the book away. Thankfully, he seemed express acceptance of my type of giving in the speech. Unfortunately, I had to read through 800 FREAKING PAGES before I got to the speech! I got to read dogmatic speech after speech about part of John Galt's theory, but not the whole thing. Also I had to suffer through those excruciating 800 pages before society leaders got called on their actions. Before the speech (okay, a little bit with Hank Reardon's trial), they just kept being able to do whatever they wanted "in the name of the public good" and both the public and the rational productive heroes just let them get away with it. ARRRRRRRGGGGH!
Meanwhile, the rational, efficient, productive members of society either left on strike WITHOUT SAYING WHY or just excused themselves from politics by saying they "didn't understand Washington" and continued to accept the hypocrisy and corruption WITHOUT SAYING ANYTHING OR DOING ANYTHING TO CALL THE LEADERS OUT ON THEIR CORRUPTION. They didn't seem to understand that politics is just another tool, and that if you choose not to get involved and use that tool or fight for your interests, others will take that tool and use it for themselves. Which, if they were indeed rational, self-interested people, you'd think that they would realize the value of SPEAKING OUT AND SAYING WHAT THEY BELIEVE AND FIGHTING FOR PUBLIC OPINION AND THE WORLD THEY WANT TO SEE AND MOBILIZING THE PUBLIC BEHIND THEIR VIEWS SO THEY COULD CREATE THE WORLD THEY WANTED TO SEE SOONER RATHER THAN LATER AND WITHOUT HAVING TO DESTROY THE ENTIRE EXISTING SOCIETY, EQUIPMENT,AND OTHER PEOPLE'S LIVES TO DO IT! Instead, they go off to their idyllic little mountain valley with all the other super rich industrialists and let all the things they worked for in the world crumble and disintegrate just to prove a point that the rest of the world doesn't realize the producers are fighting for.
I also wonder about the rational, hardworking, productive people like Eddie Willers who were productive but didn't inherit wealth/businesses like Franciso D'Anconia or be at the right place at the right time like what I would assume Hank Reardon and Ellis Wyatt were to use their productive ingenuity to become an industrial bigshot worthy of John Galt's attention. I wonder about the foreman/engineer/other working person who wasn't around when John Galt came for the bigshot owner. The bigshot "man of the mind" owners needed those lower position productive "men of the mind" just as much as the looter/moocher society did. It takes a lot of people to accomplish the technological feats of an industrialized nation. The novel seemed to imply that most of the "men of the mind" (including these lower position men) were in the valley, but the valley didn't seem to have that many people in it, only the big guys and a few random little guys. It seems to me that there would be so many people in the valley that were "men of the mind" that you wouldn't really need to retreat at all. As long as you had that many people, you could claim in the real world, "look, here we are, we are united and on strike, and we will not work for you unless you let us keep our property and encourage our productivity". Instead, even in the valley these men seem to be overlooked. Are they the ones that keep the valley going the 11 months that that big rich guys are pretending to be non skilled workers outside of the valley? How is it possible for the valley society to exist, extract the resources and then produce it's amazing technology, have enough food for the people to survive on, maintain the technology that keeps the valley running and hidden, when the elite "men of the mind" and vital inventors and producers are living in the real world as lowly day laborers 11 months out of the year? Once again, are the other lower positioned "men of the mind" undervalued in their new society? And other men like Eddie Willers at the end of the novel, are they just sacrificed to the looters and moochers because they didn't get the memo to "come to our idyllic mountain society where we value your work and live based on rational self interest"?
Some other of my frustrations with the novel are the premises that 1) the mass of society would allow the incompetence and ineptitude of such leaders for that long amount of time 2) that people would take on profit-seeking businesses and claim pride when they failed 3) that boards and presidents of profit seeking railroad companies would risk the financial well-being of their company to help a friend and rely on faith over judgment 3a) that such a president of a company could remain in power 4) that someone would still give $ to a moocher who begs for help yet openly curses you at the same time for being able to help them because you have the ability to do so 5) that all those successful industrialists are the ones who produced or earned their $$ 6) that any government assisted businessman is just a corrupt moocher/looter looking for favors and 6a) that any product he produces will be a failure 7) that ANYONE would give out loans to people based simply on need WITHOUT CONSIDERING qualifications or concrete business plans (I wouldn't give a loan to just any needy person, but I would to a poor person who went to college on scholarship and has a sound business idea but just needs a loan to achieve it) 8) that government assistance or ANY type of redistribution of wealth is evil, (I believe the idea to have governmental assistance programs available for needy populations that are statistically at-risk/poor/historically disenfranchised/previously discriminated against/etc. is not just to blindly give away according to need, but seek out those members of that subgroup of population who have a certain ability and motivation to break free from their poor position in society but just need a little help. I believe it's fair for those of us who were BORN with a certain amount of privilege or wealth (be it in the form of money, social connections, educational opportunities, or the strong health and support from our parents and family) to redistribute a reasonable amount of our monetary wealth or time to those members of society who were not BORN with the same privilege as ours. A "reasonable" amount would not be like the book (where companies are forced to operate at a loss to support other companies and "the general public") but where only a percentage of our productive profits (not all the profits, but just a PERCENTAGE of them that still encourages my seeking of profits and ALSO helps out others who have not had the benefit of a life like mine) would get redistributed.
It's not one or the other! It's not just me working only for my benefit or me working only for your benefit. It's working for myself first, and then also for you, so that WE collectively as society support each other as individuals and bring BOTH ourselves and each other up! Sheesh.
So...even though I have problems with the novel, I still thought it was worthy of reading. It's definitely a thought-provoking novel. It can get long winded and pedantic; it creates a society and a slew of characters that are exaggerated to prove a point but often become tiresome due to their hyperbolic nature; however, it is an intriguing read that tackles questions of society and its' nature, which gets you thinking. And that's a good thing. :)...less
"
|
to:
Christian Readers
— 246 members
— last activity 5 hours, 45 min ago