|
The author (Ayn Rand) makes a case for the value of individual responsibility and rewards, but it's got serious holes. We do have too many ill-advised government handout programs, which often do more to undermine the self-reliance of the recipients. Some people are hit by tragedy and we should feel some obligation to help them in a way that gets them back to self-reliance as quickly as possible.2.
She would have us believe that all needy people are lazy leeches and communists. Research shows, however, that people will often work harder and more joyously when working under a "social contract" rather than a "business contract". For instance:1.
Her "ideal" world would ensure every act, down to the smallest gesture of kindness, is financially rewarded. This simply isn't true. Our outcomes do not always reward our effort.
Her world would be stiff and dark.I do believe we would be better to move closer toward her view of government's role, but she goes much too far. She, unfortunately, doesn't provide a viable alternative in this book.It's too bad she took such an un-nuanced approach because, philosophically, I think she's in a better space than today's public-pandering politicians.
My recommendation is that you skip the story and go straight to the explanation of her political philosophy at the end of the book, after the story. She's so dogmatic that she comes across as preachy and the book absolutely lacks nuance.
It was far, far, far too long. What a terrible read.
In fact, she was more interested in conveying her political philosophy than in developing and writing a good story. She's a terrible writer.
And she did a poor job developing the story. She hits you over the head with her beliefs throughout the story.
What a waste of tons of paper.
This book has had thousands of reviews, so I can add no more. However at 1000+ pages, the cliff notes and specifically John Galt's chapter (speech) are what is really worth reading. Push the other 920 pages off to the side and study Galt's speech.It doesn't get much better than this.
I'm very pleased with Amazon.com. I will continue to order books fromAmazon.com Very pleased with all the orders.
Some of her ideas are conducive to what has led us to ruin, but (Alan Greenspan excluded) they can't be the inspiration for the neocons. Studying Rand and her ideas lead me to believe that she was not exactly what these liberals make her out to be, but I knew that I needed to read Atlas to see her put her thoughts into fiction before I could confirm that.I was right, of course. She admits her philosophy is an ideal one, centered around what man ought to be. Well, this is why it's important to read Atlas Shrugged, because in Atlas she demonstrates her belief that regulated Capitalism also will fail because people are stupid. I find it fascinating how much inspiration Greenspan got from Rand. No need to read The Fountainhead.
However, a philosophy for the real world is likely to have more impact and success, and I have one of those too. Obviously, Rand is most criticized for her advocacy of Laissez-Faire Capitalism. If I overlaid my ideal philosophy on hers, there wouldn't be much deviation. Rand was a conservative, not a neocon. I also skimmed through several scenes of unnecessary drama between characters I didn't care about, such as Lillian and Cherryl. My favorite is a theme from the John Galt speech.the angry ranting directed toward the masses who wreck the world. Concisely, she was an intelligent and talented person who was limited by her eccentricities. In fact, I think it's essential to have an ideal framework of thought.
This distinction is why she is not a neocon and would not advocate what we're seeing today, and the people who think they're liberals who vilify her ought to pay attention to this.As for the rest of Ayn Rand's philosophy, I agree with those who say that she's not a particularly consequential thinker. A friend who read both Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead in the early '80s introduced me to Rand via discussion over the Christmas holiday, so I bought the 50th Anniversary edition at B & N; I finished the book today. I found Rand to be rather interesting, yet flawed. She clearly understood that people are stupid and that Communism was corrupt, so how could she come to believe that Capitalism would be immune and thus ideal.
What apparently happened was enough gullible people fell for it and helped her get where she wasn't going without their assistance (okay, so I contributed $8.99 to buy Atlas). She was a strong-willed woman who was highly influenced by her childhood and grew to be talented, artistic, dramatic, emotional, odd, dark, hypocritical, elitist, and somewhere between confident - narcissistic. I believe that Rand would find Bush and the gang to be horrible people who practice the art of poison unto what she would consider effective government and policies. I understand the contempt for those who don't live up to their potential all too well, and I wish I could fix them or eliminate them.
A few of my thoughts toward Ayn Rand follow.Ayn Rand had a philosophy, but was not a philosopher. I can take very limited melodrama, and melodrama involving minor characters is too much of an irritant.I studied the basics of Rand's character and philosophy before reading Atlas. What I do believe is that if Rand's life continued and she were alive today, she would simply say that the deregulated Capitalism we've had so far is a miserable failure because of the corrupt idiots who have executed it, and until the best and brightest only rule, failure is inevitable. Its main fault mainly consists of the 176-page period between Dagny's return to "hell" and the beginning of Galt's speech (pages 747-923), within which little important takes place, and I thus quickly skimmed through. It seems to me that Rand's propensities for drama, fantasy, and narcissism (plus perhaps more things) led her to believe that she was a big-time thinker and ought to be recognized as such and accomplish great things accordingly. She may have been obsessive or had a psychological disorder.
And when I get disgusted at them, I find I, too, place zero worth on their lives. It's time to shelve Atlas. I give Atlas Shrugged 3 stars for its overall quality as a serious and compelling novel. Page 1070 (the final page) of the 50th Anniversary edition I read includes the following quote: "I have always lived by the philosophy I present in my books---and it has worked for me as it has worked for my characters." To put it mildly, significant selectivity would be required for that to be true; Rand did not consistently live up to the ideals of her philosophy.So, I've done the Rand thing. Really, she ended up making herself believe that she lived up to her philosophy as well. How much is a result of the governments she had experienced up until 1957.
Maybe the next time I'm alone in my car and a chance to rant appears, I'll try to say what John Galt would say. How much of that is fantasy. And my interest only grew the more I read people on liberal blogs trashing her like she was the original neocon, from whom Cheney and Rumsfeld and Bush hatched, destined to destroy the world as they have. I rant too, Ayn. Does it not seem that the most gaping flaw in her philosophy is that she did not appear to understand that all economic systems become corrupt because people are stupid. Her answer is that the only way to attain successful Laissez-Faire Capitalism is to let the masses kill each other and allow the world to sink into chaos, to be saved by a ruling class of the most brilliant and capable people alive, who will become the ruling class, install Laissez-Faire Capitalism, and rebuild the world into utopia.
I'll happily take with me the parts that resonated, though.
|
