One of the like-minded geeks in Atlas Shrugged was Midas Mulligan, who (a) supplies the land for their base of operations and (b) was as brilliant a banker as Galt was an inventor. The miracle of compounded interest doesn’t just happen; it’s the result of making the right investments, and in Rand’s view that’s no different from making money by running a railroad or grilling a hamburger. (Or mining for copper or picking winners on the stock market – both of which Francisco d’Anconia excels at, and both of which get Rand’s praise).
Sure, she’s on about the guy who can build a better motor or a better x-ray machine. Sure, she talks up this farmer and that repairman at Galt’s Gulch. But again and again and again she talks up Midas Mulligan, who keeps picking winners and corrects anyone who thinks he’s gambling; he’s backing some entrepreneurs and turning down others, investing his depositors’ funds in Rearden Steel while refusing to loan a dime to the doomed car company that alienated John Galt.
(And that last part there sort of brings it all back around: the car company is a second-generation prospect, and the kids who inherit it run it impractically and make the whole thing go belly-up. Dagny Taggart can run a railroad; her brother loses money at it. Francisco is born to the same wealth as his siblings, but does ten times more with it. You can dispute Rand by claiming that doesn’t track with reality, but you can’t really fault her for not addressing it.)
I don’t see anywhere where Rand was against “cooperation”. Indeed the characters in Atlas Shrugged do cooperate with each other quite often to achieve a number of goals. What she is against is the form of cooperation expected from cults, nationalist governments or religeons where you are expected to contribute as much as you can for the greater good of the group.
These statements sort of echo the sentiments of Hank Reardon’s brother Phillip. In Atlas Shrugged, Phillip is “moocher” character potrayed as some sort of beatnik hipster. He is constantly railing against Hank’s ambition and wealth while constantly involved with half-baked revolutionary schemes. He is completely financially dependent on his brother, even while he criticizes him.
There is a reoccuring theme in Atlas Shrugged of what I call the “lazy intellectual”. Basically these are characters in the book who produce bad art or literature that no one wants or they are employed in various think tanks or institutes where they never seem to actually produce any ideas of value. They are paid by government grants and firmly believe they should continue to be allowed to pursue these interests even though they don’t seem to add any benefit to society. They are another version of “moocher”.
While the arts are important Rand did not believe that the rest of society should work so that some people could be free to pursue their crappy art. If you can make a living as an artist, good for you. Otherwise, paint on your own time with your own resources.
I am more curious about the fact that friends, acquaintances, and random strangers on the Internet, all agree that his analysis of Rand is nothing more than besmirching her, but they are all wrong and he is right.
Coming back around, just take a look at the last two pages of the book: sure, there’s Hank Rearden, figuring to do some productive metalwork with freight carried on those new locomotives John Galt will design for the Philly-to-NYC railroad Dagny Taggart will run, and there’s Midas Mulligan working on a plan of projected investments with a map and a column of figures, and there’s Francisco d’Anconia bent over sheets of paper while completing the drawing of a new smelter – but there’s also Richard Halley, playing his new concerto after all those years earning a living on the orchard (where, he points out, he wrote more than in any other period of his life). And noted actress Kay Ludlow is preparing for a comeback while her husband is reading Aristotle – sure as Ellis Wyatt, fresh from locating a previously-untapped supply of oil, is ready to go likewise.
Luci, though it’s already been mentioned, I’d like to chime in as well. I feel you are mistaking collectivism - forced work towards a common goal - with cooperation. We are cooperative down to our opposable thumbs. It is natural to work together in family units or social groups. Forced cooperation (collectivism) when helping those outside our “monkeysphere” is extremely unnatural, though practiced throughout the world since the advent of civilization some eight thousand odd years ago. And everyone complains about taxes.
We already know collectivism fails (cite: Soviet Union). Rand’s insight was one of recognizing that collectivism at it’s core is not only a failure of policy but one of ideas, of morals. Collectivism inverts the natural incentives for humans, punishes success, and rewards failure. It subsumes the individual in the community, and ultimately fails both.
I struggled with the Fountainhead, didn’t finish it, and eventually read Atlas Shrugged a few years later. I enjoyed the book for some of what it presented, mainly the praise of productivity. The novel is liberating in that it champions the individual, and the creation of wealth and success. Beyond some of the questionable aspects of Objectivism, Rand’s ideas (and ideals) are empowering and offer a defense for those that seek their own happiness.
BTW: I have heard that Ayn Rand strongly disapproved of the Libertarian Party, despite the apparent identity of its viewpoint with her own; but I have never understood why. Does anybody know?
I’m not sure either, but I suspect it had something to do with Murray Rothbard-- she disliked him and once you get on her wrong side, you are shunned. He was a leading figure in the Libertarian Party (was he the founder?), and so the bath water got thrown out with the baby, so to speak.
And I don’t think the notion of collectivism is an either/or, you must choose between Leninism and Rand. There are gradations of collectivism, just as there are gradations in “free market” economics.
A nation is a collective, and that’s all to the good, the purple mountain majesties, the redwood forests, all that good stuff, not yours, not mine but ours. Absolute collectivism, meaning the banishment of all private property, is patently absurd. But its opposite is no better, raising property rights above and beyond all the others, as if they were but embellishments around the crown jewel, property. Ms Rands Objectivism seems to me a simplistic and shallow “intellectual” apology for greed.
In the extreme case, offered only for analogy…if a man were to gull Congress into selling him the Black Hills so that he may level them for a giant NASCAR ring, I would most strenuously object, they are ours, and no bill of sale is going to change that.
A nation is, unavoidably, a collective, with the rights and responsibilities thereof. If America goes down the shitter, we all go together, and there are no first-class tickets on the Hellbound Train.
That’s interesting. I thoroughly enjoyed the Fountainhead but struggled mightily with Atlas Shrugged though ultimately came to a similar conclusion as yours.
I think Rand targets a strawman version of collectivism and I think Objectivism is incompatible with human nature (in the same, but opposite, way that Marxism is) but the Randian notions of honour and virtue and of a life well-lived are thoroughly admirable and inspiring.
After some more thought, I wanted to drop back in to add this: I think Rand’s work was - and still is - so successful because she attempted to provide a moral defense for self interest. In the west, Christianity in the religious sphere of human affairs and Marxism in the secular both provided moral arguments for altruism. To be morally good through these lenses, one had to care about one’s brother and sister, but not about oneself. Objectivism argues from a moral standpoint for self interest, and IMO (and the opinion of many others; hell Atlas Shrugged sells how many hundreds of thousands of copies every year?) does so quite successfully.
I have to respectfully but strongly disagree with that. There’s nothing in the Bible, for example, which says that one should not care about one’s self at all. It does talk about sacrifice, serving others, and so forth, but at no point does it say that one should not care about one’s self at all.
In other words, Christianity does allow for a measure of self-interest. It simply does not allow self-interest to be the overriding principle by which all decisions are made.
That’s a nice insight, but I’ll offer a competing one.
I think Rand’s work was - and still is - so successful because she highlighted a particular kind of virtuous living. We can all identify with the virtues that she described and some of us even admire them. Her genius was to suggest that those virtues alone could support a complex society.
That’s an appealing idea but ultimately, I fear, wishful thinking. It sold a lot of books though.
I’m curious what these actual numbers are. In these threads, Rand enthusiasts often make extreme claims about the numbers of copies of Atlas Shrugged that are sold annually - even making claims that it is an all-time best seller.
This CATO piece has a snippet of Neilsen Bookscan data that suggests a monthly rate of about 1,000 copies, with a couple of spikes up to 4,000 at most in a single month.
This Ayn Rand Institute piece claims annual sales of 77,000 up to 95,000 in the 90’s and a record of 130,000 in the 2000’s. That’s pretty good, but it isn’t earth shattering, and it isn’t in the hundreds of thousands annually, unless you want to be particular and say that 1.3 hundred k qualifies for “hundreds of thousands.” Color me suspicious about the Ayn Rand institute numbers - they may be a bit biased.
Anyone have more accurate numbers? (And I don’t trust Amazon’s ratings. We’ve discussed them in the past, and if you dig down, you find some really bizarre figures for books that couldn’t possibly be correct.)
Are you talking U.S. only or worldwide? The impression I have of Buckley’s comment that it was the largest selling novel in history and currently selling (as of a few years ago when the interview took place) 500,000 copies annually was that these were worldwide figures.
And I have to disagree with this. I wasn’t trying to say that Christian doctrine says one “should not care about one’s self at all.” But that doctrine does very much suggest that caring for others, giving to others, and generally leading an altruistic life is a more morally good and better than leading a selfish life. I don’t just disagree with you though, I think you are actually wrong:
Matthew 6:24 “No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money.”
Acts 20:35 In everything I did, I showed you that by this kind of hard work we must help the weak, remembering the words the Lord Jesus himself said: 'It is more blessed to give than to receive.
Proverbs 19:17 He who is kind to the poor lends to the LORD, and he will reward him for what he has done.
Deuteronomy 15:7-11 If there is a poor man among your brothers in any of the towns of the land that the LORD your God is giving you, do not be hardhearted or tightfisted toward your poor brother. 8 Rather be openhanded and freely lend him whatever he needs. 9 Be careful not to harbor this wicked thought: “The seventh year, the year for canceling debts, is near,” so that you do not show ill will toward your needy brother and give him nothing. He may then appeal to the LORD against you, and you will be found guilty of sin. 10 Give generously to him and do so without a grudging heart; then because of this the LORD your God will bless you in all your work and in everything you put your hand to. 11 There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore I command you to be openhanded toward your brothers and toward the poor and needy in your land.
Matthew 19:21 Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
That’s just a few of the many passages that extol altruism. It clearly is an important theme of Christianity. As I stated above, both Christianity and Marxism extol altruism; Objectivism (for whatever its worth) offers an alternative moral compass.
I wasn’t trying to say that Christian doctrine says one “should not care about one’s self at all.” But that doctrine does very much suggest that caring for others, giving to others, and generally leading an altruistic life is a more morally good and better than leading a selfish life. I don’t just disagree with you though, I think you are actually wrong: