# Ayn Rand's philosophy on the middle and working classes **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 11, 2009, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rands-philosophy-on-the-middle-and-working-classes/485381 "2009-02-11T16:26:02Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2009, 4:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rands-philosophy-on-the-middle-and-working-classes/485381/81 "2009-02-12T04:32:28Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Am I seriously the only one in this thread who actually read this book? She doesn’t put people into those three classes. Workers for instance would be refined into those who are experts at what they do, those who do a good job and take pride in their work and those who just sort of get by. It’s a continuous scale as opposed to a rigid caste system. > > Think of Red in Fountainhead or Eddie in Atlas. Or the engineer for the train on the John Galt line. There are a lot of examples of an aristocracy of excellence among workers as well as among the elite leaders…and a similar level of appreciation of that excellence from Rand. > > -XT Separating people into groups doesn’t necessarily mean that these are rigid organizations. Whether she would have viewed it as triangle where you could be anywhere between any one of those points, or more as a linear scale with thief and entrepreneur at opposing ends (and grunt-workers somewhere in the middle as may be), I couldn’t say, but I think it is safe to say that she does fairly well consider most people to be honest, hard workers, that more follow than lead. And yes I did read Atlas Shrugged and quite enjoyed and appreciated it. If you have a different interpretation of it than me that’s fine, but like that’s just your _opinion_ man. ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2009, 4:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rands-philosophy-on-the-middle-and-working-classes/485381/82 "2009-02-12T04:33:39Z")
> [@erislover](#): > > The point to make is that we don’t need to defend our stuff ourselves, we can contract with others to help us in this task, just like we don’t need to know how to create steel and have our own refinery to design a superior engine, or master economy of phrasing to create a speech that millions of people will read. Somehow minarchists feel that people are masters of everything right up until they have to defend their property, at which point they are incompetent and require a government, but defending property is a service like any other service. I don’t understand the inconsistency, and never have. I have never heard any libertarian say that “people are masters of everything.” I have never heard any libertarian say that people should not contract with others to do things they themselves cannot; indeed, free trade is near the heart of the philosophy. I have never heard any libertarian say that people are incompetent at defending their property; on the contrary, the right of self-defense is very highly valued. I have never heard any libertarian deny that hiring someone to defend your property is a service, whether the state or a private security firm. I HAVE heard strong libertarians say they would prefer privately-contracted security services to state-run police forces. I think you may have straw man there. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2009, 4:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rands-philosophy-on-the-middle-and-working-classes/485381/83 "2009-02-12T04:38:07Z")
I think you may be mistaking this for a “erl hates libertarians” series of comments rather than a “I’m an ex Randista” series of comments. Hence the remarks about John Guilt, engines, and speeches in need of trimming. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2009, 4:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rands-philosophy-on-the-middle-and-working-classes/485381/84 "2009-02-12T04:44:39Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > I agree that it’s possible to come away with a different understanding…but Hentor was claiming some things that are fundamentally and diametrically different than any reading of the book I’ve EVER seen (like claiming the book is about a caste system instead of a meritocracy…that’s, well, just crazy, and even a cursory understanding of the book would show that to be flawed). It sounds like you are arguing that my individual interpretation of Atlas Shrugged is flawed by appeal to the masses of other critiques. Let’s see if the irony of that sinks in. Actually, I’d be quite surprised if I was really the first to suggest that the meritocracy described in Atlas Shrugged is not really a meritocracy, despite her intentions and the frantic assertions of adherents as to what the TRUE CONTENTS of the book are. ETA: Here’s a fun take on the book, just for grins: [http://www.thevalve.org/go/valve/article/randy\_atlas\_shruggy\_atlas/](http://www.thevalve.org/go/valve/article/randy_atlas_shruggy_atlas/). ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2009, 4:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rands-philosophy-on-the-middle-and-working-classes/485381/85 "2009-02-12T04:45:39Z")
> [@erislover](#): > > I think you may be mistaking this for a “erl hates libertarians” series of comments rather than a “I’m an ex Randista” series of comments. Hence the remarks about John Guilt, engines, and speeches in need of trimming. That actually makes it all even more confusing to me. I’ll consider myself whooshed. ---
**Author:** ![panache45](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/panache45/32/64_2.png) [@panache45](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/panache45)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2009, 5:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rands-philosophy-on-the-middle-and-working-classes/485381/86 "2009-02-12T05:01:22Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > If a specific group of people (the elites) can check out of society, and society would thus fall apart, that **must** mean that nobody else left in society would be able to step up to take over. There is some special barrier between society’s elites and the rest of the peons. Oh sweet Jebus, I can’t take this shit anymore. Rand never used the word “elite” except in the sense of referring to people who chose to be responsible for their own competence and their own minds and their own lives. It wasn’t just the “elite” who went on strike, it was truck drivers and factory workers and teachers, people from all walks of life. And if an industrialist went on strike and someone else took over (and yes, this was covered many times in Atlas), that person would have to perform or go out of business. And if he could fill the shoes of the previous owner, he too would eventually go on strike. What eventually happened is that there was nobody left to move up. All the middle management and workers had left. The “barrier” was not some sort of caste system, but competence. And if you think her “pride in doing one’s best work” is too much like Communism’s “do your best for the benefit of society,” read the chapter on the Twentieth Century Motor Company. You’ll never make that mistake again. If you’re going to criticize a book and its author, at least get your facts right. ---
**Author:** ![Madgolf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d6d6ee/32.png) [@Madgolf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Madgolf)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2009, 5:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rands-philosophy-on-the-middle-and-working-classes/485381/87 "2009-02-12T05:12:46Z")
In Shrugged, Francisco made it a point to sneak away without funds from his Kennedy-esque summer compound for months at a time to work as a grunt on the railroads and other assorted blue collar jobs. Foundry worker, deck swabber, etc. He never let on to his silver spoon lot in life, even though some of his employers were suspicious of his “different” attitude. He had a lesser speech on why he slummed around and what it accomplished. Lesser speech because his real speech was on the concept of money: [http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=1826](http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=1826) I don’t think I need to add a spoiler box to hint to what happens to a Rand character when they take their destiny in their own hands. ---
**Author:** ![Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/13edae/32.png) [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stranger_On_A_Train)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2009, 5:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rands-philosophy-on-the-middle-and-working-classes/485381/88 "2009-02-12T05:18:32Z")
A word of advice to the o.p.: read _The Fountainhead_, which is just as pedantic and didactic but a fuck of a lot shorter and less painful. I wasted three weeks of my life reading the literary abortion that is _Atlas Shrugged_ only to come to the conclusion that all Rand was doing was erecting strawmen and then casting them onto a pitchfork without any comprehension of actual business practice, technology, or human psychology. As for Rand’s philosophy of the working class, it was (as described above) that they should be happy to be serving the elite leadership and fall in line with whatever self-proclaimed visionaries demand of them…which is suspiciously close to the philosophy of the fascist and authoritarian socialist societies that Rand so derided. Of course, Rand’s heroes were all intellectual and moralistic leaders, and villains were all pandering, ethically void boobies, and so, in the world of her creation, justified her sophomoric ideals. I’d rather read some of those atrocious _Star Wars_ franchise novels than another Ayn Rand book again. Stranger ---
**Author:** ![panache45](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/panache45/32/64_2.png) [@panache45](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/panache45)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2009, 5:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rands-philosophy-on-the-middle-and-working-classes/485381/89 "2009-02-12T05:42:02Z")
> [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](#): > > As for Rand’s philosophy of the working class, it was (as described above) that they should be happy to be serving the elite leadership and fall in line with whatever self-proclaimed visionaries demand of them… Except that she never said anything like that, and would have condemned anyone who had. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2009, 5:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rands-philosophy-on-the-middle-and-working-classes/485381/90 "2009-02-12T05:47:33Z")
[QUOTE=Stranger On A Train] As for Rand’s philosophy of the working class, it was (as described above) that they should be happy to be serving the elite leadership and fall in line with whatever self-proclaimed visionaries demand of them…which is suspiciously close to the philosophy of the fascist and authoritarian socialist societies that Rand so derided. [/QUOTE] In Atlas Shrugged, Galt is the son of a garage mechanic (I looked it up…so much for my supposed creds as a Rand ‘fanatic’). He works his way through college and goes to work for a car company as a junior engineer. How exactly does this fit in with the whole ‘they should be happy to be serving the elite leadership and fall in line with whatever self-proclaimed visionaries demand of them’ theme? In Fountainhead both the protagonist AND the antagonist (Roark and Toohey) come from very humble means. Hell, even Peter Keating (and Wynand) comes from humble beginnings. I guess I’m not getting this whole working class needs to just shut up and soldier on theme here that others are seeing…or this caste system thingy either. It’s almost like you guys read a different book than I did. Enough people have stated that they are seeing this stuff in the book though that I guess I’m forced to concede that, while it’s incomprehensible to me, I guess it’s there. Sort of like looking at a photo…one person sees a house and white picket fence, others are seeing a dwarf with a monkey, a nun and a donkey and a bottle of astroglide next too a swing… C’est la vie. -XT ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2009, 6:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rands-philosophy-on-the-middle-and-working-classes/485381/91 "2009-02-12T06:03:44Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Missed this (though furt answered it already): > > As furt said, definitely not…in fact one of her themes is that those with merit are in many cases thwarted from rising to the top by a sometimes indifferent society. In Fountainhead one of the greatest sculptors of his time pretty much languishes in obscurity…and after getting his big chance is basically panned by a group of people who definitely don’t want people of merit or ability to rise to the top. The main character also languishes for years doing either menial jobs or taking architect jobs for gas stations and the like…while a person of much less ability is lifted to the top of his profession, given the best jobs (with an emphasis on ‘given’), fame, fortune, etc etc. > -XT Okay - then why couldn’t this bunch take over? And I was echoing some of you when I said creative - I should have said supercompetent, I suppose. Many organizations have hidden talent - consider Harry Truman, for example. ---
**Author:** ![Madgolf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d6d6ee/32.png) [@Madgolf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Madgolf)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2009, 6:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rands-philosophy-on-the-middle-and-working-classes/485381/92 "2009-02-12T06:04:54Z")
> [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](#): > > … all Rand was doing was erecting strawmen … > > … they should be happy to be serving … Serving is a very bad word to Objectivists. We give according to a moral rationale. “I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.” - John Galt The characters who did live to serve suffered tremendously in every one of her works. One would have to conjure a strawman to even _think_ of equating happiness and serving in a Rand work. She did publish over 25 works… many quite long. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2009, 6:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rands-philosophy-on-the-middle-and-working-classes/485381/93 "2009-02-12T06:08:43Z")
> [@panache45](#): > > Rand never used the word “elite” except in the sense of referring to people who chose to be responsible for their own competence and their own minds and their own lives. It wasn’t just the “elite” who went on strike, it was truck drivers and factory workers and teachers, people from all walks of life. And if an industrialist went on strike and someone else took over (and yes, this was covered many times in Atlas), that person would have to perform or go out of business. And if he could fill the shoes of the previous owner, he too would eventually go on strike. What eventually happened is that there was nobody left to move up. All the middle management and workers had left. The “barrier” was not some sort of caste system, but competence. Sorry, but the mere size of the numbers involved here makes it clear that the strikers necessarily consist of a relatively small elite, rather than large swathes of the middle and working classes. Yes, it’s a **meritocratic** elite rather than an elite of wealth or social position alone, but it still depends on the idea that society’s survival hinges on a **small** and irreplaceably gifted set of disproportionately valuable individuals. Consider, just for starters, that the chief strikers are concealed in a single remote valley in Colorado. Clearly, we’re not talking an alternative society and underground economy of tens of millions of people here. The premise is that it takes only a comparatively small number of key actors to disintegrate an entire large industrial economy just by withdrawing their participation. And that premise assumes that the number of honest and capable people who do the chief work of sustaining an economic system is comparatively small. Moreover, it assumes that if they drop out, even though they are comparatively few in number, there will not be enough honest and capable people left to take over their responsibilities. Yes, those are elitist assumptions. Sure, they adhere to a **meritocratic** brand of elitism, claiming that what makes the elite so precious is its talent and character, rather than merely hereditary position or money or power. But they’re still promoting the fundamentally elitist idea that the people who really matter to the success of a society are a comparatively tiny percentage of the population, and the rest of the population is incapable of filling their shoes if the need arises. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2009, 6:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rands-philosophy-on-the-middle-and-working-classes/485381/94 "2009-02-12T06:21:56Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > I guess I’m not getting this whole working class needs to just shut up and soldier on theme here that others are seeing…or this caste system thingy either. It’s almost like you guys read a different book than I did. I think it’s the different interpretations of the word “elite” that I mentioned above that are confusing you. You’re quite right that Rand is **not** promoting or advocating any kind of hereditary elite of wealth or power. But her meritocracy of talent and ability is such a small subset of the population, and its members are portrayed as so superior to the average person in terms of integrity, ability and achievement, that it’s a _de facto_ elite. “These few and precious people are fundamentally irreplaceable, and without them the very fabric of our society would collapse.” That’s elitist thinking, whether the “few and precious people” you’re referring to are the titled aristocrats, the moneyed plutocrats, or the heroic noble band of “strikers of the mind”. ---
**Author:** ![Madgolf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d6d6ee/32.png) [@Madgolf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Madgolf)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2009, 6:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rands-philosophy-on-the-middle-and-working-classes/485381/95 "2009-02-12T06:23:51Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > The premise is that it takes only a comparatively small number of key actors to disintegrate an entire large industrial economy just by withdrawing their participation. You are neglecting to point out that the government first stripped every single key industrial character of their effective participation first. The key actors gave up fighting the government. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2009, 6:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rands-philosophy-on-the-middle-and-working-classes/485381/96 "2009-02-12T06:39:10Z")
> [@Madgolf](#): > > You are neglecting to point out that the government first stripped every single key industrial character of their effective participation first. Which is just part of the same elitist fantasy. Now, I don’t want to be unduly harsh about the “fantasy” issue here, because of course Rand didn’t intend her books to be Zola-esque realist novels, so no fair criticizing them for being unrealistic. But my point is that the “unrealism” is of a fundamentally elitist nature. These “key industrial characters” are so few, and so at odds with their society, that despite their great individual talent, (in most cases) wealth, and crucial economic activity, a structurally democratic state is somehow able to “strip” them of their “effective participation”. This is an elitist mindset: the people who “really count” are few, despised and persecuted. Society as a whole is irredeemably degenerate, enslaved to collectivist dishonesty and greed, and a small band of heroic individuals must resort to catastrophic measures in order to save rationality and freedom for the future. In other words, the vast majority of people in the society are considered incapable of saving themselves or fixing the broken parts of their system through democratic means. It requires massive economic collapse masterminded by a few, well, masterminds to bring about the necessary changes. In other words, society must be rescued and rebuilt by a small elite group. This is, by its very nature, elitist thinking, whether you agree with its philosophy or not. ---
**Author:** ![Madgolf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d6d6ee/32.png) [@Madgolf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Madgolf)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2009, 6:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rands-philosophy-on-the-middle-and-working-classes/485381/97 "2009-02-12T06:51:53Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > a structurally democratic state is somehow able to “strip” them of their “effective participation”. Francisco D had his mines nationalized by the Mexican government. Hank Reardon was hobbled with a full time government “liason” who was, IMHO, the second most detestable character in the book. I’ll revisit this thread when in the real world the US federal government institutes global warming restrictions and standards, crippling progressive taxes in the name of redistribution of wealth, and promote insane tort lawsuits that interfere with major industry in the USA so much so that the current batch of CEOs decide to give up on honest production and rather concentrate on fluffing their nests quickly and destructively. Oh hai! Here I am already. ---
**Author:** ![Madgolf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d6d6ee/32.png) [@Madgolf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Madgolf)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2009, 6:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rands-philosophy-on-the-middle-and-working-classes/485381/98 "2009-02-12T06:58:35Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > In other words, the vast majority of people in the society are considered incapable of saving themselves or fixing the broken parts of their system through democratic means. Speaking as an objectivist, fixing broken parts of the system is not supposed to be the role of government thus it may, perhaps, have not been addressed to your liking. Providing an arena of justice is the role of government, not orchestrating anything. All fixing of the broken parts of the system ended up with failed power grabs by the moochers. You can turn on the news and see it happening in real time if you so like. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2009, 7:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rands-philosophy-on-the-middle-and-working-classes/485381/99 "2009-02-12T07:07:41Z")
> [@Madgolf](#): > > I’ll revisit this thread when in the real world the US federal government institutes global warming restrictions and standards, crippling progressive taxes in the name of redistribution of wealth, and promote insane tort lawsuits that interfere with major industry in the USA so much so that the current batch of CEOs decide to give up on honest production and rather concentrate on fluffing their nests quickly and destructively. Oh hai! Here I am already. 😕 Regulating pollution is a bad thing? Top-bracket income tax rates of less than 40% are “crippling”? Dishonest and destructive CEOs should be blamed on the government? I think this clearly illustrates the disconnect between Randian thinking and more mainstream, reality-based views of economic and social structures. Thus presented, Objectivism comes across as not a coherent political philosophy but rather a self-justifying emotional fantasy of victimization. ---
**Author:** ![F.U.Shakespeare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/aca169/32.png) [@F.U.Shakespeare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/F.U.Shakespeare)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2009, 9:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rands-philosophy-on-the-middle-and-working-classes/485381/100 "2009-02-12T09:40:34Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Oh, I don’t know…because it generated billions of dollars in revenue and provided hundreds of thousands (or more) jobs both directly and in related industries? It changed the entire face of computing and business? Little things like that? > > -XT This touches on an implied tenet of objectivism that IMO is, if nothing else, outdated: that if there were no Microsoft/Bill Gates, that no other aspiring industry captains would have come forward and developed the technology that improved our lives. This may be related to the meme that inventions are solo efforts, when the reality is that most inventions are small improvements on existing designs. The irreplaceable man applied to industry, if you will. In my 20+ years work as an engineer, I have seen very few such visionaries whose ideas directly made major efforts happen. More often, success results from charismatic salesmen types who convince a critical mass of people that their plan is best. The ‘ideas’ are often buried several layers down from the people whose name is on them. Bill Gates is a good example: while he did have facility with the actual code, the most important part of his success was probably the concept of software licensing, and getting others to agree to it. A good idea? Sure. Genius? Maybe. No one elses would have thought of it (or a competing plan)? Highly doubtful. The adulation Rand heaps on ‘leaders’ is more appropriate for the small subset of truly out-of-the-box thinkers and doers whose breakthroughs might not have occurred (at least for a LONG time) if they’d never lived. It’s hard to come up with many of them, at least that everyone agrees on. As has already been suggested, such people in positions of leadership in industry may have been more numerous in Rand’s era. This was before _The Organization Man_. I bristle when I hear self-stroking pointy-haired manager types declare that we need to encourage ‘leaders’ in our society. Leaders today are the ones who step up and try to run things that nerds build. If they didn’t, there’d be others clamoring for the rewards and the perks. To any leaders want to go on strike, I would quote Judge Smales in _Caddyshack_: “The world needs ditchdiggers too”. IMO, more important is that we encourage **competence** (which I’m betting Rand would have had no problem with). If we focused more on competence (and maybe, less on bullshit-artistry?) in the people who are selected to lead, we’d be better off than we are now. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rands-philosophy-on-the-middle-and-working-classes/485381.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayn-rands-philosophy-on-the-middle-and-working-classes/485381.md?page=6)