Just trying to point out that this meandering monstrosity takes far more from the story than it adds, that it is directed not at a fictional society too stupid to cut a transmission line to a radio station but at a real audience willing to forgive any fictional transgression from their favorite author. I linked to the whole speech so that, when I say that no fictional society would listen to such an ego-ridden diatribe, this “We’re taking our ball and going home because you are not worthy of playing with us…and I’m going to spend over three hours making you listen me tell you why!” speech, people will understand exactly what I am talking about, and that I am not exaggerating .
You define the term “strike” as it is used in Galt’s Gulch, and then I’ll tell you my answer to your question. Why do you run from this very reasonable request? Agreeing on a standard definition is usually standard, is it not?
I listened to the entire thing via unabridged audio and can’t recall that was my impression, but then different strokes for different folks. To me, watching a sporting event in it’s entirety would be the equivalent to a root canal. Personally, I don’t see how the speech was disconnected from the rest of the story, nor do I think the speech can really be looked at rationally without the context of the story it’s part of. I suspect that if you did read the story you disliked it enough that you don’t really recall how all the parts worked together. I base this conjecture on an assumption that you did, in fact read it, and that since you seriously dislike the speech that it’s coloring your probably vague memories of the book from years ago.
None of this has seemingly anything to do with the question in the OP or with the assertions later in the thread about things like strikes. You seem to think that having the power to quit is not the same thing as a strike, and that somehow there is some special, magical leverage that strikers have in our world that they wouldn’t in GG (in the 30s) that precludes them from having a REAL strike…or something. I really have no idea what you are getting at or how you are making such distinctions (or, as noted, what those are or even mean), or what your current quibble is besides the continuing theme that you don’t like the book or the author. Flat out, since you claim to have read the book and leaving aside whatever you think about the speech, can people strike in Galt’s Gulch? It’s a simple yes or no answer, really. If no, what do you base that on?
It’s an absurd request. You talk about workers rights “in the outside world” as if there were one set of rights across the globe. German workers have more rights than American workers. If I asked a German if Americans had the right to strike, and he said “no”, he’d be wrong. Germans don’t own a monopoly on the definition of a strike any more than Americans do.
It would not be illegal to strike in GG. Period. If you want to argue that such a strike would be ineffective, that’s a different matter. Workers strike all the time in the US and if employers hire scabs, we don’t say that the workers aren’t on strike.
You are the one being asked the question…define your own damned terms. What does ‘strike’ mean to YOU, and how is it different from what folks in the book could or couldn’t do? Good grief.
Sticking to the U.S. for now(from Wiki)
So, anything like this in Galt’s Gulch?
Malform follows malfunction.
I read the book long ago, but I remember enjoying the speech. I enjoyed the one at the end of The Fountainhead even more.
Nope. Nothing like that. Is it your contention that workers striking for wage increases, reduced work hours or longer lunch breaks aren’t really striking because if they tried to strike for “unfair labor practices”, they could be fired?
Your cite simply says there are 2 types of strikes. It doesn’t say one is not a strike without the other. That seems to be something you are making up because… I don’t know why. Ayn Rand is a poppy-skirt so anything bad you say about her is OK, even if it’s not true?
This is not a small point. Critics—“fearers”—of Ayn Rand often point to “But it’s not real. The people are not real. No one can be like that.” Yet they have no problem with Frank Herbert, George Orwell, Ray Bradbury, Dr. Seuss, Salvador Dali, Pablo Picasso, etc.
It’s a novel, people. A work of art.
Man, I have no idea what you are talking about. Are you asking whether GG had the National Labor Relations Act, which IIRC was passed in the last 30’s? And that if they don’t, it’s not a ‘real’ strike? My WAG would be that they don’t, or, more accurately that it never came up in the authors mind as part of the story, since she felt that the government didn’t need to guarantee the ‘right’ to strike in a certain way (and define all of the terms in excruciating detail), and instead it was up to them to do what they thought was best.
So, assuming that GG didn’t have the NLRA, does that mean you believe that workers couldn’t strike in GG? Or that if they did, that means it wasn’t a REAL strike, and instead was something entirely different because no one had sat down and explained what a ‘person’, ‘employer’, ‘employee’ etc actually was?
Just to be clear, I think there are plenty of valid criticism of the literary worth of the novel. The speech, for one, is tough to swallow for a lot of folks. But to criticize it because it isn’t realistic is just mind blowing. It’s not supposed to be realistic.
Same goes for Objectivism. I am not an Objectivist, and I think that philosophy fails on a number of important points. But you don’t need to make up shit about it to criticize it.
Well, it is a novel.
I don’t criticize the speech so much for it’s realism-I criticize it because it doesn’t seem to be aimed at the intended audience she created in the book. It flies in the face of all that has been claimed in this thread about the society in the book being much different than ours, because very little(if anything) in that speech doesn’t pertain to the real world society of the time she wrote the book. If the story she wrote was about the society she actually lived in, the speech would fit right in , but it doesn’t seem to be addressing any concerns that pertain to that fictional society and not ours. Surely in those three plus hours of speechifying something would have popped up uniquely concerning some aspect of of that dystopian society that is some much different than ours?
I disagree. The speech was an abstract exploration of the rights of the individual. It could relate to any society, including the one in the book, but especially the one in the book since it was a society that had deemed the individual to have no rights, except as part of a collective.
But even if you’re right, that’s a pretty weak excuse to try and argue that the society in the book doesn’t matter to other events that happen in the book.
Exactly. And if folks wanted to criticize what’s actually in the book(s) then that would be fine. We could have a meaningful discussion. As I’ve said, I liked fountainhead more than I did AS…and any number of books more than either. And I can definitely see how a lot of the theme and concepts would rub folks the wrong way.
But the stuff being spewed in this thread are ludicrous, especially considering that few people doing the spewing have bothered to actually read the thing, and are merely spewing their impression of what they think is in there, based on their own ignorance and probably 2nd and 3rd hand snippets.
Totally disagree and it’s hard for me to understand how if you read the book you could not see how it connects directly to the story.
We agree on all points.
You’re missing the point, or I am. Friend Cznark is pointing out that the speech is given in the context of the fictional society Galt allegedly lives in, a society so depraved and enervated that the boycotting by a few thousand (?) people is all it takes to deliver the death blow. A terminal civilization, spiraling around the drain, desperate measures called for. And this guy…who has the power to commandeer the airwaves!..wants to talk moral philosophy and the sacred rights of the individual.
Not where to maybe get some food. Or ammo. Gee, thanks, John, food for thought. So much better than just plain old food.
Everything was already crashing down, he found the fuse for the bomb under the building that everybody lives in. He lit it, and now he wants to offer advice about sanity and ethical behavior? Dire wolves roam the streets carrying away children and the elderly, so this is the appropriate response?
This is the smartest guy on the planet, an electrical engineering Einstein just for warmups. The patient is terminal, so he stands on the air hose for three hours and lectures him on hygiene and flossing.
The plot device is a miraculous person with extraordinary powers that totally fucks things up and expects that people will want to listen to him ramble on for hours.
- Douche ex machina.*
So, you’re saying it’s not realistic, is that right?