Defending Capitalism against Ayn Rand

 | 

The titles that Ayn Rand assigned to the three parts of Atlas Shrugged proclaim her insistence that logical contradictions cannot exist in reality. By contrast, the title of the magnum opus of the ultimate charlatan in Atlas Shrugged, Simon Pritchett, is The Metaphysical Contradictions of the Universe. Francisco d’Anconia and Hugh Akston explain to Dagny Taggart that whenever someone thinks he has encountered a contradiction, he must check his premises, and he will find that one of them is wrong (I.9, 7, 10).1

In this essay, I will follow d’Anconia’s and Akston’s advice. I will show that a fundamental contradiction pervades Atlas Shrugged because Rand failed to check her premises. She thought that the heroes she created were exemplars of pure, uncorrupted capitalism. In fact, the heroes she created in Atlas Shrugged came from her sense of life, which was not only un-capitalist but anti-capitalist. I will also show that this contradiction is extremely fortunate because it illuminates why capitalism is the most efficient and humane economic system ever implemented.

Rand often emphasized the importance of a person’s “sense of life” and of art as its expression (e.g., Rand 1975: 31, 33, 44). She defined her sense of life and its artistic expression most clearly in an essay she wrote on Victor Hugo (1975: 153–61). In it she said, “Victor Hugo is the greatest novelist in world literature” because his characters are “a race of giants,” who are not concerned with “penny ante.” “‘Grandeur’ is the one word that names the leitmotif . . . of all of Hugo’s novels — and of his sense of life.”

The heroes Rand created in Atlas Shrugged came from her sense of life, which was not only un-capitalist but anti-capitalist.

In Atlas Shrugged, Rand created heroes who embodied her sense of life and described how such heroes would fulfill their heroic natures if they engaged in economic activities. She thought that the sum of their economic activities and interactions provides a template of what laissez-faire capitalism would be like. She was wrong. When the heroes who embody her sense of life engage in economic activities, they function like Communist administrators, not capitalist businessmen.2

To paraphrase Rand, “Grandeur is the one word that names” the sense of life of Communist economies. They had no concern with anything “penny ante.” In the 1980s, when the economy of the Soviet Union was disintegrating, it was producing between 1.5 and two times more steel and cement than the United States and generating more electricity; it also had 2.5 times more machine tools. However, buttons, clothespins, babies’ pacifiers, and thermometers were always extremely difficult to find in the Soviet Union (Shmelev and Popov 1989: 82, 132, 144). Toilet paper and toilet seats were such rare and precious commodities that when McDonald’s opened a restaurant in Moscow, in 1990, its employees had to guard its restrooms to prevent customers stealing toilet paper and toilet seats (Goldman 1991: 166). The Soviet Union’s heroic economy also did not provide contraceptives or a single practical guide to contraception. As a result, Soviet women averaged at least four legal abortions during their lives; and the average was higher in the non-Muslim regions of the Soviet Union. In addition, large numbers of illegal abortions were performed. Anesthetics could be obtained only by a large bribe (Feshbach and Friendly 1992: 208–9).

In Rand’s novel The Fountainhead, the villain, Ellsworth Toohey, completely destroys Catherine Halsey’s soul, and the visible sign of her corruption is that her mouth has adapted to giving orders, “not big orders or cruel orders; just mean little ones — about plumbing and disinfectants” (IV.10). Toohey has turned her into the opposite of a Communist. The Communists gave big, cruel orders and had no concern with mean little considerations. The heroes of Atlas Shrugged are heroic because, like Communist bureaucrats, they produce or maintain impressive products, not mean little ones. It would be unimaginable for a Rand hero to be a manufacturer of “penny ante” products, such as disposable baby diapers, menstrual tampons, or dependable contraceptives. But these distinctively 20th-century inventions improved the quality of life immeasurably by freeing people from preoccupation with brute, animal existence.

Most services would be included among “mean little” occupations. The Communists’ heroic obsession with production caused them to ignore services, which, with a few exceptions, they did not even include in their gross domestic product statistics. In fact, Marxists always used the term “the means of production” as a synonym for “the economy.” In modern capitalist countries, most businesspeople provide services. With one exception that I will discuss below, the only service that a hero in Atlas Shrugged provides is running railroads. This is clearly not a “mean little” occupation, and it was one of the few services that the Soviet Union included in its gross domestic product statistics (weight of freight times kilometers carried).

Moreover, Rand ignored all services in her representation of history (1963: 10–57) as a battle between Attila and the Witch Doctor and their antithesis, the Producer. Indeed, her practice of using “industrialist” as a synonym for businessperson excludes businesspeople who produce “penny ante” products, along with those who provide services. In his long speech in Atlas Shrugged, John Galt (i.e., Ayn Rand) says, “Productiveness is your acceptance of morality . . . productive work is the process by which man’s consciousness controls his existence, a constant process of . . .  shaping matter to fit one’s purpose, of translating an idea into physical form, of remaking the earth in the image of one’s values;” and, “the industrialists, the conquerors of matter” “have produced all the wonders of humanity’s brief summer” (III.7).

It would be unimaginable for a Rand hero to be a manufacturer of disposable diapers, tampons, or dependable contraceptives.

It is true that the great philosopher Hugh Akston owns a diner and cooks its food, which he does with extraordinary skill, making “the best-cooked food she [Dagny] had ever tasted” (I.10). However, Rand does not let this fact affect her conceptualization of productive work when Galt tells Dagny, “We take nothing but the lowliest jobs and we produce by the effort of our muscles” (III.1).3

In her short story “The Simplest Thing in the World” (1975: 173-85), Rand depicts a writer of fiction who cannot make a living because he has the same sense of life as Rand. The writer decides he has to create the type of story that will sell: “a simple, human story,” which consists of “lousy bromides.” “It mustn’t have any meaning,” and its characters must be petty because “[s]mall people are safe.” However, he is incapable of writing such a story. Every time he tries, his sense of life thwarts his conscious efforts, and he starts composing a story about heroes. The reason, as Rand explains in her introduction, is that his “sense of life directs . . . and controls his creative imagination.” To exemplify this fact, he begins to write “a story about a middle-aged millionaire who tries to seduce a poor young working girl.” He is “a big tycoon who owns a whole slew of five-and tens [i.e., discount stores].” But the author cannot write this story. As he develops the story in his mind, his sense of life makes him forget about the girl and transform the villain into a hero. As part of the transformation, he says to himself, “to hell with the five-and-ten!” The hero now builds ships because he is driven by “a great devotion to a goal.” He is motivated by “a great driving energy . . . the principle of creation itself. It’s what makes everything in the world. Dams and skyscrapers and transatlantic cables.” “[H]e wants to work — not to make money, just to work, just to fight” (emphasis added). So, an author with Ayn Rand’s sense of life could not make the hero of his works a retailer, no matter how successful he might be; not even Sam Walton, who founded Walmart and built it into the company with the greatest revenue of any company in the world.

Because the Soviets had the same sense of life as the author in this short story (i.e., the same as Rand), they were extremely proud of the enormous hydroelectric dams they built, and their retailing was horribly inefficient. In the Soviet Union, people had to wait in long lines for any purchase. If someone had time to spare, he would wait in a line to buy something he did not need, in order to barter it with someone who had waited in another line to buy something else. When McDonald’s opened its first restaurant in Moscow, it set all records for number of customers: 40,000 to 50,000 a day, even though its food cost twice as much as the food in state-run cafeterias. It had twenty-seven cash registers. In Communist countries, the length of a line of customers showed how valuable the merchandise was at the end of that line. So, McDonald’s had to have ushers to tell customers not to go to the longest line (Goldman 1991: 166–7; Blackman 1990).

The opening of this first McDonald’s — an event that, as much as any other, marked the end of Communism — illustrates another serious defect in Communist-Objectivist ideals. A small notice in a Soviet newspaper drew 27,000 applicants for jobs as counter clerks, even though the anticipated salary was only average by Soviet standards. Those who were chosen had to be trained to smile at customers and speak politely to them. Their training was so successful that customers could not believe that the clerks were Soviet-raised Russians (Blackman 1990; Goldman 1991: 166–7).

An author with Ayn Rand’s sense of life could not make the hero of his works a retailer, no matter how successful he might be.

Rand used “grocery clerk” to symbolize the antithesis of her ideal (1964: viii; 1975: 84). In her first novel, We the Living, when the heroine, Kira, sees her future lover Leo for the first time,she observes that “[h]is mouth . . . was that of an ancient chieftain who could order men to die, and his eyes were such as could watch it.” However, Leo says to Kira, with bitter humor, “I’m nothing like what you think I am. I’ve always wanted to be a Soviet clerk who sells soap and smiles at customers” (I.4). Again, Rand reversed Communism and capitalism. Men who could order others to die and watch their death calmly characterized Communism. Smiling clerks, who sell unimpressive products, characterize capitalism.

When Nathaniel Branden was the official Objectivist expert on psychology, he wrote, “[P]roductive work is the process through which a man achieves that sense of control over his life which is the precondition of his being able fully to enjoy the other values possible to him … [P]roductive . . . achievements lead to pride” (“Self-Esteem: Part IV,”The Objectivist, June 1967). Branden, as he himself later realized, was exaggerating. But he was exaggerating a truth. A feeling of control over one’s life and pride in productive achievements are certainly wonderful feelings. They can derive directly from the type of work done by Communist administrators and the heroes of Rand’s novels, especially if, like Howard Roark, they have an uncapitalist indifference to money and accept only those projects that appeal to them. However, a feeling of control over one’s life and pride in achievements do not follow directly from the type of work that most people in a capitalist society do: salesmen, accountants, insurance brokers, bank clerks, and manufacturers of “penny ante” products, like clothespins and underpants.

Nearly all readers of Rand’s novels, even those who disagree with her philosophy, recognize that she was a brilliant novelist. But not even her brilliance as a novelist could have made a gripping, inspirational novel about the work that is done in distinctively capitalist occupations, occupations that do not exist in Communist countries, such as advertising or being a real estate agent. In fact, the first jobs of the odious Wesley Mouch were in advertising (Atlas II.6).

Let us consider briefly the novelist whom Rand (1975: 119) regarded as the best of the naturalists, Sinclair Lewis. When Lewis wanted to write novels about admirable protagonists, he made them a dedicated research scientist (Martin Arrowsmith) and the president of a car company (Sam Dodsworth), who began his career as assistant manager of production. When Lewis wanted a pathetic protagonist, he made him a real estate agent (George Babbitt). Babbitt, like Dodsworth, is successful at his work. But Lewis says in the first chapter that Babbitt “made nothing in particular, neither butter nor shoes nor poetry;” and he “detested the grind of the real estate business, and disliked his family, and disliked himself for disliking them.”

The discussion so far illuminates a crucial benefit of the love of money. It entices people into occupations that they may not find interesting or inspiring, but are socially necessary; and it exerts constant pressure on business owners to provide what the public wants, not what they enjoy doing.

In all of Rand’s novels, only one business owner completely embodies the capitalist ethos. That is the press tycoon Gail Wynand, in The Fountainhead, who becomes fabulously rich through selfless service to the public, by providing it with what it wants: a lowbrow, sentimental, lurid newspaper. As he says (IV.11), he has led a life of “[s]elflessness in the absolute sense.” He “erased [his] ego out of existence” by following the principle, “Give the greatest pleasure to the greatest number.” However, according to Rand, Wynand is guilty of the most horrible sin in her moral universe: betraying himself.

Men who could order others to die and watch their death calmly characterized Communism. Smiling clerks, who sell unimpressive products, characterize capitalism.

Wynand’s opposite is Nathaniel Taggart, in Atlas Shrugged, who is supposed to be the archetypal capitalist. As Dagny recalls (I.8), “He said that he envied only one of his competitors, the one who said, ‘The public be damned!’” Nothing could be more antithetical to the motivation of a successful business owner in a capitalist society. This is the ethos of the head of a production unit in a Communist economy, who derives exhilaration and pride from productive achievement without regard to providing the public with what it wants.

Rand’s story “The Simplest Thing in the World” is an excellent illustration of this point. It assumes that an author with Rand’s sense of life is compelled to create a protagonist who does not work for money and therefore chooses to build ships instead of discount stores. This contrast is factually accurate. Someone motivated by money would not consider shipbuilding as a business career since, in economically advanced countries, shipbuilders can stay in business only by means of tariff protection or government subsidies or both. But he would certainly consider the business of discount stores, since they have proved to be the most profitable (i.e., socially useful) branch of retailing.

The economic role of money in constantly driving economic participants to provide the public with what it wants is related to an admirable moral attribute of the free market. It is completely democratic and non-coercive; no one can interfere with other people spending their money on what they want. In her essay “What Is Capitalism?” (1967: 17, 20) Rand showed that she was fully aware of this fundamental attribute of capitalism (the italics are Rand’s):

[T]he works of Victor Hugo are objectively of immeasurably greater value than true-confession magazines. But if a given man’s intellectual potential can barely manage to enjoy true confessions, there is no reason why his meager earnings, the product of his effort, should be spent on books he cannot read.

The tribal mentalities attack this principle . . . by a question such as: “Why should Elvis Presley make more money than Einstein?” The answer is: Because men work in order to support and enjoy their own lives — and if many men find value in Elvis Presley, they are entitled to spend their money on their own pleasure.

It is the Gail Wynands who provide true-confessions magazines and Elvis Presley CDs.

At this point, many readers will object that Ayn Rand appreciated the value of money. She ended Atlas Shrugged with its hero tracing the sign of the dollar in space, made a gold dollar sign Atlantis’ “coat of arms, its trademark, its beacon” (III.1), and herself often wore a gold dollar sign pinned to her dress.

Yet in The Fountainhead, Toohey asks Peter Keating about Roark (II. 4), “Does he like money;” and Keating replies No. But long before that, the reader has learned that Roark’s abnormal indifference to money is one of the essential characteristics that make him the hero of this novel. Indeed, in “The Simplest Thing in the World,” Rand assumed that an author with her sense of life must write only about heroes who do not care about money.

Rand assumed that an author with her sense of life must write only about heroes who do not care about money.

In Atlas Shrugged, Rand sometimes has her heroes claim that their goal is to make money. At the opening of the John Galt Line, which is by far the greatest achievement of both Dagny and Hank Rearden (I.8), a reporter asks Dagny her “motive in building that Line.” She answers, “the profit which I expect to make.” Another reporter cautions her, “That’s the wrong thing to say.” But she repeats it. Yet before her trip begins, she looks at the crowd that has gathered and notices that they are there, not because these people expect to make a profit, but “because the sight of an achievement was the greatest gift a human being could offer to others.” The description of the ride on the John Galt Line is the most exhilarating fiction writing I can recall reading; and I have read a great deal of narrative fiction, in ancient Greek, Latin, English, and French. For Dagny, “It was the greatest sensation of existence; not to trust, but to know.” “She felt the sweep of an emotion which she could not contain, as of something bursting upward.” And what about the engine drivers? Every one of them who was available volunteered to drive the train despite persistent warnings of danger. Surely, they were not motivated by money.

At least in their economic interactions, money should be the primary consideration of the heroes of a novel that ends with the dollar sign traced in the air. In Part I, Chapter 1, Dagny’s parasitical brother James says to her, “I don’t like Hank Rearden.” Dagny replies, “I do. But what does that matter, one way or another? We need rails and he is the only one who can give them to us.” James Taggart, typically of him, replies, “You have no sense of the human element at all.” This conversation crystallizes capitalist and uncapitalist mentalities.

Nevertheless, the economic decisions of the heroes of Atlas Shrugged are constantly motivated by the human element. That is true even of the one major character in Atlas Shrugged who is a pure capitalist, Midas Mulligan. He says he joined the strike because of a vision, in which he “saw the bright face and the eyes of young Rearden . . . lying at the foot of an altar . . . and what stood on that altar was Lee Hunsacker, with the mucus-filled eyes” (III.1). In Part II, Chapter 3, Francisco asks Rearden: did you want the rail you made for the John Galt Line used by your equals, like Ellis Wyatt, and by men such as Eddie Willers, who do not match your ability but who “equal your moral integrity” and “riding on your rail — give a moment’s silent thanks”? Rearden answers Yes. Francisco then asks, “Did you want to see it used by whining rotters?” Rearden answers, “I’d blast that rail first.” Francisco then explains that by "whining rotter" he means “any man who proclaims his right to a single penny of another man’s effort.” But no economy, whether socialist or capitalist, could function for one day if producers acted in this way. In Part II, Chapter 10, Dagny says that Nathaniel Taggart, supposedly the archetypical capitalist, “couldn’t have worked with people like these passengers. He couldn’t have run trains for them.” But no one running a train line, even in a socialist economy, could possibly consider the moral worth of its passengers, or any consideration besides their paying for the ride.

No one running a train line, even in a socialist economy, could possibly consider the moral worth of its passengers, or any consideration besides their paying for the ride.

I will conclude with the most frequently quoted explanation of why the market is the most effective means of providing people with what they want. It is by Adam Smith, in Book I, Chapter II of The Wealth of Nations: “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard for their own interest. We address ourselves . . . to their self-love.” Butchers, brewers, and bakers had a very low priority in Communist countries. When McDonald’s opened its first restaurant in Moscow, it had to train its own butchers (Goldman 1991: 166). It is also unimaginable for an Ayn Rand hero to be a butcher, brewer, or baker. The self-interest and self-love that induces people to become butchers, brewers, and bakers and to perform those jobs well is totally different from the heroic self-love of Rand’s heroes. It is an unheroic desire to support themselves and their families in comfort and security.

In her essay “What Is Capitalism?” Ayn Rand showed that she understood as well as Smith why love of money is wonderfully socially beneficial. In her fiction, however, her anti-capitalist sense of life obliterated that knowledge.

***

Footnotes
1. I cite passages in Rand’s novels by the part of the novel in which they occur and the chapter in that part. I do not cite page numbers because there are many editions, and each has different pagination from the others.
2. I write “Communist” with a capital “C” to indicate a member of a Marxist-Leninist Communist Party. Many people have championed a communist society (with a small “c”), beginning with the first two extant projections of an ideal society: Plato’s Republic and Aristophanes’ Ecclesiazusae, both from the 4th century BC.
3. Several of the heroes provide services while they are in Galt’s Gulch. But these jobs are merely stopgaps until they return to the world and use their talents again in their real work.

Bibliography
Blackman, Ann 1990: “Moscow’s Big Mak Attack.” Time (February 5).
Feshbach, Murray and Friendly, Alfred Jr. 1992: Ecocide in the USSR: Health and Nature under Siege. London: Aurum Press.
Goldman, Marshall 1991: What Went Wrong with Perestroika. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
Rand, Ayn 1963: For the New Intellectual. New York: Signet.
Rand, Ayn 1964: The Virtue of Selfishness. New York: Signet.
Rand, Ayn 1967: Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal. New York: Signet.
Rand, Ayn 1975: The Romantic Manifesto, revised edition. New York: Signet.
Shmelev, Nikolai and Popov, Vladimir 1989: The Turning Point: Revitalizing the Soviet Economy, translated by Michele A. Berdy. New York: Doubleday.


Editor's Note: This article is part of a much longer monograph with the same title. It can be obtained from the author at stevenfarron@gmail.com.



Share This

Comments

AtlasAikido

Regarding: "The heroes of Atlas Shrugged are heroic because, like Communist bureaucrats, they produce or maintain impressive products, not mean little ones. It would be unimaginable for a Rand hero to be a manufacturer of “penny ante” products, such as disposable baby diapers, menstrual tampons, or dependable contraceptives".

Perhaps Ayn Rand intended to leave something appropriate for YOU--Steven Farron--to write about! Instead of writing about "diapers" and "tampons", Rand chose to write about "Match King", Ivar Kreuger; and James J. Hill (who built the Great Northern Railroad "without any government aid, even the right of way, through hundreds of miles of public lands, being paid for in cash," as Hill himself stated).

So long as Ayn Rand's villains continue to resemble the reality in Washington, the story of Atlas Shrugged will remain popular: *The average American may not be a powerful railroad executive or steel magnate [or "Match King"], but most believe they are entitled to the fruits of their labor*. Many are beginning to realize that their future is being gambled [openly "looted"] away by [thugs and government i.e.] politicians whose only risk is losing the votes of the individuals who have lost everything. ~ "Apparently The Villains in Atlas Shrugged are very much alive and real". http://mises.org/daily/5218/The-Continued-Relevance-of-Rands-Villains

There is a reason that “Atlas Shrugged” is becoming a Political “Harry Potter”: Ayn Rand SHONE A SPOTLIGHT on a problem that STILL exists today: Not pre-1989 Soviet communism, but 2012-style State capitalism (Mercantilism / "Fascism")--with its own statist quo media, court appointed historians and adoring Stockholm syndrome patients.

Rand depicted government and companies colluding in the name of economic rescue at the expense of the entrepreneur. That entrepreneur is like the titan Atlas who carries the rest of the world on his shoulders -- until he doesn’t. ~ "Rand’s Atlas Is Shrugging With a Growing Load": Amity Shlaes
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=ar2de0RP4ebo&refer=columnist_shlaes

Steven Farron's article is a sleight of hand: equating free-market ideology--Ayn Rand's position--as fascism/communism and propaganda. The very OPPOSITE of what Rand's ideas stand for. The very things Rand presciently depicted in "Atlas Shrugged". Rand's ideas (Galt's Oath and the NAP non-aggression principle etc) lead to hands off self rule (anarco-capitalism), not socialism, not communism and not fascism!

The Ayn Rand bashing that Mr. Farron sets himself upon is hardly original. The Lefties he speaks to have UNsuccessfully tried to smear Ayn Rand as a "socialist", and hypocrite. Is he at the same time conflating Ayn Rand with the Lefties that have tried to smear her? It is Steven Farron who makes no sense. ~ "It’s Ayn Rand Bashing Time, Once Again" by Walter Block http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block172.html

References:
Night of January 16th
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_of_January_16th

The Truth About the "Robber Barons"
http://mises.org/daily/2317

Steven Farron

First, I agree with AtlasAikido that “Ayn Rand shone a spotlight on a problem that still exists today … 2012-style State capitalism;” and the brilliance of her writing made it a powerful spotlight indeed. However, although she has greatly increased awareness of the serious problem of the pernicious collusion between private business and government; her demonstration is useless as evidence or even insight.
Rand said, “If all philosophers were required to present their ideas in novels, to dramatize the exact meaning and consequences of their philosophies in human life, there would be far fewer philosophers – and far better ones” (quoted by Barbara Branden, The Passion of Ayn Rand, page 141). In fact, the opposite is true. Rand’s means of showing the evil of government-business collusion is by representing EVERY government intervention as economically disastrous; EVERY government official as a corrupt hypocrite; and EVERY businessman who supports government intervention as not only a corrupt hypocrite, but also, more seriously, a total incompetent at running his business.
Second, AtlasAikido accuses me of “equating free-market ideology--Ayn Rand's position--as fascism/communism and propaganda. The very opposite of what Rand's ideas stand for.” But I fully understand that the free market is the opposite of fascism/communism and that Rand thought that she was defending the free market. The point of my article is, as I say in its second paragraph, “She thought that the heroes she created were exemplars of pure, uncorrupted capitalism. In fact, the heroes she created in Atlas Shrugged came from her sense of life, which was not only un-capitalist but anti-capitalist.”

AtlasAikido

Hopeless! Steven Farron cannot even get this straight. "She thought that the heroes she created were exemplars of pure, uncorrupted capitalism".

The Steel Industrialist Hank Rearden was an Atlas but clearly flawed--a self-made martyred industrialist living on *mixed moral premises*--as was Dagny Taggart the Operativing VP of a railroad *in their acceptance of contradictions--accepting the wrong philosophy*--and are resolved in Part III "A is A" of Atlas Shrugged.

Atlas Shrugged differentiates subsidy seeking businessmen and the heroes of the book including Eddie Willers--who was not a business magnate and not an Atlas--and they are UNinterested in being subsidized and corrupted by the State. And she shows ALL the degrees in between.

It is only some who come to understand that Rand's principles played out, that they should leave the men-that-hold-a-whip over them to their own devices--peacefully (understanding the sanction of the victim and more such as Galt's Oath, Galt's Gulch which Farron consigns to footnotes). Some of the heroes don't make it...

In Atlas Shrugged Rand used MANY "twinnings" of SALIENT *similarities and significant differences between characters* (Rearden and Boyle and Rearden and Stadler and so on) and this followed from her theory of concept formation (Objectivist Epistemology). One of the many multi-tiered ways she used to tie her characters and root her book in reality.

I am thinking that Steven Farron wants me to sit down and correct his drivel. Let him explain how he cannot even get the above simple understanding straight. He must be a hatchet man. In fact ALL of his assertions fall apart on inspection.

Here is one source link: Read it Dear Reader. Search each one of his points on "capitalism", "premises", indeed type in a search on the word "sense" and you will find a cornucopia of things that refute ALL of Steven Farron's inane positions, posturing and pretense about her sense of life.

Unity and Integration in
Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged
Edward W. Younkins*
www.libertarianpapers.org/articles/2011/lp-3-5.doc

Enjoy!

AtlasAikido

Steven Farron

Dear AtlasAikido,
If this reply does not satisfy you and you want to continue this debate, please contact me at stevenfarron@gmail.com. It is not fair to the readers of this article for us to take up more space.
My reply: One of the fundamental interests of Atlas Shrugged is watching Hank Rearden and Dagny Taggart discover and fully understand the premises that explain their views, values, and mode of life. However, Rand tells us that they have never wavered from those views, values, and mode of life from the time they were children. As I pointed out in my last reply, everyone who supports even the most minor government economic intervention is a corrupt hypocrite; and every businessman who supports government intervention is not only incorrigibly corrupt, but also, more seriously, a total incompetent at running his business.
In fact, although Rand regarded thinking for oneself as the ultimate virtue, anyone who thinks for himself and comes to a conclusion that differs from Rand’s philosophy in any way is physically repulsive. Taking examples from Part III, Chapter 3, even a handsome government bureaucrat “had a yellow complexion … a hard face made of soft muscles, and the revolting handsomeness belonging to the esthetic standards of barroom corners; his blurred brown eyes had the empty flatness of glass.” The spokeswoman of motherhood is a “fat, jellied woman, with an inadequate brassiere under a dark, perspiration-stained dress.” Most disturbing: “mean, rancorous, suspicious faces that bore the one mark incompatible with a standard bearer of the intellect: the mark of uncertainty.”

Visitor

I believe that the purpose of this article is to provoke, not to explain. It is not an attempt to fairly understand Rand's work and thought, but to distort it.

William Dwyer

What a strange article. Insofar as Rand's love of "grandeur" refers to her love of great achievements, what could possibly be wrong with that? The fact that Communists liked to produce on a large scale with slave labor does not mean that producing on a large scale for the enormous benefit of consumers is bad or anti-capitalist. It means that producing with slave labor is bad and anti-capitalist. One could just as well argue against the virtue of producing cotton on a large scale by equating it with cotton plantations in the Old South. There's a big difference between great achievements for the benefit of consumers who actually want them and are willing to pay for them, and great achievements produced under coercion for the sake of collectivist prestige value. You can't discredit the first by equating it with the second.

Steven Farron

Dear Mr. Dwyer,
This article is a condensation of a much longer monograph (obtainable from me at stevenfarron@gmail.com). The compression of a great deal of thought and argument into a small compass may have caused a misunderstanding. Of course, Andrew Carnegie, John D. Rockefeller, Henry Ford, Thomas Edison, and Steven Jobs were great men, very great men indeed. You point out two crucial differences between them and Communist bureaucrats. The first is that their employees were hired by contract, not coerced by force. This is a vital distinction. But slave labor was not a defining characteristic of Communism. It existed in only certain periods of Communist rule. The second difference that you point out between capitalist businesspeople and Communist bureaucrats is the essential, defining difference: capitalist businesspeople produce “for the enormous benefit of consumers;” their “great achievements [are] for the benefit of consumers who actually want them and are willing to pay for them.”
In my article, I point out that in her essay “What Is Capitalism?” Rand showed that she understood that this is the essential, defining characteristic of capitalism. But in her novels, her anti-capitalist sense of life distorted this knowledge. To take one example that I use in my article, Nathaniel Taggart, in Atlas Shrugged, is supposed to be the archetypal capitalist. Dagny recalls with admiration (I.8), “He said that he envied only one of his competitors, the one who said, ‘The public be damned!’” I point out, “Nothing could be more antithetical to the motivation of a successful business owner in a capitalist society. This is the ethos of the head of a production unit in a Communist economy, who derives exhilaration and pride from productive achievement without regard to providing the public with what it wants.”

Charles Barr

Steven Farron says, “When the heroes who embody her sense of life engage in economic activities, they function like Communist administrators, not capitalist businessmen.” This argument can be refuted with a single word: innovation.

Rand’s heroes were innovators. Hank Reardon created Reardon Steel, Ellis Wyatt extracted oil from spent wells, John Galt invented a motor that produced nearly free energy.

Can you imagine a “Communist administrator” having a sense of life that would motivate him or her to attempt to accomplish any of these things? The talents of a “Communist administrator” lie in ruthless political maneuvering, not productive achievement or innovation.

The “Communist administrator” label is better suited to Rand’s villains, not her heroes; to James Taggert, not John Galt.

Mike Stahl

Designer of arguably the highest quality, most enduring, rifle ever designed*.

Nothing designed in the west has yet to even approach it.

The fact is, Charles, that the Soviet Union did have a respectable amount of innovation-from weapons, underwater welding, synthetic leather, the first operational nuclear power plant, satellites, a SPACE STATION!, the first hot nuclear fusion, Tokamak field generators, radial keratotamy(a pre-cursor to LASIK eye surgery)....well you get the point.

Any of the above destroys your case.

Besides, Charles, the author points out facts about Soviet production that you seem to ignore.

The point is that all the effort is consolidated in the great acts of ego-and nobody wants to make soap.

*Even if one wishes to credit the AK-47 to the Germans who had a similar(and far inferior)design-you are still crediting it to a command economy.

Steven Farron

Dear Mr. Barr,
Not only can I imagine Communist administrators innovating, I can provide actual examples. The Soviet T-34 was by far the best mass-produced tank in World War II. It was revolutionary in design and method of manufacture. It was incomparably superior to the American Sherman. The AK-47 assault rifle was vastly superior to any other assault rifle for decades. Like the T-34, it excelled not only in operation, but also in cheapness of manufacture, durability, and ease of use and maintenance. One more example, out of many: the first artificial satellite to circle the earth. What do all of these innovations have in common? They were all made for the military, which was the one consumer in the Soviet Union that was powerful enough to demand constant innovation, to reward those who provided it, and to reject what it found to be inferior.
As I point out in my article, Nathaniel Taggart is supposed to be the archetypal capitalist, but Dagny recalls with approval (I.8), “He said that he envied only one of his competitors, the one who said, ‘The public be damned!’”
I will add that it is clearly illegitimate to argue from Rand’s characters. Rand said, “If all philosophers were required to present their ideas in novels, to dramatize the exact meaning and consequences of their philosophies in human life, there would be far fewer philosophers – and far better ones” (quoted by Barbara Branden, page 141). But the opposite is true. Rand created her own world and used it to prove her philosophy. For example, every government administrator in Atlas Shrugged is corrupt and hypocritical; and every businessperson who advocates any government economic intervention is not only corrupt and hypocritical but also totally incompetent at running his business.

© Copyright 2013 Liberty Foundation. All rights reserved.



Opinions expressed in Liberty are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Liberty Foundation.

All letters to the editor are assumed to be for publication unless otherwise indicated.