Ever read Atlas shrugged?

[jamil]

If you want to get past the drivel of Atlas Shrugged, you can always read The Virtue of Selfishness, which explains “selfishness” vs altruism in her viewpoint. Which is kinda what Atlas Shrugged does.

 

[BigRed]

If you want to get past the drivel of Atlas Shrugged, you can always read The Virtue of Selfishness, which explains “selfishness” vs altruism in her viewpoint. Which is kinda what Atlas Shrugged does.

Still some gems in the "drivel".

It's not as if reading is difficult or takes much time.

 

[mmpsteve]

I re-opened the book this week...currently on the thirteenth chapter.

I agree with a point made by jamil in his post 19....particularly his last line.

Rand could have used an editor to get to the point BigRed can sum up in a few words.... central state can go straight to Hell.

Still, jamil would find it a challenge to abridge the gap and cut to the chase.


The book was made into a movie a while back...while Rand can be a long read, there is much more in the book than can be condensed into a movie...continues to be worth the read.

I bought the movie on DVD years ago. Turned it off after 10 minutes. It was not good.

.

 

[mmpsteve]

If you want to get past the drivel of Atlas Shrugged, you can always read The Virtue of Selfishness, which explains “selfishness” vs altruism in her viewpoint. Which is kinda what Atlas Shrugged does.

I enjoyed the storyline of Atlas. The concepts come to life through the story. I was never that interested in the academic discussion of the concepts.

If you can't see the genius of foretelling exactly what's going on in our country right now, then there really is no argument to be made.

.

 

[jamil]

I enjoyed the storyline of Atlas. The concepts come to life through the story. I was never that interested in the academic discussion of the concepts.

If you can't see the genius of foretelling exactly what's going on in our country right now, then there really is no argument to be made.

.

I wouldn't say it was a foretelling exactly, or that it's really all that accurate. Rand propped up Dagny Taggard's rail business within the scope of powerful industries of her time. If her novel were modernized for today's world, Taggard Transcontinental would be more like one of the big Tech giants. And in the reality of today's burgeoning real ass dystopia, the tech giants aren't the good guys.

Today's powerful businesses, banks, big tech, the green industrial complex, etcetera, have a crony relationship with government. Today, it's not just that there's too much regulation stifling productivity, which big companies need to be free from so that they can produce. Yes, there is too much regulation, but what makes it exceptionally bad is that the regulation the government levies on everyone isn't fairly apportioned. It picks winners and losers based on which will best keep them in power: cronyism. We'll just say that makes some companies are more equal than other companies, which wasn't really addressed in Atlas Shrugged. The pandemic has practically wiped out the value of small business, while the value of select large corporations have soared.

But also missing from the narrative of Atlas Shrugged is the surogate enforcement role Big tech companies have today. The crony relationship has big tech becoming the enforcers of policies that would be unconstitutional for the government to enforce.

The story that Alas Shrugged has some similarities with today's forming dystopia. But too few and too far between to call it a genius foretelling. It's not anywhere near exact and fails to predict how strong is the crony relationships with government for most large corporations.

 

[1gunaholic]

Great read. A little wordy, but definitely thought provoking

 

[Route 45]

Praise and criticism are usually ideologically based instead of objectively based.

This goes for chicken sandwiches as well.

 

[jake blue]

I wouldn't say it was a foretelling exactly, or that it's really all that accurate. Rand propped up Dagny Taggard's rail business within the scope of powerful industries of her time. If her novel were modernized for today's world, Taggard Transcontinental would be more like one of the big Tech giants. And in the reality of today's burgeoning real ass dystopia, the tech giants aren't the good guys.

Today's powerful businesses, banks, big tech, the green industrial complex, etcetera, have a crony relationship with government. Today, it's not just that there's too much regulation stifling productivity, which big companies need to be free from so that they can produce. Yes, there is too much regulation, but what makes it exceptionally bad is that the regulation the government levies on everyone isn't fairly apportioned. It picks winners and losers based on which will best keep them in power: cronyism. We'll just say that makes some companies are more equal than other companies, which wasn't really addressed in Atlas Shrugged. The pandemic has practically wiped out the value of small business, while the value of select large corporations have soared.

But also missing from the narrative of Atlas Shrugged is the surogate enforcement role Big tech companies have today. The crony relationship has big tech becoming the enforcers of policies that would be unconstitutional for the government to enforce.

The story that Alas Shrugged has some similarities with today's forming dystopia. But too few and too far between to call it a genius foretelling. It's not anywhere near exact and fails to predict how strong is the crony relationships with government for most large corporations.

I think if you want to bring the story's elements and situations into the 21st century then the space travel and (ultimately) colonization industry is the most likely surrogate for Taggart Transcontinental... SpaceX, Blue Origin, Virgin Galactic, etc. Big Tech isn't really 'bucking the system', as you pointed out they BECAME the system with their cronyism and outsized influence on public policy. And I don't think there's any heroes in today's version, no matter how many worshipers kneel at the temple of Elon, but only people who are being vilified for actually achieving Rand's capitalist ideal.

Elon Musk didn't invent electric cars - he merely didn't give up on the idea just because it wasn't the shortest route to profitability. Because he made his billions elsewhere and could afford to lose a few billion a year for the rest of his life trying to make something others would dismiss as impractical he committed to do it. The Boring Company is probably a less innovative but if you boil most of his ideas down to their basic function none of them are innovative, just determined to reinvent something to be more efficient in the long run. Electric cars, space shuttles, satellite internet, none of that was new, just new approach.

Jeff Bezos basically has the same life story. He didn't invent the internet and he didn't invent retail but he certainly reinvented retail by leveraging the internet and he ruthlessly applied the most fundamental principles of capitalism to secure and increase his market share. Now he too can't spend his fortune in his remaining life and can afford to invest in ideas that don't have to see profitability in his lifetime but can lay the foundation for future generations to succeed.

I think as the story goes on some of the assumptions get off course but I also don't think Rand was some Nostradamus trying to predict the future. It's simply an attempt to put real-world wheels to the author's concepts and using the wheels of the era would be a lot easier than envisioning futuristic wheels. I mean, futurists of that era were predicting atomic powered flying cars! She wanted some grounding in reality or else her concepts would have been lost among the futuristic predictions of the sci-fi genre.

 

[J Galt]

I did read it.

 

[mmpsteve]

I did read it.

Great! Now maybe we can get to the bottom of "who is John Galt"

I notice you're staying in the shadows with the Grey Man outfit, just like the real J. Galt.

.

 

[Twangbanger]

...Yes, there is too much regulation, but what makes it exceptionally bad is that the regulation the government levies on everyone isn't fairly apportioned. It picks winners and losers based on which will best keep them in power: cronyism. We'll just say that makes some companies are more equal than other companies, which wasn't really addressed in Atlas Shrugged. The pandemic has practically wiped out the value of small business, while the value of select large corporations have soared.

I understand the way these Kut-styled endlessly-tussling conversations usually go, it gets down to "I was responding to this person's comment, and he said *this*, and so I was just trying to point out that what he said..." yadda yadda. But the bolded portion does make me question the comprehension and/or recollection of what you read.

Cronyism actually figures quite prominently in Atlas Shrugged. Dagny Taggart's older brother being a chief example, also the businessmen who co-signed the harmful government directives, etc. It's been probably a quarter-century since I read it, but I recollect that the "Galt-aligned" characters were clearly depicted as a tiny minority of the businessmen in setting of the story.

 

[mmpsteve]

I understand that the way these Kut-styled endlessly-tussling conversations usually go, it comes usually comes down to "I was responding to this person's comment, and he said *this*, and so I was just trying to point out that what he said..." yadda yadda. But the bolded portion makes me question the comprehension and/or recollection of what you read.

Cronyism actually figures quite prominently in Atlas Shrugged. Dagny Taggart's older brother being a chief example, the businessmen who co-signed the harmful government directives, etc. It's been probably a quarter-century since I read it, but I recollect that the "Galt-aligned" characters were clearly depicted as a tiny minority of the businessmen in setting of the story.

You are correct. I was going to argue the point, but it seems fruitless. Cronyism, corruption in goverment and unions, incestuous relations between government, industry and the media, etc ... are all featured prominently in Atlas.

One particular parallel that strikes me is the corruption of science, as indicated by the latest circle-jerk of covid, any sacrifice for global warming, etc...

Maybe when the scientists roll out the death-ray weapon, meant to subjugate all dissenters (as they did in Atlas), our friend Jamil will see the parallels!

.

 

[jamil]

I understand the way these Kut-styled endlessly-tussling conversations usually go, it gets down to "I was responding to this person's comment, and he said *this*, and so I was just trying to point out that what he said..." yadda yadda. But the bolded portion does make me question the comprehension and/or recollection of what you read.

'Kut-styled'. Well that doesn't make me very confident that it's possible to have a good faith conversation with you. But here's trying.

We write what we write and what gets posted doesn't always reflect everything we have in mind. After re-reading, I can see your point. I assume you're talking about the following (I can't see the bold text on my mac or iPhone. It's all bold)

"Yes, there is too much regulation, but what makes it exceptionally bad is that the regulation the government levies on everyone isn't fairly apportioned. It picks winners and losers based on which will best keep them in power: cronyism. We'll just say that makes some companies are more equal than other companies, which wasn't really addressed in Atlas Shrugged."

The "Standard Oil" American style cronyism isn't what I had in mind. The thing that makes me think today's dystopia is quite different from Rand's narrative is that this one isn't like the traditional thinking of big corporate cronyism of the industrial age. It's not just government picking winners and losers.

This dystopia, the one that's forming, features the government using their crony relationship with big corporations to bypass the constitution and enforce their policies through canceling people, de-platforming, de-banking. I don't recall Atlas Shrugged featuring this. Back when I read it, what I envisioned was the "Standard Oil" kind of standard American cronyism that we've had from the beginning of the industrial age. 1984 predicts what's happening now better than Atlas Srugged.

Or, Idunno. Maybe I missed the prediction of cancel culture, corporations enforcing infringements of speech at the government's behest, through whatever was neither quite fog or clouds in sloppy wads.

 

[jamil]

You are correct. I was going to argue the point, but it seems fruitless. Cronyism, corruption in goverment and unions, incestuous relations between government, industry and the media, etc ... are all featured prominently in Atlas.

One particular parallel that strikes me is the corruption of science, as indicated by the latest circle-jerk of covid, any sacrifice for global warming, etc...

Maybe when the scientists roll out the death-ray weapon, meant to subjugate all dissenters (as they did in Atlas), our friend Jamil will see the parallels!

.

Yes. That's the kind of cronyism we've always had. Not exactly hard to predict. Where's the canceling of ordinary people?

 

[jamil]

I think if you want to bring the story's elements and situations into the 21st century then the space travel and (ultimately) colonization industry is the most likely surrogate for Taggart Transcontinental... SpaceX, Blue Origin, Virgin Galactic, etc. Big Tech isn't really 'bucking the system', as you pointed out they BECAME the system with their cronyism and outsized influence on public policy. And I don't think there's any heroes in today's version, no matter how many worshipers kneel at the temple of Elon, but only people who are being vilified for actually achieving Rand's capitalist ideal.

Elon Musk didn't invent electric cars - he merely didn't give up on the idea just because it wasn't the shortest route to profitability. Because he made his billions elsewhere and could afford to lose a few billion a year for the rest of his life trying to make something others would dismiss as impractical he committed to do it. The Boring Company is probably a less innovative but if you boil most of his ideas down to their basic function none of them are innovative, just determined to reinvent something to be more efficient in the long run. Electric cars, space shuttles, satellite internet, none of that was new, just new approach.

Musk didn't really make his billions elsewhere. Maybe hundreds of millions.

Seriously, I'd say it's not that Musk re-invented those technologies. Definitely you're right that he made them viable because he wasn't interested in the same profit motive that made other companies not view them as viable yet. But then when he was successful, like with Tesla, other companies had to compete.

Jeff Bezos basically has the same life story. He didn't invent the internet and he didn't invent retail but he certainly reinvented retail by leveraging the internet and he ruthlessly applied the most fundamental principles of capitalism to secure and increase his market share. Now he too can't spend his fortune in his remaining life and can afford to invest in ideas that don't have to see profitability in his lifetime but can lay the foundation for future generations to succeed.

I think as the story goes on some of the assumptions get off course but I also don't think Rand was some Nostradamus trying to predict the future. It's simply an attempt to put real-world wheels to the author's concepts and using the wheels of the era would be a lot easier than envisioning futuristic wheels. I mean, futurists of that era were predicting atomic powered flying cars! She wanted some grounding in reality or else her concepts would have been lost among the futuristic predictions of the sci-fi genre.

Yeah, I think it's a mistake to look at Atlas Shrugged as some kind of indicator that Rand had some insight that she didn't actually have. Atlas Shrugged was where she formulated the ideas that are described as Objectivism. THAT's the legacy of Atlas Shrugged. That's what it is about. That's what Rand herself said about it.

While I think some ideas from Objectivsm are right, the thing I think Rand got most wrong in Objectivism is human nature. I think she's completely full of **** about that. Some people ARE altruistic. Human nature isn't 100% individualistic; it's maybe 90/10. People are self-insterested, but people are also group-interested. It's in our nature.

There was a time when I was more ideologically libertarian and bought into most of the concepts in Objectivism. But as some of Objectivism's view of human nature became obviously wrong to me, just nah.


Edit. Maybe 'completely' full of **** is overstating it.

 

[jake blue]

Yup, you can't paint all of humanity with monochromatic brushes. To presume a character in a story will always react the same way to similar situations makes them pretty one-dimensional. If instead you have them react differently to comparable situations then illustrate why they chose a different response delves deeper into what makes them tick and makes them much more robust and relatable.

So for example, the premise that all the visionaries and innovators would just go on strike to teach the government a lesson is a fanciful notion but not remotely realistic. First, innovators don't just quit, that's what makes them ultimately successful. Second, a dictatorial government will recognize they need at least one of the innovators to remain in business so they'll pick winners and losers. TPTB don't mind scarcity as a little starvation keeps the masses in line but they themselves expect to be well fed so they'll subsidize whichever producer is most sympathetic to their politics. One thing that was pretty accurate though is anything the government seizes control of the means of production usually falls to crap thanks to bureaucratic mismanagement.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

I've never read it. But judging from the length of some of the posts in this thread, I'm not sure I'd have the patience for it.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

But seeing jamil criticize someone else for being "too wordy" is priceless.

 

[BigRed]

But seeing jamil criticize someone else for being "too wordy" is priceless.

 

[mmpsteve]

Musk didn't really make his billions elsewhere. Maybe hundreds of millions.

Seriously, I'd say it's not that Musk re-invented those technologies. Definitely you're right that he made them viable because he wasn't interested in the same profit motive that made other companies not view them as viable yet. But then when he was successful, like with Tesla, other companies had to compete.


Yeah, I think it's a mistake to look at Atlas Shrugged as some kind of indicator that Rand had some insight that she didn't actually have. Atlas Shrugged was where she formulated the ideas that are described as Objectivism. THAT's the legacy of Atlas Shrugged. That's what it is about. That's what Rand herself said about it.

While I think some ideas from Objectivsm are right, the thing I think Rand got most wrong in Objectivism is human nature. I think she's completely full of **** about that. Some people ARE altruistic. Human nature isn't 100% individualistic; it's maybe 90/10. People are self-insterested, but people are also group-interested. It's in our nature.

There was a time when I was more ideologically libertarian and bought into most of the concepts in Objectivism. But as some of Objectivism's view of human nature became obviously wrong to me, just nah.


Edit. Maybe 'completely' full of **** is overstating it.

Are not the active altruists the most dangerous humans to exist?

.