I attended some meetings in college on objectivism and read Atlas Shrugged and the Fountainhead. They did seem repetetive. I am not an objectivist myself.
As I read the books, it seems Ayn lines up the world into two types of people: do-gooders and hard-workers.
The do-gooders praise charity and criticize selfishness, they urge giving to the less fortunate, the less well-off.
The hard-workers are intelligent, skillful and feel they deserve to reap the benefits of their work. They resent having to surrender such benefits to others who did not put forth the work.
In the books, you are introduced to a male and female hard-worker who realize they are kindred spirits in a world filled mostly with do-gooders. The do-gooders, being in the majority and in charge, are screwing up things because, absent the profit motive, there is no quality work being done. The captains of industry, trying to show everyone they are do-gooders, brag about not being driven by the profit motive, as proven by the lack of profits. The hard-workers are ostracized for being selfish and uncharitable. So the do-gooders have the important jobs, like architects, engineers, company presidents, etc. Soon, buildings collapse, the economy plummets, trains de-rail, and essentially anarchy threatens to overwhelm the world, taking it back to the dark ages. All because the do-gooders refuse to recognize that only the profit-motive will allow quality work to flourish.
Meanwhile, our ostracized hard-workers have hidden away in a secret land of like-minded hard-workers who are making their own community without the do-gooders,where no one resents anyone else being driven by the profit motive. No one asks for any hand out. Everyone makes their way by hard work and ingenuity. For example, I recall Ayn Rand writing that the cigarettes produced in this new society tasted better to the main character than any she had ever smoked before. The cars were more beautiful, more quiet, more efficient. The foods tasted better. It was a paradise.
By this story, Ayn Rand attempted to illustrate her philosophy that greed is good. I have talked to objectivist who actually cited her books as PROOF that greed is good. I hope you all see the humor in that.
These are works of fiction. Everything that happens is made up by the author. They do not PROVE anything. There is no reason to believe the world really would work this way or that people really do act this way. All in all, I found them to be very unrealistic. How many problems do you see with the story?
Here's one: Every do-gooder is an incompetent idiot. Every genius, every person competent at anything ALSO believes in the goodness of greed. This is ridiculous. We all know that a great architect may be a Marxist, a Republican, a Neo-Nazi. Ayn Rand creates a world where every competent architect is also an objectivist, such that when the objectivists leave society you are left with all the buildings collapsing. Excuse me, but there have been many brilliant scientists, engineers--people in all walks of life-- who happen to have screwy political and philosophical views ranging from the left to the right. She assumes that a person motivated by greed will necessarily make better tasting cigarettes and coffee, more attractive cars, more enjoyable music, softer and better clothing than, say, a leftwing liberal could. (I think Cuban cigars discredits this assumption.)
Also, Ayn Rand does not deal with the practical problems of her "perfect society" of hard-workers, like what happens when one of them takes out a loan for a factory and then suffers a stroke, so he can't make the deadline for opening the factory. Or any other mishap or turn of fortune -- that can happen to the most competent of people -- leaving them destitute. At which time you would need social programs for these types of people. Also, she fails to address the principal that it takes money to make money (it doesn't, but it helps). So a new person in her perfect society may do fine, if they can afford to buy a place to live, set up their business, get the supplies they need for their business, the distribution, etc. And not all businesses are one-person shows. What about if you need employees? Who wants to be the employee in such a situation? Who wants to be the garbage man? There are jobs out there that are just not that desireable, but they need doing.
So, in the end, Ayn Rand's books illustrate her philosophy, at least to the extent that greed is good (she may have more to her philosophy not in her books). But they in no way prove that she is right and, in fact, are based on an unrealistic portrayal of people and society.
Here's a story: One day everyone in the world who was not an atheist exploded. The end.
Have I just proven that it is safer to be an atheist? That non-atheists will one day explode? No, a work of fiction proves nothing. That's why they call it fiction. Similarly, Ayn Rand's books prove nothing. But you still might enjoy reading them.
~psychoblast~
