SardonicNihilist
Bluelighter
Now forgive me for actually buying this book, but have become quite the bookworm recently and wanted to know exactly what it was all about. I know I would disagree with much of what she would say, but you know, other side of the coin and all..
Anyone read this?
Many of you may be familiar with Ayn Rand`s philosophy on capitalism, the role of government, objectivity (`Objectivism`= there is no grey area, everything is black and white), and to a lesser extent religion.
She basically advocates that greed is good, and the charity is evil. The highest moral stance one person can take in life is pursue their own private interest. Nothing more. The heroes take an oath which goes something along the lines of, `I shall never work for the interest or benefit of any other man, nor will I expect any man to do the same for me`. It is flimsily proven in ATlas Shrugged, where the heroes are very able-minded industrialists, and business men with a very objective, stubborn opinion of their own ability. Rand makes many sweeping generalisations, the most glaring is that the world is a meritocracy- that everyone in a position of power is there through their own merit. This is all the more contradicted when the protagonist, one Dagny taggart is heir to a transcontinental railway in fictional America. Sure, she worked her way up from the bottom, but how did she get her foot in the door?
She expects the reader to swallow that selfish pusuit of one`s domineering business interests will benefit ultimately serve everyone in society. This is demonstrated in Atlas Shrugged in an age of growing industries across America, that a successful steel mill, provides business for successful mines, which provides business for car manufacturers, railway tracks, transport, freight of grains from agricultural areas etc. all them employees, all them happy families where Joe Blow has a steady job, food on the table, clothes on their backs, school fees paid etc. commonly touted as the `trickle-down effect`. She seems to overlook the fact that many a large scale business is run by incompetent leaders, the workers` interests are often neglected, and there is little accountability. Her work conveniently depicts many long term employees who adore their boss for their business acumen, showing great admiration and loyalty, never any resentment. Now this may be true in some cases, but even if your CEO came down and got their hands dirty whilst you laboured laying railway track, I fail to see how this would foster a equally proud, almost loving relationship that Rand depicts.
Her middle name ought to be `contradiction`. She expresses her own views through numerous monologues delivered by her main characters, the industrialists and business people, and when one such character was asked at a farcical press interview, `Don`t the public (or government, paraphrased) have any right to curtail your monopoly or your profits?` To which the character replies `yes, don`t ride my train.` or `yes, they don`t have to buy my products.` Again this is paraphrased, but the point, that she makes is that the public`s only right of action is to consume, or not consume- this despite her being clearly in favour of monopoly markets, whereby the public don`t have the choice to make at all. Her characters proudly state that they are in the business to make money, that is all, and it implied that by doing so they are best serving society, and earning their well deserved wealth. Another scene which is in blatant contradiction to real capitalism is in the `utopian` atlantis, the refuge from the moralistic, greedy, and implied to be inept public- when showing off their brilliant technological inventions, one character proudly states that his vastly superior form of oil extraction can produce `x` barrels of oil per day, and as my costs are lowered, I`ll pass the savings on to my customers- as if this ever happen in the real world! For those who care, this was in the last chapter when the so^called `men of the mind` have fled a crumbling to society to live in a secluded greed factory. She often states that `thought without action` is the biggest waste of time, one must not think unless one isprepared to act in the immediate future. And she suggests that the most despicable act is to proudly be in business and not make a profit, ie. a work-share arrangement. What bullshit. And her work very weakly shows every character with a thread of conscience, morality or any sense of compassion for the lesser off, as corrupt, incompetent and as the ultimate failure. It is so amazingly biased and transparent that I am honestly surprised people have valued this work so highly. I think it may have somehting to do with `telling people what they want to hear`. I can imagine the sort of arrogant, self-obsessed, selfish people who could realte to the characters in the book, and claim some sense of kinship. Fuckers! All her characters were fucked, the heroes and the villains.
And her writing style is not at all profound or original. in fatc, I liken it to a particularly bright year 9 high school student. Every new scene begins with a brief description of the surroundings, usually a view from a window seen by one of the lonely and depressed protagonists- I suspect a projection of her own personality. A bunch of rhetorical questions asked by some begging left-wing hippie, bureaucrat, or pitiful member of the press or public, folowed by abrupt answers of `no`, repeated many times over. And she uses the word `incredulous` too much. And in line with her contradicting style, what the fuck is meant by `belligerent defensiveness`? I mean, I think I know the meaning of those two words, but it makes no fucking sense! It reads just like a cheesey Mills and Boon romance novel or cheap crime mystery, not profound or intellectually deep in any fragment.
I can understand she was born in an oppressive communist state, the USSR I think, and fled to America after her education as a young adult, but even based on this, I can`t forgive her naive and blind acceptance of American capitalism.
I blame myself for wasting so much time reading her book, but it filled in some time. I am so filled with hate. But if one good thing has come out of it I am beginning to question my own selfish beliefs, and now am so firmly in favour of charity, generosity, and thought, the exact opposite message of her work.
Thanks for reading my rant, had to get that off my chest.
Mods- I was thinking CE&P, or maybe second opinion, your choice. Please edit this bit out when you move it.. Thanks
Anyone read this?
Many of you may be familiar with Ayn Rand`s philosophy on capitalism, the role of government, objectivity (`Objectivism`= there is no grey area, everything is black and white), and to a lesser extent religion.
She basically advocates that greed is good, and the charity is evil. The highest moral stance one person can take in life is pursue their own private interest. Nothing more. The heroes take an oath which goes something along the lines of, `I shall never work for the interest or benefit of any other man, nor will I expect any man to do the same for me`. It is flimsily proven in ATlas Shrugged, where the heroes are very able-minded industrialists, and business men with a very objective, stubborn opinion of their own ability. Rand makes many sweeping generalisations, the most glaring is that the world is a meritocracy- that everyone in a position of power is there through their own merit. This is all the more contradicted when the protagonist, one Dagny taggart is heir to a transcontinental railway in fictional America. Sure, she worked her way up from the bottom, but how did she get her foot in the door?
She expects the reader to swallow that selfish pusuit of one`s domineering business interests will benefit ultimately serve everyone in society. This is demonstrated in Atlas Shrugged in an age of growing industries across America, that a successful steel mill, provides business for successful mines, which provides business for car manufacturers, railway tracks, transport, freight of grains from agricultural areas etc. all them employees, all them happy families where Joe Blow has a steady job, food on the table, clothes on their backs, school fees paid etc. commonly touted as the `trickle-down effect`. She seems to overlook the fact that many a large scale business is run by incompetent leaders, the workers` interests are often neglected, and there is little accountability. Her work conveniently depicts many long term employees who adore their boss for their business acumen, showing great admiration and loyalty, never any resentment. Now this may be true in some cases, but even if your CEO came down and got their hands dirty whilst you laboured laying railway track, I fail to see how this would foster a equally proud, almost loving relationship that Rand depicts.
Her middle name ought to be `contradiction`. She expresses her own views through numerous monologues delivered by her main characters, the industrialists and business people, and when one such character was asked at a farcical press interview, `Don`t the public (or government, paraphrased) have any right to curtail your monopoly or your profits?` To which the character replies `yes, don`t ride my train.` or `yes, they don`t have to buy my products.` Again this is paraphrased, but the point, that she makes is that the public`s only right of action is to consume, or not consume- this despite her being clearly in favour of monopoly markets, whereby the public don`t have the choice to make at all. Her characters proudly state that they are in the business to make money, that is all, and it implied that by doing so they are best serving society, and earning their well deserved wealth. Another scene which is in blatant contradiction to real capitalism is in the `utopian` atlantis, the refuge from the moralistic, greedy, and implied to be inept public- when showing off their brilliant technological inventions, one character proudly states that his vastly superior form of oil extraction can produce `x` barrels of oil per day, and as my costs are lowered, I`ll pass the savings on to my customers- as if this ever happen in the real world! For those who care, this was in the last chapter when the so^called `men of the mind` have fled a crumbling to society to live in a secluded greed factory. She often states that `thought without action` is the biggest waste of time, one must not think unless one isprepared to act in the immediate future. And she suggests that the most despicable act is to proudly be in business and not make a profit, ie. a work-share arrangement. What bullshit. And her work very weakly shows every character with a thread of conscience, morality or any sense of compassion for the lesser off, as corrupt, incompetent and as the ultimate failure. It is so amazingly biased and transparent that I am honestly surprised people have valued this work so highly. I think it may have somehting to do with `telling people what they want to hear`. I can imagine the sort of arrogant, self-obsessed, selfish people who could realte to the characters in the book, and claim some sense of kinship. Fuckers! All her characters were fucked, the heroes and the villains.
And her writing style is not at all profound or original. in fatc, I liken it to a particularly bright year 9 high school student. Every new scene begins with a brief description of the surroundings, usually a view from a window seen by one of the lonely and depressed protagonists- I suspect a projection of her own personality. A bunch of rhetorical questions asked by some begging left-wing hippie, bureaucrat, or pitiful member of the press or public, folowed by abrupt answers of `no`, repeated many times over. And she uses the word `incredulous` too much. And in line with her contradicting style, what the fuck is meant by `belligerent defensiveness`? I mean, I think I know the meaning of those two words, but it makes no fucking sense! It reads just like a cheesey Mills and Boon romance novel or cheap crime mystery, not profound or intellectually deep in any fragment.
I can understand she was born in an oppressive communist state, the USSR I think, and fled to America after her education as a young adult, but even based on this, I can`t forgive her naive and blind acceptance of American capitalism.
I blame myself for wasting so much time reading her book, but it filled in some time. I am so filled with hate. But if one good thing has come out of it I am beginning to question my own selfish beliefs, and now am so firmly in favour of charity, generosity, and thought, the exact opposite message of her work.
Thanks for reading my rant, had to get that off my chest.
Mods- I was thinking CE&P, or maybe second opinion, your choice. Please edit this bit out when you move it.. Thanks
