Wednesday 18 March 2009, 2:19AM
A hesitant enquiry about ‘Atlas Shrugged’...
There has been a fascinating little cluster of articles in The Guardian over the past few days about a curious spike in the sales figures of Atlas Shrugged, the 1957 novel by the iconoclastic American author Ayn Rand.
As one of the articles puts it: ‘The book’s peak sales days on Amazon seem to correspond to major events in the attempted rescue of the economy, including the bailout of Northern Rock, the US decision to buy shares in nine major banks, and the passing of Obama’s stimulus bill. The Ayn Rand Centre for Individual Rights claims that US-wide sales almost tripled over the first seven weeks of 2009, compared with the same period in 2008.’
Atlas Shrugged, along with Rand’s other 1000 page doorstop, The Fountainhead, expresses her philosophy of ‘Objectivism’, ‘the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute’.
According to Rand altruism is evil, working against the dignity of the individual. An authentic life consists in making one’s own way in the world with as little assistance from others as possible. There should be no state welfare, and an unfettered free market, with consequent inequalities a just and accurate reflection of each person’s worth.
Economic growth and cultural development is driven by a small number of entrepreneurs, inventors, scientists and artists, on whom the rest of society is totally dependent. ‘Atlas Shrugged’ imagines the collapse of civilisation following the decision of leading capitalists to break away from the parasitical majority, and retreat to a camp in the mountains of Colorado, protected by a special holographic shield.
Clearly, Rand subscribes to the ‘Great Men’ theory of history, attributing civilisation’s development to the efforts of a relatively small number of geniuses. This worldview, or something very like it, lay behind the belief, somewhat less fashionable now than a few months ago, that a few executives and traders drive the success of their companies, and should be fabulously rewarded for their critical contributions.
According to pieces in The Guardian, the fall of banks and corporations adhering to this philosophy doesn’t seem to have disturbed the faith of Rand’s followers. Unhappy about the US Government’s bailout packages, ‘In cities around the US, conservative activists have been organising street protests known as “tea parties”, inspired by the CNBC correspondent Rick Santelli, who in a high-profile rant last month called for direct action by taxpayers in the manner of the 1773 Boston Tea Party, the anti-British protest that helped trigger the American revolution.’
The Guardian quotes Republican congressman John Campbell, one of those who opposed the Obama administration’s rescue package: ‘People are starting to feel like we’re living through the scenario that happened in ‘Atlas Shrugged’. The achievers are going on strike. I’m seeing, at a small level, a kind of protest from the people who create jobs₀ who are pulling back from their ambitions because they see how they’ll be punished for them.’
The results of a 1991 survey by the American Library of Congress suggested that Atlas Shrugged was ‘the most influential book on American lives after the Bible’, selling more than 6 million copies in the US at a rate of about 130,000 a year.
I had no idea the book was so popular in the States - it has minor cult status here in the UK - and as something of a bleeding heart liberal, find it all rather disturbing.
I have to admit that there is something compelling in the central strand of Rand’s thought. One does attain a sense of self-worth and dignity by seeking to take responsibility for one’s own actions, and taking the initiative to create rather than always enjoy what others have done.
But, very briefly, I think that Rand’s philosophy grossly underestimates the extent to which our own achievements depend upon the prior efforts of others. I, for example, might take pride in a website I’ve built. But to create it I needed tools developed by countless clever people on the other side of the world writing software code I couldn’t hope to understand. I needed a client to set the parameters of the project and provide guidance. I needed electricity for my computer. I needed clean water and teabags for the endless cups of tea required to get through it. The web of interdependence is endless.
It seems to me that any attempt to realise Ayn Rand’s vision would lead to hell on Earth. But her books have had a deep impact on many of her readers - just look at the reviews on Amazon, for example. I can’t see myself ever being convinced by what Rand says, and I have a feeling all this was expressed earlier and much better by Nietzsche, but I’m intrigued enough to be seriously considering having a look at one of her books. Has anybody else who stops by this blog given it a go? And is it worth the effort?
Comments (5)
1 Virginia Gal ~ Wednesday 18 March 2009, 4:56AM
I think you have summed up, quite accurately the failings of Ayn Rand’s book, Atlas Shrugged.
I too have been seeing news stories over here about the new popularity of the book. As far as I’m concerned this rise in favoritism is self-indulgent pandering (the reading of this book) by the rich who suddenly feel unjustly victimized. They (corporate heads, senior management, Wall Street) honestly think they are some sort of Gods who graciously provide for us poor dumb masses. I would like to take the 1,000 page Atlas Shrugged and beat them with it!
ps - if they want to go off to some Colorado compound and leave their companies, good riddance. If the current economic situation is any indication of their supposed “genius,” society would be better off.
2 Kate ~ Wednesday 18 March 2009, 7:47PM
You do know that we have ‘Atlas Shrugged’ on our shelves, don’t you? And you are married to someone who has read it.
(I love how our conversations have now been reduced to comments on one another’s blogs - we so desperately need a holiday.)
3 Elizabeth ~ Friday 20 March 2009, 7:09PM
K and J, I hope you realize how entertaining your cross-posting is for your readers. We do appreciate your efforts to keep us amused.
4 Justin Reynolds ~ Saturday 21 March 2009, 12:19PM
Virginia Gal - I quite agree. I think talent and ability is more widely spread than Ayn Rand and corporate renumeration committees maintain.
Kate/Elizabeth - Yes, I do remember now that we’ve got a copy, especially now that you have put it on my desk. Flicking through it the other night I don’t think I will be reading it all the way through. As I mentioned in my post, if there was any justice I think there should be Nietzsche rather than Ayn Rand societies and foundations: he said it better in fewer words.
5 Dan Dickerson ~ Sunday 14 June 2009, 8:20PM
I believe that I like this discussion. Even though I can see some of you are a self described “Bleeding Heart Liberal”, you are still open to at least understand Rand’s beliefs. I am an American from the state of Arkansas and found your web site on a Google search. So, thank you for taking to time to discuss such an obviously important book here in America.
One thing that has been lost here in America is our ability to be inclusive. We very rarely have open debate in public with respect. It does seem at this time many American’s have the ability to read, but not yet comprehend. To that end, I believe if you don’t get too deep into Atlas Shrugged philosophy it has at least one simple premise. You must have creators/thinkers to evolve our culture and world. If you become only a society of consumers you can and will consume yourself out of existence. If you can understand her writings in that context it plays directly into what most truly liberal minded people care about.
Do explain: I think most liberals would agree that Americans are major consumers. I don’t mean buying things necessarily. I mean we use the environment. We exploit resources. We cut trees, burn oil, and pollute. Some many on the left believe that it would be a good idea to stop this, because we are destroying the earth. The problem is you can’t stop consumption. The idea that by slowing down companies and imposing regulations you will help the earth/ our environment. The problem is the opposite is true. If you stop the producers from making money they will have no incentive to solve world problems. The real creators/thinkers will stop working. If you one expects people to do right by the “world” they must fill a personal need. In her book she believes that personal need is accomplishment and monetary reward. I tend to agree with her, because I cannot see another possibility.
If we do not reward our strongest and brightest people for their production into society. We will see a down fall of it. With no production ultimately there will be no consumption. I actually believe that if a person of liberal mind wants to see a better world they should embrace her ideas. That being said, we should also focus very hard on punishing the people who want to steal and exploit others for gain. Producers by nature DO NOT steal or take from others for accomplishment. Thieves do that.