'Atlas Shrugged 2'

What if all the 'corporatists' were sucked off the radar to some 'undisclosed location'?

OMG--- would the other 99.7% of us wail in desperation and commiserate with each other over our peril? Would we search vainly for 'leadership'? Would we wail over the loss of our corporatacracy? Would we starve to death due to lack of 'leadership' to tell us what to do? Would we blame each other for our loss? Would we curl up into a fetal position due to lack of direction?

According to 'Atlas Shrugged' we (non-corporatists) do just that.

What do YOU think we would do?



I think we would create something that would terrify the 'corporatists' if they ever returned.

of humanity and science.

...her characters or the ideology of the "virtue of selfishness" philosophy that she imbued in them as this summary of her life outlines:

<link> http://www.friesian.com/rand.htm

not everyone got an 'A', but we all had to read it. Do you have any freeper-type family or co-workers that were affected by it? Would they KNOW if they were?

It seems to me to be the fulcrum of 'conservative' beliefs. And OH, SO DARWINIAN.

. . . unconditional love then the objectivist philosophy of Ayn Rand seems to have some influence I would admit. However, since it's inception when back in the mid-1920's certain academic institutions have tried to push the ideals of objectivism and benevolent self-interest capitalism as part of natural laws and therefore the only true way societies should be established and I believe right up to the present moment have failed to ever realize those ideals on the scale of a society or any type of social organization. Not coincidentally in my opinion was the rise of objective-ism as promoted by Ayn Rand and her followers preceded by the rise of fascism under Mussolini in Italy in 1920 and also in Japan under the emperor following WWI and the Nazis in 1930's Germany under Hitler and of course before that the Bolshevik revolution which brought communism to the Soviet Union and imitated in China and other parts of the world.

Rand was very anti-communist, but her position was even more belligerent than that. She was an altruist hater. The idea of any social structure based on shared effort was totally repulsive to Ayn Rand. Her writings went on adnausium about the merits of individual initiative, reward and recognition while the communal sharing of the fruits of all industry and effort was the basis of all evil, at least in Ayn Rand's twisted thinking.

The movie "Fountainhead" which was made right after WWII and stared three great actors of that time, Gary Cooper, Patricia Neil and Raymond Massey, went to extremes in both it's close adherence to Rand's story novel and it's cinematographic style and what appeared on the surface at least creative transfer of that interpretation to film.

It was only years later after first seeing the movie "Fountainhead" which initially moved me into a full range of emotions, did I realize that this Hollywood creation which has come to be regarded by Rand fans as a creative masterpiece of artistic cinematography and a visual graphic example of the true meaning of Ayn Rand's fundamental principles and philosophy of objectivism, did I realize that the film was a plagiarized version of the 1934 Leni Riefenstahl's Nazi propaganda film, "Triumph of the Will". So much for the natural laws of individual effort, rewards and recognition.

Ayn Rand of course would say that Hollywood corporate collectivism was the coercive illegitimate power behind such a rip-off of creative ideas. My response is both are examples of the level of decadence to which pure unbridled anti-social capitalism ultimately goes and, like fascism, represents the final death struggle of capitalism. Ayn Rands philosophy of objectivism is another low level example to which humans go in their demonstration of the destructive behaviors brought on by the bondage of self, self centeredness and greed.

I think this illustrates the fate of triumphant Randians nicely:

that is the reality of it.

But what would WE do?

...and rebuild a sane enlightened society again.

No more Dominionism. No more corporate personhood. No more patented life forms. No more "free markets" and "reverse racism" and social Darwinism and creationism. No more government of rapture and raptors.

Science. Reason. Liberty. Human rights. Community. Literature. The arts. A free press. Agriculture. Democracy. Education.

It has all been done before.

but do people KNOW that it has? History is a co-curricular w/WORLD ART (it is too expensive to buy those damn history books). I am looking into a darker glass thickly. Many compatriots are as well.

How do we break the glass?

straight to the point my man. about the metaphor of dusting off the blueprints, got any good ideas on how to go about building a sane society? Will we have to wait for this society to crumble in order to rebuild a better one? i often wonder.

A hearty welcome to DU to you.

I am always awed when I think of those monks in Europe after the fall of the Roman Empire, and for centuries after that. For hundreds of years, without any recognition or hope of success, they kept the arts and science and literature alive. Hand scribing the manuscripts, tending the gardens with the fruits and the flowers and the vegetables, saving the seeds, translating the classics and preserving them. All by hand, all by candlelight, all by voluntary choice - no one was born into the orders. When people were ready to rebuild after the Dark Ages, the tools they needed were at hand, thanks to the dedication and perseverance of thousands of forgotten people.

I hope that we don't have a long dark period ahead of us, but with the inspirational example that they set, we don't have much to complain about and we don't have much excuse for despair or doubt. We can follow the example, we can set the restoration in motion, like those first people did when the barbarians came pouring over the Rhine. They didn't know if the darkness would last a year or a thousand years. They only knew what was right and good and they got started on it.

At a point, those monks who were keeping "the arts" alive were
destroyed, and western culture had to "re-import" its wisdom from
the islamic cultures of north africa and arabia and persia. The
story of "western civilization" survival, is that it didn't, and
had to be re-constructed from scratch, despte some nice work by some
dedicated monks.

I agree with your eqloquent simplicity that its all been done before,
and is being done in civil democratic societies the world over, just
this particular US empire is self-destructing, and perhaps there is a
sort of sick joy in drinking a super-sized fat slurpee in your SUV
whilst watching the vandal's sack rome.

Vandals indeed. These theocons are, like the rotters of rome and
other civilizations, the rats the chew away the hull, so the ship
sinks. Just continents don't sink. They merely expereince brutal
poverty... and i guess, a re-emergence, like in post-dark ages
europe, of the hanseatic league. I can't help but see the white
house like the papacy during the dark ages, excommunicating whomever
disagrees, and starting wars, and strife at religious edict. And
after they did their dirty business, it took the re-importation of
civilization from foreign lands... like that algebra of persia, and
all that stuff we take for granted today, as being "western" and
preserved by monks... rather western society owes its blood life to
the dark skinned people, and to non-christians.

The monks, the contributions from Islamic cultures, and the often corrupt and politicized papacy?

I mention the islamic thing, as there is this mistaken distortion,
not on your part, but by omission, that our western culture is
actually not so western, and owes its very existance, much in part
to islamic cultures. The new nazi myth that the superior race was
white and christian, has settled in the US and is now taking over
the world, has been editing out the bits of history they don't
agree with. It worries me this "simplification" of our national
heritage... that somehow a prodestant from england is more relevant
to american culture than a buddhist from china.

Modern European concepts of race and the application of racist theories to history and culture is an entirely new subject separate from the work of the monks after the collapse of the Roman Empire, which I mentioned as an example of human perseverance not as an explanation for the origins of all civilization, and separate from the history of the church, and again separate from the contributions to European civilization from Eastern civilizations. I am far from being an expert on any of the four subjects.

As far as the distortion of western culture by omission of the contributions from Islamic cultures, again I am not an expert, but I certainly knew at a very young age from my public school education about the immense contributions to mathematics and astronomy, to name a couple of fields, from non-European people. I must have been about 12 when I became curious as to why so many names of stars started with the letters "al" - and where the word "alchemy" originated. I don't believe that I was fed a false Euro-centric view about the origins of astronomy. Certainly Nazi theorists and other crackpots have had some strange ideas about the history of civilization that revolve around the silly and unsupportable concept of race. We have some crackpot theories in vogue today, as witness the "debate" about evolution in a recent thread here.

Maybe if we want a simple idea to cling to that applies in all of these subject areas, class would be more useful than race, and race may be a subset of this rather than the other way around. I am thinking of the contributions by Rom musicians to European classical music that have gone unacknowledged, for example. That can be seen as more akin to a general pirating of culture by the upper class from the common people as it can as an example of racism.

Sorry, this is my area of expertise. The Moors' access to the Greek writings was based upon their sack of Christian monastaries in Syria, Palestine, and North Africa. The loss of science, literature, etc. in Central and Northern Europe was not due to a failure to nurture these things. In fact, there was a thriving arts/literature/music culture in Christendom. The Islamic conquests, however, not only wiped out the cultural centers of the West, it also placed enormous military, political, and economic pressure on the West. The loss of these things in Central and Northern Europe was caused both directly by Muslim conquests and indirectly by the need of Europe to focus on survival in the face of generations of aggression by Muslim armies and navies.

When the Greek and even Roman classics were re-introduced to Europe from Arabic translations it was the recovery of knowledge denied to Europe by centuries of warfare, not a failing of vision.

As the old joke has Tonto saying.

The question is "who is Atlas?" Who is really holding up the world? Is it the Potters of the world, or is it the rabble, who "do most of the working and paying and living and dying in this community"?

John Galt said he was going on strike against the idea of "unearned rewards". So who is more guilty of that - the $15 an hour factory worker who takes an extra seven minutes on his break, or the $20,000 an hour CEO who supposedly "earns" that much every hour?

I find it hard to believe that "we" need them. If they got raptured, or turned into statues of gold, I think "we" would have a huge party with alot of "ding dong the wicked witch is dead" (no offense meant to Wiccans). It is like asking what would happen to the slaves if the people forcing them to haul huge rocks under the hot sun were to vanish. Duh - they certainly would not be worse off.

As far as my subject line goes, I would like to think of myself as one of the Atlases who gives more than he takes. I think Ayn's idea of an Atlas is Jack Welch or Geoff Bible.

GREAT!! Google turned up this goldmine: http://angryflower.com/archive.html

pnorman

I have a copy in my cube for al the Randroids to admire when they come by.

Personally, in the aftermath of Armageddon, I plan to cannibalize the corporatists. There's nothing like roasted CEO with Cajun spices. :D

BAM!

We are seeing the results. Greenspan is a devout "Objectivist" (of course the term is stolen from an art exhibit Rand saw, typical "Objectivist" "Individualism"), and he just needs to go. He has admitted his philosphy of a self-regulating market is wrong, but hasn't taken any steps to fix the economy.

Truth be told, if Atlas really did shrug, the world would fall into oblivion. The "Objectivist" movement is based on the violent reactions of a charismatic woman. And she was damned wrong, and damned conceited.

It seems she thinks that the workers would look up to entrepenuers so much they would volunteer to work under slave conditions.

I would usually have a better argument against this "philosophy", as I hate it on the order of neoconservatism, but its pretty late.

I enjoyed reading that thick tome, but rather prefer the fountainhead
for its brevity, and more engaging plotline. When i was a younger
reagan supporter, i read the book and agreed with her principals.

Now, as an wiser democratic libertarian, I still like her book, not
as a model for anything, but that someone was inspired with their
frustration at social decay, and set out to create utopian visions.

I respect anyone who wishes for a utopia, and can understand how an
immigrant woman from eastern europe, would pen her wish in to a
tome.

There are enlightened people in this world, who i image as the real
"john gault".. not some industrialist wet dream of an eastern
european women from bad times.... but total wisdom and awakening in
a human life. Gladly, such folks are still about giving counsel in
the real world, and not holed up in some far away cloister.

I think of her novel as a theravada buddhist novel, about discovering
the jewel of enlightenment in a remote mountain hideaway. There,
like in tibet, she journeys and travels to finally meet her guru,
and in this sense, i find the novel sincere.

Too bad she's dead. I'd love to read "Atlas Returned", when the
guru comes back and changes the world... the mahayana sequal.

And was greatly intrigued by the ideas, some of which I still think are well-merited. I read Atlas Shrugged soon after, and was terribly disappointed by the astoundingly heavy-handed arrogance, the laughable scientific, sociological, and psychological theory, the inconsistent personal value assignments, and the overall ridiculous product built upon the apt and groundbreaking notions.

That said, I enjoyed reading both of them a lot.

Never forget any of that.

Born weak, as we all are, she was coddled in the warmth of money and learning. The former was taken from her, but the advantages of the latter gave her a huge leg up in the world.

Her ideal appeals to adolescents, because it's an immature conceit of the mediocre. All people aren't physically or mentally fit, and those who aren't have no right to exist in her world. I dare anyone to defend her or other silly libertarians on that point.

There is a need to not punish people for their abilities, and that is one of the backlashes of a socialistic worldview, but to disavow weaknesses and social entrapment is roaringly stupid. I don't mean "ignorant" or "close minded" or "unimaginative", I mean STUPID, which is a lack of circuitry.

Objectivism is self-congratulatory denial of one's responsibility to the society that nurtured us all. It's disgust with the annoying inferiors who slow us up. It's childish, egotistic simplicity. It's supremely inaccurate.

Brushing all that aside, Rand was a shitty dramatist and a tautological nightmare of a ham-fisted polemicist. There's nothing there to admire, short of the sheer industry to write whopping books that could have been better served by the judicious imprint from a ruthless editor who could have pared them down to a quarter of their size simply by eliminating repetition; "Atlas Shrugged" has such ridiculous and tiresome repetition that it's wondrous. Did she even re-read her spew?

Enough, already. Anyone past the age of 20 who takes her seriously needs to go out and actually deal with the human race up close. It's nothing short of adolescent ravings at things it doesn't understand.

that tells you that being a giant dick makes you a hero amongst mankind.

Who needs real life experience when the entire world can be summed up in one elegant philosophy that makes everything we do right. I mean really, its almost as if you hate america.

Okay, she's SIMPLISTIC, but she's florid, roccoco and endlessly elaborate in her flights of fancy.

Yep, you're right: why let mere reality muddle one's view of life?

Tut tut; me no hatem "America", me hatem primitives who want to dismantle civilization. Let's worship the powerful; just let the weak die tidily in the shadows.

Crazy, huh?

if the old ones disappeared. Nature abhors a vacuum.

when there are more insightful works of literature to discuss. The Jabberwocky, Goodnight Moon, and the complete works of Danielle Steele are much more lucid expositions of political thought than anything that talentless hack Ayn Rand ever penned.

I love your ranking system! How does she stack up against the author of the Curious George books?

I haven't read anything by Ms. Steele, so I'm engaging in pure speculation. If the dialogue in her works entails one-dimensional characters subjecting each other to 5 page long quotes, the only purpose of which is to attack a ridiculously pathetic "collectivist" strawman, then I stand corrected. The only redeeming aspect of Rand is that someday an enterprising soul might produce Objectivist Porn: "Atlas Tugged" and "His Fountainhead".

On the other hand, Curious George rocks. There are many more nuggets of wisdom to be found in an HA Rey work than in anything by Ms. Rand.

screw the truth, screw science, lets just pick random novels and base our society on them.

they can haul their garbage to the dump themselves.

Leader my butt. More like parasites.

Ayn Rand celebrated the producers of society. She had plenty of respect for workers. She had no respect whatsoever for corporate parasites.

Ayn Rand would have hated what you call "corporatists". She would have despised Ken Lay, and every other overpaid fat-cat CEO.

What is it about Ayn Rand, that people mis-understand her so badly? I don't get it.

Ive heard everything now.

Her villains were exactly people like George Bush and Ken Lay. Parasites on society, who contribute no creativity or effort, but take resources from the rest of us.