Burn "Atlas Shrugged"! Burn!

[WorkInProgress]

I just saw this video on youtube, and damn was it satisfying.


Thats how the book should have ended. By setting itself on fire rather than let the torture of the reader continue.

I can't post the link but just search "burn atlas shrugged burn" on youtube and you'll find it. Or someone can post a link to it. Either way, good fun.

What are your thoughts?

EDIT: I stopped finding this video funny and don't support the measures taken in it.

[*Viva La Revolucion*]

I know of Atlas Shrugged, but I have no idea what it's about. Could someone explain what's wrong with it?

[RedAnarchist]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_B4pgo9Db6w

Personally, I don't believe in burning any book, no matter how crap the content is.

[Dimentio]

I just saw this video on youtube, and damn was it satisfying.


Thats how the book should have ended. By setting itself on fire rather than let the torture of the reader continue.

I can't post the link but just search "burn atlas shrugged burn" on youtube and you'll find it. Or someone can post a link to it. Either way, good fun.

What are your thoughts?

I think it is idiotic and immature to burn books.

[WorkInProgress]

I know of Atlas Shrugged, but I have no idea what it's about. Could someone explain what's wrong with it?

Basically its a book about why you have a right to be selfish written by a reactionary shit-head.

I've never read it btw, I'm afraid to put my hands on the thing.

[WorkInProgress]

I think it is idiotic and immature to burn books.

True, and the people in the video are rather infantile, I wanted to hear what you guys think. It is kind of evil to destroy the work of others, and the humor of this video is fading fast. Suppose it was a stupid idea to post this :blushing:

[Jazzratt]

Basically its a book about why you have a right to be selfish written by a reactionary shit-head.

Not just "have the right to" but "are morally obliged to". It's amazing, in that respect.


I've never read it btw, I'm afraid to put my hands on the thing.

I've slogged through a page or two. It's tripe.

[Invader Zim]

I've started the book, but it is unreadable. It is perhaps the most tedious shit I've ever laid eyes on, and i've read old civil service documents. Its major problem is hugely unnecessary length, it could easily be condensed to a fifth of its size without losing any detail or coherence, not that it had much of the latter to begin with.

Terribly written work.

[GPDP]

I wouldn't burn the book out of spite for it, but if ever I am in a situation such as that in Day After Tomorrow, where I have to burn books in order to feed a fire to survive, rest assured Ayn Rand's books won't be at the bottom of the stack. :)

Also, I've thought about keeping a copy in case I run out of toilet paper, but then I thought it redundant to wipe the shit off my ass with shit.

[hugsandmarxism]

I knew a guy who kept a pocket size Old Testament bible on his person at all times in order to use the pages as rolling papers for his weed habit. Banning or burning books serves to immortalize them; it makes their ideas significant enough to modern society to warrant their reading. Now, if you are in need of toilet paper, a place to stick a booger, wank-rags, rolling papers, or kindling, I wouldn't be apposed to using the paper already sullied by reactionary drivel for such a purpose... but burning it out of spite for the spectacle of destroying it is hardly the best use of your time and effort, and sends a bad message. Bad ideas should be defeated by better ideas, not by a box of matches.

[x359594]

I've started the book, but it is unreadable. It is perhaps the most tedious shit I've ever laid eyes on...Terribly written work.

I slogged through about 200 pages. It's written in one of the most turgid prose styles imaginable. For the skinny on Ayn Rand's "Objectivist" philosophy one can read For the New Intellectual. It seems that a certain segment of right wing ideologues pass through an Ayn Rand phase before moving onto the mainstream right, so for that reason alone it's worth knowing something about her basic premises on capitalism, the individual and society.

[Il Medico]

I knew a guy who kept a pocket size Old Testament bible on his person at all times in order to use the pages as rolling papers for his weed habit. Banning or burning books serves to immortalize them; it makes their ideas significant enough to modern society to warrant their reading. Now, if you are in need of toilet paper, a place to stick a booger, wank-rags, rolling papers, or kindling, I wouldn't be apposed to using the paper already sullied by reactionary drivel for such a purpose... but burning it out of spite for the spectacle of destroying it is hardly the best use of your time and effort, and sends a bad message. Bad ideas should be defeated by better ideas, not by a box of matches.
Indeed. Books shouldn't be burned, no matter what their content for no purpose. However, I know a guy who uses bible pages for rolling papers, and that is a good reason.

[Pogue]

I don't think this book should have been burned because it was not in the rational self itnerest of the guy who burnt it to do so. Plus the fire was too regulated.

[Revy]

I haven't read any of her books but I have a good idea of what some are about. Her other book Anthem basically repeats the cliches about a socialist society hating individuality. She goes so far to say that the word "I" would be abolished.

[GPDP]

I haven't read any of her books but I have a good idea of what some are about. Her other book Anthem basically repeats the cliches about a socialist society hating individuality. She goes so far to say that the word "I" would be abolished.

To think I actually nearly took that book seriously back in the day.

Why I chose to read that book instead of Animal Farm astounds me.

[Dimentio]

I've started the book, but it is unreadable. It is perhaps the most tedious shit I've ever laid eyes on, and i've read old civil service documents. Its major problem is hugely unnecessary length, it could easily be condensed to a fifth of its size without losing any detail or coherence, not that it had much of the latter to begin with.

Terribly written work.

I kinda appreciated "The Fountainhead" even though its a bit long and a bit like a soap opera.

[MarxSchmarx]

I slogged through about 200 pages. It's written in one of the most turgid prose styles imaginable. For the skinny on Ayn Rand's "Objectivist" philosophy one can read For the New Intellectual. It seems that a certain segment of right wing ideologues pass through an Ayn Rand phase before moving onto the mainstream right, so for that reason alone it's worth knowing something about her basic premises on capitalism, the individual and society.

Having read the whole thing, I kinda liked the prose.

It was quite well laid out and clear if nothing else. Also, Rand managed to put her ideas in the bigger context. Sure the philosophy is garbage and the plot is trite. So, I would suggest going straight to John Galt's soliloquy on why capitalism rocks.

However, as far as a work of polemical fiction goes, I give it high marks for propaganda value, the way I give nonsense like the "Grito de Dolores" high marks. Nobody in their right mind believes it, it is the bane of the left, but hell do we wish we could come up with our version of it.'

As far as burning it goes, though, well, I hope they accomplished whatever they set out to do.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I tried several times to read the book. I couldn't get past the symbol of "collectivist" oppression in the opening chapter: a clockface projected in the sky by the government so everyone can see what time it is. That's her distopia?!!!! She fled Stalinist Russia and here idea of government oppression is a fucking clock in the sky!

As for the rest it's about the "special people" in society going on strike - all us dullards just walk around with drool dripping from our chins without great individuals and geniuses like Ford and Rockefeller and Mussolini - wait I mean someone less hated.

I would love to see Rand's dilussions in action - let's see how great Ford's assembly line ideas are without workers to assemble what's on the line! The Irony is that Rand's followers hate all "collectivism" (so state-capitalism, socialism, anarchy/communism, fascism, social democracies, and parlementary government is all the same in their view) and worship capitalism - yet capitalism can't exist without the COLLECTIVISED labor of the working class!

If Fascism comes from the middle class fearing worker's power on the one hand and suffering from the collapse of capitalism on the other hand, Objectivism is a brand of fascism that develops when the middle class sufferes from capitalism but there is no working class movement. It's a popular philosophy of rich white college students and people who think that they are smarter than others and would be rich if only the masses would get out of their way.

[MarxSchmarx]

I tried several times to read the book. I couldn't get past the symbol of "collectivist" oppression in the opening chapter: a clockface projected in the sky by the government so everyone can see what time it is. That's her distopia?!!!! She fled Stalinist Russia and here idea of government oppression is a fucking clock in the sky!

Yeah I see your point, it just gets worse from there. Of course, for what it's worth, the opening lines of that great leftist polemic 1984 were:


It was a bright cold day in April, and the clocks were striking thirteen



As for the rest it's about the "special people" in society going on strike - all us dullards just walk around with drool dripping from our chins without great individuals and geniuses like Ford and Rockefeller and Mussolini - wait I mean someone less hated.


Haha of course this is what makes her whole ideology such a "sitting duck."


I would love to see Rand's dilussions in action - let's see how great Ford's assembly line ideas are without workers to assemble what's on the line!

Already happened. That line about the lights of new york going out in Atlas Shrugged being a call for a return of the Randian heroes? Well, deregulation and administration by randoids led to, guess what, blackouts in NYC.



The Irony is that Rand's followers hate all "collectivism" (so state-capitalism, socialism, anarchy/communism, fascism, social democracies, and parlementary government is all the same in their view) and worship capitalism - yet capitalism can't exist without the COLLECTIVISED labor of the working class!


Well to be fair Rand's followers see themselves as somehow always "leading" the collective, curiously never following it or being a part of it...



If Fascism comes from the middle class fearing worker's power on the one hand and suffering from the collapse of capitalism on the other hand, Objectivism is a brand of fascism that develops when the middle class sufferes from capitalism but there is no working class movement.

Yes I agree. Everyone is to blame for my problems but me is the modus operandi of this movement



It's a popular philosophy of rich white college students and people who think that they are smarter than others and would be rich if only the masses would get out of their way.

To be fair, I don't see how such critiques get us very far. If only this were the least of its problems. TBH, I suspect we could get more out of kicking this dead horse by exposing its utter silliness than identifying the silliness of its adherents.

[New Tet]

[...]
Personally, I don't believe in burning any book, no matter how crap the content is.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Y5SbdIXAlY&feature=channel_pag

[Sarah Palin]

What if we simply recycled the book. Recycled it in a way that would allow its pages to be reprinted with the words of Das Kapital or the Communist Manifesto.

By the way, under no circumstances do I condone the burning of books. But I suppose wiping your ass with one is fine...

Edit: And to bring up Anthem, mentioned by EcoMarxist: I had to read that in class last year. Worst 85 pages of my life.

[CommunityBeliever]

By the way, under no circumstances do I condone the burning of books. But I suppose wiping your ass with one is fine...

What if that book is worse then shit itself? It wouldn't do any good to wipe your ass with it in that case because you would be better wiping with only your hands.

[Il Medico]

Also, just to say this; Atlas Shrugged is actually a pretty good title. Too bad it was wasted on such a crap book.:crying:

[Sarah Palin]

What if that book is worse then shit itself? It wouldn't do any good to wipe your ass with it in that case because you would be better wiping with only your hands.

Be a man. Use your hand.

[Communist Theory]

Why would you suggest this video?

[ComradeOm]

So, I would suggest going straight to John Galt's soliloquy on why capitalism rocksUgh. Galt's speech took up an incredible 54 consecutive pages (I counted) in my edition. A terrible, terrible book

[rednordman]

Also, just to say this; Atlas Shrugged is actually a pretty good title. Too bad it was wasted on such a crap book.:crying:Dont want to sound dumb, but i really do not know what the title actually means.

[hugsandmarxism]

Dont want to sound dumb, but i really do not know what the title actually means.

Atlas. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_%28mythology%29)

[fiddlesticks]

Yea, Ayn Rand kind of totally sucks... I read like half of that book and I still don't know why, it was terrible. However, I would never burn a book, thats baaaad.

[Angry Young Man]

Not just "have the right to" but "are morally obliged to". It's amazing, in that respect.

So if you asked Ayn Rand the time, she'd be morally obliged to tell you to go fuck yourself?

[Angry Young Man]

Dont want to sound dumb, but i really do not know what the title actually means.

I'm guessing that with Rand's emphasis on selfishness, the reference to Atlas, who had an obligation to uphold the sky, thought that he could stop, even though technically speaking, the sky would collapse and drown everything, including himself, in the universe, which makes it a pretty good metaphor for capitalism.

[Random Precision]

To be fair, I don't see how such critiques get us very far. If only this were the least of its problems. TBH, I suspect we could get more out of kicking this dead horse by exposing its utter silliness than identifying the silliness of its adherents.

Well I agree, but the fact that Rand's joke of a philosophy only takes root among white, middle-class, almost exclusively male teenagers who it makes feel "special" says its own bit about the idea itself.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Personally, I don't believe in burning any book, no matter how crap the content is.


5Y5SbdIXAlY

Well, a video of someone burning the book as personal catharsis, is totally different than a christian group burning books as a public attack on certain ideas and their followers.

If someone gave me a NAZI book or something by Ron Paul, I might read a little and then burn it to feel some personal relief. I would not argue that people should pressure to get Ayn Rand books removed from Libraries or have big public protests where her books are burned in order to intimidate Objectivists and anyone else with similar ideas.

The NAZIs didn't burn books because they hated the ideas alone - they wanted to scare people who had those same ideas and intimidate others from even entertaining those ideas.

[MarxSchmarx]

It's a popular philosophy of rich white college students and people who think that they are smarter than others and would be rich if only the masses would get out of their way.To be fair, I don't see how such critiques get us very far. If only this were the least of its problems. TBH, I suspect we could get more out of kicking this dead horse by exposing its utter silliness than identifying the silliness of its adherents.Well I agree, but the fact that Rand's joke of a philosophy only takes root among white, middle-class, almost exclusively male teenagers who it makes feel "special" says its own bit about the idea itself.

Sure, absolutely. And I think it is incumbent upon us to expose why it is so. For instance, that it reinforces power hierarchies by flimsy premises and falsely reasoning, that it fails to mention issues that aren't of concern to the demographic you mention (like racism), etc... My point was that we shouldn't stop there, and that something like this is the next natural step to develop the critique you and Gravedigger raise


Ugh. Galt's speech took up an incredible 54 consecutive pages (I counted) in my edition. A terrible, terrible book

When the editor approached her, asking her to cut it, rand rather modestly asked whether the editor would cut a direct quote from God.

[Psy]

Sure, absolutely. And I think it is incumbent upon us to expose why it is so. For instance, that it reinforces power hierarchies by flimsy premises and falsely reasoning, that it fails to mention issues that aren't of concern to the demographic you mention (like racism), etc... My point was that we shouldn't stop there, and that something like this is the next natural step to develop the critique you and Gravedigger raise

They don't take kindly to any kind of debate. They shut down the debate whenever an outsider starts to show cracks in their logic just like religious disciples shutting down anyone that shows cracks in their religion.

[MarxSchmarx]

They don't take kindly to any kind of debate. They shut down the debate whenever an outsider starts to show cracks in their logic just like religious disciples shutting down anyone that shows cracks in their religion.

True. But they are also fools. And on college campuses and stuff, they are fond of having "public events" where they can spew their gibberish. Sometimes they can be tricked into having a one-on-one in front of an audience. In fact, it is surprisingly easy to get them to fall for this.

See, here's what you do. You send them a correspondence, saying "We, from such and such a group, would like to debate you, because we think you are big meanies and that they are just a bunch of soulless bastards" and for all the reasons they mention against the left in Rand's scripture.

Then, of course they accept, because this is their chance to show that they are not the pathetic losers they are, but are in fact Randian ubermensch who can demolish, through their sheer genius, all those "moochers" and their naive enablers, in front of all the world to see. They can show how "irrational" the other side is. What self-respecting Galt-wannabe would turn down the opportunity to a smackdown? This is what they are raised to believe is the highest virtue.

Then, when they show up to the "debate", you mercilessly cream them using the literature of the last FIVE DECADES that has shown the intellectual bankruptcy of this ideology and which these clowns conveniently chose to ignore. I'd start with their example by exposing their metaphysics, but if you really want to punch beneath the belt go after Rand's psychological disorders.

Some of them are quite clever, so watch out. Make sure you know what you're saying. But believe me, it isn't all that hard.

I was lucky, b/c they showed up to the leftist meetings to spew their nonsense, and then we humiliate them in front of everybody for how little they know beyond what is said on page 372 of Fountainhead.

Most of the time, it is like shooting fish in a barrel. It's fun, and moreover, it prevents anybody in the audience from falling into this quicksand.

[marxistcritic]

Well I agree, but the fact that Rand's joke of a philosophy only takes root among white, middle-class, almost exclusively male teenagers who it makes feel "special" says its own bit about the idea itself.

My father is working class and he reads ayn rand.

[MarxSchmarx]

My father is working class and he reads ayn rand.

Frankly, for the foreseeable future, so should many leftists (or at least the secondary literature about her).

The question is, does he believe it?

[KaubanProcs]

My friend kinda put it in perspective to me.

You see a blind woman trying to cross the street. Do you...
A) Help her?
B) Buy a taco.

If you answered A, you're a looter. If you answered B, you're helping society.

I don't know how accurate that was though.

[marxistcritic]

Frankly, for the foreseeable future, so should many leftists (or at least the secondary literature about her).

The question is, does he believe it?

Yes.

[Il Medico]

My friend kinda put it in perspective to me.

You see a blind woman trying to cross the street. Do you...
A) Help her?
B) Buy a taco.

If you answered A, you're a looter. If you answered B, you're helping society.

I don't know how accurate that was though.
I would buy her a taco while helping her. So am I a looter helping society?:D

[MarxSchmarx]

Yes.


Well I guess it's up to you whether you want to argue it with your dad and how far you want to push this envelope.

[fabilius]

Somebody should write another book named Atlas Shrugged.

Ayn Rand didn´t realize it but it is a perfect metaphore for the working class or even colonialism.

Atlas has done no other crime than being a Titan. For that the upperclass of divine beings force him to carry the weight of the world. So while Zeus goes on drunken decadent binges, Atlas suffers.

When Rand suggests he should shrug, she doesn´t realize she is inciting revolution.