What kind of society did Rand envision in Atlas Shrugged?

[RadioRaheem84]

If all the best minds went on strike and formed their own society, who ran the machines or did the manual labor in that society of managers, bosses and capitalists?

Did the captains of industry in Atlas Shrugged form their own collective?

I didn't read the whole book so what did the final society of John Galt look like?

[Sir Comradical]

I guess they'd have to take turns and share that kind of work around.

Ohh wait...

[RadioRaheem84]

Exactly! Zing!

Debating a bunch of yahoo libertarians who do not want to answer.

[Sir Comradical]

Exactly! Zing!

Debating a bunch of yahoo libertarians who do not want to answer.

You are? Post it if they answer.

[RadioRaheem84]

Answers:



You can be a worker and still be a capitalist, no matter what the unions think.




You make the same misguided arguments all collectivists continue to make. In Objectivism, there is no shame in doing common labor. If everyone is performing to the best of their given abilities, they will take pride in their work. The best performers will be rewarded in a meritocracy.




Machines will make capitalists, organizers, bosses of us all. Nice human world we are finally born in, instead of witnessing people do work loads only machines should do. This produces a nice world where people enjoy art and intellect and survival of their energies.




Machines run machines, robotics will make it possible for people to show what human minds and bodies can do in living and runing the Universe properly. It is hard to beleive in higher contexts for humans, when bashed by hard, painful, deadly labors... or death. As for the story, workers who loved life went to the valley to work for people who were not sick with sadism and did not want to hurt them to experience that sort of superiority, as the book made clear.


To the collective answer:



Incorrect. Everything traded was paid for in gold.

[Sir Comradical]

So basically they're a bunch of utopians but for capitalism.

[GPDP]

I'd post that one comic which mockingly answers the question, but I think it's been posted a billion times already.

The other alternative? Fuckin' magnets.

Edit: Goddamn, they sound like commies.

[RadioRaheem84]

Precisely, idealist drivel.

The majority of objectivist, capitalist, classical liberal thinking is idealist in nature.

Not based in any material reality.

[Magón]

This is the ad I got when clicking on this thread.

http://googleads.g.doubleclick.net/pagead/imgad?id=CPazify27LTpzQEQ2AUYWjIIjmH9tkLXZE4
:laugh:

[RadioRaheem84]

Nin, are you a fan of Johnny Depp from the Ninth Gate based on your avatar? :laugh:

[gestalt]

"There is no shame in exploitation, the workers give up their surplus value with pride!"

"Machines build and run machines."

"But who builds and runs those machines?"

Cue infinite regress.

"Finally people can enjoy leisure activities like the arts all while being at each other's throat in rational self-interest."

Ah, the workings of the Randroid hivemind.

[Chimurenga.]

From the trailer of the movie (I haven't read the book), it seems like any "government intervention", by way of intervening in the railroads, is what is condemned. I'm probably wrong though.

So the end result of a 'final society' for John Galt would be one without government intervention? That's all I've got.

I have absolutely no desire to read that damn book.

[Robespierre Richard]

Rand was basically for totalitarian capitalism like Nazism except only killing people she doesn't like (aka pretty much everybody.)

[Kronsteen]

I don't think Rand knew what she thought a society of capitalists, or a society where the capitalists have left, would look like.

This lady was not good at thinking things through, or being consistent, or filling in details.

That's the thing about fantasy - it doesn't have to make sense.

[Red Commissar]

If all the best minds went on strike and formed their own society, who ran the machines or did the manual labor in that society of managers, bosses and capitalists?

Did the captains of industry in Atlas Shrugged form their own collective?

I didn't read the whole book so what did the final society of John Galt look like?

http://i261.photobucket.com/albums/ii45/testingfark/atlass.gif

The apoligists would of course argue that people would just appreciate being hired and recognizing that their bosses/managers/ captains of industry are there because they're smarter than them. They would "rebuild" along them to remove the mess that vile collectivism and communists left on the Earth. Business would be able to supposedly respond to the needs of their employees better than what the government would tell them, because the former was manipulating labor or something. So they think they would avoid the problem of who would do menial work because they've returned to how capitalism should be!

Of course it's just bullshit. I think Randroids have an even bigger problem with types endorsing their views with out much insight- something they (media) often attribute to viewers over here.

There was a quote on this piece from the New Republic (I know) regarding Ayn Rand and her appeal. I liked this quote though:

http://kfmonkey.blogspot.com/2009/03/ephemera-2009-7.html


-- There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.


The above quote I *think* comes from an old article regarding Ayn Rand on the New Republic (I know) which has pissed off a lot of randroids on the internet then.

http://www.tnr.com/article/books-and-arts/wealthcare-0 (subscription unfortunately)

[RadioRaheem84]

John Galt's Society:


No. As an example, Galt wanted a housekeeper, Dagny needed a place to live. They bartered for it. Galt could probably get a car to run. If Ragnar had a mill, then Galt would trade car-repair for flour. If Dagny wanted to make Galt a birthday cake, she would have to trade with Ragnar for the flour- possibly doing extra work for Galt in exchange for gold. As trading and deals get more complex, that is where they use gold as a means of exchange.

It is a free-market, capitalist community. Nothing is shared. Things are rented, sold or traded for gold, goods or services. It's not "communal" nor collectivist, primarily because no one there would be entitled to anything that wasn't their own.
If they choose to be generous, it is of their own volition, not by mandate, guilt, threat or obligation. It would be a pure demonstration of value for a person or idea.

Ragnar might just give Dagny the flour for Galt's birthday cake because they both value him as a human being and celebrate the day of his birth (And they want a piece of cake. Yumm!)

^ From a Randian.

[Magón]

Nin, are you a fan of Johnny Depp from the Ninth Gate based on your avatar? :laugh:

I do like that movie, kinda, but not enough for an avatar.

It's Andres Nin. :)

[Robespierre Richard]

John Galt's Society:



^ From a Randian.

So did anyone tell them that a barter economy never actually existed?

[JacobVardy]

John Galt's Society

With out the state to break strikes, the workers at John's Auto Repair shop raise their wages until their is no surplus value for John to live off. The workers trade their back pay for title and John's Auto Repair becomes Nextdoor Auto Repair workers collective.

Repeat throughout economy.

Communism.

[Sir Comradical]

John Galt's Society:



^ From a Randian.

These fuckers fetishize barter as if the point of capitalism is to appropriate immediate use-values.

[RadioRaheem84]

These fuckers fetishize barter as if the point of capitalism is to appropriate immediate use-values.

Could you explain this a little further? It's good, I will use it against them.

[RadioRaheem84]

John Galt's Society

With out the state to break strikes, the workers at John's Auto Repair shop raise their wages until their is no surplus value for John to live off. The workers trade their back pay for title and John's Auto Repair becomes Nextdoor Auto Repair workers collective.

Repeat throughout economy.

Communism.


John refuses to go broke paying more in wages and turns John's Auto Repair into John's Floral Shop.

John sells flowers to the families of former Auto Repair workers who died from stress-induced heart attacks after realizing they priced themselves out of their jobs.

John then opens up another auto-repair shop, seeing that these families no longer have someone to repair their cars now that their spouses are dead.

Offers free oil-change with every dozen roses. Hires more workers at a reasonable wage.

Repeat throughout the economy

Capitalism,

Randian

[JazzRemington]

They aren't even really arguing, they're just telling fiction. It's not worth while countering it with other fiction, because they can do the same and you'll end up going back and forth ad nauseum. This is typical of many apologists for Capitalism: they can only defend it with just-so stories and other types of fiction. They think this works because it meshes with people's "common sense"...which is conditioned by reigning economic conditions (in this case, capitalism).

[RadioRaheem84]

Well, did Native Americans rely solely on a barter system?

Did they have money?

[RadioRaheem84]

What part of purchase don't you understand?

Everything in Atlantis was traded with gold. Due to Dagny not having gold because she just got there, she needed to trade services in exchange for goods. That does not mean it wasn't a free-market society as this was an exception.

There is something missing here.

I still don't get who made what and who worked to make these products?

Were they all artisans, petit-bourgouise?

[Sir Comradical]

Could you explain this a little further? It's good, I will use it against them.

Those who direct the capitalist system are the capitalists. Their goal is the accumulation of capital via the production of commodities for exchange. The libertarian-crowd don't recognise class at all, for them there is no such thing as class because some individuals choose to buy labour-power and sell commodities while other individuals choose to sell labour-power and buy commodities. It follows that alluding to an imaginary society where commodity exchange is mystified by atomised individuals engaging in barter - is the logical dead-end of an ideology that rejects scientific class analysis altogether. The example of barter is useful for them because of its innocence - you give me butter and I'll give you a fish. Trading use-values is one thing, the extraction of surplus value via the exploitation of labour is another. There's a limit to the amount of use-values one can reasonably consume whereas the accumulation of surplus-value is virtually limitless.

I'd also add the following. For the Randoids, the market is innocent of all charges and its periodic fall from grace can only be blamed on the distorting influence of government policy. So it follows that libertarians must periodically crucify this spectre of ‘big-government’ to pay for the sins of capitalist accumulation. As Parenti said about left anti-communism, when comparing the imaginary ideal to the imperfect reality, the imperfect reality always comes off a poor second. So even if we assume the existence of their imaginary ideal free-market utopia at time-zero, the competitive nature of the market would eventually lead to monopolisation which leads to a few powerful corporations using the state to advance their own interests. In other words, following their utopian-ideal to its logical conclusion will inevitably produce results that negate their ideal. Therefore it makes no sense to blame the state, as the libertarians do, for interfering in the market when the capitalist class itself has been so heavily involved in using the economic and military power of the state to advance their interests.

[Os Cangaceiros]

The entire premise of Atlas Shrugged rests on the notion that somehow the state is controlled by "looters" who want to punish the wealthy, who are persecuted by their own government. This obviously puts it squarely in Fantasyland.

[RadioRaheem84]

Wasn't this the premise of celebrated films like The Aviator and Iron Man 2?

[Os Cangaceiros]

Wasn't this the premise of celebrated films like The Aviator and Iron Man 2?

You can definitely find it elsewhere, but it's clearly false in the real world, as shown by a number of investigations into the matter. One example (http://www.amazon.com/higher-circles-governing-class-America/dp/B0006DXT0O)

The lives of, say, Robert McNamara (president of the Ford motor company prior to his stint in government) or Dick Cheney (CEO of Halliburton after serving as Secretary of Defense, then rejoining government under Bush Jr.) or Laurence Sommers (economist under Clinton and Obama w/ close ties to Wall Street) and innumerous other examples shows what a sham this notion is.

see also: Barack Obama's entire economic recovery team.

[Chris]

Apparently, Rand thought that gold could spawn food and goods from thin air. That would be the only way Rand's little utopia could function. The extreme opposite of the Labour Theory of Value, namely that labour doesn't matter at all.

[Joe Payne]

[/URL]
[URL]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80B9srKQnI0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80B9srKQnI0)

[Rooster]

Would a good example be Argentina (or was it Chile.... I forget which, I'm not very good with that part of history)? Where state intervention was a minimal apart from of course the suppression of labour power and all forms of social solidarity apart from market relations. State intervention is bad regarding everything to do with tax and credit and business but it's more than fine say if workers form a trade union or try to expropriate property.

Hmm, I'll try to quote from David Harvey:


[...]there lies a whole series of more specific contradictions that need to be highlighted

1. On the one hand the neoliberal state is expected to take a back seat and simply set the stage for market functions, but on the other it is supposed to be activist in creating a good business climate and to behave as a competitive entity in global politics. In its latter role it has to work as a collective corporation, and this poses the problem of how to ensure citizen loyalty. Nationalism is an obvious answer, but this is profoundly antagonistic to the neoliberal agenda. This was Margaret Thatcher's dilemma, for it was only through the playing the nationalism card in the Falklands/Malvinas war and, even more significantly, in the campaign against economic integration with Europe, that she could win re-election and promote further neoliberal reforms internally. Again and again, be it within the EU, in Mercosur (where Brazilian and Argentine nationalism inhibit integration)m in NAFTA, or in ASEAN, the nationalism required for the state to function effectively as a corporate and competitive entity in the world market gets in the way of market freedoms more generally.

2. Authoritarianism in market enforcement sits uneasily with ideals of individual freedoms. The more neolibralism veers towards the former, the harder it becomes to maintain its legitimacy with respect to the latter and the more it has to reveal it's ant-democractic colours. This contradiction is paralleled by a growing lack of symmetry in the power relation between corporations and individuals such as you and me. If 'corporate power steals your personal freedom' then the promise of neoliberalism comes to nothing. This applies to individuals in the workplace as well as in the living space. It is one thing to maintain, for example, that my health-care status is my personal choice and responsibility, but quite another when the only way I can satisfy my needs in the market is through paying exorbitant premiums to inefficient, gargantuan, highly bureaucratized but also highly profitable insurance companies. When these companies even have the power to define new categories of illness to match new drugs coming on the market then something is clearly wrong. Under such circumstances, maintain legitimacy and consent becomes an even more difficult balancing act that can easily topple over when things start to go wrong.

3. While it may be crucial to preserve the integrity of the financial system, the irresponsible and self-aggrandizing individualism of operators within it produces speculative volatility, financial scandals, and chronic instability. The Wall Street and accounting scandals of recent years have undermined confidence and posed regulatory authorities with serious problems of how and when to intervene, internationally as well as nationally. International free trade requires some global rules of the game, and that calls forth the need for some kinda of global governance (for example by the WTO). Deregulation of the financial system facilitates behaviours that call for re-regulation if crisis is to be avoided.

4. While the virtues of competition are placed up front, the reality is the increasing consolidation of oligopolistic, monopoly, and transnational power within a few centralised multinational corporations: the world of soft-drinks competition is reduced to Coca Cola versus Pepsi, the energy industry is reduced to five huge transnational corporations, and a few media magnates control most of the flow of news, much of which then becomes pure propaganda.

5. At the popular level, the drives towards market freedoms and the commodifcation of everything can all too easily run amok and produce social incoherence. The destruction of form of social solidarity and even, as Thatcher suggested, of the very idea of society itself, leaves a gaping hole in the social order. It then becomes peculiarly difficult to combat anomie and control the resultant anti-social behaviours such as criminality, pornography, or the virtual enslavement of others. The reduction of 'freedom' to 'freedom of enterprise' unleashes all of those 'negative freedoms' the Polanyi [Polyani. K., [i]The Great Transformation (Boston: Beacon Press, 1954)] saw as inextricably tied in with positive freedoms. The inevitable response is to reconstruct social solidarities, albeit along different lines - hence the revival of interest in religion and morality in new forms of association-ism (around questions of rights and citizenship, for example) and even the revival of older political forms (fascism, nationalism, localism and the like). Neoliberalism in its pure form has always threatened to conjure up it's own nemesis in varieties of authoritarian populism and nationalism. As Schwab and Smadja, organizers of the once purely celebratory neoliberal annual jamboree at Davos, warned as early as 1996:

Economic globalisation has entered a new phase. A mounting backlash against it's effects, especially in the industrial democracies, is threatening a disruptive impact on economic activity and social stability in many countries. The mood in these democracies is one of helplessness and anxiety, which helps explain the rise of a new brand of populist politicians. This can easily turn into revolt.

On second thoughts, I'm not sure how useful that is :sleep:

I'll just leave it there anyway.

[eric922]

There was a quote on this piece from the New Republic (I know) regarding Ayn Rand and her appeal. I liked this quote though:

http://kfmonkey.blogspot.com/2009/03/ephemera-2009-7.html



The above quote I *think* comes from an old article regarding Ayn Rand on the New Republic (I know) which has pissed off a lot of randroids on the internet then.

http://www.tnr.com/article/books-and-arts/wealthcare-0 (subscription unfortunately) That quote comes from progressive economist and author Paul Krugman.