'Atlas Shrugged': From Fiction to Fact in 52 Years

I found this to be very interesting…what do you think?

excerpt from a wall street journal opinion piece:

…Many of us who know Rand’s work have noticed that with each passing week, and with each successive bailout plan and economic-stimulus scheme out of Washington, our current politicians are committing the very acts of economic lunacy that “Atlas Shrugged” parodied in 1957, when this 1,000-page novel was first published and became an instant hit.

Rand, who had come to America from Soviet Russia with striking insights into totalitarianism and the destructiveness of socialism, was already a celebrity. The left, naturally, hated her. But as recently as 1991, a survey by the Library of Congress and the Book of the Month Club found that readers rated “Atlas” as the second-most influential book in their lives, behind only the Bible.

For the uninitiated, the moral of the story is simply this: Politicians invariably respond to crises – that in most cases they themselves created – by spawning new government programs, laws and regulations. These, in turn, generate more havoc and poverty, which inspires the politicians to create more programs . . . and the downward spiral repeats itself until the productive sectors of the economy collapse under the collective weight of taxes and other burdens imposed in the name of fairness, equality and do-goodism.

In the book, these relentless wealth redistributionists and their programs are disparaged as “the looters and their laws.” Every new act of government futility and stupidity carries with it a benevolent-sounding title. These include the “Anti-Greed Act” to redistribute income (sounds like Charlie Rangel’s promises soak-the-rich tax bill) and the “Equalization of Opportunity Act” to prevent people from starting more than one business (to give other people a chance). My personal favorite, the “Anti Dog-Eat-Dog Act,” aims to restrict cut-throat competition between firms and thus slow the wave of business bankruptcies. Why didn’t Hank Paulson think of that?

These acts and edicts sound farcical, yes, but no more so than the actual events in Washington, circa 2008. We already have been served up the $700 billion “Emergency Economic Stabilization Act” and the “Auto Industry Financing and Restructuring Act.” Now that Barack Obama is in town, he will soon sign into law with great urgency the “American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan.” This latest Hail Mary pass will increase the federal budget (which has already expanded by $1.5 trillion in eight years under George Bush) by an additional $1 trillion – in roughly his first 100 days in office.

The current economic strategy is right out of “Atlas Shrugged”: The more incompetent you are in business, the more handouts the politicians will bestow on you. That’s the justification for the $2 trillion of subsidies doled out already to keep afloat distressed insurance companies, banks, Wall Street investment houses, and auto companies – while standing next in line for their share of the booty are real-estate developers, the steel industry, chemical companies, airlines, ethanol producers, construction firms and even catfish farmers. With each successive bailout to “calm the markets,” another trillion of national wealth is subsequently lost. Yet, as “Atlas” grimly foretold, we now treat the incompetent who wreck their companies as victims, while those resourceful business owners who manage to make a profit are portrayed as recipients of illegitimate “windfalls.”

When Rand was writing in the 1950s, one of the pillars of American industrial might was the railroads. In her novel the railroad owner, Dagny Taggart, an enterprising industrialist, has a FedEx-like vision for expansion and first-rate service by rail. But she is continuously badgered, cajoled, taxed, ruled and regulated – always in the public interest – into bankruptcy. Sound far-fetched? On the day I sat down to write this ode to “Atlas,” a Wall Street Journal headline blared: “Rail Shippers Ask Congress to Regulate Freight Prices.”

In one chapter of the book, an entrepreneur invents a new miracle metal – stronger but lighter than steel. The government immediately appropriates the invention in “the public good.” The politicians demand that the metal inventor come to Washington and sign over ownership of his invention or lose everything.

The scene is eerily similar to an event late last year when six bank presidents were summoned by Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson to Washington, and then shuttled into a conference room and told, in effect, that they could not leave until they collectively signed a document handing over percentages of their future profits to the government. The Treasury folks insisted that this shakedown, too, was all in “the public interest.”

Ultimately, “Atlas Shrugged” is a celebration of the entrepreneur, the risk taker and the cultivator of wealth through human intellect. Critics dismissed the novel as simple-minded, and even some of Rand’s political admirers complained that she lacked compassion. Yet one pertinent warning resounds throughout the book: When profits and wealth and creativity are denigrated in society, they start to disappear – leaving everyone the poorer.

One memorable moment in “Atlas” occurs near the very end, when the economy has been rendered comatose by all the great economic minds in Washington. Finally, and out of desperation, the politicians come to the heroic businessman John Galt (who has resisted their assault on capitalism) and beg him to help them get the economy back on track. The discussion sounds much like what would happen today:

Galt: “You want me to be Economic Dictator?”

Mr. Thompson: “Yes!”

“And you’ll obey any order I give?”

“Implicitly!”

“Then start by abolishing all income taxes.”

“Oh no!” screamed Mr. Thompson, leaping to his feet. “We couldn’t do that . . . How would we pay government employees?”

“Fire your government employees.”

“Oh, no!”

Abolishing the income tax. Now that really would be a genuine economic stimulus. But Mr. Obama and the Democrats in Washington want to do the opposite: to raise the income tax “for purposes of fairness” as Barack Obama puts it.

David Kelley, the president of the Atlas Society, which is dedicated to promoting Rand’s ideas, explains that “the older the book gets, the more timely its message.” He tells me that there are plans to make “Atlas Shrugged” into a major motion picture – it is the only classic novel of recent decades that was never made into a movie. “We don’t need to make a movie out of the book,” Mr. Kelley jokes. “We are living it right now.”…

ayn rand is to conservatism what l ron hubbard is to science fiction. in another 20 years the atlas society will have tax exempt religious status and they’ll be recruiting followers at strip malls in southern california.

Good article. One minor correction: IIRC, Taggart Transcontinental was technically owned by Jim Taggart, who was a politically connected type–a looter than a producer, always looking for favors from his friends in Washington. The real productive work of operating the railroad was carried out by his sister, Dagny Taggart, who is the chief heroine in the book. Note that Rand provided a streak of feminism back before feminism became popular. Obviously, running a large railroad isn’t the kind of task that was routinely thought of as appropriate for women in the 1950s.

The plans for an impending motion picture have been talked about for at least 35 years. It has always boggled my mind why Hollywood would prefer to do dozens of remakes of films based on cartoons and second-rate TV shows. Obviously, there’s a PC factor at work here.

Since OasD brought up Ayn Rand and conservatism, it should be pointed out that Rand despised conservatism because its representatives were unwilling to stand up for freedom and capitalism on moral grounds. Of course, nowadays most of them are unwilling to stand up for the free market on any kind of grounds at all.

1950s.

The plans for an impending motion picture have been talked about for at least 35 years. It has always boggled my mind why Hollywood would prefer to do dozens of remakes of films based on cartoons and second-rate TV shows. Obviously, there’s a PC factor at work here.

obviously.

perhaps the book is crap, ever thought of that?

My boyfriend bet me that I couldn’t read it in 5 days, that is the only reason I ever picked it up. I liked it for the most part and I agree with the theme, but I couldn’t stand to read any of the parts about Dagny crashing her plane was waking up in conservative heaven.

I read this book at 15 and loved it. Read it again a couple of years ago and found it awful. Aside from how bad the writing is the book never even tries to temper it’s idealism with reality. If you want to make a big point bluntly do it in a short sharp book that no-one will mistake for a definitive manifesto (e.g. Animal Farm). If you’re going to blather on for 1000 pages about your dramatic hard faced protagonists who spend so much time shooting each other burning, meaning filled looks it’s a wonder they have time to produce anything at all, at least deal with some counter-arguments.

Rant off, the one story that bough Atlas to mind recently was when they found Steve Fosset. A small part of me wondered if he’d run off to Gault’s Gulch but sadly not.

Darwinism has been summed up as; “Survival of the fittest.” Thus, the slow, the old, the infirm or those that have a genetic / physical / mental weakness are the first to be consumed by the next higher level in the food chain, eliminating an inferior gene from the evolutionary pool, allowing the “strong to survive…and breed”. Darwinism / evolution can best be compared to true capitalism.

Liberalism / socialism is the very opposite of survival of the fittest. Those that are smarter, faster, stronger are forced to provide for those that can not / do not produce. Rather than encouraging a more efficient / productive industry, it penalizes those that have the most to offer, and rewards those that are a burden on society.

Hollywood today would never make “Atlas Shrugged” and stay true to the book, because it resonates too closely to what is actually occuring in American politics, and any movie that shows the socialistic creep of a “free market society” towards complete state controlled economy may inadvertanctly open the eyes of the voter, and consequence the “left coast” fears.

Well, I guess it’s a good thing that Darwinism strictly applies to nature and species, and not to societies.

The fictional scenes and occurences in the book are playing out today exactly as Rand painted them when she wrote the book, to deny that is to deny the reality of the current state of affairs. The article points to the more obvious ones.

1950s.

The plans for an impending motion picture have been talked about for at least 35 years. It has always boggled my mind why Hollywood would prefer to do dozens of remakes of films based on cartoons and second-rate TV shows. Obviously, there’s a PC factor at work here.

obviously.

perhaps the book is crap, ever thought of that?

OasD,

Have you ever read it?

Dan

Since you have attempted to link capitalism to social Darwinism, it is necessary to point out that that is a viewpoint that Rand herself would have soundly rejected.

Your last paragraph, however, is on target.

you really have no understanding of darwinism or evolution if you think its merely about survival of the fittest. if the strongest animals always prevailed the land would be populated by nothing but cannibal tigers and the seas by cannibal great white sharks.

guess what. the most successful species on the planet are the ones with the most highly evolved SOCIETIES and in those societies the weak and vulnerable are protected by the strong and there is a strong spirit of both selflessness and cooperation, even on occasion self sacrifice. if you didn’t already know society is the root for the word socialist.

hollywood has never made atlas shrugged because its boring.

not since i was about 13 and learned how to think for myself.

While I’ve always thought the book was great, I’ve never used it as my philosophical model.

One of the ironies I’ve often found is that the people who claim so fervently to believe in the book are much more likely to be characterized by Eddie Willers and not Dagny, Hank, or Francisco. Eddie is a good guy and hard worker, but in the end he is left behind. Like many of the Randians, he is no genius and becomes a victim not only of the looters, but also of the industrialists. What I’ve seen from many of the Randians is a victim mentality, that somehow they would be one of the industrialists if only it weren’t for these darn regulations. But the fact of the matter is that even today, under these oppressive circumstances, the geniuses are doing well and making their fortunes. That the Eddie Willers of the world are not making those fortunes is their own doing, not because of someone holding them back.

The plans for an impending motion picture have been talked about for at least 35 years. It has always boggled my mind why Hollywood would prefer to do dozens of remakes of films based on cartoons and second-rate TV shows. Obviously, there’s a PC factor at work here.

Or perhaps it’s because they’re more concerned with making money by producing the movies that the market demands? I’d think you’d support that. Unfortunately, the market generally demands crap when it comes to culture.

Although Eddie Willers is “left behind” (it seems like that’s reading an evangelical concept into the story!) in the sense that he doesn’t go to Galt’s Gulch, it’s not at all clear at the end of the book whether he ultimately will be, as you put it, “a victim…of the looters,” or whether he will be able to participate in the renaissance that’s implied by the last sentence of the book. Perhaps Rand left that question unresolved on purpose, leaving it to the reader’s imagination.

Very true. Financial gain wouldn’t be all that viable a motivator to make the movie. I just can’t see an Atlas Shrugged movie being cross-promoted by McDonald’s or something, with Hank Rearden action figures being included in every Happy Meal. It would most likely be an Indy kind of movie.

“Or perhaps it’s because they’re more concerned with making money by producing the movies that the market demands?”

Some of the moguls may look at it that way, but IMO this is the kind of film that would create its own demand, drawing a lot of people into the theaters who don’t normally go there at all, including lots of repeat viewers. I suspect there’s more to their decisions than just money, though–not that there’s necessarily anything wrong with that in itself.

OAD,
As usual, you take a complete statement, find a fragment that you can jump on, and base your argument on what you want to see, not the whole picture. Evolution does not boil down to a single species that is all conquering, it is the genetic “weeding out” of those that would weaken a species. Please, try to exercise at least a little dignity when you post. That is why you are considered nothing more than a poor excuse of a social propagandist.

Also, since by reading your posts, you are obviously not e.e. cummings, please do not extend yourself the priviledge of his version of grammar, punctuation, and the common rules of capitalization. If you use proper grammar, spelling and the accepted rules of capitalization, it would add at least a modicum of credibility to your rants.

bite me
.