Political Culture: Ayn Rand’s Polemical Porn

Here’s the thing about reading Ayn Rand: She forces you to think the way she does. Once you’ve immersed yourself in her black-and-white worldview — and once you’ve adjusted your expectations to accommodate her rhetorical method, in which every fictional event is created as a forum in which she can communicate her notions of good and evil, morality and immorality – it’s hard to avoid applying that same method to the real world around you. Not to reach the same conclusions, necessarily … but to judge every person and situation on her terms, and to use those judgments to create a tidy little moral cocoon around yourself.

It’s fun, really – and dangerous. It’s also becoming more and more common these days, as the news media, Hollywood, religious institutions, and government officials have mastered the skill of tailoring events (what we now call “spinning”) to fit their particular ideological viewpoints. Even as they do so, their audiences/parishioners/supporters increasingly use those institutions to reinforce their own beliefs, and become more attached to whichever news channel, films, churches and politicians provide the information and analysis that will confirm their worldview.

But enough of this sociological bullshit! I put the word “porn” in my headline, and that’s probably why most of you are here, so let’s get on with it.

Since we last met in this space a week ago, I’ve managed to get through another 200 pages of Rand’s magnum opus of miserdom, Atlas Shrugged, so I’m just about halfway through. We left off with a rather cataclysmic event – the nation’s most prominent oilman setting his wells aflame and vanishing, with our heroine Dagny Taggart arriving too late to stop him. But I’ve gotta tell you, not much has happened since then. In fact, a summary of the events that actually furthered the “plot” over these last five chapters boils down to this:

More moguls disappear, unwilling to produce goods in an environment where they cannot profit from their labor. Government “looters” respond by passing more regulations to ensure the “people’s” welfare (at the expense of the “greedy” entrepreneurs), even as the nation slides into a chaos reminiscent of Children of Men. Our protagonists, railroad magnate Dagny and steel tycoon Hank Rearden, struggle to keep their businesses going; their affair continues as well, growing more co-dependent even as Rearden’s wife begins plotting her revenge. Dagny’s brother, the evil communitarian Jim Taggart, marries a shopgirl (a triumph of elitist condescension) in a social event that’s reduced to panic when attendees learn that the world’s largest copper company is about to suffer huge financial losses. Rearden goes on trial for violating a government regulation, but gets off with a suspended sentence. With the industrial giants of Colorado all having disappeared, Dagny is forced to close the John Galt Line that she and Rearden had struggled so mightily to build.

And that’s … about … it. Not really, though – because the point of these past 200 pages has not been the events themselves, but the opportunities they have provided our protagonists to pontificate on Rand’s most beloved topics: the morality of money-grubbing, and the immorality of anything (government, altruism, loyalty, human emotion) that gets in the way of money-grubbing. Jim’s wedding, Hank’s trial … even a Thanksgiving dinner at the Rearden household … all are mere set-pieces designed to offer a podium for the latest exercise in long-winded speechifying.

In that sense, Atlas Shrugged is … yes … polemical porn, a thin tissue of plot that functions as the setup for one episode after another of rhetorical foreplay and climax. During the wedding scene, one speech (by copper magnate/playboy Francisco d’Anconia, who I’m now convinced is The Most Interesting Man in the World) goes on for five pages, or about 6,000 words, a speech whose general theme is finally stated in his last paragraph: “Money is the root of all good.” Rearden gets a 2,500-word speech of his own during his trial, in which he responds to the government’s over-the-top efforts to regulate his business by arguing fiercely for the morality of profit-taking, and concludes, “The public good be damned, I will have no part of it!”

Was it good for you, too? Rand certainly hopes so – and, in fact, she makes certain of it by making the alternative to avarice completely unpalatable. She continues to imagine a society that’s in the midst of destroying itself because its elites have chosen to destroy capitalism. It’s a fascinating scenario – the notion that the death of capitalism (and, inevitably, of democracy) could come from the top down, rather than from the bottom up. It’s also, as I’ve said before in these columns, preposterous. Rand’s theories emerged largely as a result of her experiences during the Russian Revolution, when Marxist intellectuals (Lenin, Trotsky) organized the lower classes to overthrow the government supported by the middle and upper classes – yet in Atlas Shrugged she envisions Communism as evolving from liberal-elitist guilt run amok.

For evidence that such an evolution is outside the realm of possibility, at least in this country, look no further than the rapidly deteriorating effort to reform health care. President Obama promised throughout his campaign to achieve “universal” coverage: to improve access, increase efficiency and lower costs related to a huge, yet dysfunctional sector of the economy. “Socialism!” cried conservatives – even as Obama bartered for, then won at least a modicum of support from, every capitalist functionary in our current misbegotten system: insurers, pharma companies, the AMA, etc. Meanwhile, those same folks fed hundreds of millions of dollars into Congressional coffers to ensure that their interests would be represented there as well. In the last week we’ve seen the price of all that bartering and all that lobbying, as legislation that supposedly was meant to curb excessive profit-taking in health care will now enable even more of it. It is not the Hank Rearden-esque industrialist who faces punishment for refusing to play by the new rules – it’s the unemployed, or underemployed, worker who cannot afford overpriced health insurance but will now be mandated to purchase it anyway, at whatever prices the insurance industry sees fit.

See what I mean? Now that I’m immersed in Rand’s philosophies, I can’t help but apply them to every issue that comes down the pike. (Next week: climate change!) Of course, being who I am – and remaining so far unconvinced by all that speechifying – I tend to apply them in exactly the opposite fashion from the way she’d like me to. My obsession is not even limited to political affairs – perhaps next week I’ll delve into a analysis of Up in the Air, whose hero is a Rand-ian titan of non-communitarianism much like Hank Rearden … with personally disastrous consequences. But no spoilers, for now. Go see the movie, if you haven’t already (and you really should – it’s a great film), and we’ll talk about it later.

For now, my apologies if you were looking for something a bit more … prurient following my promise of “porn.” This is the best I can do, for now, on that score – to quote from Dagny’s speech to Rearden on the transaction of their affair:

“Hank, I want nothing from you except what you wish to give me. Do you remember that you called me a trader once? I want you to come to me seeking nothing but your own enjoyment … My way of trading is to know that the joy you give me is paid for by the joy you get from me – not by your suffering or mine … If you asked me for more than you meant to me, I would refuse … If ever the pleasure of one has to be bought by the pain of the other, there better be no trade at all. A trade by which one gains and the other loses is a fraud. You don’t do it in business, Hank. Don’t do it in your own life.”

Ah … romance

Tags: , , , , , , ,

  • ronmossad
    Speaking of applying Rand's philosophy to the real world...what do Hank Rearden and the international Jewish community have in common?

    http://ronmossad.blogspot.com/2010/02/sanction-...

    Who suffers from continued Palestinian terrorism? Israelis. Americans. Jews. Who allows it to happen? Israelis. Americans. Jews. Who, often FUNDS and ENCOURAGES their own suffering? Israelis. Americans. Jews.

    Hank and the Jews...sanction of the victim and the guiltiest man in the room...
  • richardgleaves
    i think this is the most substantive you've been in the series. Other installments seem much more like bashing and playing to the peanut gallery. This commentary reads as more honest.
  • I'm trying to think how to process what you're writing here, Jon.

    1. "money-grubbing" -- I guess you mean greed, but maybe not. Please define "money-grubbing." What is it, exactly? How much of the reward of a person's labor is he entitled to, over and above which he becomes a money-grubber?

    2. Do you think that Ayn Rand was a "money-grubber"? When you look at her life and work, is that what you see as her motivation? Avarice?

    'cuz I'm just trying to understand the filter you're reading AS through.
  • JonCummings
    By "money-grubbing" I don't exclusively mean greed--though unadulterated greed certainly is a huge part of Rand's self-interest philosophy. I also am referring to the fact that her heroes frequently, and explicitly, state that the single driving force behind their actions is the profit motive--at the exclusion of other motives such as societal benefits, loyalty or service to others, etc.

    Your definition of "money-grubber" sounds pretty good, at least as far as it fits your own perspective. We both know that my perspective is quite different from yours; mine places significantly more emphasis than yours does on balancing personal & societal goals, and on a belief that society functions far better for everyone (including those who "produce" the most, as Rand would say) with some pooling of resources, rather than with an every-man-for-himself mentality.

    As for "looking at Ayn Rand's life and work," I don't give a damn about that at this point. I'm just reading a famous book with a well-known political/cultural legacy, and discussing what I've read based on its relationship to my own worldview, and on the influence (real and/or imagined) it's had on people I know and people I see in the news. So far I think it's a worthwhile, if overly time-consuming endeavor, though the jury's still out. (My brother's wondering if I'll next feel compelled to read "Mein Kampf" before commenting on the Third Reich. Ouch!)

    Is it a prerequisite that one must know the details of Rand's life, or have read her other work, in order to understand what she's getting at in Atlas Shrugged? If so, she couldn't have been a great communicator, could she? There'll be time to place the book in context later ... or I'd be thrilled for you to contribute your thoughts on that context any time you want, so that we can discuss them.
  • There were two big biographies of Rand released recently. I haven't read them, but I read reviews of them in some highfalutin' magazine. I don't see a great deal of evidence of avarice. She put the money from her book royalties in a savings account for decades, until a friend suggested she put it in a mutual fund. What Rand was about was communicating her ideas, and that earned her a comfortable profit, which she seemed content with. In Rand's terms, I believe Greenspan could be considered a heretic for what he did at the Fed, which is basically to steal from everyone's productive labor through progressive devaluation of what ought to be honest money.

    Like a science fiction story, Atlas Shrugged exaggerates things to put them in greater relief against the backdrop of our normal experience. So, what you see as greed is exaggerated. Whether that is a good or a poor communication strategy depends on the reader, I suppose.

    I probably don't have as much patience with reading books I philosophically oppose as you do. Even though I have some sympathies with AS, when I finished it, I said to myself, "Never again!" I may go back to the abridged audio version (read by Edward Hermann) to refresh myself on the ending, especially Galt's interminable speech, so I can comment with more authority in future posts. Confession: I did not read that whole speech. I suggest fortification with your favorite adult beverage before tackling it.

    Yes, maybe you should read and review Mein Kampf for your next project. LOL I've always wanted to read it, but at this point, for me, a reading of the Koran seems more significant/topical.
  • EricL
    And now we come to the awful truth or Ayn Rand: She's terribly boring and repetitive. The only people who can make it through her books without being forced or forcing themselves are those who are predisposed to believe in her philosophy.

    Have you noticed the lack of children in the book? I'll have more to say about why that is when we you get to part III. Think about what's said in the first chapter, and even what this makes the role of mothers in society.

    (um, can you tell I'm a teacher and librarian?)
  • JonCummings
    It's difficult to ignore the fact that there are no children. I'm guessing it's either a matter of convenience for Rand (the selflessness involved in child-rearing doesn't fit into her worldview), or else a psychosis of some sort. But children are hardly the only thing missing from Atlas Shrugged -- a fact I'll have plenty to say about eventually.
  • Man, if you thought Francisco d’Anconia's speech of five pages was long, I can't wait until you get to Galt's.
  • JonCummings
    What??? There actually is a John Galt??? Oh, thanks for spoiling the whole thing for me!

    Believe me, I know it's coming. I'm girding my loins already.
  • One of the things Rand misses with the "money is the root of all good" line is that many people in power aren't working for the money per se, it's just that the money is a way that people in power keep score. At a certain point, there is nothing left to buy, you know? Take away the money, and they'll keep score another way. And she should know that, having experienced life in the Soviet Union.
  • JonCummings
    Agreed--but what bothers me is that her worldview doesn't allow for a person to be both personally ambitious/hard-working AND concerned with how he's contributing to the "general welfare." With her you're either all-in on the self-interest shtick, or you're helping push society down the slippery slope to Communism and ruin.
  • That is worrisome but, at the same time, common. Bill Gates had to quit Microsoft before he became a philanthropist.
  • Allan Greenscam, right where he belongs! Amen.
  • That picture you posted with this should be distributed to every church youth group and sex ed class countrywide. No heterosexual male will be filling the sausage casings after seeing that.
  • Well, it's porn in one sense. We're all screwed.
  • "But Rearden, how will your penis further my ambitions?"
  • sysussman
    Not to spoil anything, but I think you're closing in on the train crash sequence, which is probably the most effective one in the book. As far as I remember (and it has been almost 24 years since I read it) there are no big speeches (the major characters are absent) and the scene makes a good case for what happens when the CYA mentality goes too far. This one part of the book is less about capitalism vs. socialism and more about personal responsibility. I'll be interested to hear your take on it.
blog comments powered by Disqus