Topic: Ayn Rand Did Not Understand Capitalism

[jpatrickham]

Filed under Business, Economics

"It is a conceptually confused novel. It was offered in the name of individual liberty, yet its description of how capitalism works is so wrongheaded that it undermines what Rand regarded as a call to economic liberty. I can think of few books that have more completely misunderstood how capitalism works. It has always baffled me that anyone who understands the nature of the capitalist system would find much in this book to praise.

The book’s theme is this: the captains of industry are intellectually gifted people who are the source of the capitalist system’s productivity. There are very few of them. At some point in the future, they bond together by their commitment to the defense of liberty of thought and personal creativity. When they see that the political deck is stacked against genius and creativity, they retreat from society to hole up like Butch Cassidy’s Hole in the Wall Gang. They hole up in a Colorado valley, not in Wyoming. Without their presence, society begins to break down. The government’s mismanagement brings everything to a grinding halt. The closing image of the book is a train wreck, which was the result of lame-brained government officials. This train wreck symbolic of both social decay and discontinuity.

Fact: It was not government that destroyed passenger trains. It was the airplane. This was no discontinuity. It was a steady process that was far advanced in 1957. Why Rand used a train wreck as her symbol of discontinuity is unclear to me. Why not a plane crash?

I can imagine no more confused description of capitalism and the battles we faced in 1957 and still face today. The captains of industry are not high-minded intellectual giants. They are people with the peculiar knack of making money. This knack is ultimately personal and unique. It cannot be taught. It cannot be reduced to formulas. Entrepreneurship is the ability to forecast the economic future and then allocate resources so as to meet consumer demand."

http://godfatherpolitics.com/1868/ayn-rand-did-not-understand-capitalism/

The views expressed in this article aren't necessarily the views of the put-er, that be me. Haven't read it, or haven't seen the Movie, plan on renting it this next Tuesday when it comes out on video. I have read "The Fountainhead!"

[Pandora]

Without their presence, society begins to break down.

As I remember the book, society had already begun to break down, due to governmental malfeasance, when the Captains of Industry decamped because, despite their best efforts, they were not permitted to hold anything together.

Fact: It was not government that destroyed passenger trains. It was the airplane. This was no discontinuity. It was a steady process that was far advanced in 1957. Why Rand used a train wreck as her symbol of discontinuity is unclear to me. Why not a plane crash?

What I recall about this comes not from the book, but from the first piece of the recently made movie.  Trains were used  because the government had already thoroughly destroyed the airplane industry; trains were all that was left.

[Pandora]

Neither do I recall Rand characterizing the industrialists as high-minded, but portrayed them as devoutly interested in what they produced creating a profit and fiercely competitive; the rent-seeking segment of them was also represented.

I believe the author of this piece did not understand the book, nor the moral, as Rand intended.

jpat, Atlas Shrugged is very long, often redundant (boy! Did Ayn need a good editor!), but worth reading, in my opinion.  The book has recently undergone a renewed interest, resulting in millions of new copies sold.  It obviously resonates truthfully with a lot of people, unlike Mr. North.

[jpatrickham]

Neither do I recall Rand characterizing the industrialists as high-minded, but portrayed them as devoutly interested in what they produced creating a profit and fiercely competitive; the rent-seeking segment of them was also represented.

I believe the author of this piece did not understand the book, nor the moral, as Rand intended.

jpat, Atlas Shrugged is very long, often redundant (boy! Did Ayn need a good editor!), but worth reading, in my opinion.  The book has recently undergone a renewed interest, resulting in millions of new copies sold.  It obviously resonates truthfully with a lot of people, unlike Mr. North.

I figured so, everyone has an opinion, thought this would be a topic that would create discussion. I have no Dog in this fight!

[jpatrickham]

Here is a companion piece from Godfathers.com. Seems someone over there has a Vendetta against Ms. Rand?

Would Ayn Rand be Welcomed at a Tea Party?

Filed under Economics, Finances, History, Politics

 
"Jim Wallis, one of President Obama’s spiritual advisers made this comment about the Tea Party: “I distrust a movement that lifts up a philandering, Russian, atheist.” Mr. Wallis is referring to Ayn Rand, a favorite writer of many Libertarian thinkers. While I disagree with Mr. Wallis on many things, his description of Ayn Rand is accurate. But his claim that the Tea Party “lifts up” Rand as their philosophical hero is off base.

I suspect that a majority of Tea Partiers don’t even know who Rand is or the substance of her Objectivist philosophy. Richard Land, who debated Mr. Wallis on social justice themes, gets it right:

“The tea party is overwhelmingly socially conservative,” Land said explaining the tea party is actually made up of a great number of people of faith. “They are in the 85 percent range in terms of people that are pro-life. The libertarian wing of the tea party is very small. They are by and large previously unactivated parts of social conservatives in America — Catholic and Evangelical.”

Furthermore, Mr. Wallis is claiming that because Rand is wrong on some things – adultery and atheism — that she’s wrong on all things. Wallis tried to get away with a cheap logical trick called “poisoning the well”” “You can’t believe anything she says. She was an adulterer and an atheist.”

As anyone who has studied Rand’s economic theory knows, anything that’s good about it has been discussed by others long before her novels became popular. She gets some things right but more things wrong.

There are many more Tea Partiers who follow the writings of Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams than Ayn Rand. Maybe it’s time that So Well and Williams write a novel with an underlying economic theme, as Rand did with Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead. This seems the only way for people to ingest ideas these days. Free-market advocate Henry Hazlitt (1894–1993), author of Economics in One Lesson and The Failure of the New Economics (1959) did it with his 1951 novel The Great Idea[1] Hazlitt wrote the following about his novel:

If capitalism did not exist, it would be necessary to invent it — and its discovery would be rightly regarded as one of the great triumphs of the human mind. This is the theme of Time Will Run Back. But as “capitalism” is merely a name for freedom in the economic sphere, the theme of my novel might be stated more broadly: the will to freedom can never be permanently stamped out.

Hazlitt’s economic novel was published six years before Rand’s Atlas Shrugged. In fact, Atlas Shrugged does not understand capitalism as Tea Party advocates would describe it. So much of what is attributed to Rand about capitalism is not found in her writings. This is why historian and economist Dr. Gary North argues that Atlas Shrugged “is a conceptually confused novel. It was offered in the name of individual liberty, yet its description of how capitalism works is so wrongheaded that it undermines what Rand regarded as a call to economic liberty. I can think of few books that have more completely misunderstood how capitalism works. It has always baffled me that anyone who understands the nature of the capitalist system would find much in this book to praise.” North’s entire article is worth studying. You can read it here."

Read more: Would Ayn Rand be Welcomed at a Tea Party? | Godfather Politics http://godfatherpolitics.com/1872/would-ayn-rand-be-welcomed-at-a-tea-party/#ixzz1cqbQ4Vgk

[charlesoakwood]

Quote
Fact: It was not government that destroyed passenger trains. It was the airplane. This was no discontinuity. It was a steady process that was far advanced in 1957. Why Rand used a train wreck as her symbol of discontinuity is unclear to me. Why not a plane crash?

This is the most common portrayal of trains demise.
IRRC, It was the union that killed killed trains.  I learned the term "featherbeading" when the train union was threatening to stop the trains if they didn't continue the job position "fireman".  Fireman was the job title of the man designated to shovel coal into the firebox.

Truman's problem with the train companies was not that they weren't making money
it was with union control.  Not saying the gov didn't have a hand in it.

[John Florida]

Without their presence, society begins to break down.

As I remember the book, society had already begun to break down, due to governmental malfeasance, when the Captains of Industry decamped because, despite their best efforts, they were not permitted to hold anything together.

Fact: It was not government that destroyed passenger trains. It was the airplane. This was no discontinuity. It was a steady process that was far advanced in 1957. Why Rand used a train wreck as her symbol of discontinuity is unclear to me. Why not a plane crash?

What I recall about this comes not from the book, but from the first piece of the recently made movie.  Trains were used because the government had already thoroughly destroyed the airplane industry; trains were all that was left.

 And the railsroads were in private hands and so were the companies that made the steel for rails and bridges and the government didn't like their Independence not to mention the cronies wanted them put to an end and wanted the government to do it so they could take over.

[Weisshaupt]

Here is a companion piece from Godfathers.com. Seems someone over there has a Vendetta against Ms. Rand?

A lot of people have a vendetta against her.  And yeah, in a lot of ways she romanticized the "capitalist entrepreneur", and was drawn towards a Utopian vision of Capitalism as full of conceit as was Marx's socialist Utopian worldview.    And she really really  needed an editor with final cut.  But its her fictional fantasy. You don't like it? Don't read it.  The fact she draws so much ire is because she includes enough truth that despite her work's many flaws,  the facts will stick in the craw of anyone who doesn't want to or isn't ready to  quite deal with them. SO they complain about the length. They complain the metaphors are wrong. They complain the characterizations, and style.  The complain about anything to avoid actually talking about the points being made.

And Yes. I was as the second rally with Michelle Malkin in Denver- before they were called "Tea Parties"  with a "Galt's Gulch or Bust" sign, and at least 50% of the 300 or so in the crowd were of that stripe at  the time.  Rand would fit right in at a Tea Party. These are all things we agree upon.  Smart people who read Rand know that Capitalism doesn't result in "Utopia", that businessmen are not always brilliant and noble heroes,  that there is a time and a place for VOLUNTARY charity, and that Rand just plain talked too much.  But the fundamental idea - that a honest man cannot expect to consume more than he has produced, and that transactions should be voluntary is not wrong.

[Libertas]

Here is a companion piece from Godfathers.com. Seems someone over there has a Vendetta against Ms. Rand?

A lot of people have a vendetta against her.  And yeah, in a lot of ways she romanticized the "capitalist entrepreneur", and was drawn towards a Utopian vision of Capitalism as full of conceit as was Marx's socialist Utopian worldview.    And she really really  needed an editor with final cut.  But its her fictional fantasy. You don't like it? Don't read it.  The fact she draws so much ire is because she includes enough truth that despite her work's many flaws,  the facts will stick in the craw of anyone who doesn't want to or isn't ready to  quite deal with them. SO they complain about the length. They complain the metaphors are wrong. They complain the characterizations, and style.  The complain about anything to avoid actually talking about the points being made.

And Yes. I was as the second rally with Michelle Malkin in Denver- before they were called "Tea Parties"  with a "Galt's Gulch or Bust" sign, and at least 50% of the 300 or so in the crowd were of that stripe at  the time.  Rand would fit right in at a Tea Party. These are all things we agree upon.  Smart people who read Rand know that Capitalism doesn't result in "Utopia", that businessmen are not always brilliant and noble heroes,  that there is a time and a place for VOLUNTARY charity, and that Rand just plain talked too much.  But the fundamental idea - that a honest man cannot expect to consume more than he has produced, and that transactions should be voluntary is not wrong.