At last, Ayn Rand’s epic work of radical capitalist fiction is set to be released April 15th. Look for the “Atlas Shrugged” movie playing near you and learn to throw a capitalist hissy fit.
The long, strange trip of “Atlas Shrugged” to the silver screen has reached its end, after much fanfare at CPAC (Conservative Political Action Committe) where it was searching for a distributor to surmount those damned liberal gatekeepers in Hollywood.
“Who is John Galt?” Well, he’d be something like Henry Ford, if Ford had decided to disappear because labor unions threatened his cherished creation—the assembly line.
The adaptation of “Atlas Shrugged” is directed by Paul Johanssen of “Beverly Hills 90210″ (he played John Sears) and “Highlander: The Raven.”
Rand was principally concerned with the idea that the state and collectivist concerns (labor unions, social programs, etc) would limit the greatness of humanity. Would that she were alive now to see this objectivist, radical capitalist philosophy taking root inside the halls of government and business, regardless of party—her dream has manifested for the elite, but not for all (see: General Electric’s tax dodging.) She had something of an individualist flavor to her thought, perhaps influenced by Max Stirner’s “The Ego & Its Own” (read it), but whereas Stirner’s philosophy didn’t advocate for unrestrained capitalism, Rand’s did.
Competing political philosophies play out in “Atlas Shrugged,” and from the look of the trailer, the same will be true of the faithful adaptation, officially titled “Atlas Shrugged: Part 1.” Rand’s thought experiment explored what might happen if a capitalist captain of industry decided not to bless the world with his genius any longer. If this captain cannot profit, then he quits.
Former Representative Dick Armey’s group FreedomWorks is engaged in an effort to get the film screened nationwide on 300 screens, according to the National Journal. The April 15th premiere is synchronized with scheduled Tea Party Tax Day rallies. Clever.
Who is John Galt? The right wing’s fantastical wet dream.
The irony here is how wrong Rand turned out to be in the final analysis—corporate barons and their radical capitalist philosophy have never been so well-represented in government. Rand’s Galt would never have to bow out of the system. Why? Well, Galt now controls the system.
Watch the trailer below, then consider going to the premiere and throwing apples and pies at the screen.
March 29, 2011 at 8:39 pm, Deangalt said:
You clearly have not really read Atlas Shrugged or any other works of Ayn Rand. If you had then you would know that her objectivism philosophy abhors any hand out Corporate (as in you GE tax loop hole example above) or individual (labor unions, and social programs), or even inherited. Ayn Rand believed the ultimate was to start from nohting and create something of value for humanity and then be rewarded for doing so.
March 29, 2011 at 9:18 pm, D. J. said:
Deangalt,
It doesn’t matter what Rand wished, only what her acolytes interpreted. For every self-made man (let’s use Jack Dorsey of Twitter, for example) there are dozens of others who are elevated to their position by class, nepotism (the two being interrelated), greed, ruthlessness, I could go on. Is that Rand’s failure? Not necessarily. But she was rather flippant and careless in her approach to capitalism, and that is where she is critically flawed.
The proof is in the pudding: upper class individuals and groups, through the Tea Party, are championing the movie.
Like Machiavelli’s “The Prince,” Rand’s philosophy is used as a template by those who benefit from corporate handouts or inheritance, as you put it. Template might not even be the best word here… ‘Excuse’ might be better perhaps, or an ‘apologia’: an apologia for the perverse desire to accumulate untold wealth at the expense of others, like a parishioner who donates $10,000 to a Church to atone for his sins.
You say, “Ayn Rand believed the ultimate was to start from nohting and create something of value for humanity and then be rewarded for doing so.”
That’s something of an idealistic form of capitalism and not the reality: it’s the capitalist wonderland that never has and never will exist. Most businesses that benefit greatly from free markets don’t really create much value at all, yet consume resources and attempt to grow exponentially for no other reason than profit, not–as you say–to create “value for humanity.” What, for instance, is the value in Nestle’s array of foodstuffs fulls of sugar and sodium? And yet, as I understand it, Nestle was built by someone and thus worthy of Rand’s praise.
For every Twitter–which has created value in that it has aided revolutionaries–there are at least 10 other businesses that create products that are modern luxuries, and not of any critical value.
March 30, 2011 at 2:35 pm, Frank said:
“But she was rather flippant and careless in her approach to capitalism, and that is where she is critically flawed.”
Oh really? Nice of you to back that up with facts.
By the way capitalism (unlike socialism) doesn’t pretend to be utopian, but it is the best system out there hands down. Why? Because it is predicated on the free exchange of goods/services. I’ll make it shorter. FREEDOM.
June 24, 2011 at 2:15 am, Patrick Mcgrath said:
Value for humanity is the profit Dean, or did you miss that point? And in so far as ‘critical value’, of value to whom, would be the question, and the point. A point, which your critical little mind seems to have missed.
March 29, 2011 at 8:48 pm, Dru said:
You are completely wrong about the problems you mention, which can all be traced to earlier “solutions” implemented by government — which is the real problem. Currently government unions and pensions are bankrupting cities and states around the country, except that states cannot currently file bankruptcy. Rand was extraordinarily prescient.
March 29, 2011 at 9:01 pm, D. J. said:
We’ll see who’s right when the budgets aren’t balanced, buddy.
Best,
D. J.
March 29, 2011 at 9:28 pm, D. J. said:
I’m no fan of government, but I’m not about to blame public labor unions, including teachers, cops and firemen for state budget woes.
There’s a lot of blame to go around, and eliminating collective bargaining is NOT–you can quote me on this–going to balance the budget. It’s a political move.
March 30, 2011 at 12:51 pm, Doublearon00 said:
it probably won’t balance the budget you are right. But it is a hefty expense that can be cut for state budgets. Those states that are in trouble haven’t seen nothing yet when the heavy hand of Obama comes smacking them. Health care costs in state funded medicaid is going to eat through any savings. I hate public unions as much as I hate rust. I don’t hate the individual, the fire fighter, the teacher the police officer or even the county janitor just labor unions leadership who are out to get everything for themselves.
April 01, 2011 at 4:09 am, Anonymous said:
Looter
April 18, 2011 at 11:35 pm, Super said:
Yes, the column is clearly that of a Looter, Moocher, Thief, Parasite, and Commie-Democrat. Totally clueless and shouldn’t be in America.
April 18, 2011 at 11:50 pm, Anonymous said:
Why? you have the media, higher education, and two and a half branches of government? This movie still scares liberals… why?
March 30, 2011 at 12:13 am, spectrm said:
Wow….you may have read the book, but you clearly never listened to the woman.
The current state of our government would disgust her just as much, if not more, than the world she presented in her book.
She didn’t envision corporatists in government helping out other corporatists. She envisioned government and business completely separate.
In addition, I didn’t see a single line in this article where you actually stated a valid point against the philosophy. Your personal disdain is obvious, but you’ve presented no reason to convince anyone else.
Murph
March 30, 2011 at 1:26 am, Kcalw said:
“The irony here is how wrong Rand turned out to be in the final analysis—corporate barons and their radical capitalist philosophy have never been so well-represented in government. Rand’s Galt would never have to bow out of the system. Why? Well, Galt now controls the system.”
The above statement shows that you did not read the book..Ayn Rand’s philosophy was about the individual succeeding or failing on their own effort. Government intrusion into the private sector for the benefit of an individual or a corporation was the antithesis of her beliefs.
March 30, 2011 at 1:47 am, Samdog said:
You are obviouly a liberal socialist with a large amount of hatred for anyone who believes that the government is the problem not the solution. I have learned that people like you are just wired differently and need to be ignored. Why dont you move to the Socialist Republic of Europe.
March 30, 2011 at 2:23 pm, D. J. said:
Haha. You have no idea what my real politics are. So, save your anger for something or someone else. I’ll stay right here in America and demand that it becomes better, which is my birthright as a citizen.
March 30, 2011 at 2:32 am, Buybuydandavis said:
If you had read the book, you’d know that the kind of crony capitalism we have seen in abundance in recent years is exactly what she was attacking.
March 30, 2011 at 2:32 pm, Frank said:
“That’s something of an idealistic form of capitalism and not the reality: it’s the capitalist wonderland that never has and never will exist. Most businesses that benefit greatly from free markets don’t really create much value at all, yet consume resources and attempt to grow exponentially for no other reason than profit, not–as you say–to create “value for humanity.” What, for instance, is the value in Nestle’s array of foodstuffs fulls of sugar and sodium? And yet, as I understand it, Nestle was built by someone and thus worthy of Rand’s praise.”
It has existed, thanks to the industrial revolution we have prosperity undreamed of today.
Didn’t create value? I see plenty of value in my superb automobile, Ipod, Google, Netflix, need I go on?
Consume resources? Ah the old argument about limited resources, 50 years ago they predicted massive starvation from an over populated earth. Didn’t happen.
Profit does create value, it is how/why people innovate, provide better services/products and invest in new technologies. Go to socialist countries and see their antiquated systems.
What is the value of Nestle? They provide a product that the public demands. Don’t like it? Shop elsewhere. That is the beauty of the free market, unlike government where non-compliance with their dictates = jail.
March 30, 2011 at 2:54 pm, Jim Kramer said:
You don’t show very much understanding of Rand. The ideas go much deeper than just advocating laissez faire. She presented an entire philosophy based on reality and reason. Her egoistic ethics is a radical reversal of existing theories which dominate our culture; it is hardly just “an individualist flavor to her thought”.
It would be nice if she had won, as you suggest, but if she had we wouldn’t be in the mess we’re in.
April 02, 2011 at 3:43 am, Anonymous said:
The human race managed to muddle through without Rand’s help from prehistory right up to the time she published her novels; and it seems to have done well enough since in ignorance of her writings. Rand reminds me of the writer and “futurist” F.M. Esfandiary, who later changed his name to FM-2030. (I knew FM slightly.) In the late 1980′s FM made the rounds on talk shows to tell people how to “get ready for the 1990′s,” or words to that effect. (You can find those videos on YouTube.) Somehow we’ve all made it from 1991 to 2011 without needing FM’s advice. When you realize the absurdity of both Rand’s and FM’s inflated sense of self-importance, you see them as well meaning but arrogant fools.
March 30, 2011 at 5:49 pm, Anonymous said:
Three Points
1) As long as we’re talking about fictional characters. Tyler Durden > John Gault (in a cage fight).
2) Atlas was an idiot.
3) Tea Party is pretty much a joke.
April 01, 2011 at 4:10 am, Anonymous said:
Looter
March 30, 2011 at 5:49 pm, Anonymous said:
Three Points
1) As long as we’re talking about fictional characters. Tyler Durden > John Gault (in a cage fight).
2) Atlas was an idiot.
3) Tea Party is pretty much a joke.
March 30, 2011 at 6:58 pm, Anonymous said:
Objectivists may have blundered by exposing their foundation myth to a population not indoctrinated in advance to interpret it in the “right” way. Assuming that the rest of this film get made, and that it adheres closely enough to the novel, I wonder how American audiences, representing demographic reality, will react to the message that they deserve to die because they don’t measure up to the movie’s fictional heroes.
An accurate movie would also have the problems of handling Galt’s implied adult virginity, underemployment and love-obsessional stalking of Dagny (the last a common interpretation of Galt’s behavior). He sounds like the sort of “unsub” character who terrorizes an innocent woman in an episode of Criminal Minds.
April 01, 2011 at 4:10 am, Anonymous said:
looter
April 02, 2011 at 3:33 am, Anonymous said:
I manage a motel, and my income depends on voluntary, discretionary transactions with the public. Yeah, I guess that makes me a “looter.”
Sheesh. Somehow Ayn Rand figured out how to lower people’s working IQ and packaged the result in a couple of bad novels.
April 18, 2011 at 11:45 pm, Anonymous said:
You got all that from one word?
March 30, 2011 at 9:41 pm, Jaosl2533 said:
the author is an ignorant douche
March 30, 2011 at 9:42 pm, Jaosl2533 said:
i’m referring to the author of the article, of course
March 31, 2011 at 6:38 pm, Robert Petersen said:
I wanted to just write a comment in annoyance at the ignorance represented herein, but I will withhold my vitriol and instead ask a simple question: What do you get when you mix government with business? Is it capitalism? Or is it something else entirely, and can you understand the fundamental difference? For you, the question isn’t who is John Galt, but who is Wesley Mooch…
April 01, 2011 at 2:49 am, Hellabro said:
Lol tea partiers
April 01, 2011 at 4:09 am, Anonymous said:
Who is John Galt? Looter do you know?
April 01, 2011 at 4:08 am, Anonymous said:
Who is John Galt?
April 04, 2011 at 1:49 am, Paratus said:
You are a smarmy little cretin Pangburn; you haven’t the
ability to open your mind enough to
consider alternative views.
April 06, 2011 at 3:14 pm, Lotide said:
If you’d read the book you would know that she would not have been a tea-bagger or a republican. Ayn Rand detested all the things they stand for. It is only because most people have only read a summary of atlas shrugged that they assume it should be the republican manifesto. We as Americans just don’t want to hear someone tell us how lazy we have become or how it’s our fault we have such a corrupt government.
April 09, 2011 at 6:29 pm, Pam said:
The country is run by great big fat institutional corporations AND great big fat unions, both in bed with senators and congressmen, NOT individual entrepreneurs like John Galt. We NEED brave persons to start new companies now more than ever, because they create new jobs. They also create new wealth which floats many boats. They create new wealth rather than fighting over who gets the biggest portion of the existing wealth. (Or the best seat on the Titanic!)
June 28, 2011 at 11:25 pm, Michael said:
Contrary to so much of the disinformation out there about her, it isn’t the case that Ayn Rand was against charity. She was personally charitable to her friends and donated to help Israel defend itself. In her own words: “My views on charity are very simple. I do not consider it a major virtue and, above all, I do not consider it a moral duty. There is nothing wrong in helping other people, if and when they are worthy of the help and you can afford to help them. I regard charity as a marginal issue. What I am fighting is the idea that charity is a moral duty and a primary virtue.”
Her point was that you have to have a healthy non-charitable sector in order to be able to provide charity, and that economic freedom (and nothing else) provides that health. How much can one donate if one is starving or dies at age 35, as before technology one did.
Government welfare is a perversion of charity because it is ill-managed and cripples the productive sector over time. Look at the tens of trillions in unfunded liabilities that are going to cripple our economy; and it’s just going to get worse unless we get the system right.
One part of the foolishness of the recent debates about Rand is the idea that agreeing with Rand’s prediction and diagnoses in “Atlas Shrugged” – the accuracy of which has been demonstrated in the last few years to a nicety – somehow magically commits one to agreement with her total philosophy. Would this argument be extended to an atheist leftist who recommends Tolstoy or Victor Hugo?
The other part is a specific misrepresentation of Christianity. Christianity is not a pro-Statism religion; indeed, given who killed their Savior, it tends to the anti-State. (This is something the left has not yet dealt with.) Nowhere in the Bible does it say that wealth should be expropriated and redistributed by the dubious means of government structures; it speaks of personal and *voluntary* charity. One might add, looking at the horrific debt and unfunded liabilities situation that the U.S. is in right now, that the Bible and Jesus were wise in staying away from government panaceas.
This entire kabuki charade is in bad faith. The Bible does not advocate any Progressive notions of “economic justice.” The progressives who have suddenly discovered religion and its necessary role in politics – after thirty decades and more of stridently and rightly insisting it must be kept out of politics – are not sincere. After this temporary rhetorical bubble is over, they will resume their previous, also ad-hoc, declarations.
As for the “sociopath” accusation, this is what comes of copying attack website garbage. The whole thing rests upon one author – Michael Prescott’s – highly selective excerpting and chopping up of a private [i.e., thinking out loud without clarifications ] journal written when Rand was barely out of her teens, fresh from the blood bath of 1920s Soviet Russia – and still made it very clear that her read on the personalities of the observers showed that they were not appalled by Hickman’s crime – she said there had been far worse, without the same spectacle of glee – but by his flamboyant and mocking defiance of society. She – who was writing about a *legally innocent man* at the time of the trial – even called him a monster, a pervert, a repulsive and purposeless criminal. Enough with the disinformation and – yes – Satanizing of Ayn Rand.