The irony of using Artificial Intelligence to generate the entire video from start to finish, about the book that champions HUMAN mind, individualism and work.
I watched in my lifetime the events that happened in Venezuela in the past 20 years. Venezuela is Atlas Shrugged in real life. All the usual socialists (actors, journalists, politicians) who loudly cheered on Venezuela's conversion to socialism 20 years ago are strangely very silent right now.
You want to see the Real Atlas Shrugged? Go to America. We have the constitution that enshrines not only the ability to start business and promotes capitalism, but has the Bill of Rights to enshrine our individual freedoms. Guess which of those rights and traditions are being pissed on here right now. If you guessed "All of Them;" You are Correct!
A crucial point was left out of this summary. Rand demonstrates the mechanics of the collectivist's corruption. Their moral bankruptcy, and the evil that drives those who push it on society. That is as important as anything else.
It is important to note that the inherent flaw in government FORCING or compelling the individual mind to serve others is not the same as the individual mind voluntarily serving others. This is a crucial distinction that seems to escape those who criticize and even demonize Rand's philosophy.
The premise of story is based on a Greek Mythology Titan named Atlas who supported the weight of the World on his shoulders, and the question "What would happen if Atlas just shrugged."
I find this the way I find THE WEST WING... it's bizarre science fiction based on a parallel universe.... Coz in our world it wasn't bureaucracy that killed the railroads, it was the interstate system.
@@justgonnastay Yeah..Right...You might want to ask Elon Musk about that, and many others. I shouldn't need to remind anyone that AS is a work of fiction. And, it hasn't held up well over time. It has some less than "objective" thinking behind it when you look deeper..
It is a book that shows two sides of human nature. Human nature is constant so this story is timeless. I read it in the early 70s ... It has had a lasting impact on me. I was also guided by a book written by Harry Browne "How I Found Freedom In An Unfree World". Very good book on how to live life on your own terms.
Good job on the summary of a very stimulating book. She desperately needed an editor on her book, although the size made it fit perfectly under a clothes drier we had that was lacking a support post. The book illustrates the proposition that the opposite of error is not always truth; it is often error on the other side.
I've ready Atlas Shrugged twice. Also read Anthem and The Fountain Head. In general, I like most of the philosophy, but Rand is so... freakin'...pedantic! The chapter where Galt goes off on his "A is A" is like a sledge hammer pounding away at a 10 penny nail. As one who enjoys all types of literature, if I could offer her (now dead) pen any advice, it would be "less tell... more show." But she does show. Exhaustively. The whole book could have been condensed by half. But no. We have to see every time a business owner leaves...and its for the same reason. Galt finds them and talks them out of the world that has gone insane. Then we have to see every reaction of the fools in Govt...and its the same reaction. You never once get the sense that anyone really grows or changes as a character. Dagny might be the one since she does eventually give up the railroad (or saves it, as Galt says). Maybe the Non-Absolute/Wet Nurse kid who gets killed during the riot at Rearden's factory. But that's too little, too late. It is one of the only really touching moments in the novel. The rest is all pretty cut and dry. Industrialist good. Govt guys bad. Not very subtle or nuanced. That's one thing Rand misses: nuance. There are some people in the real world who are both/and. For example, we may today mock Bill Gates for some of his political positions, but he created Microsoft, one of the most amazing companies in the world. Also, look at the titans of Industry like Musk... he still makes some really dumb decisions at times and has some very kooky ideas. Not in Rand's book though. All industrialists (the real ones, not the pretenders like Orren Boyle) in her books are wise, competent, and morally good in every way. All Govt is wicked, evil, corrupt, and incompetent. It's very 2 dimensional. People are more of a mixed bag in real life. Plus, is it realistic that Dagyn is constantly sleeping around with several men (D'Anconia, Rearden, Galt) and never once gets knocked up? The way Rand describes her sex scenes, I doubt there was any time for the guys to slip on a condom, and BC pills weren't available until the 1960s. Atlas Shrugged was set somewhere in the 1940s-1950s, as those were the fading glory days of railroads. A minor nitpick, but nonetheless, something that always stuck out like a sore thumb in Rand's world of perfect industrialists who never make wrong or hasty decisions that they later regret. In the end, Rand didn't write a novel. She wrote a political treatise dressed up and espoused by characters. Fine enough for that, but too long, too heavy handed, and ultimately not fully reflective of reality of the human condition.
Great observations: sledgehammer, 2d view, and of course, BC pills. 😂 Agree with your points. But in Ayn Rand's defense, I have read that pseudo-socialistic ideologies were on the rise in the USA in the 50s post WWII, and this was within the so-called elite societies and business classes in the country. And Ayn hated such "neither here nor there" attitude of these elitists. That's why she took her ideas to [silly] extremes and plotted against New York to switch off it's lights permanently. 😅
If you really believe Bill Gates created anything, let alone a company like Microsoft, you have a fair bit of real reading ahead of you! Look up Janet Ossebard's Fall Cabal, there's a whole exhaustive series on him, but if you concentrate on the much 'debunked' "Protocols of Zion" you will see why we have been brought to a time such as this & only true men like Reardon/Trump can bring us through, but only when we too begin to think like him & Galt.
When I was newly involved in Objectivism I noticed that there were two kinds of reactions to Dagny's love affairs -- she has only three -- in the novel: those of us who were amazed that this passionate woman did love only three men in her life, and the the often religion-bound petty little minds who condemned her for "sleeping around" and focused on trivia such as birth control. You make a nice example of the latter.
IMO her first book We the Living is her most important novel, but unfortunately overlooked. Based upon her own experience in the Soviet Union, it shows the nuts and bolts of why a collectivist system based upon political pull, rather than actual competence, fails. Through its characters she shows how it operates and affects and damages everyone. It changed my view of life and society forever.
I read this book in 1964 at age 19. I was so influenced by it that I went on to read Rand’s novels “We the Living” and “The Fountainhead”. The principles she conveyed have stayed with me to this day.
I'm 69. My grandfather gave it to me when I was about 8. I asked my mother what I was supposed to do with it. I finally read it about 5 years ago, along with The Fountainhead.
I enjoyed Atlas Shrugged, and value its insight into the mindset behind socialism and its impact on the individual, but it’s 1) overly long; 2) comically oversimplified; and 3) way too confident in the power of contract. I’m all about capitalism but it leads to monopolies that create vast power imbalances that circumvent the ability of people to negotiate for fair contractual relations with the monopolist. The US, in the early 1900’s, developed antitrust laws that became the envy of the world. Unfortunately, Robert Bork’s “The Antitrust Paradox” led to massive changes that have ushered us into the age of monopolies. Now that huge multinationals have taken over all resources and corrupted the political system (even more than it has traditionally been corrupted) we’re all essentially back to a feudal oligarchy.
Back in the middle of the last Century, I read 1984 and Atlas Shrugged both as a high school boy. Ever since, I have been alert for signs that we were headed into the dystopia described in one or the utopia offered by the other. I cheered for the Libertarian movement once, only to see them overtaken by the left and descending into mere hedonism. If Trump is our Galt, Musk may be our Reardon. I think the fly in Rand's soup could turn out to be her atheism. Recent events make me suspect that God may have his thumb on the scales now.
I read this book about 50 years ago as I began my business career. For a while I felt it had merit and supported my own drive (ego) toward success. Around 30 years ago I realized the book far more promotes and supports greed, selfishness and arrogance. Following Rand’s philosophies tends to bring out the worst in people rather than their best.
I don't see any evidence she assumed / believed that at all. What she points out is that all people are self interested. The difference between the industrialist and bureaucrat, is that the industrialist will try to make a better product that people will want to buy. A bureaucrat will just take what they want at the point of a gun.
@@pilotandy_com Her Theory. is. an understandable Trama Reaction to. having. Her Family and others Abused by. Communist Russian. Government. Her theorys. are Very. Overly. Simplistic and. the Story. is. intertaining. and. thought provoking. with very true elements. Poor hard working people Built the Railroads , Cities, Airports, Cars, The Tall Steel Skyscrapers, the Roads and all the infrastructure -- Her Thory. says. they should be Abandoned by. Everyone and left to die w/ out. medical care-- Don't you get it - She is Insane. and. Republicans who Use hers books to promote and. Justify. preditory and selfish distructive policy are A- holes like Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnal,
The answer is that success is not due to industrialization, capitalism, or regulation but to the grey matter between them. Lee Iacocca, known for the Ford Mustang and the rebuilding of Chrysler during the 1980s, said that regulation helps car companies. If you analyze the last 50 years, notice that car companies do better with the advent of new federal regulations. The deregulation of the banking industry in the 1980s and 2000s caused substantial economic problems. Ayn Rand’s concepts don't hold up. I'm big on individualism and innovation, but it can't be at the expense of society. Lead in gasoline was innovative at the time, but it led to many issues with air quality.
One of my absolutely favorite books. Unfortunately people in our current government seemed to have missed the point of the book. It is NOT about equality of outcome where the unstated goal is for everyone to be mediocre, but equality of opportunity where exceptional individual are allowed to be exceptional.
"people...seemed to have missed the point of the book. It is NOT about equality of outcome..., but equality of opportunity" For being one of marisa's "favorite books", SHE certainly "missed the point of the book". Atlas Shrugged is NOT about "equality of opportunity". In fact, the book has the VILLAINS preach and practice that very philosophy, culminating in their EVlL "Equalization of Opportunity Bill". The point of the book is the power and importance of the FREE, rational mind (or, as Miss Rand explicitly put it, the theme [point] of her novel was "the role of the mind in man's existence").
It is not about equality at all whether is be of opportunity or outcome. Although it is common strawman to suggest progressivism is about equality of outcome.
I am no novel reader (especially big suckers), but 'Atlas Shrugged' literally fell onto my bed from a bookshelf 12yrs ago while I was minding my daughters house! So I knew God was speaking to me and I read it. Since then I have had two profound dreams, one speaking of my own personal salvation & the other the world's & in both her book was clue, & the answer to what we face as a society & what Maga Trump means to our survival! Get out & vote in the industrialist & save the world!!
@@christinagavin4517 That is pretty ironic given that Ayn Rand was an staunch atheist and loathed exactly what the Trump voters represent. Industry and the economy has consistently done better under Democratic governorship. BTW, there is no socialist or even a left party in the US.
Big fan of Ayan Rand. I first read it when I was about 15 years old. Now that I am 72, it is still correct in its philosophy. Many countries/ nations have been created and failed , precisely for the reasons shown in this book, since.it was first written.
It is a pretty simplistic view of the world that leaves out character flaws and ego. It's like discussing capitalism, socialism or communism in idealistic terms. None of those exist in a pure form in the real world. In her world the government is almost completely flawed and the individuals that move the world are pure of heart. In reality, the government is flawed, but necessary and those who move the world are often corrupted by money and power.
@@jamiemiller6156 "leaves out character flaws and ego" You OBVIOUSLY didn't read the book. Besides Galt, there are "character flaws" galore amongst even the good characters. In fact, it is their own flaws which the heroes fight to overcome through the whole novel. "In her world the government is almost completely flawed" Just like it was in the Soviet Union. So much for your claim of such a government NOT being 'realistic' (and that's not even touching on the point that ALL the bad laws in the book EXISTED -in America- at the time it was WRITTEN). The idea that her presentation of government wasn't 'realistic' is the only "simplistic" idea here. "the individuals that move the world are pure of heart" Actually, the "hearts" of the heroes are quite mixed. It is MAKING them "pure of heart" - leading them to PURGE their "heart" of impurities - which is both the POINT of the story and the ARC of their characters. Even just reading the Cliff Notes would have taught you THAT much! "In reality government is flawed but necessary." In both the novel and reality, government is flawed AND necessary. The entire point is that the flaws are NOT what is necessary about government and - as was done with slavery - they must be PURGED from government (as impurities must be PURGED from people's hearts in the book and reality). But thanks for identifying the fact that flaws are your DEFINITION of both 'real' government and 'real' people. "those who move the world are often corrupted by money and power" That describes EVERY villainous businessman and politician in the book - ie those who rule OVER the heroes (because the heroes have accepted the corrupt philosophy of those businessmen and politicians). You REALLY should read a thing before you PRETEND to critique that thing. That saves everyone from having to watch you attack straw men instead of the actual thing.
My summary: Brain-drain. Trains. All the heroes bag Dags. Commies bite; smart guys go on strike. Collectivist overreach; Galt crushes them with 8-hour speech. Analysis: All in all, it's a *great* attack on collectivist mindsets. Rand's replacement system could use some tweaking though.
Thank you for the video. I've been a voracious reader since I was able to read. We didn't have much money in the house for books so I read whatever was around. My father's war novels, my older sister's school book assignments. I was continually checking books out of the school's library. My parents invested in a set of Encyclopaedia Britannica when I was 9. My brother and I read from Volume A to Z. . That was over 60 years ago. I have never read Ayn Rand, although I have been tempted a couple of times. I could not seem to follow her writing style. The elements of the book as you have laid out are along the lines of books that I would normally enjoy reading. I may have to give it one more try. Maybe this time I can stay with her.
I don’t normally read this type of book, but it was suggested to me, so I read it. I thought it was well written, kept me engaged, while also painting a bleak snapshot of what the future may hold. It certainly makes you think. For that, I recommend it.
_Atlas Shrugged_ is a big, big book. It's well worth reading, but if you want to start off with something a bit easier to get into, try _Anthem,_ it's much shorter and a far easier read, and it contains much of the same elements: individuals against the almighty State. If you like that, then _Fountainhead_ should be next on your list. That's probably my favorite of all Rand's books, and I hope you'll enjoy it too!
@langreeves :: Your last sentence is such a vital understanding of humans, especially if humans are to survive. This mutual cooperation between humans has to be driven out of our heads. The savage form of capitalism has always worked to this aim. It is not easy as most humans can't easily forget our shared experiences during the earliest stages of our development.
Thank you for satisfying my lifelong mild curiosity about one of Granny's books. Still don't know or care what the title means, but probably should thank you for that too.
capitalism vs socialism. The biggest trick that the capitalist plays is that it is a system of a meritocracy. In reality, you only end up with corporate, authoritarian states.
Not quite. Corporations influence, cajole and beg government to enact legislation or regulations to their benefit, but they can’t dictate. They might bribe or blackmail individual government officials, but that doesn’t bring about wholesale legislative or regulatory change. Even in Atlas Shrugged, you can see the influence peddling, begging, etc. on the part of the book’s corporate villains such as James Taggart, Oren Boyle and Paul Larkin. The reality is that governments can and do dictate to corporations as well as to individuals.
Not quite. Corporations influence, cajole and beg government to enact legislation or regulations to their benefit, but they can’t dictate. They might bribe or blackmail individual government officials, but that doesn’t bring about wholesale legislative or regulatory change. Even in Atlas Shrugged, you can see the influence peddling, begging, etc. on the part of the book’s corporate villains such as James Taggart, Oren Boyle and Paul Larkin. The reality is that governments can and do dictate to corporations as well as to individuals.
Not exactly true.. what Obama did to corporation during his foul administration set the stage for corp Infiltration and corruptions in line with BO's marxist views.
And people think today that technocrats like elon theil gates zuch are here to save us - when they want our “collective consciousness” tied to the internet of things via starlink 🤮🤮
Not a fan of the book. There are some pearls of wisdom in there but overall I find it boring. I feel people like to make parallels where there are none. I think it can be summed up best with this quote “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." - John Rogers
That's because you're too simple minded to understand it. It's not recommended reading for people with IQs below 100. LOTR may be too advanced for you as well. You're not alone as I've never met a communist who likes Ayn Rand.
I have read Atlas Shrugs and her other novels. I have also read all her philosophical works. She was a great thinker and I do agree with her views. Those who say she was a fascist never read nor understood what she was saying. She was anti-fascist, anti-communist, anti-socialist or any other philosophy that tried to enslave others for their own good. She was pro free minds and free markets. The only reason she didn't like the term libertarian applied to her was that the libertarian movement had no coherent philosophy. That is what she saw as her primary goal. To supply that philosophy. For those who will explore it, I think you'll find she succeeded.
You ether didn't actually read her books, or you just accepted what she promoted. Which one? Well, ok the other option is you're a tool, but I don't believe that.
Recently bought the book - which is TINY, crammed to the hilt with extra small print on extra small pages. I think I need a special support with clamps to keep this book open and flat. Also throw in a large magnifying glass and lights.
I bought the audio version in 2008. Worth every penny. I was spellbound for 3 months (54-ish hoUrs). It went viral back then, when what's-his-name was running for President... I still can't say the Kenyan usurper's name...
I have got the Kindle version - paused at about half way through. I have also read (and still have) the Rise and Fall of the Third Reich by William L Shirer. Big fat book, tiny print, eight hundred or more pages. Brilliant! But you do need a magnifying glass if your eyes are as old as mine.
@@angiebishop6316 Obama was born in Hawaii. You can not like him without resorting to silly conspiracy theories. Trump's mother was from Scotland. Does that make him a Scottish usurper?
"...where the government has taken control of businesses and innovation is stifled by regulations". Kind of like how innovation is stifled when cartels and monopolies are allowed to develop in a "free" market without any regulation? Rand had an over simplistic and twisted perspective.
We are so happy you enjoyed it. We started this channel to spur some conversation. Oftentimes life imitates art and we forget how valuable fiction can be in teaching us.
I really enjoy these videos. The only thing I would like to make them better would be more pictures and more AI movement of the pictures. Either way I'm still hooked on your videos.
After having this novel recommended to me by various people with very diverse political biases, I read it (1988) and then saw the mini-series years later. What takes place in the novel has been slowly developing over the last 60 years, since Lyndon Johnson's “Great Society.” The phrase, “Dumbing Down” is now used to describe the socialistic evil that the novel warns against. These ideas are still espoused today under titles such as, DEI, Political Correctness, Wokeness… These malignancies are every bit as dangerous as the forced socialism portrayed in Atlas Shrugged. Ayn Rand may have been an atheist, but she did experience the ruinous Godlessness of communism in her native Russia. Thankfully, she emigrated to a free USA and was able to write about and warn against this insidious depravity.
"Good thing we have a bunch of tribalists to keep our confederate statues up and save us from wokeness! Also to protect us from healthcare, unions and all sorts of folks trying to stop the melanin deprived from breeding." - Bland R. Whistlehouse III
Individualism abesent conscious awareness, which is the state of arrested developmemt in a divided country , as it is today, whthou 6:11 t a moral compass, without psychological thereputic intervention isnt worth perpetuationing.
Socialism sucks, but this book's view of capitalism is utterly simplistic. Corporatism can subjugate individualism as thoroughly as governments. And then there's greed. ENRON ANYONE? Credit default swaps?
simplistic? Does the book not reference corporatism? What do you think Orren Boyle and James taggert were doing throughout the novel? Were they not using and willingly being used by government? What about Robert Stadler? Did he become a capitalist? No! as a scientist he endorsed government backed science and became anthony Fauci, getting a cushy government job, until it came back to bite him and he became enslaved to his position. Most of the businessmen in the book were evil. If Rand was not aware of corporatism she would not be able to put these characters in her novel and there would be no story, everyone would be in atlantis on page 1
“I like to think of fire held in a man's hand. Fire, a dangerous force, tamed at his fingertips. I often wonder about the hours when a man sits alone, watching the smoke of a cigarette, thinking. I wonder what great things have come from such hours. When a man thinks, there is a spot of fire alive in his mind--and it is proper that he should have the burning point of a cigarette as his one expression.”
I have never bought the Randian/Republican/Conservative philosophy that free markets utterly unfettered by government regulation is the answer to all society’s ills. One merely needs to look at history to see what happens when a capitalist country removes regulation from the markets. The crashes of 1929, 1987 and 2008 all resulted from the removal of regulations that formerly kept the John Galts of the world honest. At the same time i also believe capitalism is the best system for providing for the material needs of any nation. Again history proves this as all attempts at pure communism, socialism, etc. have failed miserably. There must be a balance between a generally free market economy tempered by just enough government regulation to reign in the worst instincts that capitalism brings out in some people.
@@robnelson6545 1929 was the direct result of excess laissez fair. Not sure of the government tinkering you raise. The Trustbusting of Teddy Roosevelt was on serious decline, along with a reduction of regulation. In 1916 Calvin Coolidge said a "a factory is a temple" (this is paraphrased, look up the whole quote if you need to.) After 1929, temples shut down only to truly be re-born by world war.
Regulations are needed because people in general are greedy, and sometimes the nefarious will cut corners to make an extra buck, putting other people in harm's way, all for$
@@maxpower92 you have to balance that with that regulations keep out competition. Competition can increase quality and decrease prices. For example, health care is heavily regulated.
The greatest thing that could happen is for those who THINK they're the smartest and most productive to leave society. Because they're not the greats. They're the oppressors. Humans are great and powerful because we are a social species. We are great due to working together.
“I believe in Man as an heroic being, that happiness is his end, and logic is his one guide in achieving it.” It’s so obvious why everyone hates this book.
Of course a lot of people would hate it! Everyone that does not want to think of themselves as possessing ability or any true talent would hate this book! Everyone that does not want to be responsible for their own life would hate it. Everyone that wants others to take care of them would hate it. Everyone that is lazy, self centered and has no desire to achieve anything would hate it. Everyone that feels that rich people don't deserve what they've achieved and demand that they, the lazy and shiftless get more than they deserve would hate it! Every socialist, communist, Marxist and anarchist would also hate this book! Every person that looks a problem and gives up, and hates those that have the ability to solve problems with their creativity and effort would also hate this book! Its so obvious!!!!
@@TheRealThomasPaine1776 Correct in everything you said except you claim that Anarchists would hate the book. Yes, most Anarchists are socialists however, NOT all of them! The true definition of Anarchy is "no rulers" which means Anarchists are anti-state. I'm an Anarchist and proud of it! Almost all of the fools who call themselves anarchists hate me. But I'm not going to nit-pick as everything else you said in your comment is spot on!
Heh, socialists hate this book, cowards hate this book, followers haven't even read this book. Sovereign patriots love this book. Individuals that take responsibility for their actions and their lives do their best to live this book.
There is a meaningful journey in a human life when we aim to achieve, we should not run for our own sakes to hide from a collapsing society and instead meet that challenge face on and with determination to prevent a collapse as proactively as possible and then if we must also be ready for a reactive rescue.
One of my all-time favorite books, but the one thing I don't think Ayn Rand anticipated...when governments implement socialist/communist policies that drives away businesses, entrepreneurs, innovators and industrialists, the result isn't really collapse or chaos as one thinks of those words. Instead, the result is a society that becomes dependent on government for everything, which was the plan all along. With the citizenry completely dependent on a cradle-to-grave government nanny-state, the government is essentially free to do whatever it wants. And with no ability of the people to fight back, it will.
@@thatguyinelnorte Exactly. We actually got to witness a version of Atlas Shrugged play out in real life when Elon Musk/John Galt got so sick and tired of the asinine taxes and regulation in California he moved all his companies to a business-friendly Texas/Galt's Gulch. I live in TX and he's been awesome for our economy...good paying jobs for Texans that California could have kept were they not Marxist assholes.
Over the years I’ve heard people say “do you want the government to decide your medical care and come between you and your doctor?” And my reply is “it’s better than some greedy corporation”.
@@whiplashfatigue1430 That "greedy corporation" is motivated by the revenue that comes from SUCCESSFULLY treating patients....to maintain that revenue stream, they have to be competent, or patients will go elsewhere for care. You want to trade that for a healthcare system that runs with the efficiency of FEMA and the compassion of the IRS? No thanks.
3:40 Galt is standing outside of the safety railings, perhaps just his tippytoes hanging on. Is he about to jump if Dagny doesn’t “get it”? #AIArtThings
The problem with Ayn Rand's philosophy is too many people are too weak to participate in such a civilization. If given the choice between freedom and convenience, most people say freedom but most people actually choose convenience. Also Rand was hostile to the ideas of religion. I don't think she gave religion, in specific Christianity, the credit it deserves in creating and keeping a civilization working. PS I personally think The Fountainhead tells a better story.
Yes, the Fountainhead is the best. Have you ever thought that maybe there isn't anything wrong with Rand's philosophy and maybe there is something wrong with the people you mention? Why must someone be strong to participate? A rising tide lifts all boats girl. Wake up! Just because YOU are weak doesn't mean that you won't get some benefit.
Isn't it interesting that the plague of our society is the opposite of Atlas Shrugged. Instead of govt stifling business with too many regulations and taxes, business tells govt the laws and regulations it wants. Any protection for the common man has been dismantled, allowing business to pay wages that have barely moved in a generation, products cause damage to the environment in spite of good science to the contrary, and people are forced to pay exorbitant prices for second rate goods due to a lack of competition. The world that Atlas Shrugged saw as utopia turned out to be a worse nightmare.
@@KevinB-pd3me Leftist? Why does big business lobby for fewer regulations as the environment is being destroyed? Why are profits through the roof yet workers can't afford housing?
@@jgalt308 The cause? Greed, of course. Businessmen want billions more, and they pay politicians millions to get it. There are always bad actors that will ruin any system with protection.
It is not even worth 8 minutes: greed is good. I am pretty sure that is not what Jesus taught us. “Whoever loves money never has enough; whoever loves wealth is never satisfied with their income. This too is meaningless” (Ecclesiastes 5:10). “Keep your lives free from the love of money and be content with what you have, because God has said, ‘Never will I leave you; never will I forsake you’” (Hebrews 13:5).
Then you’d align yourself with the pharasies? They were preaching and teaching similar to the moral crusaders today. I don’t see Christians doing that, I see more of the secular types preaching about their ideologies.
@@robnelson6545 No, Jesus obviously stated that he Pharisees had lost their way in following the minutiae of the law and not the essence: mercy and forgiveness for each other. In other words, love your God with all your heart, mind and soul, and love your neighbor as yourself. Different from the rainbow warrior “love,” Jesus stated that His love is not of this world, not for the fulfillment of our flesh (meaning desires like greed, lust, etc), so that is where Ayn got it wrong. Jesus and the apostles were very much for Christians doing our part in society, working hard, making a living for ourselves and our families, so that fits into the capitalist system very well, but the goal of creating wealth is not the end goal, not the all consuming Gekko end game goal.
Aristotle was suspicious of the rule of both the mob and an autocratic elite. From his own experience, he had good reason for his suspicions. What is ethically good may be understood by the majority or by an elite, but that understanding does not derive necessarily from nature of democracy or autocracy. Politics must be inspired by the Good; politics cannot invent the Good. Unfortunately, many other influences other than the Good may inspire politics. Though purity is never found, it is still true that villainous and heroic elites and majorities appear throughout the pages of history. Heroic movements of either type are the minority. Moreover, should a movement begin by being heroic, that beginning will not guarantee that movement's heroic finish. History often sees ethically founded good intentions turn to tragedy. Rand was a considerable thinker, but her book failed to resolve Aristotle's dilemma.
@@penneyburgess5431 Neither can organizations be guaranteed to be consistent. Harvard and Yale, for example, were created to educate Puritan ministers. That's not what these institutions do now, despite the old mottos one can read on the campus. But if your point is that human behavior invariably betrays human moral insight, no matter how well those moral insights are grounded philosophically, then I would certainly agree. If we could all agree on the objective authority of a specific moral law, we still would not follow it. C. S. Lewis makes that point in Mere Christianity.
Being dyslexic I have always struggled with A.S. Glad to finally know what it's supposed to be about. Seems pretty stupid if this is really the plot. Like all those billionaires get all cocky about how important they are except that the government provided the backbone that allowed them to become rich, where would they be w/o roads and social security for their old employees and police to protect them. Just a fantasy for the wanna be rich people.
Simple solutions to complicated problems. The refuge of the fanatic. No single book, or single philosophy is the solution to anything. Mixed economies, where the democratically elected government acts as a check on pure market capitalism is the only viable solution. It is far from perfect and requires constant tinkering, but it is infinitely better than any extreme political philosophy, from the right or from the left. I wouldn’t trust anyone who said that Atlas Shrugged was their “go to text for the future of mankind”, anymore than someone who said it was Mein Kampf.
Pure market capitalism...is the free market. Tinkering with that is an assault on freedom. I suspect you wouldn't know freedom if it landed on your head.
I really wanted to like Atlas Shrugged when I bought the book, but it was really hard to read through. The writing is just not very good, and the story drags on. In the end, it’s like a Bond villain that wins, destroying the world to remake it in his own image, with very ham handed Jesus allusions hung on him (the sermon, betrayed by a kiss, tempted by the devil, tortured on a cross). The behavior of the “heroes” of the story is pretty despicable, and I have to say that the most respectable character is left to die alone because he tried to do the moral thing. Yes, the book nails socialism and overregulation to the wall and lets everyone see it in all its ignominy, but it does it clumsily, and in a way that exposes some of the authors strange obsessions.
I have to rewatch it and/or read the books. I feel like the premise is suppose to show the government as the bad guys...but I remember watching it the first time, and based off of their reasons for doing what they were doing, not being totally sure that they were. As the story goes on, it becomes clear that is the intent of the author. But at first, it felt a little ambiguous. And honestly, John Gault's choices weren't 100% without consequence. I can tell you this. I have a tough time when people talk about socialism in America, because most of what they label socialism, isn't really the text book definition or understanding of what socialism is. Its too often used as a catchall for "not right wing enough" or "too liberal". Which is really an innacurate way of thinking of socialism.
Read the book...it was published in 1957...the movie was brought forward in time and that was a serious mistake. So what is the textbook definition of "socialism"?
@@jgalt308 Well, to begin with, Socialism is an economic idea of how to manage money and resources between the people of the government. The ideal is to allow the government to allocate money and resources amongst the people equally. With the goal of making sure that everyone has what they need to live well. That's it. Everything else that people put as negatives against Socialism aren't built into the system. For the most part, the negatives are the human factor. That fact that we as humans can't seem to do anything without fucking it up or corrupting it for our own goals. The reason we like capitalism, is because the corruption is a built in part of it, not a "bug" like socialism. We appreciate a system that lets us be our bad selves, without the guilt.
@@brianegendorf2023 So, not really a textbook definition or a dictionary one either? The last time I checked economic "isms" usually involved the ownership and or control; of the means of production with capitalism as private ownership, and socialism involving the state. This does present a few problems in that if ones labor whether physical or intellectual is not "privately owned" that would be the equivalent of "slavery", would it not? In such a world, "where everyone has what they need to live well" what would be the incentive for anyone to aspire to do anything more than the minimum required? Then we have the next step in that power corrupts...and historically the power lies with the state and always has...so while you seem to want to associate this with capitalism, it does not alter the fact of where the power lies. After all, those who have power, do not need to corrupt those who do not and who has more power than the state? "Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action." And this brings us to the final question, that maybe this isn't about economics or results, but rather one that focuses on the proper role and system of government...with a clear understanding that one must keep a sharp eye on any aspect of it, where it's self-interest will come into conflict with those interests of the public they are supposedly there to safeguard?
I have read Atlas, Fountainhead, We the Living and many of her essays and philosphy books on Objectivism (Virtue of Selfishness etc). She is correct on many things, but she totally sucks the joy out of capitalism and makes it look little better as an individual philosophy than communism.
I first read Atlas Shrugged and loved it, as I read it as a mystery story and an adventure. Then I read it again, and read it as being against all Government, and appreciated the philosophy. Then I read it again after reading all Rands other novels, and her philosophy. I began to see it as a philosophy with huge flaws. It is totally materialistic; it totally ignores the value of shared lives, shared values, and suggests that everyone who gets anywhere does it all on their own. Life has taught me, no one does it all on their own - we all rely on the actions of others more than we release. Rand ignores the interconnectedness of all things and all people; the value of helping each other, and paying obligations. In the end, I found her philosophy vile;, modern America, in which there is no God, no higher value than money and power, stems from her thought, and it has led America to where it is now. It is at best narcissistic, and at worse, psychopathic. Rands own narcissism was shown in her treatment of her husband - that in spite of his love for her and all the support he gave her, she had an affair in front of him - he had to leave their apartment while she entertained her lover - because what she wanted was more important. This is not only immoral, ungrateful, disloyal, it's narcissistic. And no, I dont think Dagny should have tried to save the world, because you cant. It's all far more complex than Rand depicted. Social groups will always form systems, and these systems combine to form more and more complex systems, and ultimately these collapse from internal flaws, and cannot be saved. All one can do is leave the failed society and start again.
Even worse, her philosophy underpins much of what current billionaires like Peter Thiele (through his proxy and less-than-human opportunist JD Vance) and Elon Musk believe in and are trying to impose upon the USA through Trump and his MAGA minions and Project 2025 program.
You are exactly right. I suggest watching Elon Musk as an example of what exactly is wrong about this philosophy. His failures reveal the shallowness and absudities of AR's philosophy, his successes are all due to the collective efforts of others.
@leschwartz I don't consider Elon Musk as an example of a Randian hero. He built his fortune selling electric cars taking advantage of government incentives such as tax credits to buyers of EV's and carbon credit sales to builders of real cars. Teslas are low quality and unreliable considering how much they cost, and their self-driving system should be banned. If I was going to compare Musk (as a car manufacturer) to a character in Atlas Shrugged, it would be Orren Boyle. On the flip side, I appreciate Musk's purchase of Twitter and his efforts to turn it into a free-speech platform.
I think that there were so many tiny details to the main philosophy expressed in the book, that it is hard to capture all that in a 5 min video. Anyway... I love "Atlas Shrugged". It was a life changer for me. My most important takeaways were not about individualism or capitalism, but about "conflict resolution". As a kid, I was always conflicted between capitalistic progress and the planet's destruction due to that progress. I was intelligent enough to digest lots of information, but my brain lacked the necessary framework to process that information and form my own convictions. And it started to get in the way once I started living on my own terms (job life). Then Depression. And then I read Atlas Shrugged. From which, I formed these three golden rules. 1. A is A. 2. Contradictions do not exist. 3. If in a contradiction, check your premise. This ruleset gave me a depth of perception and clarity that I never had before in my life. Something that has become as basic as breathing now.
I read Atlas Shrugged when I was about 20; it was an exciting novel, but I thought Rand was a little bit stupid: she was just so fixated on a relatively small number of things that she didn't really seem to be cognizant of reality. I haven't changed my mind.
I've read all of Ayn Rand's novels. She mainly appeals to young men who tend to believe the ideas Rand expands on in her novels. They are all based on a rejection of cooperative solutions to social problems and glorify the brilliant individual who solves all problems for the benefit of the individual and not for society. I assume this is based somewhat to Ayn Rand's early childhood growing up in Communist Russia. But it was also encouraged by people who were Fascists and Eugenicists. Young men who idolize Rand's concepts are often only deluding themselves.
I recommend the movie with Taylor Schilling from 13 years ago, although the conclusion after part 3 is somewhat unresolved. I heard that no studio would finance it so some rich guy provided the funding.
The core of Rand's philosophy: reason, rational self-interest, and the superiority of Capitalism, are key concepts to live by. More broadly, Rand's rather unilateral and uncompromising attitude towards her own stuff comes off as suspicious, narcissistic and naive. To name a few examples: 1) Rand contradicts her ideals by her own personal behaviors. She touts reason ad nauseam, but acts very unreasonably herself. She touts individuality, but goes insane if anyone contradicts, even on the smallest thing. She touts anti-collectivism, but acts like a collectivist herself. 2) She promotes Capitalism, but refuses to acknowledge its obvious flaws. No government regulations? Then get ready for airplanes falling out of the sky, the financial markets in upheaval, and food safety in the toilet. 3) She champions individualism, but doesn't acknowledge the damage down by narcissists in the name of their own self-serving individualistic delusions.
Ayn Rand grew up first in tsarist Russia, then in the Soviet Union. She experienced everything she warned about. She not only predicted, she remembered. And too much of what she warned us about is closing in on us now.
@@briankgarland As a teenager I was fascinated by Rand, and will admit to having read both Atlas Shrugged and Fountainhead each five times. I’ve carefully studied her other fiction, read all of her published philosophical works, including For the New Intellectual, Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal, The Romantic Manifesto, and so on, and used to subscribe to The Objectivist. I’ve not encountered anyone else who has spent so much time with this one particular writer’s work. Having expended this enormous effort, I think I’m reasonably qualified to offer an opinion as to the essential problem with her work. Far too much of it reflects her mental illness. Ayn Rand was a sociopath. She was unable to connect to other people, to develop a realistic picture in her own mind of the motivations and inner life of the people around her. This shows up most glaringly in her depictions of the relationships between the characters in her books. Rape is shown as a common means by which women are overcome by, and come to grips with, their own inner desires. The novel turns on the need of women to succumb to violent sexual dominance as a means to self-realization, particularly in the case of Dagny Taggart, the heroine of Shrugged, and her relationship with Hank Reardon. Reardon’s inner life is very rape-centered. So too for Roark and Francon, the lead characters in Fountainhead. This is sickening stuff, but it would be perfectly fair to depict the nature sexual relationships among her characters this way if this was held up by the author as being unhealthy, or morally wrong, or odd, or even kinky. Go read Tropic of Cancer by Henry Miller for an example of an author who certainly depicts lots of bohemian sexual adventures, sexual dominance and surrender, who thoroughly explores and knows the limits of human sexual depravity and endurance, and in the end knows the difference between what is good in relations and what is genuinely abusive. Rand has no such insight. She routinely fails to depict realistically relations between human beings. This extends to work relations, too. The ease with which Taggart completely abandons her assistant Eddie Willers, after all the loyalty and extraordinary effort he has expended for her, is shocking. Her writing is strongly indicative of a mind unable to grasp or imagine the nature of fully mature, mutually supportive relationships between men and women. Rand was herself well aware of this consistent criticism of her work, and tried to address it by saying her work is not intended to depict relations between real human beings, but instead shows relationships between *idealized*, archetypical characters. That her characters don’t behave like actual human beings do was rather her point, or so she says. The problem with this is, believing her moral philosophy as depicted in Shrugged requires you to believe in her characterization of moral human beings. And Rand falls apart whenever she attempts to describe real human beings, their character, their motivation, their psychology, their needs, how human societies actually work, how economics works, or how human technological advancement is actually achieved. She shows how badly you can get your moral philosophy wrong if your philosophy is based on an essentially inaccurate understanding of the nature of human beings. In consequence of this lack of understanding, what John Galt - the direct voice of Rand in the novel - has to say about moral philosophy, and particularly his conclusions regarding economics, law, and what makes for a good society, are disconnected from reality. History has, in fact, not been kind to John Galt for good reason: too much of what he said is in fact wrong, and it is wrong precisely because, when it comes to principles of human behavior and action, Galt/Rand are not of this earth. They are locked inside Rand’s sociopathy.
But Galt and his industrialists and engineers are going to do it too. They are going to build a new society with themselves in charge and the whole thing will devolve again. The US was a situation like this. Withdrawing from the European society, building their own individualist society...avoiding the mercantile regulations of Britain, the East India Company and the other colonial powers....then watching Europe crumble from afar (Napoleon to Franco Prussian wars and finally WW1) However we went back to "save it" in 1917 and 1942. What has happened in the future US is lesser minds have clawed down the brilliant and successful to stay in charge or become in charge at all costs. Stupidity has become celebrated and innovation is hated by the jealous stupid. She casts political and civil authorities as this idiocracy that must bring everyone down to their mediocrity. This plays out today in fights between Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos vs Sen Elizabeth Warren and Congresswoman Cortez.
So may ironies: wealth and power are concentrated in so few hands as companies become ever larger and more powerful. Meanwhile you have uber-capitalist Elon Musk kowtowing to Trump. Self interest is human nature, but when power is too concentrated self interest tends to work against the common interest. I disagree with Atlas Shrugged in that I believe it's a legitimate role of government to ensure that it doesn't run roughshod over broader societal interests. The worst times in our country have been when self interest ruled unchecked.
Indeed. Rand's motto in this one seems to be, "Why say something once when you can say it 12 times?" I love Fountainhead, but this one just goes on and on and on and on...
@@notthatyouasked6656She probably just understood well how dense most people are, and how much they need repetition to absorb even the most basic of new ideas
@@unquiche Yes. Rand was an intellectual and creative genius who had to learn the hard way that the majority of people can't understand her, and in any case would rather bury their heads in the sand than risk speaking aloud an independent thought.
@@unquiche It could just be the 19th century's writing style creeping in... Read "the Origin of Species" or anything in German or Russian... They tell you once, then a second time, a third time, a fourth time... over and over and over... Ayn Rand is comparatively light reading.
The most glaring issue with Atlas Shrugged is that it does not separate innovators from enterprising businessmen. Musk never designed cars or space vehicles. Bill Gates did not design Microsoft. They were just businessmen with enough knowledge of their products to use others to gain their objectives. The true innovators and geniuses behind many of the products we use are unknown. Also, the amount of government funds used in their research and development is something never addressed. If the government paid you to research a product (think a life saving drug such as epinephrine) then how dare you make it too expensive for common people to use.
If your parents had never met they might have gone on to have children with other people, but you would never have existed. No, Musk is not the engineer who tightened the bolts on Model 3 #295,578, but he was the one that brought all of those engineers together to execute on his dream.
Bill Gates was and still is an exceptional computer programmer. That is a fact. The fact that you are so incredibly wrong about that makes anything else you say incredibly dubious. Despite Faradama’s comment.
These ultra brilliant rich people with their magical invisible force fields and magic engines. This book was so bad. Any day now Elon Musk is going to invent something. You know he hasn't. He didn't invent the electric car. He invented a tunnel. A hole under the ground that was supposed to be an ultra fast transit system that taxied your own car underground and did all these things. Now it's a tunnel. Where's the magic engine that runs off the energy in the air or whatever? In other words, this is a fantasy novel.
As always, hateful critters come up from the floorboards whenever Rand is mentioned. I waited decades to read AS, being satisfied with my own studies and experiences, but one afternoon I was bored and signed out a copy. It was a bit of a slog, but fun. The heroes of the book were a bit too prone to lock-step rationality, but they were indeed in unusual times. The antagonists were much more realistic in the sense that some people do act like that and they really are scum. That accuracy of depiction is why the detractors are so riled by Rand's writings.
I'm always amazed by the negative vitriol spewed by those that don't agree with the book's premises. Why don't they just explain why they don't agree with Rand's philosophy and leave it at that? I suspect that they are learning some very unpleasant facts about their own worldview.
@@Quantalume The book was written in service to greedy self-serving self-righteous tribalists that think anything they set their sights on is fair game. Sorry, she was a hypocrite and a bigot to boot, and simple-minded libertarian philosophy, "my personal freedom is worth more than society at large" is just more horse hockey from a former owner. Look up her background and you'll know.
1. Her entire premise was that she did not want the Soviet style system, which she suffered terribly under, to take over America, and she saw the Socialist mindframe as a step in that horrible direction. 2. She had no concept of Broader Survival*, however, which transcends lower mindframes that are mired in political, social, economic, psychological, and religious issues, rather than surviving against the harsh and deadly universe (which will take all of our collective (but free and independent) efforts). *as defined by the philosophy that deals with it.
Anyone can be a Galt: if they were given a great childhood to develop themselves, their talents, discover their absorbing interests and their physicality. Therefore raising such kids is any ambitious society's greatest investment in itself. Thus reducing the number of criminals, substance abusers and underachievers which cost society all of their useless lives. Think outside the box because 'family' hasn't done the job. It needs support at every level because life begins at conception... IOW cheaper than the alternative.
@@8MinuteMasterpieces 'They' will try to run you out of that village in shame and disgrace if you keep propagating such radical thoughts. The replacement God service only works if you truly believe.
We all live comfortable lives based on shared resources provided by governments. U all use infrastructure somebody before you paid for, and somebody after you will have to pay for. No matter your philosophy, this is true, and you owe a debt to those who provided this to you. Either you agree to support services we all use, or the system collapses, and your life goes to shit. I repeat that no one who lives in a country with shared services succeeded without these services.
Actually, I prefer Dr. Seuss's version "The Lorax" better where despite being told time and time again, their greed and self absorbed personalities is what will destroy the world, not save it. I think all the evidence we see today makes this scenario much more credible. We only need look at people like Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg to realize that industry with out regulation is just a bone head idea. Why this woman was ever hailed as visionary will forever elude me.
"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." John Rogers
Thank you for this. I have heard "Atlas Shrugged" mentioned many times over the years but never got to know anything about it. However, 3 weeks ago I ordered it from the local library and am now up to page 144, with more than a 1,000 pages to come. I am not sure how many times I will be allowed to re-new as the book is due back in a week. But, the book is interesting, but at the end may be above my intellect. I will finish it.
I first read it in the eighties. Then again when Clinton got elected, then again with Obama. By the time Joe stole the white house I no longer bothered: I had memorized the book.
After receiving a lengthy review in some detail from Copilot GPT on the Don Cossack novels of M Sholokhov, I asked the machine whether it had read the books. It had not.
It is almost never the rich/CEO/corporate leader who is the dynamo of creation. It is usually a younger, driven, employee whose work is appropriated by the corporation, and patented, and produced for the benefit of the 'owners' of the company. Thus if the figureheads were to decamp to remote plateaus in Colorado, the actual creators would still keep creating, and the corporate machine would replace the figureheads and keep on churning. Ayn Rand completely fails to understand this dynamic in her relentless promotion of a political point. Which is what I concluded some years after I read Atl;as Shrugged, the Fountainhead, and and her philosophical works.
You are correct that is _today's_ world businesses are run by "professional CEOs" (their profession is being a CEO: they don't care if their business runs trains, makes steel, or mines copper, they move around to "run" the business). AS's world is not that world, Rand is writing about a different (alternate-future?) environment. The story happens to deal with innovators who also found / run companies - this makes the story easier as they are more visible when they disappear (it's already 1200 pages, something needs to be simplified). There are other characters, not primary to the plot, that are innovators who work / worked for others (i.e. residents of 'Atlantis'). There is also John Galt - he was an engineer working for an existing company. The elder Stearns ran the company; his children just assumed it would run itself and they could do with is as they pleased.
dagny etc were not figureheads, they actually did all the work, and in much of the story, Taggert transcontenental, the corporation, actually DOES appropriate her achievements. And yes without HER the corproration falls to pieces
But the main character in the book was a genius inventor who worked for another company and was exploited by them. He’s the driver of the whole story. Did you read Atlas Shrugged? It exactly fits the point you’re making.
There was a time when any list of "The best books in the world" would include this book in the top ten, along side the works of Tolstoy, Dickens etc. The book has always resonated strongly with the American conservatives, with its philosophy of kindness is weakness and greed is good. Its popularity may have declined a little but many Republican politicians like Ted Cruz, Jim Jordan are still guided by it even more so than they are guided by the bible.
For me this a story about maintaining personal integrity. That there will be enormous pressures from both those above, and those below - from rich and poor - from the 'elites' and from the more uneducated classes. That the individual must be wary of the types of corruption that can be found in both ends of society.
As for personal integrity, Ayn spent her life bashing the evils of the welfare state and ended her life collecting social security. How's that for personal integrity?
@@neowuwei7851 So you pay into welfare? No. Welfare's a grant or stipend. But you pay into Social Security because it's a financial plan between the individual & the government. You accrue wealth through working and investing in that partnership; and if it's managed correctly - the government makes money off it as well as the citizen. It's not welfare. It's one of the best things this government has envisioned for the benefit of the nation. The problems come with politician's mismanagement. I don't know everything about Rand, only that she was somewhat difficult and not an easy person to like. I do like some of her books though. She seemed to want to warn people of tyrants - she wanted people to value their freedom & democracy, and personal responsibility was key to holding onto those freedoms.
Another one of Ayn Rand's books, "The Fountainhead," was shown in the film "Dirty Dancing," and the character presenting the book was, of course, shown as a bad guy. As you might expect from a Hollywood socialist screenwriter.
Rand's central tenet is to do as she said, not as she did. Oh, and she believed the NA should have lost their lands. She also did not believe in Evolution. She was as delusional as the religious peoples she despised.
This book was written by a disaffected victim of communism who became so enamored of her capitalist saviors in the west that she became an irrational sycophant for the kind of democracy only a rampant anarcho-capitalist right winger can appreciate. The bit about regulation being the downfall of a free society supposes that the frothing mad draft horse that is capitalism should be unbridled and allowed to attack the wagon train of democracy at will. Pulling it where it pleases as it pleases. The only worthwhile takeaway from this, thousand-plus pages, book is that communism is horror and Ayn Rand was so traumatized by it that she fell into an obsession with a tragic Russian caricature of western culture - the decadent selfish type. She ultimately became such a pain in the ass that all her friends left her to die alone because she ended up surrounding herself with people who were just as selfish and crappy as she was. Her books are a love letter to her own misunderstanding of western values and her life is a cautionary tale for anyone who thinks that selfish is a virtue.
It seems more selfish to make others support the bloated government and a equally bloated welfare system. It's happening right now in other countries and starting right now with millions of homeless being imported into this country along with fentanyl, sex traffickers and violent criminals. The left doesn't get it's way so they burn down businesses and neighborhoods.
You must work for the government. Government is evil and my enemy. Statism is a disease. Regulations are evil. YOU are part of the problem little girl!
I found ayan rand's books 'the virtues of selfishness' challenging. I wouldn't want to live in a world where everyone was selfish to the core but I do admit people are more likely to work for themselves than for society as a whole. A good example is why we have to have draft laws during war. Everyone knows that we need to defend our country but we also know that most individuals won't sign up for it which is why we need mandatory military service during times of war. It just shows that our bodies are hard wired for self-preservation above saving our society from being conquered by a foreign foe.
The irony of using Artificial Intelligence to generate the entire video from start to finish, about the book that champions HUMAN mind, individualism and work.
haha.. excellent point
A glimpse of the future.
Good point Boswell,
Irony? We haven't seen anything yet.
Human creativity and ingenuity built AI. Independent of government.
I watched in my lifetime the events that happened in Venezuela in the past 20 years. Venezuela is Atlas Shrugged in real life. All the usual socialists (actors, journalists, politicians) who loudly cheered on Venezuela's conversion to socialism 20 years ago are strangely very silent right now.
Not strange at all. They are scared as h3ll.
You want to see the Real Atlas Shrugged? Go to America. We have the constitution that enshrines not only the ability to start business and promotes capitalism, but has the Bill of Rights to enshrine our individual freedoms. Guess which of those rights and traditions are being pissed on here right now. If you guessed "All of Them;" You are Correct!
many were probably silenced
Venezuela got screwed up because it was taken over by a dictator that wanted to control everything. blaming "socialism" is cheap and lazy.
I feel like you didn't read the book. Or you don't exist in your world. So, I made a choice. Lol
I can sum up Atlas Shrugged in two words: 'Socialism Sucks'.
Atlas Shrugged came true in the collapse of the USSR, but the parallels to US monopoly regulation is weak.
@@frankb1 wait...
Based on a true story...
How different simplistic is from simplicity.
I can sum up Atlas Shrugged in one sentence: You don't need to know anything about either politics or economics to write a fantasy epic about both.
A crucial point was left out of this summary. Rand demonstrates the mechanics of the collectivist's corruption. Their moral bankruptcy, and the evil that drives those who push it on society. That is as important as anything else.
It is important to note that the inherent flaw in government FORCING or compelling the individual mind to serve others is not the same as the individual mind voluntarily serving others. This is a crucial distinction that seems to escape those who criticize and even demonize Rand's philosophy.
Yes, most people who demonize Rand's philosophy ( and even her) overlook the distinction. The disturbing part is that's the majority of the people.
And Rand lovers are so generous with their volunteerism and charity. Why can’t people see it?
@@23ograin53 Her philosophy is easily one of tue worst ever.
@@chrislovelace1678 Are you a collectivist?
@23ograin53 I'm a socialist and in a perfect world a Communist
The premise of story is based on a Greek Mythology Titan named Atlas who supported the weight of the World on his shoulders, and the question "What would happen if Atlas just shrugged."
I find this the way I find THE WEST WING... it's bizarre science fiction based on a parallel universe.... Coz in our world it wasn't bureaucracy that killed the railroads, it was the interstate system.
Thank you, bot
After which he farted.
You couldn’t even quote the book properly?
Answer: Nothing because the world floats free in empty space.
We are living in the Atlas Shrugged world right now.
Meh. I said that in the 1980s. We weren't then and we aren't now.
unfortunately there is no galts gulch, hammond motors and such
@@lightningroyLike the frog in the pot, the change is happening in small enough increments that you cease to be aware of them.
@@justgonnastay Yeah..Right...You might want to ask Elon Musk about that, and many others.
I shouldn't need to remind anyone that AS is a work of fiction. And, it hasn't held up well over time. It has some less than "objective" thinking behind it when you look deeper..
@@lightningroy Yes, we are; the elite don't give a damn about anybody but themselves. Rand was a piece of garbage.
0:37 Anyone who knows anything about Rand knows her first name is not pronounced like "ane" in Lane, but like "ine" in Mine.
In this day and age, I find this story to be quite timely.
It is a book that shows two sides of human nature. Human nature is constant so this story is timeless.
I read it in the early 70s ... It has had a lasting impact on me. I was also guided by a book written by Harry Browne "How I Found Freedom In An Unfree World". Very good book on how to live life on your own terms.
Rand was deeply naive.
Didn’t see how hyper capitalism stifles creativity. Didn’t see how it gets in the way of meritocracy.
Good job on the summary of a very stimulating book. She desperately needed an editor on her book, although the size made it fit perfectly under a clothes drier we had that was lacking a support post. The book illustrates the proposition that the opposite of error is not always truth; it is often error on the other side.
I've ready Atlas Shrugged twice. Also read Anthem and The Fountain Head. In general, I like most of the philosophy, but Rand is so... freakin'...pedantic! The chapter where Galt goes off on his "A is A" is like a sledge hammer pounding away at a 10 penny nail. As one who enjoys all types of literature, if I could offer her (now dead) pen any advice, it would be "less tell... more show."
But she does show. Exhaustively. The whole book could have been condensed by half. But no. We have to see every time a business owner leaves...and its for the same reason. Galt finds them and talks them out of the world that has gone insane. Then we have to see every reaction of the fools in Govt...and its the same reaction. You never once get the sense that anyone really grows or changes as a character. Dagny might be the one since she does eventually give up the railroad (or saves it, as Galt says). Maybe the Non-Absolute/Wet Nurse kid who gets killed during the riot at Rearden's factory. But that's too little, too late. It is one of the only really touching moments in the novel. The rest is all pretty cut and dry. Industrialist good. Govt guys bad. Not very subtle or nuanced.
That's one thing Rand misses: nuance. There are some people in the real world who are both/and. For example, we may today mock Bill Gates for some of his political positions, but he created Microsoft, one of the most amazing companies in the world. Also, look at the titans of Industry like Musk... he still makes some really dumb decisions at times and has some very kooky ideas. Not in Rand's book though. All industrialists (the real ones, not the pretenders like Orren Boyle) in her books are wise, competent, and morally good in every way. All Govt is wicked, evil, corrupt, and incompetent. It's very 2 dimensional. People are more of a mixed bag in real life.
Plus, is it realistic that Dagyn is constantly sleeping around with several men (D'Anconia, Rearden, Galt) and never once gets knocked up? The way Rand describes her sex scenes, I doubt there was any time for the guys to slip on a condom, and BC pills weren't available until the 1960s. Atlas Shrugged was set somewhere in the 1940s-1950s, as those were the fading glory days of railroads. A minor nitpick, but nonetheless, something that always stuck out like a sore thumb in Rand's world of perfect industrialists who never make wrong or hasty decisions that they later regret.
In the end, Rand didn't write a novel. She wrote a political treatise dressed up and espoused by characters. Fine enough for that, but too long, too heavy handed, and ultimately not fully reflective of reality of the human condition.
Great observations: sledgehammer, 2d view, and of course, BC pills. 😂
Agree with your points. But in Ayn Rand's defense, I have read that pseudo-socialistic ideologies were on the rise in the USA in the 50s post WWII, and this was within the so-called elite societies and business classes in the country. And Ayn hated such "neither here nor there" attitude of these elitists. That's why she took her ideas to [silly] extremes and plotted against New York to switch off it's lights permanently. 😅
100%
If you really believe Bill Gates created anything, let alone a company like Microsoft, you have a fair bit of real reading ahead of you! Look up Janet Ossebard's Fall Cabal, there's a whole exhaustive series on him, but if you concentrate on the much 'debunked' "Protocols of Zion" you will see why we have been brought to a time such as this & only true men like Reardon/Trump can bring us through, but only when we too begin to think like him & Galt.
When I was newly involved in Objectivism I noticed that there were two kinds of reactions to Dagny's love affairs -- she has only three -- in the novel: those of us who were amazed that this passionate woman did love only three men in her life, and the the often religion-bound petty little minds who condemned her for "sleeping around" and focused on trivia such as birth control. You make a nice example of the latter.
IMO her first book We the Living is her most important novel, but unfortunately overlooked. Based upon her own experience in the Soviet Union, it shows the nuts and bolts of why a collectivist system based upon political pull, rather than actual competence, fails. Through its characters she shows how it operates and affects and damages everyone. It changed my view of life and society forever.
Read it at 15, then again at 45. I recommend you read a biography of Ayn Rand. I am now 75.
Read it at about 50. Loved it.
I read this book in 1964 at age 19. I was so influenced by it that I went on to read Rand’s novels “We the Living” and “The Fountainhead”. The principles she conveyed have stayed with me to this day.
you have read more books than 99% of this countries youth...
I'm 69. My grandfather gave it to me when I was about 8. I asked my mother what I was supposed to do with it.
I finally read it about 5 years ago, along with The Fountainhead.
Atlas Shrugged should be required reading in every High School in America
A book that brought full understanding about socialism/communism. A must read! Who is John Galt! We are entering this period.
I enjoyed Atlas Shrugged, and value its insight into the mindset behind socialism and its impact on the individual, but it’s 1) overly long; 2) comically oversimplified; and 3) way too confident in the power of contract. I’m all about capitalism but it leads to monopolies that create vast power imbalances that circumvent the ability of people to negotiate for fair contractual relations with the monopolist. The US, in the early 1900’s, developed antitrust laws that became the envy of the world. Unfortunately, Robert Bork’s “The Antitrust Paradox” led to massive changes that have ushered us into the age of monopolies. Now that huge multinationals have taken over all resources and corrupted the political system (even more than it has traditionally been corrupted) we’re all essentially back to a feudal oligarchy.
I guess we've been "Borked". 😉
Back in the middle of the last Century, I read 1984 and Atlas Shrugged both as a high school boy. Ever since, I have been alert for signs that we were headed into the dystopia described in one or the utopia offered by the other. I cheered for the Libertarian movement once, only to see them overtaken by the left and descending into mere hedonism. If Trump is our Galt, Musk may be our Reardon. I think the fly in Rand's soup could turn out to be her atheism. Recent events make me suspect that God may have his thumb on the scales now.
Couldn't agree more.
I read this book about 50 years ago as I began my business career. For a while I felt it had merit and supported my own drive (ego) toward success. Around 30 years ago I realized the book far more promotes and supports greed, selfishness and arrogance. Following Rand’s philosophies tends to bring out the worst in people rather than their best.
And here we are in 2025.
@@thewebdiva5903 Spot on.
The flaw in her theory is assuming all industrialists are moral and have impeccable integrity.
☮️❤️
more than one flaw.. Granny doesen't. have. $. for. An Antibiotic. or. an ER. visit =. Granny. died. =. thats fair. ... not. decent or mature theory.
No, b/c those industrialists without morality and integrity will side with the gov't, and therefore will fall with it.
I don't see any evidence she assumed / believed that at all. What she points out is that all people are self interested. The difference between the industrialist and bureaucrat, is that the industrialist will try to make a better product that people will want to buy. A bureaucrat will just take what they want at the point of a gun.
@@pilotandy_com Her Theory. is. an understandable Trama Reaction to. having. Her Family and others Abused by. Communist Russian. Government. Her theorys. are Very. Overly. Simplistic and. the Story. is. intertaining. and. thought provoking. with very true elements. Poor hard working people Built the Railroads , Cities, Airports, Cars, The Tall Steel Skyscrapers, the Roads and all the infrastructure -- Her Thory. says. they should be Abandoned by. Everyone and left to die w/ out. medical care-- Don't you get it - She is Insane. and. Republicans who Use hers books to promote and. Justify. preditory and selfish distructive policy are A- holes like Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnal,
You don't have to purchase what an industrialist offers . But a government will take that choice away.
The answer is that success is not due to industrialization, capitalism, or regulation but to the grey matter between them. Lee Iacocca, known for the Ford Mustang and the rebuilding of Chrysler during the 1980s, said that regulation helps car companies. If you analyze the last 50 years, notice that car companies do better with the advent of new federal regulations. The deregulation of the banking industry in the 1980s and 2000s caused substantial economic problems. Ayn Rand’s concepts don't hold up. I'm big on individualism and innovation, but it can't be at the expense of society. Lead in gasoline was innovative at the time, but it led to many issues with air quality.
Well said. Not at the expense of society!
One of my absolutely favorite books. Unfortunately people in our current government seemed to have missed the point of the book. It is NOT about equality of outcome where the unstated goal is for everyone to be mediocre, but equality of opportunity where exceptional individual are allowed to be exceptional.
"people...seemed to have missed the point of the book. It is NOT about equality of outcome..., but equality of opportunity"
For being one of marisa's "favorite books", SHE certainly "missed the point of the book". Atlas Shrugged is NOT about "equality of opportunity". In fact, the book has the VILLAINS preach and practice that very philosophy, culminating in their EVlL "Equalization of Opportunity Bill".
The point of the book is the power and importance of the FREE, rational mind (or, as Miss Rand explicitly put it, the theme [point] of her novel was "the role of the mind in man's existence").
And they should be rewarded for their exceptionalism.
It is not about equality at all whether is be of opportunity or outcome. Although it is common strawman to suggest progressivism is about equality of outcome.
I am no novel reader (especially big suckers), but 'Atlas Shrugged' literally fell onto my bed from a bookshelf 12yrs ago while I was minding my daughters house! So I knew God was speaking to me and I read it. Since then I have had two profound dreams, one speaking of my own personal salvation & the other the world's & in both her book was clue, & the answer to what we face as a society & what Maga Trump means to our survival! Get out & vote in the industrialist & save the world!!
@@christinagavin4517 That is pretty ironic given that Ayn Rand was an staunch atheist and loathed exactly what the Trump voters represent. Industry and the economy has consistently done better under Democratic governorship. BTW, there is no socialist or even a left party in the US.
Big fan of Ayan Rand. I first read it when I was about 15 years old. Now that I am 72, it is still correct in its philosophy. Many countries/ nations have been created and failed , precisely for the reasons shown in this book, since.it was first written.
Elon Musk is John Gault
@@hedhtr4 No. He's not even Rearden. Musk IS a productive genius, but that is NOT the same thing as being Galt (or Rearden).
It is a pretty simplistic view of the world that leaves out character flaws and ego. It's like discussing capitalism, socialism or communism in idealistic terms. None of those exist in a pure form in the real world. In her world the government is almost completely flawed and the individuals that move the world are pure of heart. In reality, the government is flawed, but necessary and those who move the world are often corrupted by money and power.
@@jamiemiller6156 "leaves out character flaws and ego"
You OBVIOUSLY didn't read the book. Besides Galt, there are "character flaws" galore amongst even the good characters. In fact, it is their own flaws which the heroes fight to overcome through the whole novel.
"In her world the government is almost completely flawed"
Just like it was in the Soviet Union. So much for your claim of such a government NOT being 'realistic' (and that's not even touching on the point that ALL the bad laws in the book EXISTED -in America- at the time it was WRITTEN).
The idea that her presentation of government wasn't 'realistic' is the only "simplistic" idea here.
"the individuals that move the world are pure of heart"
Actually, the "hearts" of the heroes are quite mixed. It is MAKING them "pure of heart" - leading them to PURGE their "heart" of impurities - which is both the POINT of the story and the ARC of their characters.
Even just reading the Cliff Notes would have taught you THAT much!
"In reality government is flawed but necessary."
In both the novel and reality, government is flawed AND necessary. The entire point is that the flaws are NOT what is necessary about government and - as was done with slavery - they must be PURGED from government (as impurities must be PURGED from people's hearts in the book and reality).
But thanks for identifying the fact that flaws are your DEFINITION of both 'real' government and 'real' people.
"those who move the world are often corrupted by money and power"
That describes EVERY villainous businessman and politician in the book - ie those who rule OVER the heroes (because the heroes have accepted the corrupt philosophy of those businessmen and politicians).
You REALLY should read a thing before you PRETEND to critique that thing. That saves everyone from having to watch you attack straw men instead of the actual thing.
@@hedhtr4 Nope, not an atheist, sorry. He's better than John Galt.
My summary: Brain-drain. Trains. All the heroes bag Dags. Commies bite; smart guys go on strike. Collectivist overreach; Galt crushes them with 8-hour speech.
Analysis: All in all, it's a *great* attack on collectivist mindsets. Rand's replacement system could use some tweaking though.
Thank you for the video. I've been a voracious reader since I was able to read. We didn't have much money in the house for books so I read whatever was around. My father's war novels, my older sister's school book assignments. I was continually checking books out of the school's library. My parents invested in a set of Encyclopaedia Britannica when I was 9. My brother and I read from Volume A to Z. . That was over 60 years ago. I have never read Ayn Rand, although I have been tempted a couple of times. I could not seem to follow her writing style. The elements of the book as you have laid out are along the lines of books that I would normally enjoy reading. I may have to give it one more try. Maybe this time I can stay with her.
I don’t normally read this type of book, but it was suggested to me, so I read it. I thought it was well written, kept me engaged, while also painting a bleak snapshot of what the future may hold. It certainly makes you think. For that, I recommend it.
Thanks
_Atlas Shrugged_ is a big, big book. It's well worth reading, but if you want to start off with something a bit easier to get into, try _Anthem,_ it's much shorter and a far easier read, and it contains much of the same elements: individuals against the almighty State. If you like that, then _Fountainhead_ should be next on your list. That's probably my favorite of all Rand's books, and I hope you'll enjoy it too!
@langreeves ::
Your last sentence is such a vital understanding of humans, especially if humans are to survive. This mutual cooperation between humans has to be driven out of our heads. The savage form of capitalism has always worked to this aim. It is not easy as most humans can't easily forget our shared experiences during the earliest stages of our development.
I am not sure who totally nailed it….. Orwell or Rand. Both had an uncanny sense of what could and probably will be.
Throw in Aldous Huxley. In some ways his vision of dystopia is closer to what we are now than is 1984.
@@impudentdomain .. yeah, very true
Orwell - 1984 was based on actual events and people, but not a "true story."
I love Rand but it's clear she preferred the happy ending. "1984" is so hopeless and grim, such an emotional gut punch.
Orwell and Huxley were spot on. Rand was close in many ways, but unbridled Capitalism is dangerous.
Thank you for satisfying my lifelong mild curiosity about one of Granny's books.
Still don't know or care what the title means, but probably should thank you for that too.
In mythology Atlas supported the world on his shoulders so we are led to think what happens when he shrugs.😊
Today’s reality is that corporations dictate government vs Rand’s government dictating corporations.
capitalism vs socialism.
The biggest trick that the capitalist plays is that it is a system of a meritocracy. In reality, you only end up with corporate, authoritarian states.
Not quite. Corporations influence, cajole and beg government to enact legislation or
regulations to their benefit, but they can’t dictate. They might bribe or blackmail
individual government officials, but that doesn’t bring about wholesale legislative or
regulatory change. Even in Atlas Shrugged, you can see the influence peddling,
begging, etc. on the part of the book’s corporate villains such as James Taggart,
Oren Boyle and Paul Larkin. The reality is that governments can and do dictate to
corporations as well as to individuals.
Not quite. Corporations influence, cajole and beg government to enact legislation or
regulations to their benefit, but they can’t dictate. They might bribe or blackmail
individual government officials, but that doesn’t bring about wholesale legislative or
regulatory change. Even in Atlas Shrugged, you can see the influence peddling,
begging, etc. on the part of the book’s corporate villains such as James Taggart,
Oren Boyle and Paul Larkin. The reality is that governments can and do dictate to
corporations as well as to individuals.
Not exactly true.. what Obama did to corporation during his foul administration set the stage for corp Infiltration and corruptions in line with BO's marxist views.
And people think today that technocrats like elon theil gates zuch are here to save us - when they want our “collective consciousness” tied to the internet of things via starlink 🤮🤮
I read all of Ayn Rand's books when I was in the Marine Corps in the 1960s.
When Dagny finds Galt, he immediately falls due to standing on the wrong side of the railing on the veranda!
Gotta’ love AI art at this stage. 😂
A common mistake... 😂
Not a fan of the book. There are some pearls of wisdom in there but overall I find it boring. I feel people like to make parallels where there are none. I think it can be summed up best with this quote
“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." - John Rogers
That's because you're too simple minded to understand it. It's not recommended reading for people with IQs below 100. LOTR may be too advanced for you as well. You're not alone as I've never met a communist who likes Ayn Rand.
LOL! Great quote. Yeah, this short video made me realise that Rand gets stuck in the same frame of mind she is critisising. Dualism do that to people.
Neil Peart's favorite book was Atlas shrugged 2112 was based on it. He also loved the Lord of the rings so I would say that quote is full of shit.
@@Damon-xf4kt Neil also wrote Anthem (on the fly by night album) which was an homage to her novelette.
Mocking logic is typical of fools. Find a mirror if you want to see an idiot.
to humans, capitalism and anarchy or whatever is the rule. But God is something that does exist and is NOT the things humans are doing.
I have read Atlas Shrugs and her other novels. I have also read all her philosophical works. She was a great thinker and I do agree with her views. Those who say she was a fascist never read nor understood what she was saying. She was anti-fascist, anti-communist, anti-socialist or any other philosophy that tried to enslave others for their own good. She was pro free minds and free markets. The only reason she didn't like the term libertarian applied to her was that the libertarian movement had no coherent philosophy. That is what she saw as her primary goal. To supply that philosophy. For those who will explore it, I think you'll find she succeeded.
Three words: "Leave us alone!"
You ether didn't actually read her books, or you just accepted what she promoted. Which one? Well, ok the other option is you're a tool, but I don't believe that.
@@Saintjackoftrades Wrong on all counts. Which of her books have you read? For the new intellectual? The Romantic Manifesto? We the Living?
@@jamesthompson3099 her philosophical views are naive. None of her reasoning works. And only Atlas and TFH. Neither were very good. TFH was fine.
@jamesthompson. You must be writing about Atlas of Greek Myth. You do know; if Atlas shrugged the weight of the whole world would fall, or do you????
If anyone has played the game Bioshock, then you will know the true endgame scenario of Atlas Shrugged.
Bioshock was flawed. It missed a key element of Objectivism. There was no government to protect individual rights.
@@nottingham2222 exactly that’s why atlas shrugged is nothing but a libertarian fantasy.
Recently bought the book - which is TINY, crammed to the hilt with extra small print on extra small pages. I think I need a special support with clamps to keep this book open and flat. Also throw in a large magnifying glass and lights.
I bought the audio version in 2008. Worth every penny. I was spellbound for 3 months (54-ish hoUrs). It went viral back then, when what's-his-name was running for President... I still can't say the Kenyan usurper's name...
I have got the Kindle version - paused at about half way through. I have also read (and still have) the Rise and Fall of the Third Reich by William L Shirer. Big fat book, tiny print, eight hundred or more pages. Brilliant! But you do need a magnifying glass if your eyes are as old as mine.
@@angiebishop6316 Obama was born in Hawaii. You can not like him without resorting to silly conspiracy theories. Trump's mother was from Scotland. Does that make him a Scottish usurper?
@@ivormacadam I have both the abridged version (10 CDs) and the unabridged version (50 CDs), and I agree that the unabridged version excellent.
"...where the government has taken control of businesses and innovation is stifled by regulations". Kind of like how innovation is stifled when cartels and monopolies are allowed to develop in a "free" market without any regulation? Rand had an over simplistic and twisted perspective.
This channel is a great idea! Thank you.
We are so happy you enjoyed it. We started this channel to spur some conversation. Oftentimes life imitates art and we forget how valuable fiction can be in teaching us.
I really enjoy these videos. The only thing I would like to make them better would be more pictures and more AI movement of the pictures. Either way I'm still hooked on your videos.
After having this novel recommended to me by various people with very diverse political biases, I read it (1988) and then saw the mini-series years later. What takes place in the novel has been slowly developing over the last 60 years, since Lyndon Johnson's “Great Society.”
The phrase, “Dumbing Down” is now used to describe the socialistic evil that the novel warns against. These ideas are still espoused today under titles such as, DEI, Political Correctness, Wokeness… These malignancies are every bit as dangerous as the forced socialism portrayed in Atlas Shrugged.
Ayn Rand may have been an atheist, but she did experience the ruinous Godlessness of communism in her native Russia. Thankfully, she emigrated to a free USA and was able to write about and warn against this insidious depravity.
"Good thing we have a bunch of tribalists to keep our confederate statues up and save us from wokeness! Also to protect us from healthcare, unions and all sorts of folks trying to stop the melanin deprived from breeding." - Bland R. Whistlehouse III
Individualism abesent conscious awareness, which is the state of arrested developmemt in a divided country , as it is today, whthou 6:11 t a moral compass, without psychological thereputic intervention isnt worth perpetuationing.
That is a great comment, thanks. I always found it odd that she was an atheist.
Socialism sucks, but this book's view of capitalism is utterly simplistic. Corporatism can subjugate individualism as thoroughly as governments. And then there's greed. ENRON ANYONE? Credit default swaps?
Capitalism is not Corporatism.
It is a BOOK, so we must allow for "liberties". Besides, "capitalism" is NOT the focus.
Breaking laws isn't capitalism either.
@@guybeaver it is nowadays, so that's all some people have as a reference, especially ones who don't bother to learn the difference.
simplistic? Does the book not reference corporatism?
What do you think Orren Boyle and James taggert were doing throughout the novel? Were they not using and willingly being used by government?
What about Robert Stadler? Did he become a capitalist? No! as a scientist he endorsed government backed science and became anthony Fauci, getting a cushy government job, until it came back to bite him and he became enslaved to his position.
Most of the businessmen in the book were evil. If Rand was not aware of corporatism she would not be able to put these characters in her novel and there would be no story, everyone would be in atlantis on page 1
“I like to think of fire held in a man's hand. Fire, a dangerous force, tamed at his fingertips. I often wonder about the hours when a man sits alone, watching the smoke of a cigarette, thinking. I wonder what great things have come from such hours. When a man thinks, there is a spot of fire alive in his mind--and it is proper that he should have the burning point of a cigarette as his one expression.”
Ayn smoked like a chimney. I too recalled that paragraph warmly for a lot of years.
That's a wonderful image and connection but, unfortunately, our bodies don't do well with smoke inside them all the time.
I was borm in communism and to me, this novel ilustrates prety close what hapened under the communists.
I have never bought the Randian/Republican/Conservative philosophy that free markets utterly unfettered by government regulation is the answer to all society’s ills. One merely needs to look at history to see what happens when a capitalist country removes regulation from the markets. The crashes of 1929, 1987 and 2008 all resulted from the removal of regulations that formerly kept the John Galts of the world honest. At the same time i also believe capitalism is the best system for providing for the material needs of any nation. Again history proves this as all attempts at pure communism, socialism, etc. have failed miserably. There must be a balance between a generally free market economy tempered by just enough government regulation to reign in the worst instincts that capitalism brings out in some people.
What makes you think we live in a capitalist society? 1929 had a huge amount of government tinkering.
@@robnelson6545so was 2008.
@@robnelson6545 1929 was the direct result of excess laissez fair. Not sure of the government tinkering you raise. The Trustbusting of Teddy Roosevelt was on serious decline, along with a reduction of regulation. In 1916 Calvin Coolidge said a "a factory is a temple" (this is paraphrased, look up the whole quote if you need to.) After 1929, temples shut down only to truly be re-born by world war.
Regulations are needed because people in general are greedy, and sometimes the nefarious will cut corners to make an extra buck, putting other people in harm's way, all for$
@@maxpower92 you have to balance that with that regulations keep out competition. Competition can increase quality and decrease prices. For example, health care is heavily regulated.
The greatest thing that could happen is for those who THINK they're the smartest and most productive to leave society.
Because they're not the greats. They're the oppressors.
Humans are great and powerful because we are a social species.
We are great due to working together.
“I believe in Man as an heroic being, that happiness is his end, and logic is his one guide in achieving it.”
It’s so obvious why everyone hates this book.
Because they are government loving socialists, just like most Democrats.
Of course a lot of people would hate it!
Everyone that does not want to think of themselves as possessing ability or any true talent would hate this book!
Everyone that does not want to be responsible for their own life would hate it.
Everyone that wants others to take care of them would hate it.
Everyone that is lazy, self centered and has no desire to achieve anything would hate it.
Everyone that feels that rich people don't deserve what they've achieved and demand that they, the lazy and shiftless get more than they deserve would hate it!
Every socialist, communist, Marxist and anarchist would also hate this book!
Every person that looks a problem and gives up, and hates those that have the ability to solve problems with their creativity and effort would also hate this book!
Its so obvious!!!!
@@TheRealThomasPaine1776 Correct in everything you said except you claim that Anarchists would hate the book. Yes, most Anarchists are socialists however, NOT all of them! The true definition of Anarchy is "no rulers" which means Anarchists are anti-state. I'm an Anarchist and proud of it! Almost all of the fools who call themselves anarchists hate me. But I'm not going to nit-pick as everything else you said in your comment is spot on!
I don't. I quote from it.
Heh, socialists hate this book, cowards hate this book, followers haven't even read this book. Sovereign patriots love this book. Individuals that take responsibility for their actions and their lives do their best to live this book.
There is a meaningful journey in a human life when we aim to achieve, we should not run for our own sakes to hide from a collapsing society and instead meet that challenge face on and with determination to prevent a collapse as proactively as possible and then if we must also be ready for a reactive rescue.
One of my all-time favorite books, but the one thing I don't think Ayn Rand anticipated...when governments implement socialist/communist policies that drives away businesses, entrepreneurs, innovators and industrialists, the result isn't really collapse or chaos as one thinks of those words. Instead, the result is a society that becomes dependent on government for everything, which was the plan all along. With the citizenry completely dependent on a cradle-to-grave government nanny-state, the government is essentially free to do whatever it wants. And with no ability of the people to fight back, it will.
And when everyone is on their knees begging for a handful of rice, who does the innovating? Society crumbles...
@@thatguyinelnorte Exactly. We actually got to witness a version of Atlas Shrugged play out in real life when Elon Musk/John Galt got so sick and tired of the asinine taxes and regulation in California he moved all his companies to a business-friendly Texas/Galt's Gulch. I live in TX and he's been awesome for our economy...good paying jobs for Texans that California could have kept were they not Marxist assholes.
The collapse comes when everyone living under communism becomes equal
Equally poor, equally starving, equally enslaved!
Over the years I’ve heard people say “do you want the government to decide your medical care and come between you and your doctor?” And my reply is “it’s better than some greedy corporation”.
@@whiplashfatigue1430 That "greedy corporation" is motivated by the revenue that comes from SUCCESSFULLY treating patients....to maintain that revenue stream, they have to be competent, or patients will go elsewhere for care. You want to trade that for a healthcare system that runs with the efficiency of FEMA and the compassion of the IRS? No thanks.
3:40 Galt is standing outside of the safety railings, perhaps just his tippytoes hanging on. Is he about to jump if Dagny doesn’t “get it”? #AIArtThings
The problem with Ayn Rand's philosophy is too many people are too weak to participate in such a civilization. If given the choice between freedom and convenience, most people say freedom but most people actually choose convenience. Also Rand was hostile to the ideas of religion. I don't think she gave religion, in specific Christianity, the credit it deserves in creating and keeping a civilization working. PS I personally think The Fountainhead tells a better story.
Yes, the Fountainhead is the best. Have you ever thought that maybe there isn't anything wrong with Rand's philosophy and maybe there is something wrong with the people you mention? Why must someone be strong to participate? A rising tide lifts all boats girl. Wake up! Just because YOU are weak doesn't mean that you won't get some benefit.
Fair enough criticisms I must say. And Fair criticisms are very rare.
What's happening at 1:58? Sounds like the audio gets cut and skips ahead?
“Build back better.”
In real life it is usually big industry that stifles change because it threatens their existence.
Should be called "Ayn Rand Was Maybe Half Right At Best"
Have not read the book but found this very interesting.
Thanks! We are glad you enjoyed it. Please continue following our content and make any suggestions on what we can do in the future.
I read Atlas Shrugged when I was too young to understand it. I think I'm ready to read it again.
Thanks for watching. It’s a mandatory read for the issues we face today.
Please do. Intelligence needs your help.
Yes, it's time. While you're at it, read and digest our Declaration of Independence. It is the foundation of our way of life.
@@bruceb5481 Any other suggestions?
Isn't it interesting that the plague of our society is the opposite of Atlas Shrugged. Instead of govt stifling business with too many regulations and taxes, business tells govt the laws and regulations it wants. Any protection for the common man has been dismantled, allowing business to pay wages that have barely moved in a generation, products cause damage to the environment in spite of good science to the contrary, and people are forced to pay exorbitant prices for second rate goods due to a lack of competition. The world that Atlas Shrugged saw as utopia turned out to be a worse nightmare.
That's almost a purely leftist perspective.
@@KevinB-pd3me Leftist? Why does big business lobby for fewer regulations as the environment is being destroyed? Why are profits through the roof yet workers can't afford housing?
You truly live an an alternate reality.
And what is the "cause" of all that you are claiming...the source?
@@jgalt308 The cause? Greed, of course. Businessmen want billions more, and they pay politicians millions to get it. There are always bad actors that will ruin any system with protection.
Without hope there is nothing.
Hope is the last to die.
It is not even worth 8 minutes: greed is good. I am pretty sure that is not what Jesus taught us.
“Whoever loves money never has enough; whoever loves wealth is never satisfied with their income. This too is meaningless” (Ecclesiastes 5:10).
“Keep your lives free from the love of money and be content with what you have, because God has said, ‘Never will I leave you; never will I forsake you’” (Hebrews 13:5).
Then you’d align yourself with the pharasies? They were preaching and teaching similar to the moral crusaders today. I don’t see Christians doing that, I see more of the secular types preaching about their ideologies.
@@robnelson6545 No, Jesus obviously stated that he Pharisees had lost their way in following the minutiae of the law and not the essence: mercy and forgiveness for each other. In other words, love your God with all your heart, mind and soul, and love your neighbor as yourself. Different from the rainbow warrior “love,” Jesus stated that His love is not of this world, not for the fulfillment of our flesh (meaning desires like greed, lust, etc), so that is where Ayn got it wrong.
Jesus and the apostles were very much for Christians doing our part in society, working hard, making a living for ourselves and our families, so that fits into the capitalist system very well, but the goal of creating wealth is not the end goal, not the all consuming Gekko end game goal.
Aristotle was suspicious of the rule of both the mob and an autocratic elite. From his own experience, he had good reason for his suspicions. What is ethically good may be understood by the majority or by an elite, but that understanding does not derive necessarily from nature of democracy or autocracy. Politics must be inspired by the Good; politics cannot invent the Good. Unfortunately, many other influences other than the Good may inspire politics. Though purity is never found, it is still true that villainous and heroic elites and majorities appear throughout the pages of history. Heroic movements of either type are the minority. Moreover, should a movement begin by being heroic, that beginning will not guarantee that movement's heroic finish. History often sees ethically founded good intentions turn to tragedy. Rand was a considerable thinker, but her book failed to resolve Aristotle's dilemma.
Ultimately humans, individually cannot be guaranteed to have consistent behavior. The problem is unsolvable.
@@penneyburgess5431 Neither can organizations be guaranteed to be consistent. Harvard and Yale, for example, were created to educate Puritan ministers. That's not what these institutions do now, despite the old mottos one can read on the campus. But if your point is that human behavior invariably betrays human moral insight, no matter how well those moral insights are grounded philosophically, then I would certainly agree. If we could all agree on the objective authority of a specific moral law, we still would not follow it. C. S. Lewis makes that point in Mere Christianity.
Being dyslexic I have always struggled with A.S. Glad to finally know what it's supposed to be about. Seems pretty stupid if this is really the plot. Like all those billionaires get all cocky about how important they are except that the government provided the backbone that allowed them to become rich, where would they be w/o roads and social security for their old employees and police to protect them. Just a fantasy for the wanna be rich people.
Simple solutions to complicated problems. The refuge of the fanatic. No single book, or single philosophy is the solution to anything. Mixed economies, where the democratically elected government acts as a check on pure market capitalism is the only viable solution. It is far from perfect and requires constant tinkering, but it is infinitely better than any extreme political philosophy, from the right or from the left. I wouldn’t trust anyone who said that Atlas Shrugged was their “go to text for the future of mankind”, anymore than someone who said it was Mein Kampf.
Pure market capitalism...is the free market. Tinkering with that is an assault on freedom. I suspect you wouldn't know freedom if it landed on your head.
I really wanted to like Atlas Shrugged when I bought the book, but it was really hard to read through. The writing is just not very good, and the story drags on. In the end, it’s like a Bond villain that wins, destroying the world to remake it in his own image, with very ham handed Jesus allusions hung on him (the sermon, betrayed by a kiss, tempted by the devil, tortured on a cross). The behavior of the “heroes” of the story is pretty despicable, and I have to say that the most respectable character is left to die alone because he tried to do the moral thing. Yes, the book nails socialism and overregulation to the wall and lets everyone see it in all its ignominy, but it does it clumsily, and in a way that exposes some of the authors strange obsessions.
I have to rewatch it and/or read the books. I feel like the premise is suppose to show the government as the bad guys...but I remember watching it the first time, and based off of their reasons for doing what they were doing, not being totally sure that they were. As the story goes on, it becomes clear that is the intent of the author. But at first, it felt a little ambiguous. And honestly, John Gault's choices weren't 100% without consequence.
I can tell you this. I have a tough time when people talk about socialism in America, because most of what they label socialism, isn't really the text book definition or understanding of what socialism is. Its too often used as a catchall for "not right wing enough" or "too liberal". Which is really an innacurate way of thinking of socialism.
Read the book...it was published in 1957...the movie was brought forward in time
and that was a serious mistake.
So what is the textbook definition of "socialism"?
@@jgalt308 Well, to begin with, Socialism is an economic idea of how to manage money and resources between the people of the government. The ideal is to allow the government to allocate money and resources amongst the people equally. With the goal of making sure that everyone has what they need to live well. That's it. Everything else that people put as negatives against Socialism aren't built into the system. For the most part, the negatives are the human factor. That fact that we as humans can't seem to do anything without fucking it up or corrupting it for our own goals. The reason we like capitalism, is because the corruption is a built in part of it, not a "bug" like socialism. We appreciate a system that lets us be our bad selves, without the guilt.
@@brianegendorf2023 So, not really a textbook definition or a dictionary one either?
The last time I checked economic "isms" usually involved the ownership and or control;
of the means of production with capitalism as private ownership, and socialism involving
the state. This does present a few problems in that if ones labor whether physical or intellectual
is not "privately owned" that would be the equivalent of "slavery", would it not?
In such a world, "where everyone has what they need to live well" what would be the incentive
for anyone to aspire to do anything more than the minimum required?
Then we have the next step in that power corrupts...and historically the power lies
with the state and always has...so while you seem to want to associate this with capitalism,
it does not alter the fact of where the power lies. After all, those who have power, do not
need to corrupt those who do not and who has more power than the state?
"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant
and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action."
And this brings us to the final question, that maybe this isn't about economics or results,
but rather one that focuses on the proper role and system of government...with a clear
understanding that one must keep a sharp eye on any aspect of it, where it's self-interest
will come into conflict with those interests of the public they are supposedly there to safeguard?
I have read Atlas, Fountainhead, We the Living and many of her essays and philosphy books on Objectivism (Virtue of Selfishness etc).
She is correct on many things, but she totally sucks the joy out of capitalism and makes it look little better as an individual philosophy than communism.
I first read Atlas Shrugged and loved it, as I read it as a mystery story and an adventure. Then I read it again, and read it as being against all Government, and appreciated the philosophy. Then I read it again after reading all Rands other novels, and her philosophy. I began to see it as a philosophy with huge flaws.
It is totally materialistic; it totally ignores the value of shared lives, shared values, and suggests that everyone who gets anywhere does it all on their own. Life has taught me, no one does it all on their own - we all rely on the actions of others more than we release. Rand ignores the interconnectedness of all things and all people; the value of helping each other, and paying obligations. In the end, I found her philosophy vile;, modern America, in which there is no God, no higher value than money and power, stems from her thought, and it has led America to where it is now. It is at best narcissistic, and at worse, psychopathic.
Rands own narcissism was shown in her treatment of her husband - that in spite of his love for her and all the support he gave her, she had an affair in front of him - he had to leave their apartment while she entertained her lover - because what she wanted was more important. This is not only immoral, ungrateful, disloyal, it's narcissistic.
And no, I dont think Dagny should have tried to save the world, because you cant. It's all far more complex than Rand depicted.
Social groups will always form systems, and these systems combine to form more and more complex systems, and ultimately these collapse from internal flaws, and cannot be saved. All one can do is leave the failed society and start again.
Well said!
Even worse, her philosophy underpins much of what current billionaires like Peter Thiele (through his proxy and less-than-human opportunist JD Vance) and Elon Musk believe in and are trying to impose upon the USA through Trump and his MAGA minions and Project 2025 program.
You really don't understand Rand's philosophy.
You are exactly right. I suggest watching Elon Musk as an example of what exactly is wrong about this philosophy. His failures reveal the shallowness and absudities of AR's philosophy, his successes are all due to the collective efforts of others.
@leschwartz I don't consider Elon Musk as an example of a Randian hero. He built his fortune selling electric cars taking advantage of government incentives such as tax credits to buyers of EV's and carbon credit sales to builders of real cars. Teslas are low quality and unreliable considering how much they cost, and their self-driving system should be banned. If I was going to compare Musk (as a car manufacturer) to a character in Atlas Shrugged, it would be Orren Boyle.
On the flip side, I appreciate Musk's purchase of Twitter and his efforts to turn it into a free-speech platform.
And if Kamala is elected we will have 2 choices..
To go John Gault, or to go John Wick.
Seems like a cross over comic…
4:07 Why does Galt have six fingers?
So he give the government two middle fingers in one gesture...
Great catch!
My philosophy matches Galt. I do as little for the world as possible now, barring a few individuals.
I think that there were so many tiny details to the main philosophy expressed in the book, that it is hard to capture all that in a 5 min video. Anyway... I love "Atlas Shrugged". It was a life changer for me. My most important takeaways were not about individualism or capitalism, but about "conflict resolution".
As a kid, I was always conflicted between capitalistic progress and the planet's destruction due to that progress. I was intelligent enough to digest lots of information, but my brain lacked the necessary framework to process that information and form my own convictions. And it started to get in the way once I started living on my own terms (job life). Then Depression. And then I read Atlas Shrugged. From which, I formed these three golden rules.
1. A is A.
2. Contradictions do not exist.
3. If in a contradiction, check your premise.
This ruleset gave me a depth of perception and clarity that I never had before in my life. Something that has become as basic as breathing now.
I read Atlas Shrugged when I was about 20; it was an exciting novel, but I thought Rand was a little bit stupid: she was just so fixated on a relatively small number of things that she didn't really seem to be cognizant of reality.
I haven't changed my mind.
I've read all of Ayn Rand's novels. She mainly appeals to young men who tend to believe the ideas Rand expands on in her novels. They are all based on a rejection of cooperative solutions to social problems and glorify the brilliant individual who solves all problems for the benefit of the individual and not for society. I assume this is based somewhat to Ayn Rand's early childhood growing up in Communist Russia. But it was also encouraged by people who were Fascists and Eugenicists. Young men who idolize Rand's concepts are often only deluding themselves.
I recommend the movie with Taylor Schilling from 13 years ago, although the conclusion after part 3 is somewhat unresolved. I heard that no studio would finance it so some rich guy provided the funding.
The counter to this codswallop I recommend “The Moon is a Harsh Mistress.”
Greatest book written. No man is deserved a penny of another man's effort.
"No man is an island entire of itself. Every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main." - John Donne
The core of Rand's philosophy: reason, rational self-interest, and the superiority of Capitalism, are key concepts to live by. More broadly, Rand's rather unilateral and uncompromising attitude towards her own stuff comes off as suspicious, narcissistic and naive. To name a few examples: 1) Rand contradicts her ideals by her own personal behaviors. She touts reason ad nauseam, but acts very unreasonably herself. She touts individuality, but goes insane if anyone contradicts, even on the smallest thing. She touts anti-collectivism, but acts like a collectivist herself. 2) She promotes Capitalism, but refuses to acknowledge its obvious flaws. No government regulations? Then get ready for airplanes falling out of the sky, the financial markets in upheaval, and food safety in the toilet. 3) She champions individualism, but doesn't acknowledge the damage down by narcissists in the name of their own self-serving individualistic delusions.
I'm with Galt. History, particularly the 20th century, has proven him correct.
Ayn Rand grew up first in tsarist Russia, then in the Soviet Union. She experienced everything she warned about. She not only predicted, she remembered. And too much of what she warned us about is closing in on us now.
@@briankgarland
As a teenager I was fascinated by Rand, and will admit to having read both Atlas Shrugged and Fountainhead each five times. I’ve carefully studied her other fiction, read all of her published philosophical works, including For the New Intellectual, Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal, The Romantic Manifesto, and so on, and used to subscribe to The Objectivist.
I’ve not encountered anyone else who has spent so much time with this one particular writer’s work.
Having expended this enormous effort, I think I’m reasonably qualified to offer an opinion as to the essential problem with her work.
Far too much of it reflects her mental illness.
Ayn Rand was a sociopath. She was unable to connect to other people, to develop a realistic picture in her own mind of the motivations and inner life of the people around her.
This shows up most glaringly in her depictions of the relationships between the characters in her books. Rape is shown as a common means by which women are overcome by, and come to grips with, their own inner desires. The novel turns on the need of women to succumb to violent sexual dominance as a means to self-realization, particularly in the case of Dagny Taggart, the heroine of Shrugged, and her relationship with Hank Reardon. Reardon’s inner life is very rape-centered. So too for Roark and Francon, the lead characters in Fountainhead.
This is sickening stuff, but it would be perfectly fair to depict the nature sexual relationships among her characters this way if this was held up by the author as being unhealthy, or morally wrong, or odd, or even kinky. Go read Tropic of Cancer by Henry Miller for an example of an author who certainly depicts lots of bohemian sexual adventures, sexual dominance and surrender, who thoroughly explores and knows the limits of human sexual depravity and endurance, and in the end knows the difference between what is good in relations and what is genuinely abusive.
Rand has no such insight. She routinely fails to depict realistically relations between human beings. This extends to work relations, too. The ease with which Taggart completely abandons her assistant Eddie Willers, after all the loyalty and extraordinary effort he has expended for her, is shocking.
Her writing is strongly indicative of a mind unable to grasp or imagine the nature of fully mature, mutually supportive relationships between men and women.
Rand was herself well aware of this consistent criticism of her work, and tried to address it by saying her work is not intended to depict relations between real human beings, but instead shows relationships between *idealized*, archetypical characters. That her characters don’t behave like actual human beings do was rather her point, or so she says.
The problem with this is, believing her moral philosophy as depicted in Shrugged requires you to believe in her characterization of moral human beings.
And Rand falls apart whenever she attempts to describe real human beings, their character, their motivation, their psychology, their needs, how human societies actually work, how economics works, or how human technological advancement is actually achieved.
She shows how badly you can get your moral philosophy wrong if your philosophy is based on an essentially inaccurate understanding of the nature of human beings.
In consequence of this lack of understanding, what John Galt - the direct voice of Rand in the novel - has to say about moral philosophy, and particularly his conclusions regarding economics, law, and what makes for a good society, are disconnected from reality.
History has, in fact, not been kind to John Galt for good reason: too much of what he said is in fact wrong, and it is wrong precisely because, when it comes to principles of human behavior and action, Galt/Rand are not of this earth.
They are locked inside Rand’s sociopathy.
The 21st Century is the Endgame
Bah. How is John Galt not a terrorist? How is he any better than those who took out the twin towers to improve the world?
But Galt and his industrialists and engineers are going to do it too. They are going to build a new society with themselves in charge and the whole thing will devolve again.
The US was a situation like this. Withdrawing from the European society, building their own individualist society...avoiding the mercantile regulations of Britain, the East India Company and the other colonial powers....then watching Europe crumble from afar (Napoleon to Franco Prussian wars and finally WW1)
However we went back to "save it" in 1917 and 1942.
What has happened in the future US is lesser minds have clawed down the brilliant and successful to stay in charge or become in charge at all costs. Stupidity has become celebrated and innovation is hated by the jealous stupid.
She casts political and civil authorities as this idiocracy that must bring everyone down to their mediocrity. This plays out today in fights between Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos vs Sen Elizabeth Warren and Congresswoman Cortez.
So may ironies: wealth and power are concentrated in so few hands as companies become ever larger and more powerful. Meanwhile you have uber-capitalist Elon Musk kowtowing to Trump.
Self interest is human nature, but when power is too concentrated self interest tends to work against the common interest. I disagree with Atlas Shrugged in that I believe it's a legitimate role of government to ensure that it doesn't run roughshod over broader societal interests.
The worst times in our country have been when self interest ruled unchecked.
Bingo
And when was that, exactly?
BTW power has always been concentrated in one place...and it's always the same place.
You seem to have missed it.
The rails in that picture are wrong
It, like almost every other illustration on yt these days, is AI generated. Way to go future skynet.
like the 3 rail tracks, and odd rails that go through the switch frogs, without a mate.
Geez, talk about some lazy shit!
Galt is standing on the WRONG side of the railing, in mid-air, casually making conversation to Dagyn who's standing on the patio.
Compassionless cowardice shrugged. Ayn Rand looked at the load and effort to improve society and said ...
"too hard for me."
If ever there was a book that needed an editor Atlas Shrugged is the one.
Indeed. Rand's motto in this one seems to be, "Why say something once when you can say it 12 times?" I love Fountainhead, but this one just goes on and on and on and on...
@@notthatyouasked6656She probably just understood well how dense most people are, and how much they need repetition to absorb even the most basic of new ideas
@@unquiche Yes. Rand was an intellectual and creative genius who had to learn the hard way that the majority of people can't understand her, and in any case would rather bury their heads in the sand than risk speaking aloud an independent thought.
Lol you don't like the 90 page monologue????
@@unquiche It could just be the 19th century's writing style creeping in... Read "the Origin of Species" or anything in German or Russian... They tell you once, then a second time, a third time, a fourth time... over and over and over... Ayn Rand is comparatively light reading.
The most glaring issue with Atlas Shrugged is that it does not separate innovators from enterprising businessmen. Musk never designed cars or space vehicles. Bill Gates did not design Microsoft. They were just businessmen with enough knowledge of their products to use others to gain their objectives. The true innovators and geniuses behind many of the products we use are unknown.
Also, the amount of government funds used in their research and development is something never addressed. If the government paid you to research a product (think a life saving drug such as epinephrine) then how dare you make it too expensive for common people to use.
so little you know. wow
100% sir, despite @planesandbikes comment.
If your parents had never met they might have gone on to have children with other people, but you would never have existed.
No, Musk is not the engineer who tightened the bolts on Model 3 #295,578, but he was the one that brought all of those engineers together to execute on his dream.
Um, I’m pretty sure you’re incorrect about at least 50% of that. But, we live in a world of alternative facts so…
Bill Gates was and still is an exceptional computer programmer. That is a fact.
The fact that you are so incredibly wrong about that makes anything else you say incredibly dubious.
Despite Faradama’s comment.
These ultra brilliant rich people with their magical invisible force fields and magic engines. This book was so bad. Any day now Elon Musk is going to invent something. You know he hasn't. He didn't invent the electric car. He invented a tunnel. A hole under the ground that was supposed to be an ultra fast transit system that taxied your own car underground and did all these things. Now it's a tunnel. Where's the magic engine that runs off the energy in the air or whatever? In other words, this is a fantasy novel.
As always, hateful critters come up from the floorboards whenever Rand is mentioned. I waited decades to read AS, being satisfied with my own studies and experiences, but one afternoon I was bored and signed out a copy.
It was a bit of a slog, but fun. The heroes of the book were a bit too prone to lock-step rationality, but they were indeed in unusual times. The antagonists were much more realistic in the sense that some people do act like that and they really are scum. That accuracy of depiction is why the detractors are so riled by Rand's writings.
I'm always amazed by the negative vitriol spewed by those that don't agree with the book's premises. Why don't they just explain why they don't agree with Rand's philosophy and leave it at that? I suspect that they are learning some very unpleasant facts about their own worldview.
@@Quantalume The book was written in service to greedy self-serving self-righteous tribalists that think anything they set their sights on is fair game. Sorry, she was a hypocrite and a bigot to boot, and simple-minded libertarian philosophy, "my personal freedom is worth more than society at large" is just more horse hockey from a former owner. Look up her background and you'll know.
1. Her entire premise was that she did not want the Soviet style system, which she suffered terribly under, to take over America, and she saw the Socialist mindframe as a step in that horrible direction.
2. She had no concept of Broader Survival*, however, which transcends lower mindframes that are mired in political, social, economic, psychological, and religious issues, rather than surviving against the harsh and deadly universe (which will take all of our collective (but free and independent) efforts).
*as defined by the philosophy that deals with it.
An 8 Minute Masterpiece in 6 minutes 10 seconds. Well played sir!
...Played at 2X speed. 3 minutes 5 seconds of speedy wisdom.
For sure it is less than175 hours.
Anyone can be a Galt: if they were given a great childhood to develop themselves, their talents, discover their absorbing interests and their physicality. Therefore raising such kids is any ambitious society's greatest investment in itself. Thus reducing the number of criminals, substance abusers and underachievers which cost society all of their useless lives. Think outside the box because 'family' hasn't done the job. It needs support at every level because life begins at conception... IOW cheaper than the alternative.
Takes a village
@@8MinuteMasterpieces 'They' will try to run you out of that village in shame and disgrace if you keep propagating such radical thoughts. The replacement God service only works if you truly believe.
We all live comfortable lives based on shared resources provided by governments. U all use infrastructure somebody before you paid for, and somebody after you will have to pay for. No matter your philosophy, this is true, and you owe a debt to those who provided this to you. Either you agree to support services we all use, or the system collapses, and your life goes to shit. I repeat that no one who lives in a country with shared services succeeded without these services.
Typical argument from the left.
Actually, I prefer Dr. Seuss's version "The Lorax" better where despite being told time and time again, their greed and self absorbed personalities is what will destroy the world, not save it. I think all the evidence we see today makes this scenario much more credible. We only need look at people like Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg to realize that industry with out regulation is just a bone head idea. Why this woman was ever hailed as visionary will forever elude me.
"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."
John Rogers
I just stumbled on this channel.
I’m going to watch every one you produce!
Thanks for watching and supporting the channel. Let us know what other content you’d like to see.
Thank you for this. I have heard "Atlas Shrugged" mentioned many times over the years but never got to know anything about it.
However, 3 weeks ago I ordered it from the local library and am now up to page 144, with more than a 1,000 pages to come.
I am not sure how many times I will be allowed to re-new as the book is due back in a week.
But, the book is interesting, but at the end may be above my intellect. I will finish it.
Glad it was helpful! And thanks for watching. Yes, it’s a pretty thick book, but very timely especially in this day and age.
I first read it in the eighties. Then again when Clinton got elected, then again with Obama. By the time Joe stole the white house I no longer bothered: I had memorized the book.
Keep on. It is worth every minute.
@@GeorgeDoughty-m8e Thank you.
@@henkvandenbergh1301 why the book , when all you have to do is open your curtain and see it unfolding in front of you?
After receiving a lengthy review in some detail from Copilot GPT on the Don Cossack novels of M Sholokhov, I asked the machine whether it had read the books. It had not.
It is almost never the rich/CEO/corporate leader who is the dynamo of creation. It is usually a younger, driven, employee whose work is appropriated by the corporation, and patented, and produced for the benefit of the 'owners' of the company. Thus if the figureheads were to decamp to remote plateaus in Colorado, the actual creators would still keep creating, and the corporate machine would replace the figureheads and keep on churning. Ayn Rand completely fails to understand this dynamic in her relentless promotion of a political point. Which is what I concluded some years after I read Atl;as Shrugged, the Fountainhead, and and her philosophical works.
I wanted to post a comment but you phrased it better than I ever could have
You are correct that is _today's_ world businesses are run by "professional CEOs" (their profession is being a CEO: they don't care if their business runs trains, makes steel, or mines copper, they move around to "run" the business). AS's world is not that world, Rand is writing about a different (alternate-future?) environment. The story happens to deal with innovators who also found / run companies - this makes the story easier as they are more visible when they disappear (it's already 1200 pages, something needs to be simplified).
There are other characters, not primary to the plot, that are innovators who work / worked for others (i.e. residents of 'Atlantis'). There is also John Galt - he was an engineer working for an existing company. The elder Stearns ran the company; his children just assumed it would run itself and they could do with is as they pleased.
dagny etc were not figureheads, they actually did all the work, and in much of the story, Taggert transcontenental, the corporation, actually DOES appropriate her achievements.
And yes without HER the corproration falls to pieces
Especially what's his name at Microsoft. And Apple. Great insight on your part.
But the main character in the book was a genius inventor who worked for another company and was exploited by them. He’s the driver of the whole story. Did you read Atlas Shrugged? It exactly fits the point you’re making.
There was a time when any list of "The best books in the world" would include this book in the top ten, along side the works of Tolstoy, Dickens etc. The book has always resonated strongly with the American conservatives, with its philosophy of kindness is weakness and greed is good. Its popularity may have declined a little but many Republican politicians like Ted Cruz, Jim Jordan are still guided by it even more so than they are guided by the bible.
Everyone who loves this book should play the video game "Bioshock."
For me this a story about maintaining personal integrity. That there will be enormous pressures from both those above, and those below - from rich and poor - from the 'elites' and from the more uneducated classes. That the individual must be wary of the types of corruption that can be found in both ends of society.
As for personal integrity, Ayn spent her life bashing the evils of the welfare state and ended her life collecting social security. How's that for personal integrity?
@@neowuwei7851 So you pay into welfare? No. Welfare's a grant or stipend.
But you pay into Social Security because it's a financial plan between the individual & the government. You accrue wealth through working and investing in that partnership; and if it's managed correctly - the government makes money off it as well as the citizen. It's not welfare. It's one of the best things this government has envisioned for the benefit of the nation. The problems come with politician's mismanagement.
I don't know everything about Rand, only that she was somewhat difficult and not an easy person to like. I do like some of her books though. She seemed to want to warn people of tyrants - she wanted people to value their freedom & democracy, and personal responsibility was key to holding onto those freedoms.
Another one of Ayn Rand's books, "The Fountainhead," was shown in the film "Dirty Dancing," and the character presenting the book was, of course, shown as a bad guy. As you might expect from a Hollywood socialist screenwriter.
Rand's central tenet is to do as she said, not as she did. Oh, and she believed the NA should have lost their lands. She also did not believe in Evolution. She was as delusional as the religious peoples she despised.
This book was written by a disaffected victim of communism who became so enamored of her capitalist saviors in the west that she became an irrational sycophant for the kind of democracy only a rampant anarcho-capitalist right winger can appreciate. The bit about regulation being the downfall of a free society supposes that the frothing mad draft horse that is capitalism should be unbridled and allowed to attack the wagon train of democracy at will. Pulling it where it pleases as it pleases.
The only worthwhile takeaway from this, thousand-plus pages, book is that communism is horror and Ayn Rand was so traumatized by it that she fell into an obsession with a tragic Russian caricature of western culture - the decadent selfish type. She ultimately became such a pain in the ass that all her friends left her to die alone because she ended up surrounding herself with people who were just as selfish and crappy as she was.
Her books are a love letter to her own misunderstanding of western values and her life is a cautionary tale for anyone who thinks that selfish is a virtue.
It seems more selfish to make others support the bloated government and a equally bloated welfare system. It's happening right now in other countries and starting right now with millions of homeless being imported into this country along with fentanyl, sex traffickers and violent criminals. The left doesn't get it's way so they burn down businesses and neighborhoods.
Well written review. perfect summation
Well spoken!
So what your saying is , Ayn Rand is the best author of the 20th century ?
You must work for the government. Government is evil and my enemy. Statism is a disease. Regulations are evil. YOU are part of the problem little girl!
I found ayan rand's books 'the virtues of selfishness' challenging. I wouldn't want to live in a world where everyone was selfish to the core but I do admit people are more likely to work for themselves than for society as a whole. A good example is why we have to have draft laws during war. Everyone knows that we need to defend our country but we also know that most individuals won't sign up for it which is why we need mandatory military service during times of war. It just shows that our bodies are hard wired for self-preservation above saving our society from being conquered by a foreign foe.
Good job. That's a lot of crazy to pack into 6 minutes.
Isn't it odd how the left collectively hate everything and everyone they are instructed to hate.
I couldn't finish 'Atlas Shrugged' because of the impending doom that I felt between Dagne and Hank. I'm glad there was hope at the end.
I just bought the book and also The Fountainhead.