Atlas Shrugged . . .or did he?!
I've been interested lately in the resurgence of interest (see how I did that?) in Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged. Here's an article at CNN that will give you the gist of the movement. Let me first say, that I've never actually read the book, but I've never been a fan of Ayn Rand's philosophy--Objectivism. I've always found it ironic that someone who escaped an extremist socialist government would then turn around and advocate the most extreme form of capitalism. She obviously failed to see the danger in extreme political economic systems generally, and that's also the glaring oversight of the conservatives who are revitalizing her philosophy now.
While the alarmist conservative types are quick to shout socialism at the current administration, it seems they've all forgotten that it was unrestrained capitalism that created this mess in the first place. Most of them form their arguments like Obama has been in office for the last eight years. Then again, that's why the cries of socialism are so loud, to divert attention away from their own party's failings. My suggestion to the people comprising the bulk of this movement: go back to school and take a few more English classes. If you really analyze the story of Atlas Shrugged, you'd find that the current recession is actually the antitheses of the story, a parody of it, if you will. In Atlas Shrugged, the most talented and powerful industrialists grow tired of an interfering government and, led by a guy named John Galt, just decide to quit to show society that things would fall apart without them. In our current situation, however, the bankers, mega-capitalist producers and money makers have no such power or sense of authority. They certainly didn't halt the economy of their own free will. In the real world, those "titans of industry" have gotten themselves in a rut due to unrestrained greed and are now asking for the kind of government assistance that they would deny the less fortunate in society. So the moral is, boys and girls, it's okay for the government to give financial assistance to the rich when they find themselves in need, but it's never okay to give such assistance to those who have always been disadvantaged.
The glaring problem with this ideology is that it assumes that all those who fail at capitalism are lazy, which is the furthest thing from the truth. Conservatives argue that socialism cripples creativity and the will to innovate and produce, which in its most extreme forms, is true. Communism is an example of that. Our economic troubles are an example that laissez-faire capitalism is equally as doomed. The reality is that all extreme political systems are more likely to fail. Let's take the small business owner that so many conservatives love to pretend to champion. Many an upstart business have fantastic ideas and very hardworking men and women. What happens when, despite their best efforts, those businesses just can't make it? Large, already established corporations with more money and years of experience often make it difficult for the small business owner. In laissez-faire capitalism, the response is "tough shit." No government intervention for the small business owner, the market reigns supreme and it will determine the victor. So what do you get? A class system, essentially an oligarchy, where power is held by a relatively small number of rich business owners. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer, as they say, and very few of the lower class will ever make it to the top in such a cut throat capitalist system. This eventually leads to a disillusioned and bitter lower class who (guess what?) revolt and cause civil war and the collapse of society.
Where is John Galt? He's on Wall Street. He ran his company into the ground and now he's asking for hand outs. Let's be serious here, Republicans. Just because your party lost the election, don't forecast the socialist apocalypse. The opposite extreme that you're advocating is just as ridiculously naive and hopeless as the one that you're so desperately trying to convince everyone that we're headed for under Obama. Moderation is key. Read the news to see evidence of what happens when we fool ourselves into believing that capitalism is a perfect system.
While the alarmist conservative types are quick to shout socialism at the current administration, it seems they've all forgotten that it was unrestrained capitalism that created this mess in the first place. Most of them form their arguments like Obama has been in office for the last eight years. Then again, that's why the cries of socialism are so loud, to divert attention away from their own party's failings. My suggestion to the people comprising the bulk of this movement: go back to school and take a few more English classes. If you really analyze the story of Atlas Shrugged, you'd find that the current recession is actually the antitheses of the story, a parody of it, if you will. In Atlas Shrugged, the most talented and powerful industrialists grow tired of an interfering government and, led by a guy named John Galt, just decide to quit to show society that things would fall apart without them. In our current situation, however, the bankers, mega-capitalist producers and money makers have no such power or sense of authority. They certainly didn't halt the economy of their own free will. In the real world, those "titans of industry" have gotten themselves in a rut due to unrestrained greed and are now asking for the kind of government assistance that they would deny the less fortunate in society. So the moral is, boys and girls, it's okay for the government to give financial assistance to the rich when they find themselves in need, but it's never okay to give such assistance to those who have always been disadvantaged.
The glaring problem with this ideology is that it assumes that all those who fail at capitalism are lazy, which is the furthest thing from the truth. Conservatives argue that socialism cripples creativity and the will to innovate and produce, which in its most extreme forms, is true. Communism is an example of that. Our economic troubles are an example that laissez-faire capitalism is equally as doomed. The reality is that all extreme political systems are more likely to fail. Let's take the small business owner that so many conservatives love to pretend to champion. Many an upstart business have fantastic ideas and very hardworking men and women. What happens when, despite their best efforts, those businesses just can't make it? Large, already established corporations with more money and years of experience often make it difficult for the small business owner. In laissez-faire capitalism, the response is "tough shit." No government intervention for the small business owner, the market reigns supreme and it will determine the victor. So what do you get? A class system, essentially an oligarchy, where power is held by a relatively small number of rich business owners. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer, as they say, and very few of the lower class will ever make it to the top in such a cut throat capitalist system. This eventually leads to a disillusioned and bitter lower class who (guess what?) revolt and cause civil war and the collapse of society.
Where is John Galt? He's on Wall Street. He ran his company into the ground and now he's asking for hand outs. Let's be serious here, Republicans. Just because your party lost the election, don't forecast the socialist apocalypse. The opposite extreme that you're advocating is just as ridiculously naive and hopeless as the one that you're so desperately trying to convince everyone that we're headed for under Obama. Moderation is key. Read the news to see evidence of what happens when we fool ourselves into believing that capitalism is a perfect system.