Alcoa reports 300 million above estimated earnings...when a dog company like that is up that much no telling what the oil companies are going to report.

 

So.

You have read it. Pardon me for inferring otherwise, but you did imply as much, with your flip parroting of all the others who have not.

Now, then.

You would perhaps be surprised by how much I happen to agree with you. It is not well written. It is repetitive. A "hamfisted disaster?" I don't know about that, but I do like the turn of phrase. I will concede that in the process of cocking her fist, she crushed her pen. On the other hand, I would say much the same of many other classical polemics that are thinly disguised as novels. 1984 and Animal Farm are not particularly well written. Wooden characters. Repetitive. Contrived plots, in which the narrative scope is focused upon one postage stamp sized lot, to the exclusion of the rest of the world and all of its complicated effects, so as not to cloud the experiment. Going farther back, one might make a similar critique of Voltaire's Candide, a polemic that masquerades as a thinly contrived piece of allegorical fiction. It is not a thousand pages long- more like two hundred pages- but the rest of your criticisms would be applicable. Victor Hugo's Les Miserables. Now there's a masterpiece that could be characterized as being as lengthy and as simplistic as it is tedious.

If one wished to dismiss literature out of hand for the crime of poor execution, one would hardly be limited to the novel. Solzhenitsyn's The Gulag Archipelago is not a novel, technically (though most of its purported factual accounts would be impossible to corroborate), but it is certainly a long, repetitive, cruel, and gruesome disaster, delivered with an iron fist.

I bring up Candide for another reason. Midas Mulligan's little utopia in the Rockies is certainly derivative of Voltaire's fabled Eldorado. Yet Voltaire exposes Eldorado, with his patent irony, as dystopic, and I would argue that Mulligan's utopia is dystopic as well. It could not possibly work in reality. Obviously. Yet even within the narrow frame of the allegory, it suffers appalling sins of omission. It has no place for children. No place for charity. No place for Eddie Willers, the lifelong assistant of Dagny Taggart, he who perishes in ignominy on a railroad bed, abandoned by the capitalist elites who have transcended.

Eddie Willers exemplifies the deep inequity (perhaps iniquity is equally applicable) which you touch upon when you ask how Ayn Rand can maintain that the lower echelons of a workforce are necessarily expendable, while the top echelons are essential. I happen to think that you take your point too far when you point out the turnover in Board rooms and in the senior staff of corporations, because in my experience CEOs are almost never essential to the mindshare the drives the value of brands. Look at the shot in the arm that Steve Jobs gave Apple, by returning to that company. Jobs is more indicative of the motive force portrayed by the characters of Dagny Taggart and Rearden, but Steven Jobs, RIP, was no ordinary CEO, was he? And indeed, Rand could arguably be making this point herself, when she casts the leading motive force, Dagny Taggart, as a subordinate to the senior echelon, at the mercy of her inept and capricious brother.

Atlas Shrugged did not make me weep. Let's face it: Rand was a crappy writer. I could not have wept for her characters. I doubt that anyone could. But if she had been a more accomplished writer, I would have wept for Eddie Willers.

As an aside, I am running another thread, in the Story Board, about a contemporary piece of trash, which is also hugely popular, called The Hunger Games. In that thread, I have been ripped up one side and down the other by people who do not understand that the established government in that series (Panem) is an archetypal fiscal conservative state, essentially a parable about the implications of laissez-faire capitalism, free and unfettered. In that story's cruel setting, there is neither altruism nor charity of any kind. No entitlements, no benefits, no safety nets. People fend for themselves or starve, and the lowest echelons are expendable cogs in a Randian machine. Yet I am getting into fights with people who think Hunger Games portrays a liberal dystopia, because the citizens have effeminate mannerisms and do not own guns.

Back to Rand. Yes. The allegory contains deep flaws. In my view Atlas Shrugged offers no solutions. Moreover, the allegory is simplistic, conveyed as it is in a narrow spyglass, with the rest of the world largely ignored or trivialized. The America of Rand's world would have been conquered from outside, long before it imploded from within, but the same thing could be said of Orwell's dystopia, and also of Suzanne Collins's Panem. (Pardon me for citing Orwell and Collins in the same sentence. Collins is just about the worst writer ever to have made a hundred million bucks off twelve year olds, and I am counting Stephenie Meyer among her competition.)

But, despite the flaws, as I wrote in a post to DL, Atlas Shrugged offers perspective, because across many disciplines we are seeing science subservient to polity (the National Academy of Science and its parallels to Rand's State Science Institute); law subservient to extra-legislative regulation (the EPA's disastrous effects on industry); the sycophantic condemnation of industries for their "profiteering" and lack of "compassion" by the mainstream media (the near-universal blaming of commodities speculation on the energy crisis); the Executive branch's contempt for the Judicial and Congressional branches when they stray from the party line (most recently exemplified by Obama's criticisms of the Supreme Court for its determination to uphold the Constitution).

You imply that contemporary analysis of economic and political systems gives short shrift to successful socialist societies. Frankly I am puzzled by this, and I suppose I would have to ask you to name one. A great many countries adopt socialist policies, sometimes under the aegis of socialist parties that rise to prominence for a time. But this does not make them socialist states. China, certainly is not merely communist/socialist, anymore than it is merely capitalist. Nor England, despite the U.K. being farther down that road than we are.

Nor is the United States purely socialist, anymore than it is purely a representative republic. On the other hand, the undermining of representative democracy in the United States does not make it corporatist, which in my view is one of the most often misused words in political speech these days, thanks in large part to the Tides Foundation and its Occupy movement.

That brings me to the biggest parallel of all, between Ayn Rand's poorly executed allegory and the world we face: the undermining of investment and initiative by special interests (yes, corporate interests as well as ideological interests) and the extra-legislative constraints that those interests promote. We can no longer call ourselves a capitalist society; our economy has become too undermined by regulation (yes, fine, call it corporatism) to deserve that designation.

I find it ironic that as we move away from capitalism, the world's most successful communist civilization is embracing it. And yet, all allegories can be instructive- not only the merely dry and tedious tales of Rand, but also the atrocious perversions of literature, penned by hacks such as Suzanne Collins. And in that sense, if Rand's dystopia is a cautionary tale for western civilization, the Panem of Hunger Games would certainly be a dire warning for brutal laissez-faire China.

Thanks for your response. I know we do not agree, but it is cool. I have enjoyed your post.

 

But we never get to see the refinery profits do we or more importantly who actually owns those refineries?

 

I'm dumbfounded at having to listen to a comparison of the literary merits of 1984 and Atlas Shrugged.

 

I just found it dumb.

 

Who cares???

 

*nodding* That too.

 

Awwwhh. Did I make your eyes all sleepy? Way down your wittle head.

 

No, Atlas Shrugged made my eyes all sleepy.

 

This about sums it up

 

I would agree with your comparisons in the overall sentiment of the stories, though, I think it a stretch to put Rand among Orwell and Hugo, and a sin to put all three beside Voltaire. That aside, the issue I find with your statement is that you compare the stories as though their purpose is the same.

One could certainly find social and political statements in the works of the above three authors, but one could not find the claim of a fulfilling world view in that work alone. I have never met someone who claimed their political philosophy to be based upon Voltaire, nor have I met someone who finds Les Miserables to be a blueprint for the best sort of society. Orwell has certainly had influence in the political sphere, but only to the extent of making people more weary of "big government." I have, however, met many sad fellows who happily claim themselves to be "Randians," and who insist, quite vehemently, that Atlas Shrugged is not a book, so much as it is a bible which ought to be followed with a strict fundamentalism. With your constant insistence that people ought to read the book, and ought to learn from it -- I had little choice but to assume you were among said fellows.

I'm afraid you mistake me. I do not dismiss Atlas Shrugged on account of the tawdry pros (though they certainly exist), so much as I dismiss it for being bad philosophy. I suppose this is where you and I diverge. You see it as a strict product of literature, I see it as first and foremost, a product of philosophy.

I attack Rand's single-mindedness in the story because the story is seen to be a summary of her philosophy. In that sense, it is a summary of her philosophy. A bad summary of a bad philosophy. But nonetheless a summary. And if one is going to touch upon not merely an idea, but an entire ideology of living, I expect there to be nuance and I expect there to be honest questions of the ideology itself. Perhaps it is unfair that I demand a broader view from Rand than from the other authors you mentioned -- but then, none of them claimed to have soul ownership of a better philosophy; a higher morality; and a stronger reason. If one is going to make such bold claims, and write a novel to encompass such bold claims, one had better write something of a much bolder sort.

If I remember correctly, the most offensive flaw (according to Rand) to be found in James Taggart, was his insistence that the companies product and wealth be used for, dare I say, "the greater good." I fear you give Rand too much credit when you ask if she is questioning her own elitism in the paradigm represented by Dagny and her brother. I find it far more likely that James was not a subtle commentary on the senior echelon's fallibility, so much as another blunt reminder to the audience that "sharers" are weak and bothersome -- especially in positions of influence.

I do not envy you. I must admit that in my last jaunt to bookstore I browsed six pages somewhere near the middle of The Hunger Games before merely throwing my hands into the air, shaking my head, and muttering something to the nearest shopper about the quickly approaching apocalypse not approaching nearly quick enough.

Perhaps the most telling tale in our new literary world is the invisibility of its authors. I think everyone has now heard of Twilight and The Hunger Games, even those who have not read them (those lucky few). Yet, the majority of people I meet cannot, for the life of them, tell me the name of the authors. I was myself quite blank on Suzanne Collins until seeing her name in a movie advertisement. Had I heard the name before that, I would have replied, "Ahh, yes. I enjoy her cakes." Oppositely, I cannot imagine one reading Dicken's without knowing they are reading Dicken's. You cannot miss Joyce. You will always recognize the pros of Proust. These new authors (a stretch of the imagination) have no identity. No inherent talent in their writing. No voice. They all write with a bland and blank adherence to the rules like some pitiful college undergrads; never daring to venture into something unique or subtle or even absurd.

I had better stop myself before I write some tangent about the horrors of the modern literary world and the decline of the English language. Suffice to say, I think the idea of books being good for a child's intellect has gone the way of the buffalo -- certainly if one is speaking about these more modern books. And this is due, like most things, to the inherent need of greed to appeal to the lowest common denominator. It is quite embarrassing to have long dead authors out-writing (and witting) the living.

Once again I was approaching the book from a point of philosophy and assumed you were doing much the same. If you simply wished to draw a few parallels among all that nonsense, I cannot argue with them. If a broken clock can be right twice a day, a thousand page story can be right -- I assume, at least three times.

However, lest I turn into an agreeable and boring bastard, I would argue that even those few parallels are forced. A dishonest media could be found in any dystopian novel; as could a subservient law and a political power play (well, that could be found just about anywhere). I do not know what you find particularly unique in Rand's rather cliche dystopic ramblings, and so I suppose I am back to wondering why you insisted that Distant Lover read that story -- as though it held some special warning. I suppose I am also back to excusing myself for mistaking you for an objectivist; your words did seem to drift there.

Ahh, you frightened me to the point of reviewing my own words. As I expected, I never made the claim of a successful (or even existing) socialist state or society, but a "socialist economy." That is of course a tricky phrase and mostly poppycock since, as you have outlined below, there is a mixture of socialism and capitalism in each economy, including ours. My meaning was of the more modern (especially in this country) sense. Economies which are, if not socialist, certainly more socialist than ours are doing quite well, which disagrees with Rand's warnings and apocalyptic treatment of the word "share."

I am not here to argue for socialism or capitalism, as I would end up arguing for neither. Simply to cry over and spit upon the fallacies in Rand's shallow philosophy.

So we come to the end of the matter and find ourselves not strewn across battlefields but standing before a mirror. As I have said, your pushing of the book (something that still boggles me) made me mistake you for some strict objectivist. Ultimately, you seem to be more broad minded than any of that and I suspect that, if we discussed any number of things, we would end up doing something as boring as agreeing.

Likewise. A well thought out and unabashedly lengthy post is a breath of fresh air. I was under the impression that I was the last paragraph practitioner on the internet -- a payment for some sin -- doomed forever to live among the twitters and tweeters and headline repeaters; a penance.

 

Les Miserables and The 10,000 Year Explosion

The message of Les Miserables is that criminals are victims of social and economic justice who, under better circumstances, and particularly a better society would be decent people. That belief has inspired several generations of liberals and humanitarians, many of whom may have not heard of the book.

It has effected social and penal reform, but it does not seem to be accurate. From 1960 to 1970 in the United States poverty was reduced by a broadly based economic expansion and war on poverty programs. The prison population declined. The crime rate doubled. Since 1980 poverty has increased because of the evolution of capitalism, and declines in welfare spending. The prison population has tripled. The crime rate has declined by one third.

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

http://www.jacksonprogressive.com/issues/lawenforcement/punishment.pdf

The belief that can be inferred from The 10,000 Explosion: How Civilization Accelerated Human Evolution, although it is not clearly stated, is that crime is a genetic predisposition found more in some people than in other, and more in some races than in others, and that the criminal justice system of a civilized nation breeds civilized people by over a period of many centuries removing those with criminal inclinations form the gene pool.

http://the10000yearexplosion.com/

Consequently, the longer a racial group has practiced civilization the lower its crime rate is likely to be. The 10,000 Year Explosion is non fiction, and I find its message persuasive.

 

George Orwell and Visions of the Future

There are two ways to predict the future. One can think of a future one desires and think of ways it is likely to emerge, or one can project prominent tendencies of the present into the future.

Karl Marx used the first method. He desired an egalitarian society without poverty, war, and unpleasant jobs, and convinced himself and his followers that such a society would emerge from the social and economic turmoil of capitalism.

George Orwell used the second. In an essay he wrote before composing 1984 he said that when the battlefield is dominated by weapons that are inexpensive and easy to learn how to use democracy has a chance, but that when the battlefield is dominated by weapons that are expensive and which take years to master there will be an authoritarian political order.

During the middle ages the battlefield was dominated by knights. The knight was a heavily armored cavalryman who owed his supremacy in battle to the fact that in hand to hand combat a man on horseback is more formidable than a man on his feet.

In order to be a knight one needed to be able to afford a horse, along with expensive weapons and armor. One needed to have the leisure to spend years learning how to use these. As long as the knight reigned supreme one knight could defeat any number of peasants with pitchforks. The social order was hierarchical, and the peasants had no choice but to do what they were told to do.

The knight lost his supremacy first to the long bow and the cross bow, which could penetrate a knight's armor, and then to the musket and the hand grenade. These were inexpensive, and easy to learn. They made possible the American and French revolutions, and the rise of democracy.

However, during the Second World War the battlefield was dominated by tanks and planes. These are expensive, difficult to learn, and cannot be mastered by bands of rebels and revolutionaries. Consequently, the future belongs to greater authoritarianism. This is the vision that inspired 1984.

In a more optimistic essay written later Orwell said that a democracy is less likely to make catastrophic military decisions like Nazi Germany did when Adolf Hitler decided to invade the Soviet Union and declare war on the United States.

 

Ayn Rand

clarise,

You agree that Atlas Shrugged is poorly written. I would go further and say that it was composed by a pompous and hypocritical bore in order to propagate a brutal philosophy. What value do you see in it?

The appeal of that novel and Rend's philosophy seem to be that by identifying with Rand's heroes readers think they acquire their abilities. The real Ayn Rand heroes, men like Steve Jobs and Bill Gates, do not bother with Rand's turgid writings. They simply enjoy the benefits of good genes.

 

Obama to talk this morning on his plans to reel in the rampant speculation in the oil and gas markets....

will be carried on CNBC

 

I heard a little bit about this on the radio this morning. It looks like President Obama is trying to commit funds for an investigation into price manipulation. Smart move to because the oil market is already weakened and gas price3s may have peaked.

 

I don't know now RandyKnight, did you see this. It seems huge to me and I notice the price of oil jumped nearly $2 per barrel.

Argentina to renationalize oil group

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/04/16/business/argentina-oil-group/?hpt=ibu_c2

 

US Attorney General started the investigation...a year ago....

 

5 billion for 51% of the value makes for a small oil company...

I dont know much about Argentina...

 

Fortunately for those of us in the US Argentina is not a big exporter to the US. But none the less this is going to be a huge market disruption I would think just because the private corporations and people that make up the Spanish conglomerate just got over run by the Argentine Government.

Here's what appear to me to be two really good explanations of Argentina's oil production (which has been in serious decline for decades) and where they fit into US imports.

http://205.254.135.7/countries/cab.cfm?fips=AR

http://205.254.135.7/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_ep00_im0_mbbl_m.htm