Atlas Shrugged

Well, lemme look it up: This link is also useful: Why is the value of labor different relative to the culture and ethnicity of the laborer? I am worth $15.66 an hour at my job, yet they could hire 3 people at $5.22 an hour if they wanted.(almost legally)This message has been edited by Phatboy, 02-22-2005 10:11 AM

Hmm, yes. Like all specialised contexts, dictionary definitions are not really apporpriate.The conventional value system operational in capitalism is based on perceivee value - that is, there is no value but what the would-be buyer attributes to the commodity. This is an integral element to the mechanisms of supply and demand.So lets look at rands proposition youn offered in post 5, on this basis. Rand claims that "In proportion to the mental energy he spent, the man who creates a new invention receives but a small percentage of his value in terms of material payment, no matter what fortune he makes, no matter what millions he earns. But the man who works as a janitor in the factory producing that invention, receives an enormous payment in proportion to the mental effort that his job requires of him." And the calssical capitalist reponse is TOO BAD.Value is in the eye of the beholder. Rand can rant all we like, if we do not choose to value ideas in the way she thinks we should, she just has to deal with it. The market sets the price - not Rand. Thus I don;t even have to step out of orthodox economists to demonstrate that Rands argument is impossible in the very system she expounds.But by contrast to Rands polemic about the genius of the individual - and as was demonstrated by the flower cartoon linked above - physical labour is inescapable. Without physical action, no idea, no matter how brilliant or worthy, ever becomes anything at all. Rand's elitism damns the very people who do ALL the valuable - workers. Rands conception of valuye is, in fact, valueless; and the conclusions she draws from her argument therefore necessarily specious.Rand has also failed to address WHY the man at the bottom is at the bottom. She just takes this as if mandated by God, and seeing as christinaity has itself argued that very point, maybe she believed that explicitly. But the man at the bottom is AT the bottom precisely becuase the value they produce has been stolen by the very dillettantes Rand heroises. In fact the social relationship is dimaterically opposite that Rand claims to observe - the people at the top are nonproductive parasites, and the people at the bottom produce all real, affective, value.

Well stated. Aren't you making the same mistake as Rand, i.e., claiming that people should be compensated in amounts other than those set by the marketplace? Or perhaps you've shifted from an anti-Rand argument to an anti-capitalism one. One way of looking at the two arguments is that yours is socialism while Rand's is reverse socialism, and neither has much to do with capitalism or free markets.--Percy

quote:

---

Aren't you making the same mistake as Rand, i.e., claiming that people should be compensated in amounts other than those set by the marketplace?

---

So, is this getting to be a question of values (in the sense of morals)? Why indeed, should we prefer one economic system over another? Perhaps we need to be more explicit about what we expect from an economic system so that we can analyze each to determine how well it meets those expectations.

I wasn't trying to begin a discussion about the merits of different economic systems. I was just wondering if you realized you were being no more consistent with free markets than Rand, and apparently you did.--Percy

It's been a while since I read Atlas Shrugged, but I remember I found it very thought provoking. It's not a surprise that people who lean to the left politically find this book, and her other works, to have little merit.I'm not sure I agree that one of the themes was 'Capitalism is better than Socialism;' rather that individual achievement should not be stifled by government.I definitely caught a whiff of Nietzsche's concept of 'will to power' in it. Dynamic individuals are kept from rising to their ultimate heights by the jealous masses; the need to conform, to be mediocre is for the betterment of society as a whole because the individual who stands out makes everyone else who can't, or won't, look bad.In that regard it reminds me of Brave New World. Rand certainly seems a proponent of the unregulated free market, but I didn't see her extolling the virtues of capitalism qua consumerism.It's interesting how some posters here view free market capitalism as though it is some evil sentient entity that goes out of its way to enrich amoral money grubbers by trodding on the backs of the enslaved workers. I certainly don't remember this theme in Atlas Shrugged; but, as I said, it has been a while since I read it.This message has been edited by custard, 02-23-2005 18:03 AM

quote:

---

It's interesting how some posters here view free market capitalism as though it is some evil sentient entity that goes out of its way to enrich amoral money grubbers by trodding on the backs of the enslaved workers.

---

What I find interesting is how some posters here view other posters' opinions so unpleasant that they cannot even read them correctly.--

quote:

---

Dynamic individuals are kept from rising to their ultimate heights by the jealous masses; the need to conform, to be mediocre is for the betterment of society as a whole because the individual who stands out makes everyone else who can't, or won't, look bad.

---

That certainly describes the theme of the only Rand book I ever read, Anthem. The main problem is that, at least in the way it was presented that book, the idea is so juvenile -- it makes me think of when I was an adolescent and no one ever understood me, I was the one spark of reason in the whole place, etc. Maybe there is occassionally some bright, talented individual who thinks differently but is pulled down into mediocrity by the sheep surrounding her, but most of my experience is of people who think they are such geniuses that they act like dicks and people treat them like dicks.--Hey, custard, I see that you've been missing even longer than I was. I hope that all has been well.

Capitalism isn't, but people are, and free-market capitalism lets them do that. Capitalism rewards those who can gain the most while providing the least; the end state of that is of course kleptocracy, where the elite gain wealth without having to provide anything at all.

quote:

---

Capitalism isn't, but people are, and free-market capitalism lets them do that. Capitalism rewards those who can gain the most while providing the least; the end state of that is of course kleptocracy, where the elite gain wealth without having to provide anything at all.
  —crashfrog

---

Interesting opinion.But do you think an economic model exists that does not ultimately result in the kleptocracy you describe? I'll wager my David Ricardo action figure with the Adam Smith Invisible Hand grip if you can think of one.

Can't think of a one; but then, I'm no economist. And hey, I work and spend money on things just like the rest of us, and I like that I live in a place where if I have the money I can have nearly anything I want.But that's no reason not to find something better, is it?

quote:

---

Can't think of a one; but then, I'm no economist.

---

Neither can I. I don't think an economic model exists, or will ever exist, that is better than a free market with just enough regulation to encourage maximum competition. But if you want to debate economic systems, I'm willing to do so in another thread.I don't see capitalism or any other economic system as inherently evil, and I don't think Atlas Shrugged is proposing that capitalism is the salvation of man either. I think Atlas Shrugged was an effort to point out that society tries to shackle greatness in the individual by forcing him to conform.

Seems like an awful long book for a moral I could have gotten from Saturday afternoon specials.

Hi Crash,
Unfortunately, socialism and communism lead exactly to the same state. Socialist/communist countries have without exception become dictatorships where a privileged few enjoy far greater benefits than the majority (China, Cuba, Belarus, the former DDR)...in fact, in real terms, the skew of the distribution of wealth among communist countries is even worse than in capatitalist countries. A more mild form of socialism i.e. Scandanavian or even German social democracy while corrupt, inefficient and highly sensitive to the stupidity of the people in charge, tends to generate a much larger middle class and a less top heavy distribution of wealth. As the German economy collapses, it is interesting to see that the rich are pushing for reforms that would make Germany more of a kleptocracy and distribute the wealth to them...it is like watching its development in real time....reminds me..I need to get outa here

Well, you gotta stick with your strengths I suppose. Actually there is more than one theme in the book, but I'm guessing you never read this one either, eh?Shouldn't one usually have some sort of familiarity with the subject matter one is attempting to criticize? Just a thought.

quote:

---

Aren't you making the same mistake as Rand, i.e., claiming that people should be compensated in amounts other than those set by the marketplace? Or perhaps you've shifted from an anti-Rand argument to an anti-capitalism one. One way of looking at the two arguments is that yours is socialism while Rand's is reverse socialism, and neither has much to do with capitalism or free markets.

---

Sure. Sorry if thats confusing; because I have internalised both Marxist and orthodox Cappitalist value arguments, I find it quite easy to switch from one mode to another, but that may be hard to follow.But I would strongly disagree that Rands is reverse socialism. Rands argument is a form of Heoric culture; Marx' argument to a price that is not purely market driven is procedurally based - that is, there are sound reasons for selecting the criteria he selects, and thus he offers an objective value system in place of the subjective system. While I can argue that Rand is wrong in terms of her own preferred model, I don't accept that model myself.It is not merely a discussion of what we choose to "value" through our economic action, and the proposition that an alternative set of "values" be applied. And of course, we would never concede that markets can be free under Capitalism. In fact, I would say that the use of the subjective value system is itself a market distortion: that is, it privileges the wealthy as empowered economic actors and subordinates the rest of the economy to their effective demand. Thus the capitalist subjective price model is really a form of social deference to the de facto plutocracy.