Synova wrote a little post that gets halfway to where I would come down on this perennial parlor game of the John Galt general strike. Sy recognized that to be successful, such a revolt would realistically be a miserable experience for a society, resulting in bloodshed and economic ruin. But she does not depart from Rand in assuming that the eventual outcome would be desirable. I’d advise the ancient wisdom that if the means are clearly evil in a political project, one should become immediately skeptical of the alleged justice of the ends.
We should also be skeptical of the social assumption for Galt, that there is a definable and rigid division among men into a minority of Platonic creative guardians, and an empowered majority of proletarian oppressors and their craven political servants — and that these factions could have accurate self-recognition of their social roles. I would contend that anyone who thinks of the majority of the people as disposable abstracted parasites, under a constitutional order that explicitly derives its governing powers from the majority consent of the governed, is never selling you anything that’s going to arrive in a happy place.
Additionally, as with all radical revolutionary doctrines requiring mass mobilization, the necessity of placing the attainment of utopia in the distant future, or behind a historical barrier of war or great sacrifice, is an organizing principle in itself. As Eric Hoffer warned in his defense of the idea of the present, if you have to get to the future to find out if an ideology is just and correct, it isn’t. Not that this is an inconvenience to the revolutionary, as there’s always a need for someone to run the next war or 5 year plan when it turns out everything has gotten much worse thanks to his determined efforts.
Because of that intrinsic conceit, Rand’s ideology is arguably one of the most dangerous to have materialized on our shores. Like her literary style, it has an essentially hierachialist Russian character that cloaks itself seductively in the cultural language of liberal America. Many libertarians have been wise to regard her visions and schemes such as Galt, as somehow at odds with their ideals, even if they’re often unsure how.
For libertarians, the Randian revolt ought to be uncomfortable, because it is honest. It directly confronts the great and omnipresent danger at the heart of libertarianism: The discord of the libertarian individualist with popular democracy (as an exercise, try replacing the word “collectivism” with “democracy” in objectivist literature and you may experience an epiphany). Objectivism thrives in this conflict and worse, offers a solution to resolve the internal moral contest: mobilize, revolt, destroy the present to save the future.
That’s because what one sees over and over again in libertarian literature is the frustration at the tendency of voting majorities to support social programs which redistribute wealth from rich to poor. The libertarian vexation is not unfounded, as this reality does indeed have a corrosive effect on economic growth and can slowly imperil human liberty by course. Since libertarians are materialists and understand that all political freedoms are material freedoms (of what use is freedom of speech, if you cannot own a printing press?), this quickly becomes a moral crisis. There’s thus always a temptation, exploited by the objectivist, to conclude that there’s a way to prevent this from happening through counter-democratic means. The temptation is fundamentally the conclusion that the democratic enterprise is irretrievably and inevitably a moral compromise.
It was Rousseau after all who argued that the ‘general will’ will always tend to choose for the public good, an assumption libertarians by necessity reject in the world of popularly created mixed economies. But Rosseau conditioned his conclusion with the knowledge that the general will was subject to distortion and thus error. He identified the agent of this distortion as sectionalism. To paraphrase his view with Cicero: the more groups, the less votes. This is something that libertarians would not be in disagreement with, as both tend to share the basic liberal assumption that the liberated individual will choose good, and only becomes corrupt through the exchange of individualism for a national or sub-national group identity.
This, it should be noticed, is implicitly rejected by Rand, who championed the sectionalist separatism of Galt’s Gulch as the precondition for human salvation. The strike itself is a strike of the sectional against the popular, against the people, who are too stupid and easily manipulated to apprehend their role in the destitution of society and the collapse of social order.
This is the theoretical foundation of Carl Schmitt’s criticism of liberal democracy. Schmitt rejected liberalism for assuming that every person had a coequal right to a vote, and that every political motive was conceivably legitimate if tempered by constitutional constraints against usurpation. More critically Schmitt rejected the formulation that the sum of this general will, as expressed through procedural political behavior, must lead to progressive good. This is the point at which the distance between a democratic libertarian and a Randian objectivist should also be thrown into its deepest relief.
In both Rand and Schmitt, what is essential is the act of sociopolitical division and the emergence of a transcendent group, animated by deep political meaningfulness. This stronger group separates itself from the mass, rejects equality among the individuals and appoints itself the creative guardians of the culture (a necessarily arbitrary distinction in any free society), setting out to suppress the aspirations of the others in order to establish perfect justice.
The conservative William F. Buckley might be often mocked by objectivists for having remarked that he could sense the fascism of Atlas Shrugged without opening the cover, but his intuition ought to be commended by those who have.
This sly and slippery nonsense constitutes a straw man of puny proportions. I mean, who is the target, since they could not have read Ayn Rand at all or grasped the principles of her system. I’ll do a little sweeping up of random straw, but really your high proud tone at the end is embarrassing, since you substantiated nothing.
1) the so-called parlor game of whether to actually ‘go to the gulches’ is so miniscule in the Objectivist world, your construction that a hypothetical such occurrence would be immoral — and therefore constitutes proof that Ayn Rand is a fascist — is pathetic. Nevertheless, (sweep sweep)….
“strike…to be successful, such a revolt would realistically be a miserable experience for a society, resulting in bloodshed and economic ruin. …I’d advise the ancient wisdom that if the means are clearly evil in a political project, one should become immediately skeptical of the alleged justice of the ends.”
…..does not follow. The strikers — IN THE PARABLE — do nothing to the rest of the world; they simply remove themselves from it — and from the role of sacrificial animal. They only way they could be blamed for the ‘bloodshed and ruin’ would be a duty, a legal political obligation compelled by guns, to produce more than they needed to survive and then submit the rest to confiscation. If you don’t understand why Rand rejected such a duty — or you think it immoral to reject it — then you are the fascist.
2) “We should also be skeptical of the social assumption for Galt, that there is a definable and rigid division among men into a minority of Platonic creative guardians, and an empowered majority of proletarian oppressors and their craven political servants…” There is no such construct in Rand. People that Galt noticed were fed up and ready to strike came from all walks of life, truck drivers, teachers, engineers — as well as international corporate productive geniuses. Your attempt to shoehorn their souls into Plato’s perfidious ‘kings’ is void. They had a character trait in common, yes, but is was not a will to rule.
3) “— and that these factions could have accurate self-recognition of their social roles.” The strikers were not aware of their social roles as kings or pawns, as you would have it. They just knew they were producers and thus targets. They ducked when shot at. You would have them take one for the people and say “Thank you sir, may I have another?”
4) “I would contend that anyone who thinks of the majority of the people as disposable abstracted parasites, under a constitutional order that explicitly derives its governing powers from the majority consent of the governed, is never selling you anything that’s going to arrive in a happy place. ”
Okay, here is a chicken feather among the straw….you invoke Democracy to pin the strikers in place. First, remember that the strikers did no disposing. Only avoiding. Second they are laughing at your attempt to pin them into sacrifice by “the consent of the governed.” Democratic majority rule is nothing other than a dictatorship of the whoever has the Knowledge/Power Construct. You are just like a character right out of Atlas Shrugged who learns about the strike and whines “But the people passed a law making it illegal for them to not produce for the rest of us.”
5) “Additionally, as with all radical revolutionary doctrines requiring mass mobilization…” I could swat the rest of that paragraph, since Rand considered the setting of Atlas to be “time neutral” and you insist on actually warning the world (through the proxy of the dubious Hoffer) to beware the witch because she has to set it in the future or in time of stress! Hilarious. Instead I’ll just deflate one word: ‘mass mobilization.’ You didn’t get it all did you? The strike does not need a mass mobilization; only a few productive geniuses are holding up the world…..not a mass.
6) The next wad of the essay is only your attempt to justify Democracy while skewering the ebb and flow of Objectivism and Libertarianism. Fine, you are a Democrat. You establish cred by invoking Rousseau. Well, this country was not founded as a democracy and Montesquieu, not the collectivist Rousseau, is at the root, nor ought democracy be enacted since it is just tyranny of the majority. And yes, all Objectivists will indeed identify the evil of Democracy relentlessly and yes, we indeed are dangerous to you.
7) But then the payoff….this entire essay only exists for one reason: so you can hitchhike on another man’s cowardice, namely the little lamented Buckley who hated Rand so much for her atheism he vilified her and smeared her or years, because she was in direct contact with the root of freedom and this nation — not Democracy but rather a free Republic of sovereign citizens — and he was not.
John Donohue
Pasadena, CA
Out of curiosity Mr. Donohue, do you personally consider yourself to be among the enlightened producer elite standing against the parasitic mob?
Do you consider your self a classist who looks at the world that way and is utterly incapable of seeing the character of each individual human for what it is?
And…are you personally a net taker or a net contributor under social democracy?
I’d only consent to answer your questions, if you consent to answer mine. Surely a principle of exchange a Randian would understand the equity of. So far, you are not consenting though.
There’s another point……it is revealing the attempts here to characterize Rand’s novel as “The producers against the mob.”
Get this: The core transformation in Atlas Shrugged is not about the Strikers esacaping the mob, ruling the mob, abandoning the mob…none of the above.
Atlas Shrugged was about the producers liberating other producers. The ‘mob’ (not my word) was irrelevant.
John Donohue
Pasadena, CA
LOL, then: easy answer. No, because no such dichotomy pertains.
Please do not take it that this means I am obliged to answer all your questions. The one you asked and I have now answered was dishonest.
I see, so how was it you were originally introduced to the novel?
You actually have to ask how did I get introduced to Rand because AS was not the first thing I read. My first encounter with Rand was over the subject of striving for excellence and achievement. I was directed to The Fountainhead by a friend.
Why do you ask?
And when are you going to answer my two questions?
>>And when are you going to answer my two questions?
Naturally.
>>>Do you consider your self a classist who looks at the world that way and is utterly incapable of seeing the character of each individual human for what it is?
Classist in what way? You mean as in a formal political doctrine regimenting society by a hierarchy of socioeconomic groups to determine who rules and who serves? Certainly not. Or do you mean in the more vernacular sense, do I maintain social prejudices against classes? I like to think I do not, but ultimately that would be for the observer to judge I think.
>>>And…are you personally a net taker or a net contributor under social democracy?
I don’t know that I’d consent to that accounting in the way I think you mean. If you mean it as purely an economic question though, I would be a net contributor I think.
>>Why do you ask?
You objected to my characterization of the Galt allegory as advocacy for political mass mobilization. So I asked how you came by it to answer the charge. That is, by establishing that you encountered a political argument in a mass market book published for mass consumption, with the expressed purpose of gaining as many advocates as possible.
Rand’s goal was not to start a mass movement. If you are going to attack her you should know things like that.
“..Additionally, as with all radical revolutionary doctrines requiring mass mobilization…”
To this point, just as Galt in the parable did not need to recruit a mass of people in order for the absence of them to accelerate change, Ayn Rand does not need to, either. That her work continues to have vast and renewing traction is a bonus!
>>Rand’s goal was not to start a mass movement..
Well Mr. Donohue, if that’s your assessment you’re welcome to it. It certainly doesn’t need to be reiterated more than twice that publishing political arguments in mass market books for a mass audience, and aggressively promoting this to anyone who will listen, tends to lend an opposite impression.
>>That her work continues to have vast and renewing traction is a bonus!
And it might also be said that there is a challenge to verisimilitude in claiming and congratulating a mass movement whilst denying its pursuit. Richard, Duke of Gloucester, protesting at having the court ‘buckle fortune on my back’. Rather unconvincing I’m afraid to say.
Our present society already punishes almost everyone who produces anything. Society has already “John Galt-ed” itself by hindering or preventing – even enslaving – the power of the mind of its citizens. We’re still here. Our society, however, will not allow us to succeed.
Re-read “Atlas Shrugged.” In parable form it describes everything that we know to wrong with our present society and identifies the causative factors.
The original article above is disingenuous, at best. A work of ‘looters,’ at worst. It does not promote freedom, but slavery.
No. You can’t have my best. America doesn’t want or desire my best. Quite the opposite. I went “John Galt” eight years ago. At the time, I was quite ignorant of any such signifier or symbol as “John Galt” to use in order to describe what I had done. When everything in society embraces insanity and seeks at every turn to enslave men, and despises not only their contributions but their mere existence, it is all that a reasonable and rational man can do. That is, to ‘go John Galt.’
When you take money from my pocket to pay for the mistakes of others, you have enslaved me to another man’s will. When my competence is a threat to others, you have despised me and my contribution to society…while taking everything I own and possess, even to the length of stealing the simplest of my ideas and claiming them as your own.
The author of the article above advocates such behavior towards his fellow man and seeks only to enslave others to his own will, for the ‘good of society.’ In so doing, you only punish yourselves. That’s just simple Game Theory.
Yes. Such men and women as myself do represent a serious threat to such men as the author. In just a few short years our competence will overthrow the traditional order. The order that uses government force and fiat to steal from from sovereign men and to encourage mediocrity and to punish competence.
Over the past few years I’ve used my own talents not to destroy the established order, for it is doing that to itself, but to lay the foundation for what is to come. A Classical Liberal society wherein men will be free and sovereign and will remain the owners of their own competence, of their own talents and of their own skills and abilities. A society where a man’s mind is his own. A society wherein you are productive and credible…or else you simply won’t eat.
In closing, the term “Mass mobilization” requires that we control others. Hmpf. That’s what we avoid. We do not attempt in any way to control others. We simply present the unfiltered and unhindered facts to those who may be of sound and rational minds.
I am not alone, you see.
…and few among us are “Objectivists.”
<i>I went “John Galt” eight years ago. At the time, I was quite ignorant of any such signifier or symbol as “John Galt” to use in order to describe what I had done.</i>
Which was what I had meant to suggest would happen in my post. People will react to the disincentives to work and produce without conscious thought of why they have done what they have done. And what are the chances that anyone will notice or realize why the economy has gotten worse? Will those who do believe that it’s a matter of social justice to “spread the wealth around” realize that their beliefs are wrong, and even to blame? Or will the answer to the economic down-turn be more of the same? Who does Chavez blame? Has he changed his policies?
And while it’s all fine and good to view the whole issue as an individual one, you can decide if your own self-interest includes living simply, producing no surplus, or if your self-interest includes making sure that the economy is strong enough to produce the comforts that you’d prefer to enjoy. At what point will things be bad enough that you get off your keester and take some responsibility for your fellow man if for no other reason than because you want to live in a world with modern amenities? Because you want to be cured of a simple infection; Because you want to order a mechanical part from the other side of the world; Because you want instant communications and 137 television channels.
Quite seriously… have you ever produced your own food? Do you have any notion how much *work* that is?
In the end, what you’re counting on is for other people to change their ways so that they will support you. In the end, you’ve denied any responsibility to them, yet retained the notion that they have responsibility toward you.
We don’t have html in the comments? Dang, and I just figured out how to do that.
“verisimilitude” is not used correctly.
And even though your “mass movement” characterization is false in its context, and I have already supplied the reason it was wrong, I have decided to change my tune for posting to this essay.
Yes, we are mobilizing the masses of Americans for the War on Democracy and Atlas Shrugged (selling briskly) is our equivalent of the “little red book.”
Long Live The Objectivist Revolution!
John Donohue
Pasadena, CA
>>’verisimilitude” is not used correctly.
On the contrary, it is a challenge to the appearance of truth as stated.
>>I have decided to change my tune
A wise policy sir. As is self-evident, you certainly are not going to prevail with incorrect vocabulary lessons or the denial of the promotion of mass political movements to mass audiences. One is a challenge removed by a dictionary, the other by a publishing history. Better to retreat to revolutionary zeal, if only in affectation.
verisimilitude is used incorrectly.
I willing undergo a fake virtual retreat at your behest for the delightful moment of you having fake proved that Objectivism is indeed a mass movement. Thank You!
I am sure anyone else visiting this blog notices what so far I have politely not mentioned: that you picked out one ludicrous obscure point to defend and re-attack, glaring leaving the rest of the challenge to your wrongheaded analysis and insults undefended.
Now THAT’S a retreat!
(and unlike mine, not ironic)
John Donohue
Pasadena, CA
>>>you picked out one ludicrous obscure point
That’s certainly true Mr. Donohue, I picked a weak point. Chosen purely because you insisted on it…and more importantly, for the sake of brevity. I’d be surprised if you actually begrudged me too much for that, being that you’re already confessing to weariness with this exchange over a single item. I was entirely sympathetic to that sentiment before it began. We’d be here for days if I’d dealt with every item in your original post.
Keep in mind we’ve been running this blog for years. One does develop a kind of temperament for restricting the scope of comment discussions…and a taste for the elementally demonstrative.
I see. Well that’s boring.
So, I retract my pretended ironic retreat/reversal, and reassert this:
Atlas Shrugged is not about the Strikers escaping the mob, ruling the mob, abandoning the mob…none of the above. And the book itself — the book, not the strike IN the book — was not written for the purpose of starting a mass movement; Rand’s purpose in her writing is known to all Objectivists and you can look it up. That masses of intellectuals and thinking people have taken it as their core inspiration and indeed may be acting in sync to oppose social democracy at this time, is an exciting development nonetheless.
Atlas Shrugged was about the producers liberating other producers.
John Donohue
Pasadena, CA
>>Well that’s boring.
And I had such high hopes for myself on Broadway.
>>>That masses of intellectuals and thinking people have taken it as their core inspiration and indeed may be acting in sync to oppose social democracy at this time, is an exciting development nonetheless.
I’m sorry, are you fantasizing about the prospect, or are you contending that this is actually transpiring? At any rate, I naturally wouldn’t be surprised by either on your part. Stages of faith, if you will.
>>Atlas Shrugged is not about…
As to the matter of Rand’s intentions, your sentiments are not accidental. As a confessed non-member of the alleged producer elite –someone who is coming from among the masses, inspired by the argument to become a partisan for the cause, as you clearly are– you should see rather clearly that you are personified evidence of my criticism. You’re not the first, not the last, nor the only. It is a mass movement with real members, by very obvious means and design.
It is certainly not the pursuit of a ‘majority‘ movement of course…and I do wonder if you’re confusing the two terms. It’s necessary in fact that it not be a popular movement, but a sectionalist one, as my separate criticism of the social assumption should convey. At least not until the end product, in which the sectional doctrine prevails.
So, on the one hand you call my statement ‘fantasizing’ that millions of people (a mass, surely) who have read Ayn Rand and resonated with her are suddenly recalling her words as the social democracy financial system in the US crashes, yet Americans other than them are ready to elect a Marxist. That mass is being moved.
On the other hand you insist, now a ludicrous and quite astonishingly bizarre number of times that Objectivism is a mass movement, was designed as such.
Additionally, I ‘confessed’ to nothing. I gave a fact of how I encountered a thinker. That is trivial. Of course a social democrat/Marxist or whatever you are does not need much more than ‘nothing’ to stuff a person they don’t know into a “class” or at the very least be adrift until they can do it. Your astonishing efforts in just this thread have pushed that envelope for me.
Wait a minute: In case by “mass movement” you simply mean some sort of ‘mass hypnosis’ or ‘blind sheep behavior’, as your usage of “partisan” seems to hint, forget it. There is absolutely no cause or system ever concocted that lends itself less to that than Objectivism.
John Donohue
Pasadena, CA
>>So, on the one hand you call my statement ‘fantasizing’…
The question was whether you were describing a not yet existing revolt, but one you earnestly desired: a fantasy. Or, whether you believed such a revolt was actually taking place as a contemporary fact. There’s certainly no discord between those questions. And it’s still not clear from your answer which it is. Are we in midst of your revolt, or is it a future event that you’re predicting/wishing for?
>>Of course a social democrat/Marxist or whatever you are does not need much more than ‘nothing’ to stuff a person they don’t know into a “class” or at the very least be adrift until they can do it…
I’m sorry, who is classifying whom? A slightly peculiar protest as stated.
>>you simply mean some sort of ‘mass hypnosis’ or ‘blind sheep behavior’, as your usage of “partisan” seems to hint…
I’m really getting the feeling that there’s a kind of failure of language here, Mr. Donohue. A partisan is a supporter of a cause. There’s no “hint of mass hypnosis” in the definition, I can assure you. For instance I am a partisan for Linux, to say as much doesn’t imply I’ve been hypnotized by software.
come on man, don’t be lazy, a quick look around this site and you can see where our political and philosophical sympathies lie. (hint, it ain’t Marxism, nor social democratic)