, by Ayn Rand, we learn of the role of money, the value of profit, the origin of the name of the book, and the setting in which "John Galt" got his start. Since most people will never read this book, I hope that this summary provides at least some hint of why it remains a powerful statement of the failure of government dominance of the economy. In II.1, Dr. Stadler says that he cannot imagine why a colleague would have stopped being a scientist, and go directly to producing an engine that would revolutionize consumption of energy. Why would he waste his mind on such practical appliances? Dagny responds, “Perhaps because he liked living on this earth.” This statement is one with which any of us can agree. Our discourse about how we organize ourselves politically and economically ought to arise because we like living here, and we like living well.
In II.2, Bertram Scudder says that money is the root of all evil. This statement opens the door for a long exposition on the Rand view of view money. One will need, as always, to allow for some rhetorical flourish. Yet, the pithy and memorable elements of this speech have the design of making us re-think the role of money. We think of profit as the “bottom line.” In reality, it is a reflection of the “bottom line,” which is a complex social relationship. Thus, Francisco responds that money is simply a tool of exchange, which cannot exist unless there are goods produced and people able to produce them. Money is the material shape of the principle that people who wish to deal with each other must deal by trade and give value for value. Money becomes possible because people produce things useful to other people. “Is this what you consider evil?” Moochers are people who try to get your money by tears, while looters are those in government who take it by force. She shows awareness of the relational nature of money by saying that money is payment for your effort, and you receive money from others because you expect to exchange that money for the efforts of others that will benefit you and your family. Moochers and looters do not add value to money, but proper social exchanges do add value. Do you consider this evil? Rand, through Francisco, continues to press home the point. The mind of a human being is the root of production, not just muscular force. The human mind is the source of all wealth. Wealth is the product of the human capacity to think. Is there any way to think of this as a social transaction that involves the strong taking from the weak? Are you thinking that one who produces a motor, for example, is gaining wealth at the expense of those who did not invent it? Is money made by the intelligent at the expense of the foolish? Is it made by the able at the expense of the incompetent? Is it made by the ambitious at the expense of the lazy? The key point: an honest person in Ayn Rand’s moral universe is one who knows that he or she cannot consume more than he or she has produced. Money rests upon the principle that every person is owner of his or her mind and effort, and therefore is willing to use money as the value of the mind and effort of others in exchange. Money is only a tool. It will take you wherever you wish, but it will not replace you as the driver. To bring home the point even further: people who either mooch or loot are those who seek to replace the mind by seizing the products of the mind. Money cannot give happiness to one who does not know what one wants. Money does not provide one with a code of values. What of inherited wealth? The one who would have made his or her own wealth anyway is the only one worthy of inheriting wealth. Other than that, money does not corrupt the one who inherits it. Rather, the one who inherits may corrupt it. If the one who inherits wealth does not have the intellect conducive to it, he or she will lose it soon enough. If your money comes by fraud and cooperation, it will not bring joy. Money is an effect that its cause in you. Money is the product of virtue. In another pithy line, Francisco says that one who damns money has obtained it dishonorably. People who respect it have earned it. People who say that money is the root of evil are warning others that they are looters. In reality, money demands the highest virtue, such as courage and self-esteem. Money is the barometer of the virtue of a society. When you see trading is done by consent, rather than by compulsion, then you know there is virtue. Francisco warns that if you make evil the means of survival, do not expect people to remain good. Do not expect them to stay moral and lose their lives for becoming the fodder of the immoral. You are destroying the greatest civilization to have ever existed. You wonder why the productive civilization in history is crumbling around you, while damning its life-blood – money. He praises America as a country of money, for this means that it is a country of reason, justice, freedom, production, and achievement. The mind and money of humanity were set free to become the highest type of human being, the self-made person. Until you discover that money is the root of all good, you ask for your own destruction. When money stops being the tool of social exchanges, then will come others tools, such as blood, whips, and guns.
In II.3, we finally get to the title of the book. Francisco says to Rearden that if he saw Atlas, the giant who holds the world on his shoulders, if he saw that he stood, blood running down his chest, his knees buckling, his arms trembling but still trying to hold the world aloft with the last of his strength, what would he tell him to do? Rearden does not know, so he asks what Francisco would tell him. “To shrug.” In this case, “Atlas” is the few numbers of those creative, innovative, productive people of the world, able to accomplish great things through their drive and ambition.
In II.4, Rearden makes it clear in a public form that he works for nothing except for his own profit. He earns it. He makes a profit by selling a product others need, people willing to exchange what they produce for what he produces. We deal because of mutual benefit and with mutual consent. He refuses to apologize for his success or his wealth. He then comes to his main point, which deals with the public good. He says to those who judge him that they do not serve the public good, that no one’s good can be achieved at the price of human sacrifices. When you violate the rights of one person, you have violated the rights of all. A public of people without rights is doomed to destruction. He challenges their moral premise. He refuses to serve the interests of society apart from and above his own interest. For him, it seems that those who call themselves “the public” require victims. “The public good be damned, I will have no part of it!” The crowd burst into applause.
In II.7, Danneskjold expounds upon the horror that Robin Hood immortalized as an ideal of righteousness. It is said that he fought against the looting rules and returned the loot to those who had been robbed. Yet, that is not the meaning of the legend in the popular mind. He stole from the rich to give to the poor. He should remembered as a champion of private property, fighting against the government who wanted to take it away. Instead, the popular mind remembers him as the one who distributed wealth that he did not earn. He was generous with the money of other people.
In II.8, Francisco discloses that people of the mind, people who produced the wealth of the world, let their enemies write the moral code of the world. For him, and for Rand, this is not a battle over material wealth. Rather, this is a moral crisis. If one looks back over the argument this far, one can see that for Rand, it has never been simply about wealth, but about the rational social exchange of what produces of value in this world. For her, that is a “moral arrangement” of the economy. Any other arrangement distorts value, and eventually leads to the destruction of productivity.
In II.10, Dagny comes across an auto company based upon the business plan in which everyone in the factor would work according to his or her ability, but would be paid according to his or her need. It had the name, “The Twentieth Century Motor Company.” The result was that people hid whatever ability they had. They slowed down and watched like hawks so that no one worked any faster or better than the next person. The person makes the observation that there is no surer way to destroy a person than to force the person not to do his or her best. In this story, we learn who John Galt is. He was the one who, at the public meeting of this company, heard this new plan, and was told by leaders that we all accept this moral law. He stood up: “I don’t.” He was tall and thin. “I will put an end to this, once and for all.” As he walked out of that momentous meeting, a leader asked how he could do that. “I will stop the motor of the world.” As readers, we are slowly getting the hint. In this case, the “motor” are those who vale the products of the human mind, and believe a moral social and economic order will honor such products. Of course, we are learning, throughout the course of this book, what would happen if the “motor” stops functioning.
No comments:
Post a Comment