Since may people will not sit down and read Atlas Shrugged
, I would like to give a summary of each of the three parts of the book.
, I would like to give a summary of each of the three parts of the book. Part One of Atlas Shrugged exposes us to the characters. We learn of the heroic and creative individuals, Reardon and Dagny, as they must combat the efforts made by the government to suppress their individuality in favor of the common good. The uniqueness of the book is that these two people of business are the heroes of the story. All too often, in my view, people are victims of business. The real world is not like that. We benefit from the passions and interests of business people far more than we experience oppression. Further, in this part, we read of the value of profit and competition. Of course, we also hear for the first time the recurring question, Who is John Galt?
Early in her novel, in I.1, a character refers to the danger of becoming a feudal serf. The other says, “That’s what I am…” Such is the feeling throughout the novel. People in her America of the future have become serfs of the federal government. Soon after that, of course, we hear the read the words, “Who is John Galt?” It will be a question asked in almost every chapter of the book, until we finally have him disclosed at the end. One thinks he was in search of Atlantis, and another, he searched and found the fountain of youth. Eventually (II.5), Francisco describes John Galt as Prometheus who changed his mind. After centuries of being torn by vultures in payment for having brought to human beings the fire of the gods, he broke his chains and he withdrew his fire, until the day when humanity withdraws its vultures. As one reader, I must say that I wish the novel had ended around page 500 rather than 1168. By then, she had made her point about the state of her mythical (prophetic?) vision of America. In the same chapter, a character thinks of how the nation is cracking to pieces, yet, feeling no anger or anxiety about it. In the same chapter, Dagny thinks that her brother will not deal with Rearden because he “did his job with superlative efficiency.” Again, Rand has introduced us quickly to a theme – America will become a place where others will squash excellence and courage in pursuing what one loves to do. One person being excellent implies that others are not doing their best. It harms the collective or community spirit. Her brother wants to give someone beside Rearden a “chance.” Her response is that she is running a railroad. Her brother says she has an extremely narrow view of things. He wants to help someone. Her response: “I’m not interested in helping anybody. I want to make money.” Now, such a statement will reaffirm either that Rand is not worth the time, or be a shocking reminder of why people are in business. Businesses need to make a profit. Extremely successful businesses make much profit for their investors. Yes, they also employ thousands of people. Yet, that is not their purpose. Yes, they can improve the life of the community. Yet, that is not the purpose of the business. It must make a profit, or it will die. Profit is the bottom line, even if it is not the only factor in making a business decision.
In I.2, Rearden expresses his business philosophy. His interlocutor says that he does not want “the public” against him. He says he does not think they are, but even if so, it does not matter. Rearden does not care that the newspapers are against him because “they have time to waste.” In other words, he does not have the time to care what the newspapers say about him. His interlocutor makes the accusation that his only goal is to make steel and to make money. Rearden affirms, “but that is my only goal.” He also reaffirms that the steel mills are his mills. His interlocutor says, “They think that your attitude is anti-social.” What I read here is that someone pursuing a dream, and using private property to achieve that dream, is now viewed in this mythical world as “anti-social.” Here is where Rand does a disservice to capitalism. What she never saw, I think, is that capitalism is intensely communal. In reality, Rearden has to learn to work with others to accomplish his goal of making steel and making money. He will need partners and employees. He will need to develop social skills, so to speak, in order to make his goal a reality. At least, in the real world in which you and I live, he will have to do that. Yet, in the world Rand has created, he can be an island of individuality raging against a sea of collective identity. Now, as a rhetorical device in a novel, it is part of what keeps readers being challenged and coming back to her insights. Yet, in the real business world, it would not work. My point, in criticism of Rand, is that defenders of capitalism often do it a disservice by making it sound far more “selfish” and “individualist” than it actually is. If one is going to be commercially successful in a capitalist system, one will compete and seek the defeat of competitors, of course, but one may also have to cooperate with them on other matters of mutual concern. One will need to keep good employees, gather investors, and treat the customer well. All of this requires a degree of social skills that Rearden rarely exhibits in this novel.
In I.2, we get another hint of trouble on the horizon with government. Rearden knows he needs to pay someone in Washington to protect his interest from the government. In fact, all business people had to employ such people. By implication, Rand is saying that the growth of government into the business sector is harming productivity and taking energy away from where one could place it far more effectively. Rearden learns that Philip is trying to raise money for “Friends of Global Progress,” one of many organizations in the novel that are supposed to enhance the collective spirit over that of individuality.
The issue of private and public comes into bold relief in I.3. Orren Boyle claims that he wants to preserve free enterprise. Yet, free enterprise is on trial. “Unless it proves its social value and assumes its social responsibilities, the people won’t stand for it. If it doesn’t develop a public spirit, it’s done for … The only justification of private property … is public service.” In the context of this novel, one can feel the contempt Rand has for every phrase. In this case, even supposed friends of free enterprise do not grasp the danger of surrendering individual initiative and property to a collective mentality. Later, Taggart will argue that one person cannot move against something to which everyone else agrees. Boyle will add, “… private property is a trusteeship held for the benefit of society as a whole.” He speaks in favor of “progressive social policy” that will curtail individuality whenever it asserts itself against the collective. I would contend that for a novel to bring out this tension could cause a reader to re-think assumptions about the public good versus respect for individuality. For me, what one needs is both, but Rand is making it clear that if one is not careful, the collective will crush individuality, thereby (hint of the end of the book) destroying the collective. To put it another way, by crushing individual initiative, the public through its elected representatives will actually destroy itself. The public will get its wishes through a democratic process, and in the process, it will cut itself off from the individual creativity, drive, passion, and dreams that it needs to sustain itself. The public does not realize that it actually depends upon the willingness of individuals to thrive. In fact, Rand is saying that there are few such people in this world, and the world depends upon them for progress.
In I.4, Rand refers to the “anti-dog-eat-dog rule.” Of course, she is poking some fun at those who think that competition is such an awful thing. In the end, Rearden admits that he and Dagny have no spiritual goals or qualities. They are after material things. “That’s all we care for.” Yet, “Dagny, whatever we are, it’s we who move the world and it’s we who’ll pull it through.” If you have any spiritual sensibilities, this will be offensive. I would argue that Rand goes too far. Yet, in the context of a novel, does this not seem appropriate? People who value this world are the people who will “move the world” and “pull it through.” One does not have to be a materialist to see that this world, and our place in it, is important. We have a responsibility to do what we can, in the brief time we are here, to improve our lives individually, and in the process, make the world a better place. One can see here that Rand does have, for all her egoism, a concern for the world. She wants it to be a better place. Of course, she has a quite particular vision of how that will happen.
In I.5, we learn that the most depraved human being is one who lives without a purpose. Dagny refers to “the looters” of the world, those in government who take the wealth of citizens and appropriate it as they see fit. The phrase is one libertarians use often to refer to government officials who loot those who earn money and give it to those who do not earn it, who in the process become looters.
In I.6, Rand focuses upon the notion of humanity in a meaningless universe. Pritchett says that once people realize that their lives have no meaning, they will become more tractable, they will allow those in government to set the course for their lives. Eubank says that it was shallow of past literature to emphasize morality, free will, achievement, happy endings, and humanity as a heroic being. It seems the real essence of life is defeat and suffering. Later, Eubank criticizes Dagny for being a symptom of the illness of the nation. She has invested her life in machines, and in so doing runs a railroad instead of investing herself in the handloom and bearing children. Again, one can sense the hostility here, for Rand is emphasizing the value of machines the idiocy of returning to an age when human beings had fewer of them. Yet, in her mythical nation, progress has become living “simple,” and therefore with fewer machines in one’s life.
In I.7, we see evidence of the heroic spirit of Dagny, as she puzzles over hearing that the sun would eventually cool down and die. It did not cause her to despair, because she assumed that humanity would find by then a substitute. She meets an old bum who says that humanity is just a low-grade animal, without intellect, without soul, without virtues or moral values. The only capacities are to eat and reproduce. He ridicules her search for beauty, greatness and sublime achievement. He ridicules stories of the mind, spirit, and ideals of humanity.
In I.8, Bertram Scudder writes in a magazine about his concern that society needs protection from of “two unbridled individualists” like Rearden and Dagny. They are devoid of “public-spirited actions.” Later, Dagny is not to mention to the public that she expects to make a profit by her business dealings, clearly indicating that profit had become a dirty word.
In 1.10, the purchasing manager reminds Rearden that he would do no good in Washington, getting their favors: “You’re the one who’s got something to be looted.” Later, Dagny talks with Mr. Lawson, who stresses that he lost all of his own money for a good cause. His motives are pure. He wanted nothing for himself. He finishes by saying that in all his life, he never made a profit. To that statement, Dagny, with a quiet, steady, and solemn voice, said, “I think I should let you know that of all the statements a man can made, that is the one I consider most despicable.” As one can tell, Rand is relentless in agitating anyone who disparages profit.
