Atlas Shrugged

Thoughts on Atlas Shrugged
By Madison Nef
I want to start out by saying what a GREAT book Atlas Shrugged was. At first, I thought I wouldn’t like it (judging by its length and by the opening chapters). However, once I got past about the 1st part of the book, I began to like it a bit better. But as with every great book, it had its fatal flaws. One of them, in fact the one that I thought ruined the book, was the main character’s personality. I didn’t like the fact that Rand put so much emphasis on- almost ENCOURAGED- cheating on one’s partner.

I think that the point was completely unnecessary to make the point of the book. It DID give Lillian a reason to blackmail Dagny, but in my opinion, Rand could have found a better point, such as a business scandal (being that was the theme of her book anyway: a corrupt government). I think that apart from that one negative, Dagny was actually a very good character. The only good thing I can say about putting that into the book was that it added a LITTLE more depth to both of the characters and showed that even people with better, higher lives have their flaws.

“Thought—he told himself quietly—is a weapon one uses in order to act... Thought is the tool by which one makes a choice... Thought sets one's purpose and the way to reach it.” - Hank Rearden

Every piece of the book I read seemed to represent a different part of Rand’s philosophy, starting with the tree described by Willers in the beginning of the book- something that he trusted in and thought was true and whole ended up being weak, shallow and empty. I see this as a reference to the government- something that many people are FORCED to place their trust in, and yet truly is shallow and weak. It shows the lies that the government feeds us and the false image of protection that they give us.

Rearden Metal is the next reference I noticed. I think that Rand is trying to show that Rearden is being an individual- breaking free from communism by denying the government rights to his metal. Rand had previously stated that obedience, conformity, submission and alikeness were necessary to have a communist country- and Rearden showed none of this, therefore rejecting communism. He was proud of the metal he had created, and regardless of how much money was offered for it, refused to sell the right or even the metal itself to the government.

In the book, Rearden says this: “There might be some sort of justification for the savage societies in which a man had to expect that enemies could murder him at any moment and had to defend himself as best he could. But there can be no justification for a society in which a man is expected to manufacture the weapons for his own murderers” when he is not allowed to know for what experiments his metal will be used in. Obviously, Rearden figured that the government was using his metal to make powerful machines or weapons to keep people in check. He at LEAST wanted to know what his metal would be used for if he was to sell the rights to it to the government.
“If enjoyment is a value, why is it moral when experienced by others, but immoral when experienced by you?... Why is it immoral for your to desire, but moral for others to do so? Why is it immoral to produce a value and keep it, but moral to give it away?” - John Galt

The largest reference in my opinion was the tramp on the train’s story. The story tells of the tramp’s previous job and life and how unfair the factory had been. It is a HUGE reference to both socialism and communism in my opinion.  Basically, the factory workers were all on the same pay, and being paid as the OWNER of the company saw fit to their needs. Poor people worked hard- only so that the rich people who had enough money to take care of themselves could mooch off of the company, cutting the poor people’s paychecks down.

Factory workers soon knew how to manipulate the owners of the company to give them more money- they brought in relatives to live with them, got “sick”, among other things. While the company was getting gypped, poorer people (who were working very hard) were being given less and less money for their enjoyment- not even being allowed enough to get a drink. Soon, the workers got enraged- and when it seemed that a “sick” person needed medical attention, they would suddenly “disappear”. Murder was never suspected, but it was highly likely.

  “Your mind is your only judge of truth–and if others dissent from your verdict, reality is the court of final appeal.”- John Galt

Yet ANOTHER reference (and this one almost slipped by me) is the town just outside of the old factory where Dagny and Hank found the motor. When Hank tries to buy information off of a man in the town, the man refuses, saying that money is of no use to him. Hank is shocked, and asks the man why- to which the man replies that the people of that town trade goods with one another. This is a semi-capitalist argument- capitalists believe in letting people have free trade and naming their prices based on what the item is ACTUALLY worth.

 “Money is a tool of exchange, which can't exist unless there are goods produced and men able to produce them. Money is the material shape of the principle that men who wish to deal with one another must deal by trade and give value for value.” - Francisco d’Aconia

Speaking of d’Aconia- in a very LONG speech he did in the book on money, he pretty much covered most of Rand’s philosophy.

“Money is only a tool. It will take you wherever you wish, but it will not replace you as the driver. It will give you the means for the satisfaction of your desires, but it will not provide you with desires. Money is the scourge of the men who attempt to reverse the law of causality–the men who seek to replace the mind by seizing the products of the mind.”

d’Aconia drove home the point that instead of money being the source of all evil, it was in fact the source of good. Personally, I think his argument was correct- without money, I don’t think our world would even KNOW how to begin to function. Everything and everyone depends on money and honestly, it shouldn’t. We say money is the root of all evil when we ourselves created it- and it is we ourselves who MADE it evil.

“So you think that money is the root of all evil? Have you ever asked what is the root of money? Money is a tool of exchange, which can’t exist unless there are goods produced and men able to produce them. Money is the material shape of the principle that men who wish to deal with one another must deal by trade and give value for value. Money is not the tool of the moochers, who claim your product by tears, or of the looters, who take it from you by force. Money is made possible only by the men who produce. Is this what you consider evil?”
d’Aconia’s point throughout the whole speech was basically that while many think that money is the root of all evil, we are placing the blame in the wrong place. Money itself isn’t evil- it is what a man DOES with his money that is evil. This isn’t to say that because you have money you will be evil- but what you DO with your money is what makes you evil.

“Run for your life from any man who tells you that money is evil. That sentence is the leper’s bell of an approaching looter. So long as men live together on earth and need means to deal with one another–their only substitute, if they abandon money, is the muzzle of a gun. ...Such looters believe it safe to rob defenseless men, once they’ve passed a law to disarm them. But their loot becomes the magnet for other looters, who get it from them as they got it. Then the race goes, not to the ablest at production, but to those most ruthless at brutality. When force is the standard, the murderer wins over the pickpocket. And then that society vanishes, in a spread of ruins and slaughter. ...”

I think that Rand also through some political references into the speech- such as “...It is not the moochers or the looters who give value to money...” I think she is referring to the government as the “looters” and the people that receive what they have not earned (such as the people in the factory) the “moochers”. Why do I think this? Because in that same paragraph d’Aconia also says  “Not an ocean of tears not all the guns in the world can transform those pieces of paper in your wallet into the bread you will need to survive tomorrow. Those pieces of paper, which should have been gold, are a token of honor–your claim upon the energy of the men who produce.”

d’Aconia is basically saying that no matter how much money you have, it won’t keep you alive- especially if it loses its value after being exploited too much. As mentioned in the quote above- money is sought out by looters to the extent that money is no longer an item of trade- but a token in war. No longer does anyone care about how WELL someone can actually do their craft- all that matters is that they produce money. Suddenly, all that matters is who has the biggest bank account and the fattest wallet- not how they obtained their money.

“Money is only a tool. It will take you wherever you wish, but it will not replace you as the driver.”

“Money will not purchase happiness for the man who has no concept of what he wants: money will not give him a code of values, if he’s evaded the knowledge of what to value, and it will not provide him with a purpose, if he’s evaded the choice of what to seek. Money will not buy intelligence for the fool, or admiration for the coward, or respect for the incompetent. The man who attempts to purchase the brains of his superiors to serve him, with his money replacing his judgment, ends up by becoming the victim of his inferiors. The men of intelligence desert him, but the cheats and the frauds come flocking to him, drawn by a law which he has not discovered: that no man may be smaller than his money. Is this the reason why you call it evil?”

I think that the world today has become obsessed with money- prices are increasing and more and more money is being printed every day. We really have become a socialist/communist country... and it is sad. “Looters” have taken so much money and left us with nothing... money is slowly losing its value, and this will only lead to economic collapse. I truly believe that Rand foresaw this coming- even in the years she wrote the book. If it was that bad back then, think of how bad it is now!

The speech, now that I have actually taken the time to read it, is very wise and overall one of the best parts of the book. All in all, Atlas Shrugged was a very insightful book for me and I would recommend it to everyone who likes to read. I hope you enjoyed my paper.

Maddie