Ayn Rand and the Prophecy of Atlas Shrugged

Content continues to be very relevant for all times.

This is one of the best books I have ever read. If you want to know what is going on in politics today this is the book to buy.

I read Atlas Shrugged as a Sophmore in high school and really did not understand the significance of what Ayn Rand was trying to say..........."Prophecy" tells you everything you need to know AND be aware of. Being born in 1941, into a lower middle-class family was obviously a disadvantage, politically, because "growing up in the 50's was idealic and we never looked backward. Sadly, even though I was aware of what was happening to our country early-on [2006] I was not only "too late smart" but also not one of the "young, movers & shakers" that it would have taken to change the direction that "the powers that be" [government] were taking us as a country. I would like to be able to say that I have hopes that the legacy of FDR taken to "almost fulfillment", by The Obamanation, will still not succeed but I'm afraid that I am seeing the glass half-empty rather than half-full. Hopefully, that is just age-related thinking. Even though I have managed, by hard-work, perseverance, and education to raise myself to upper-middle-class, I see the retreat all too clearly now.The movie, Atlas Shrugged, was a impossiblity from the beginning. You cannot transfer the ideas of a "novel with an important message" and over 1,000 pages long, into a movie even covering 3 DVD's without trivalizing the message.

This movie is more of a documentary of how Ayn Rand developed her theory of objectivism and how she applied it based on the changes she saw in American culture when writing The "Fountainhead" and "Atlas Shrugged". It also explained her definition of "selfishness" and why she thought it was better than the concept of altruism which was, and still is, generally promoted by, and accepted by, our culture. It explained how those two books were her attempt to inform the American public her vision of the future based on the way things were changing. Alas, the message did not get received by those who could make a difference, especially the media critics. For those of us who are paying attention, it is all too clear that her predictions were almost completely accurate.While I understood the concepts and prophecy shown in "Atlas Shrugged" immediately while reading it, I did not understand Ayn Rand's background that helped her form her philosophy. This documentary helped me further understand what she was trying to say and more importantly WHY she was trying to communicate it. This movie is well worth the time to view it, especially if you are not willing to take the large amount of time required read "Atlas Shrugged".

I have a great deal of knowledge about Ayn Rand. I have read all her books, both fiction and nonfiction. In the mid-1960’s I attended lectures given by Rand and her intellectual protégé, Nathaniel Brandon (né Nathan Blumenthal). Brandon was an early fan of “Atlas Shrugged” and, when he and Rand met, she took him under her wing. He formed the Nathaniel Brandon Institute (NBI) to promote her philosophy, Objectivism. At the time (the mid 1960’s), the attendees of the lectures were not allowed to call themselves Objectivists (that was reserved for Rand, Brandon, and a few others in their circle). We had to call ourselves “students of Objectivism”. I attended weekly lectures, usually by Brandon, and Rand joined us for the question period. I attended an Objectivism Conference at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville. I have read the biographies by Heller and Burns. My brother, also smitten by Rand, became an NBI business representative (meaning he was in charge of playing tapes of the lectures out of town, sending NBI the money that represented the entrance fees}. I defended Rand and Objectivism whenever possible. I vaguely knew Harry Binswanger, and I vaguely know Amy Peicoff’s father, Dr. Leonard Peicoff, who gave lectures in philosophy and became, eventually, Ayn Rand’s successor and the inheritor of her estate. I took a course in “Objectivist psychology” given by nonpsychiatrist, nonpsychologist Dr. Allen Blumenthal (Nathaniel’s cousin).So let me make a few comments which pertain to the movie. Rand’s books appealed mainly to adolescents and young adults, mainly, I think because such people normally have identity problems, and Objectivism offered them a keen sense of right and wrong, and, most importantly, certainty. It helped them “resolve” the problems they were facing in their lives. This is why “Atlas Shrugged” sells 1/2 million copies per year. It helps them feel “ light, free, and awake”. Although I still think that Rand’s novels are well-written (especially considering that English was not her native language), I now realize that they, especially “Atlas Shrugged”, were not to be taken literally, but rather, as Rand herself says, they are about unreal societies. Using the novel to make complex philosophical points, in the form of long speeches by Galt and Francisco d’Anconia, seemed to me, at the time, terrific. Now I see that such things don’t belong in a novel. As the film says, after “Atlas”, Rand went on to write nonfiction books about her ideas, such as “For the New Intellectual”, “Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal”; The Romantic Manifesto”, and “The Virtue of Selfishness” (all of which I’ve read). Her novels do have an angry tone, because Rand was an angry person….completely intolerant….one can even say she was paranoid. Asking her a question after a lecture required great bravery, because if you said something she didn’t like, or implied disagreement in your question, she would angrily attack you and shout that she will not debate you. It was easy to feel intimidated by her. The “benevolent sense of life” she espoused certainly was not appreciated in her when you had to deal with her. NBI had a book service, which sold classically liberal books by the likes of von Mises and Hayek. It also sold Victor Hugo’s novel “The Man Who Laughed”, Rand’s favorite novel. You were also expected to like it also.Unfortunately, the Objectivist circle, in my opinion, became a cult. You had to have the same interests as Rand did. You had to love Rachmaninoff and think that Mozart was “mindless”. You had to like Dali’s “Crucifixion” because she did, you had to admire an artist named Capuletti because she did, and you had to be in awe of the Empire State Building because she was. Eventually Brandon developed “Objectivist psychology” and many of the students went into therapy with “Objectivist therapists”. This extension of Objectivism as a philosophy into psychology became a disaster, with many student/patients being abused in one way or another. The basic mistake was to assume that Rand’s psychology, which was highly flawed, was the ideal that one should aspire to. If Rand did it, or wanted it, it was OK. If she didn’t, you were “irrational” and “mystical”. Objectivism made up weird terms, like “social metaphysics” and “psychoepistemology” which, at the time seemed to me to be useful, but now seem silly.There was competition with “National Review” founder and Editor William F. Buckley, mainly because, although they advocated very similar things, Rand wanted a Moral defense of capitalism, and Buckley’s religious inclination offended atheist Rand. So Rand became the opposition to Buckley-styled conservatism, and also opposed the Libertarians who founded “Reason” magazine, and who were greatly influenced by Rand, calling them “hippies of the right”. One had to be pure through and through to be accepted by Ayn Rand. One of the early members of her circle was Allan Greenspan, who went on to head The Fed, and look what he wrought!!! But it is certainly true that Whitaker Chambers’ review of “Atlas” was horribly off base….self-serving and woefully exaggerated….and the idea that "Atlas" represented Fascism was ridiculous. Yet it influenced many people, and for years, when asked about what they thought about “Atlas”, people made reference to Fascism. This is completely unfair….a hatchet job by Buckley, Chambers, and “National Review”.Rand purposely made herself controversial. She wore a cape and sported a pin consisting of a jeweled sign of the dollar. She chain smoked, using a cigarette holder. She eventually died of lung cancer from the smoking, making it a not very rational choice. She was, essentially, anti-feminist, believing that there should never be a female president, because women have to “surrender” to men, and having a woman in charge of everything would be a bad idea. Apparently, Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren didn’t subscribe to this point of view. She purposely used the term “selfishness” to mean “rational self-interest”, knowing it would alienate many and be used as ammunition against her.Rand’s ideas were, for the most part, rejected by prominent philosophers. She didn’t give credit to philosophers of the past, claiming Aristotle as her major intellectual influence. Of course, Aristotle believed in superior and inferior classes of society, a notion that one, unfortunately, finds in Rand’s work. That is why, for example, the current Ayn Rand Institute is so opposed to the animal defense/protection movement. She did have a philosophic ally for a while in John Hospers, a once Libertarian candidate for president, but, eventually, her rigidity and absolutism turned him off, and he distanced himself from her.Rand her close associates (N. Brandon, Barbara Brandon, Allan Blumenthal and his wife Joan, Leonard Peicoff, Allan Greenspan, and a few others met weekly as a group, usually in Rand's apartment, They called themselves "The Collective" (tongue in cheek). Nathaniel Brandon became the grand inquisitor of the group, calling into question opinions and behaviors of other group members and forcing them to defend and justify themselves....effectively putting them on trial. Murray Rothbard, a von Mises student and economic conservative, after reading Rand, as a well-known conservative author and thinker, was accepted into the inner group for a while. He was appalled by the hierarchical structure of the group and by Brandon's audacity in setting himself up as the all powerful judge. He found the entire experience to be unacceptable, and dropped out. He was responding to the protocult-like structure and organization of this inner group of Rand acolytes, and realized that this was not a true intellectual and information disseminating operation. It was really a cult of personality, the very thing Rand objected to in Soviet Russia. Later, psychologist Dr. Albert Ellis branded Objectivism as a cult, and publicly debated Brandon on the subject. I was at the debate, during which Rand acted inappropriately and, one can say, almost bizarrely, blurting out things to the effect that SHE was living proof that Objectivist heroes COULD exist in reality. At the time I should Rand's behavior was to be admired. Now I know it was based on her paranoia, egomania, and narcissism.Regarding filming Rand’s novels, that is a fool’s errand. Rand insisted that the speeches remain in the Gary Cooper/Patricia Neal movie of “The Fountainhead”, even though Gary Cooper looked decidedly pained as he had to recite those lines. The movie is mediocre. Filming “Atlas Shrugged” was a losing proposition. Rand insisted on total control of the project, which is why Al Ruddy never got to first base with her. When he finally made the movie in 2010, as he said, after Rand’s death, it turned out to be a flop. Even though Rand worked as a screenwriter as a young women, she learned nothing about film making (mainly screenwriting during her tenure. She simply wanted a platform for her beliefs, an idea that does not result in great films. Another reason why filming Rand is not a good idea is that, even though seemingly realistic, the stories really are not, and, therefore, can’t be captured on film.I would give the documentary 5 stars, but I didn’t like the pace and the irrelevant shots of apparently arbitrary objects and scenes. It represents the current, apparently popular form of documentary, which is, really, an assault on the senses. They, like this one, have loud music and are overly dramatized. Rand’s story is drama enough without these gratuitous additions.But there is much in this documentary that gives the true picture of Rand’s life. There are personal matters that the documentary and the biographers omit, and, therefore, I will also. Flaws and warts and all, Rand had a profound effect on politics, economics, and philosophy in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. The debate, in our government, continues to this day. Many of the events portrayed in “Atlas’” have come true. But the solution is not obvious. I used to think that unbridled Capitalism was the answer. Now I have my doubts. Such a solution might be considered if people were rational, like Rand’s heroes and heroines, but they are not. Rand’s solution to the problem of dealing with the poor was “private charity”, which I think is insufficient. Big government is also not the answer, so a mixed economy, so loathed by Rand, might be the answer. Artistically speaking, objective art, so avidly promoted by Rand, doesn’t seem to represent the public taste. Psychologically, Objectivist psychology is completely dead, which is as it should be. Rand is buried in a simple grave next to her husband, Frank O’Connor, whom she did not treat well when he became old and somewhat demented. Rand herself depended on Medicare, which she was so opposed to, to pay some of her medical bills.Love her or hate her, Rand's influence in political, economic, and artistic life can't be denied. Even if she is to be dismissed, being exposed to her ideas is a good idea, for, even if they do not contain answers, they do pose valid questions that one must ponder.

Interesting book. Wonder what her beliefs would have been if her family hadn't been forced to leave the more comfortable lifestyle they had. They never reclaimed what they lost from a political party who made decisions which oppressed and destroyed their livelihood and optimistic outlook. Sadly, many do not sehow she led her life, and wrote her books out of her childhood pain.

Great Documentary. Rand could see where our society was heading way back in the 1950's. Some of what she prophesied has come true, although not to such a drastic extent as in "Atlas Shrugged".