Atlas Shrugged

The Objectivists may dislike my review because it criticizes philosophical elements of the novel and progressives may dislike my review because it praises the book as a work of fiction. So go ahead and stamp your forms, sonny, and stop wasting my timeI tried to read Atlas Shrugged with a sympathetic eye, which as I understood it put me at a considerable disadvantage. It was worth the effort. This is an outstanding novel. In my mind it is only effective as such, and not as a manifesto.I have to say I was very pleasantly surprised at how engaging and satisfying it was. Anyone who wishes to understand American politics in a nutshell and libertarian or fiscal conservative cyphers like ‘job creators’, ‘business friendly’, ’hand-outs’, ‘47%’, ‘entitlements’ and ‘the American dream’ owes it to themselves to read this book. I would also recommend it to anyone who would like an engaging read with business, biology , philosophy and sociological themes. Her diction in her intrapersonal ruminations is praise-worthy.First I must define sociopathy in how I use it. To me sociopathy is the lack of sympathy for the intrinsic value of other people. Not only that but it is even the inability to understand other people as anything other than physical tools of obstruction or enrichment.In a nutshell Atlas Shrugged is a preachy objectivist manifesto couched in a stunningly entertaining narrative. It posits that not only is sociopathy the only moral framework by which men are to govern their lives but the only framework by which anything of value can be produced in the economy or the personal sphere. That’s kind of the long and the short of it. If you want more detail, read on.The books main characters (in my opinion):Dagny Taggart-A steel minded, ambitious, passionate industrialist with a strong command of herself and her direction in life. She has no concept of anyone’s value except as they relate to her own personal benefit. Highly successful and a model businesswoman in many respects. A loner. It’s very easy to admire and respect her drive and commitment to excellence.Francisco D’Anconio-A man who comes from money but “lives up to it” genuinely by being the best in all his endeavors. Strongly morally motivated like Dagny and Hank. Extremely skilled.Jimmy Taggart-Dagny’s hand wringing ‘socially conscious’ brother who is president of the Taggart railroad. Utterly incompetent, idiotic, corrupt, lazy and possesses the reasoning skills of a drunkHank Rearden-Owner of Rearden steel. Almost a male mirror of Dagny. He finds his family worthless and his society’s social contract disgusting. He has a great deal of admiration for Dagny but is in danger of capitulating to the destructive collectivist ideology hammered into him by his family over the yearsJohn Gault- Who is this guy? One of the least fleshed out characters. He is more sure of himself than Hank.SPOILERS BELOW: (Though not much more than what’s contained in novel’s summary)The Randian world is populated solely by superior creators and inferior leaches who contribute nothing. The plot consists of one of the “prime movers” and “creators” of the world putting a stop to the ‘motor of the world’. The railroad enterprise (especially Taggart Rail) is used as a proxy for enterprise in general and the novel consists of the perceived effects of what would happen when the minority competent retreat to an area where every man is an island and no moochers can benefit from their excellence, except themselves. It is a vilification of evolutionary cooperation and an exaltation of competition alone as the desired engine of human society both implicitly and explicitly stated throughout.The plot is exciting and I do it little justice in saying that essentially Taggart Transcontinental is trying to build a superior railroad. The leaches a.k.a. ‘the public’ and ‘the government’ try to bring it down through various corrupt obstructionary tactics because they fear the excellence of others. Our objectivist heroes take their ball and go home and society collapses because only superior sociopaths can make society function. The idiotic leachers (consisting the only other segment of the population) are left to breathe through their mouths and behold how wrong and silly they are. John Gault appears and gives a 61 page speech which was done more succinctly in Wall Street’s Gordon Gecko ‘greed is good’ speech.Atlas Shrugged is initially a world that rewards stupidity and collectivism and punishes achievers. The achievers of the novel vaguely hope that a mysterious Uebermensch will one day appear and turn the world upside down. That man is John Gault. Throughout the novel “Who is John Gault?” is used as a retort to an unanswerable question similar to “What is the Matrix?”. You’ll have to be patient to see him as he doesn’t show up until the 3rd section of the novel. Personally I liked the suspense of that.Although Rand’s stated objective is to write a novel, not an ideological screed, this book is clearly a vehicle for expounding her Objectivist philosophy. Her characters and dialogue are extremist straw men and not reflective of the dynamics of the real world. That having been said it is a thoroughly entertaining novel with excellent prose especially when describing intra-personal feelings and objects. In the arena of the interpersonal her characterizations fall flat and seem to be describing an alien ersatz world. If you want to have an intimate view of the inner world of a textbook sociopath I imagine this novel is more useful than all the characters printed in the DSM-5. In this specific case I say that without contempt, as it is illuminating and interesting to understand her thinking style. One characterization I had of sociopaths is that they are luddites in terms of intrapersonal contemplation but Rand’s novel and her characters strongly rebut my prior belief.Rand divides people into a false dichotomy of individualists/capitalists and collectivists/socialists. She ascribes to the former with only positive character traits (according to her world view) and the latter with only negative character traits. She makes some age-old virtues (like altruism) into vices, and some vices (like anti-social behavior) into virtues with some impressive mental gymnastics. In crafting her characters she divides the world into intelligent, ambitious and competent sociopaths and incompetent, corrupt, uncompetitive, moocher, irrational wishy-washy collectivists. Atlas Shrugged is a vision of a world of perfect meritocracy where people who exhibit desirable character traits are finally rewarded and people who exhibit undesirable character traits are finally punished. Seeing as we have never seen such a society function as such, it is a little much to hope for, but if we take her work as merely a novel it becomes quite satisfying and fitting for fiction. You truly come to hate the collectivists because as she describes them, they truly are leaches and completely useless. As a German I loathe inefficiency and lack of ambition so Dagny’s brother went into my bad books from the moment he opened up his obstructionist cake-hole.Corporations and individuals compete, but they also cooperate, in the former case in terms of price fixing and union busting etc so there’s a case to be made that individuals and corporations have a poor survival probability if they fail to compete *AND* cooperate. This is not possible in Atlas Shrugged universe because the ‘cooperators’ are not only useless but collude to destroy any kind of meaningful capital.A deliciously ironic example of her dichotomization of character (onto 2 poles) is when Dagny is rebuked early in the novel for “missing the human element”. The irony being that the cipher for demonstrating it is itself a straw man in that she implies that those who consider the human element must be both also irrational in conceptualizing what that element is and also useless in producing anything of value. Anyone who lauds the benefits of compassion and cooperation is immediately dismissed in her novel as also possessing only negative character traits. Personally I believe Dagny is a stand in for Rand who must have been told countless times that she is “missing the human element” and her frustration from not understanding what that term meant resulted in part in this book.The founder of the railroad in question also threw someone down a flight of stairs for offering a government (a.k.a evil) loan when the company was short on capital. While this could potentially happen it seems very odd behavior for a believable character and almost made me laugh out loud. When the flip side of the individualist coin, “the moochers/collectivists” ever express any concern for social ramifications of their business decisions their navel gazing is always portrayed to be wildly ludicrous and incompetent suggesting that those concerned with the public good are also all idiots of the highest order. While yes, I may disagree with this philosophically I would have liked to see Ayn Rand to make her points with these characters in a more believable way. She certainly has a point that government often (maybe always?) fails to solve our problems but the grade-school straw men she paints are so facile that it takes away from the enjoyment of the novel. She could still have made a strong case with richer more complex characters even if those characters are metaphorical representations of ideological purism.There are also instances in which characters self-contradict, which lends credibility to the believability of the characters. For instance when Dagny and Hank are speaking about the future of both of their businesses they initially speak as if they mean to outcompete each other and try to kill each other’s businesses. They do so with pleasure as they both love competition and respect each other’s drive. However later in this same exchange Hank (intentionally or not) gives Dagny valuable information by which she would be able to save her business by switching to airlines, giving her an informational advantage that might reduce Hank’s revenue in train steel. And the notorious anti-looters of the book contradict themselves like when Dagny steals liquor from an employee or when they do favors for each other. That’s the kind of thing I like to see in a good novel but I’m not sure Rand intended it as such because such a move would either show incompetence (whereas individualists are 100% competent) or cooperation (which individualists loathe).The sociopath is not willfully ignorant of what the human element means but is unable to comprehend it at all. As such her portrayal of it is badly formed and then having been malformed, rightly destroyed. Her objection that love should only be given to people who can render one a personal service is again a hallmark of sociopathy. Not only is this implied but explicitly stated when Hank Rearden is criticized for being anti-social and the book later rationalizes love away as a condition of the weak and of the leechers. Naturally someone incapable of feelings of love would exasperatedly claim it is irrational since it makes no sense to them. To those of us who are able to feel it, much like those who can’t we find post-hoc rationalizations to explain why we feel it or not.In her about the author she states “I trust that no one will tell me that men such as I write about don’t exist. That this book has been written—and published—is my proof that they do”. The little fact that Hank Rearden was a chemist, chemical engineer, civil engineer, procurement specialist, CEO, CTO, head of operations of a tremendously successful national corporation and Rand was only an author never having ran even a small business seems to have escaped her. Her reductionism and straw man representation of people expressing social concerns are the books biggest weaknesses. She states she accomplished everything by herself which is a ‘cool story bro’ considering she went to a state funded university and collected social security. It’s also delightful that the Ayn Rand institute was looking for volunteers and the Atlas Shrugged movie enterprise went to kickstarter to beg for handouts, but I digress.Objectivism may be attractive to those who believe the economy is a meritocracy and make the assumption that poor people are poor simply because they are not trying. In such a world I too would be an objectivist. At my age after all I’ve seen and done I don’t believe that a true meritocracy exists anywhere on earth. Force, deception and inefficient markets will always exist. Perhaps publically funded academic institutions can be meritocracies but even then some people will simply be unable to compete due to disabilities or lesser abilities. Furthermore I only need to look at my personal life to disprove that the world is a perfect meritocracy. I used to earn $2.50/hr delivering newspapers in the rain, sleet, snow and tornadoes. A few years ago I earned $120k plus bonus potential for essentially hitting a button at 6pm every day. Such is life.Her work makes perfect sense when viewed through her lenses. Rand I believe after reading her works was a sociopath with origins in Russia. In my opinion she had an inability (not willful rejection) of compassion. Furthermore those who proclaimed collectivism in her country of origin implemented a system rife with injustice, so it comes as no surprise that her economic pendulum swung so heavily towards the hyper-capitalist extreme. It concerns me somewhat that this flawed and juvenile manifesto informs contemporary leaders but I’m also disappointed that more people don’t give this book a chance. Yes it’s long but it’s also informative politically, psychology and wonderfully entertaining.I respect Rand for writing a very strong and praiseworthy female character fully in charge of her mind and body. She is also to be lauded for steamy erotic scenes that are downright scintillating with heat without the unbuttoning of a blouse taking place. I nearly got a chubber on the train and then how would I explain that situation while holding Atlas Shrugged?There’s a reason this book has such staying power and I think it is because it is well written and presents a just-world motivation to strive for excellence and to reject mediocrity. I get her point. We should all be ambitious about being the best and not be moochers. I think we can all agree on that. To over or underestimate this work is doing yourself a disservice in my humble opinion

In my opinion, there is no praise lofty enough to describe Atlas Shrugged. It is a masterpiece. It is a must read. It may be the most important novel ever written. Yet, have always hesitated to recommend Atlas Shrugged. Recently, I decided to give hard copies to all of my nieces and nephews in their upper teens, and I wrote the following caveats for them. I share these caveats for potential readers, and for readers who have read a few chapters and not been able to get farther. Rand is worth getting to know, and that means looking past the few flaws.1) The very explicit, in-your-face, pro-business and anti-religious themes are off-putting, probably even offensive, to most first-time readers. Most readers probably do not get past the first chapter or two, and I cannot blame them. If you read a little farther, you will realize that Rand is a champion of the independent creative mind, whether teachers, lawyers, statesmen, businessmen, industrialists, or artists--anyone of any profession who contributes. Businessmen are the most denigrated such individuals in our society--and, as such, are Rand's premier example. The businessmen whom you dislike are the same ones Rand would have disliked.Many scenes strike even the experienced reader as over-the-top hyperbole--as absurd extremes, which (you will object) do not illuminate day-to-day reality. And yet, according to the experience of everyone I've spoken to who has read the book, as you read the book, within a week you will find a passage which you thought was offensively ridiculous, repeated in the CBS Evening News or printed as a serious article in Time magazine. If it takes you a month to read the book, and you pay attention to the "news" at the same time, you will have numerous such experiences. That is, what seems absurd in the novel, will actually happen in the real world, while you are reading the book. Honest. Considering that Atlas Shrugged was first published in the 1950s, Rand's ability to predict current news is rather remarkable.Even so, it helps to think of Atlas Shrugged as a grand allegory, like Gulliver's Travels, Alice in Wonderland, or the Divine Comedy, which superficially appear to be absurd. These allegories were written with the purpose of illuminating the absurdity of reality. We all want to believe that absurd ideas cannot have any effect on us, simply because they are absurd. So, we dismiss absurd ideas, and therefore quickly forget them. We fail to recognize that many of the absurdities popularized by intellectuals, politicians, etc. are intended seriously, have real goals, and have real effects. We do not wish to believe that most of our fellow citizens are fools, so we fail to recognize how many absurd ideas are widely believed. Numerous outright hoaxes are believed by the majority of people in this country. Indeed, probably 10% of the average TV newscast is devoted to hoaxes--presented as serious news. In short, Rand is a mirror which reflects reality TOO accurately--or at least more clearly than we are used to, and comfortable with. If you wish to understand reality, and the "meaning of life" you need such eyes.Some of the nonsense Rand rails against is so absurd, that bothering to argue against it will strike you as an unnecessary waste of your time and an insult to your intelligence. However, most of the absurdities which Rand attacks are cyclic--periodically revived, made popular, then forgotten (like any fad). What seems too absurd to waste time on refuting today will re-emerge as a "new" fad within the next few years, and will be taken seriously by the media, etc.. In the mid-1990s, for about six months, the journals, news magazines, papers, and talk shows were dominated by discussions about the positive value of dishonest and the high "morality" of pathological liars. Honest! The insane proposition that "tools condition the mind" (apparently popular when Rand was writing Atlas Shrugged) is rarely heard these days, but very well could re-emerge as the next "intellectual" fad.2) I suspect that many readers are put off by the "romantic" plot in Atlas Shrugged. In my judgement, Rand (like many intelligent, ambitious women) was afraid of love. While she unrelentingly preaches against self-delusion, Rand herself was seriously self-deluded about the nature of love, in many ways and on many levels. Rand manages to accurately describe intense romantic passion--at least as experienced by some people (or imagined by young women), but fails in her descriptions of real love. Rand's romantic plot is clearly that of a young woman. Dagny (the main character, a woman, Rand's alter ego) is quick to abandon extraordinarily admirable men, each hopelessly in love with her (and whom she is described as passionately loving), for the next guy in a long line. And none of the guys are the slightest bit upset when abruptly dumped. That is not love. That is not even friendship..Early in the book, Dagny and a lover engage in a romantic relationship which borders on the sado-masochistic--without any actual physical abuse. I imagine that this offends many first-time readers who quit the book then-and-there. Rand's purpose is to describe the flawed attitudes of the male character, for the purpose of describing the cause. However, if you read a little farther, and you will see their relationship evolve and become gentler, as he sheds various self-delusions, and learns the real meaning of love.Even so, in later scenes, Rand continues to use the word "pain" and similar verbiage, when she means "intense desire". I suspect that many readers will find this objectionable, as do I. For example, Dagny expresses her "love" by describing her desire to cause her lover pain. If Rand used such words and scenes only when essential to the plot, and in a limited context, I would have no serious objection, but she is too consistent in describing romance in terms of pain and combat. Clearly this terminology reflects of Rand's own fear of love. In conclusion, Rand's idea of love and romance is pathetic--but you do not read Atlas Shrugged for the love plot.3) You read Atlas Shrugged for the philosophy--for insights into life and reality which will "blow your mind". Honest. Unfortunately, it is easy to conclude that Rand's vision or philosophy is incompatible with love and faith--the most important things in most reader's lives. Rand barely touches on these themes, and what she does say and imply is flawed or grossly inadequate. After reading Atlas Shrugged, you will not have answers to all of your questions regarding love and faith--but you will be equipped to find the answers. Rand, at least, supplies the philosophical tools for your own exploration of these themes. Moreover, your own beliefs are far more valuable, more secure, more reliable, and more comfort, than beliefs you adopt merely because they were taught to you, or because they are what Rand's characters did or believed. Like most of the important things in life, the answers are very simple, but are not easily expressed in slogans or simple statements. Then too, even if you have every answer to every question nailed down--applying the answers in real life is rarely easy.Rand's characters make many statements to which I strongly object, as will you. When I taught at a major university, I found that making outrageous statements is an effective rhetorical technique. After a long discussion, I would concede that my students' objections were valid, and we would "agree" to a better statement of the issue. I suspect that I actually learned this technique from reading Rand. Remember also that the statements are those of characters, and it would be unrealistic if every character expressed exactly the same opinions, or expressed herself/himself perfectly in every statement. Feel free to object and "argue" with Rand's characters--you will grow in the process.Some stains are so stubborn that a harsh cleanser is required. Some common ideas in our culture--which interfere with your happiness and your ability to be the best you can be--are very deep, very stubborn, stains, and for these, Atlas Shrugged is a harsh cleanser. Reading some sections may be uncomfortable. Read Atlas Shrugged, or listen to the audio version skeptically, but openly--and your life will be transformed, forever.> Click on “Stoney” just below the product title to see my other reviews, or leave a comment to ask a question.

I bought this book in 2016 after reading during the same year Rand’s ‘We The Living’ and ‘The Fountainhead’. The inspiration for picking up ‘We The Living’ was Leo Tolstoy’s ‘Resurrection’ which I’d read in 2015. Tolstoy’s is a great book, wonderfully cinematic, and also easy to digest. It pricked my interest in Russian literature that’s continued for me right up until the present day.‘We The Living’ tells the story of a middle-class woman and her family living through the Russian Revolution. It’s a harrowing story, not least because the transition to a new way of living is so mundane, and insidious. Food and energy shortages, businesses and transport failing, people dying on the street. The hope comes from a small number of dissidents, albeit quiet ones, who attempt to live with dignity and refuse to comply with edicts from the authorities.I don’t know much about Rand, other than she was able to leave the newly-created Soviet Union in the 1920s and eventually ended-up in the United States where she became a writer and philosopher.She attracted many disciples and even more critics, the latter detesting her advocacy of free-market capitalism and rejection of socialist/communist ‘collectivism’. I’d heard of her long before I began reading her novels, and was always left with the impression that she was a ‘bad’ person, one without compassion for people suffering disadvantage. Her brand of philosophy was named ‘Objectivism’, which seems to be mainly about living in pursuit of the truth, facts and data, rather than faith-based perspectives on life. It is considered a brutal, raw, and unforgiving, and at odds with today’s endemic virtue-signalling and woke narcissism. I won’t add more, because there have been may scholars who have written about Rand and her philosophy and I can only briefly touch upon it here.So, ‘Atlas Shrugged’ sat on the bookshelf for almost six years before attracting my attention sufficiently to take it down. But that decision was not for the faint-hearted, either myself or anyone else, because it’s a monster book of around 1,200 pages. Gulp! I decided the paperback copy I have was too unwieldy, so spent a few quid on buying the kindle version, just to make reading it a little easier. Not only that, I often like to highlight lines or sections of a book to reflect on later, and this proved a common occurrence in reading this one.I could do a proper study of the pros and cons of the book, but I’ll limit it to a few highlights, before explaining the plot.What I didn’t like about the book is that I felt it ‘clunky’. The dialogue was often stilted, unrealistic, and overlong (another complaint I have). Time and again a character embarks on a speech that lasts multiple pages, one example towards the end of the book stretched to around sixty pages. Ouch!I also didn’t like the way the book flowed. I felt that Rand was too concerned about inserting philosophical explanations to the extent that these detracted from the storyline. I can imagine why she did this, as the novel is so huge it’s like her life’s work in a single volume. So, the novel (to me) seems simplistic and too episodic, lacking a more organic flow.Like I suggest above, it’s also too long. The ideas and incidents presented in the book are stretched to the limit, and surely could have been presented in 30% fewer pages.In summary, I find it difficult to heartily recommend this book, but I certainly do feel it’s important, and for those readers with patience and persistence, and who like ‘big ideas’, ultimately it’s a rewarding read.The plot, I like. The book is in three sections, the first depicting the USA in what appears to be the near-future, albeit from the perspective of the mid-1950s (the book was published in 1957). In this period, the USA economy is familiar territory: large privately-owned corporations led by ambitious, intellectually-strong, powerful entrepreneurs. These ‘masters of the universe’ have the will and the skills to make things happen. They build businesses, create jobs, and invest in innovation in production methods and product and service development. I found this section resonating with my experience as a procurement practitioner in the way it describes supply chain problems and how they are resolved. I’d say it’s the most accurate depiction of industry and procurement I’ve ever read in a novel.These ‘great’ industry leaders are the pillars of society and, according to Rand’s philosophy supremely worthy of admiration, to the extent that governments should stay out of their way and tap-into the product of their wealth-creation, but only with a light regulatory touch.So, we have an economy dominated by private-sector wealth creators, providing tax revenues in support of wider society, the benefits far outweighing the costs of living with the super-rich.One of the things I’m going to suggest is that, even though this book was published sixty-five years ago, it resonates so strongly with what has been happening in the last three years that it’s scarily prescient.In this first section, the characters of these powerful operators is explored and we learn about how the country’s main rail company is operated by the highly-competent Dagny Taggart who constantly embarrasses her inferior brother, despite him holding the highest office in the company.We learn about Fransisco D’Anconia who owns and runs copper mines and such like mainly, it seems, in Central and South America, the products of which are major suppliers to US industry. And then there is steel producer Hank Reardon, who has built a hugely-successful and efficient steelmaking operation, including the development of a radically-superior product that is used in the making of railroad tracks.Finally, there is a mysteriously absent character named John Galt, who only appears ‘in person’ more than halfway through the book.Over time, Washington politicians and bureaucrats begin to resent the success and independence of these major industry players, and they start introducing new regulations that restrain trade and begin to limit that independence. The story shows that creeping regulation has an adverse effect on investment, but not in an obvious way, or straight away.The new regulations are designed to protect competition in the various industry markets, by in effect protecting less-efficient and less-viable operators, and also in the name of serving the wider population by promoting a ‘fairer’, less unequal environment. The growth potential of the successful, leading businesses is deliberately constrained.It’s at this point that the reader can detect Rand’s disgust at the collectivism that she experienced in Soviet Russia, and she repeatedly depicts the bureaucrats as weak yet malign, and devoid of wealth-creation capability. Indeed, as the novel continues, the reader sees the economy beginning to falter as inefficient, less competitive businesses are propped-up at the expense of the successful operators. Things begin to go wrong, yet the bureaucrats double-down, and we see the introduction of nationalisation of companies and industries as free-market capitalism falls away.This far into the novel also alerts the reader to what has been happening in The West in recent years. Greater welfare payments, furlough schemes (like in the U.K.), offshoring of industries, the perversion of science, and intellectual absurdities (e.g. ‘woke’); perhaps representing the ‘controlled demolition’ of our capitalist systems in favour of greater collectivism and a drive for equity (or equality of outcome).So what? you might say. There are plenty of good reasons why things should be ‘fairer’ and that the worst excesses of entrepreneurs be curtailed, but what is interesting is where the novel goes next.Perhaps this is the reason why the novel is so long, as Rand’s intention was to show how the impact of central control and regulation takes time to become apparent. What we see is the slow degrading of industry and service to citizens. Businesses begin to fail, are taken into public ownership, and shortages of key materials mean that even the most efficient businesses also suffer. The impact is that service to customers and the economy begins to unravel.The government starts to panic, yet doubles-down on regulation, coming-up with industry-specific schemes to redistribute revenues, and restrict the growth of the best companies. These schemes begin to cross borders into regional regulation, as governments collaborate in following a collectivist approach. The ‘Peoples Republic of …..wherever’ all follow the same approach, each country seeing its own industries decline.A number of accidents and events occur (I won’t give too much away here) that accelerate the decline, leading to even more government intervention, and we begin to see property rights attacked. Soon afterwards industry leaders and entrepreneurs begin to disappear, seemingly off the face of the earth. First impressions are that they have been eliminated as their business are seized, but this proves not to be the case. Again, no spoilers.At the time of writing this review, the U.K. government is increasing regulation and taxation to levels the highest in over seventy years, almost as if it’s rejecting the principles of entrepreneurship, innovation, investment, risk-taking, even capitalism itself. One can’t help read ‘Atlas Shrugged’ and thinking (1) are our politicians and international organisations like the United Nations, the European Union, the IMF, the WEF, the WHO, and a supportive mainstream media following a blueprint based on Rand’s novel and (2) that this book should be essential reading for anyone in a political or regulatory role, as a warning against when good intentions cross a line into economic and societal damage.Anyway, Rand’s novel depicts societal collapse as entrepreneurs and the most competent industrialists withdraw their labour, investment dries-up, and whole industries collapse. People begin to starve, riots break out, and government leaders contemplate throwing in the towel on all their collectivist ambitions.You’ll have to read the book to learn more.What shocked me about this book was how relevant it might be today. Who knows what is going to happen, or what the intentions of our governments are. It just seems that the battle for ideas and civilisation that are at the heart of this novel have to be fought-for all over again, perhaps in every generation.I think the book is a warning against communism, not by describing the shortcomings or even horrors of that system, but by signposting the road to good intentions as where it all starts.‘Atlas Shrugged’ is a serious undertaking; perhaps a flawed masterpiece. This massive book requires dedicated effort to get through the overlong passages that almost sink the novel, but I feel that the effort was worth it. I urge anyone who has the stomach for such an undertaking, is interested in how politics and economy works, and wishes to understand how centrally-controlled societies come about, to give this book its chance.That the book is still in print is, in itself, a significant endorsement.

This is a very famous book - all for the wrong reasons. It is deemed as "influential" (and one of the most influential of the second half of the XX Century), but then again it is so flawed it can be read today as a parody of itself, almost a joke.It meant to be a pamphlet against the "evil red empire" at the height of the Cold War, but the message is all wrong - it is not necessary to go to the extreme right to fight the extreme left. It is wrong as it is dangerous.Leaving aside the - completely twisted - political and social "message", as a novel there's little one can say about this mammoth of a book (1,170 pages!) except that it is very badly written. The prose is pedestrian, lifeless and plagued with platitudes; the dialogues are unnecessarily long. The plot is not any better. It revolts around four main characters of whom we become tired after 200 pages (with 900 more to go). In not so many words, it is a bore.And the sort of resolution of the plot, the conclusion that we should have been waiting for 1,000 pages is a delirious 60 (you've read correctly sixty) pages speech on the greatness of ultra-capitalism and greed.Why the two stars then? You have to give the author a bit of credit for the effort, even if she would have put it elsewhere.

With a novel with such a strong cult status as Atlas Shrugged, it is difficult to approach the novel from an objective view point (no pun intended). The novel has inspired everything from approaches to laissez faire economics to people’s self pursuit of becoming a Randian hero, essentially Nietzschean like Superman. Ayn Rand’s novels are carriers of her philosophy of objectivisim, but they are ultimately just that, novels, and one has to be prepared to endure the realities of reading a novel. At times an overly long and somewhat disjointed novel. The novel can be difficult reading at times, with often no clear beginning, middle or ultimately end. It is overly heavy on dialogue, much of which seems inconsequential, making the novel difficult to follow at times, and completion can seem like something of a mammoth task. For this reader it took 3 attempts before actually reading the novel all the way through to completion. So, one may wonder, was it worth it? If one is highly motivated to understand Ayn Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism, then perhaps one could say yes. Similarly, even if one is unacquainted with the notions of Objectivism and one wishes to absorb ideas that challenge one’s mind, then Atlas Shrugged is definitely worth a read. One may ask, what are the key ideas? Well, the novel revolves around a world that is heavily trending toward socialism, with “People’s States” appearing globally and the United States trending toward heavier governmental control. A general zeitgeist can be observed wherein one is pressured toward subordinating their creative and entrepreneurial energies toward the collective and shamed as selfish and irresponsible for resisting the popular notions. However, the regulations are presented as being stifling toward commerce, and ultimately, industrialists begin to retreat and withdraw their energies. The book explores the futilities of philosophical concepts, such as notions that the mind itself does not exist (a notion held by the misguided zeitgeist of the time) only for the ensuing strike of industrialists providing the triumph of the mind. The most famous name associated with the novel, John Galt, does not appear until well into the second half of the book, until then he is a name mysteriously eluded to in conversation, often appearing randomly under the phrase “who is John Galt?” The actual main event of the novel, the strike by industrialists is difficult to discern due to the heaviness of the dialogue, and no clear beginning or end can be discerned within the text, unless one gives their utmost attention to the book. So, one may ask, is all the effort worth it? It depends on one’s motivations. If one wishes to understand Objectivism, this can be done in a far more concise way, however, the novel, if properly read and understood, buttresses Rand’s philosophical notions and explores them in a dialogue all of her own. In some ways similar to Plato’s dialogues, however, far less concise. Think of Atlas Shrugged as being less a casual read, and more of a project. It’s a book that will be with you for weeks, likely months unless one is a quick reader. Patience is required to complete the book, and one needs to read between the lines at times, so for such reasons it is far from an easy read. The book is relevant for our time, or previous ages, as it provides a reminder that one should rely on one’s own instinct and resist the herd mentality of the times. In the book, it is the herd mentality trending toward Socialism, in our day and age it is the herd mentality trending toward medical totalitarianism. Both use shaming, as explored in the novel, and both can stifle the human spirit. The alternative is provided by Rand, man’s own rationalism and pursuit of one’s own interest. Read only if you are highly motivated to immerse oneself in the Randian Philosophy of Objectivism, or are already attracted to popular notions of individualism.

This book should be among everyone’s 100 books. Ayn Rand (who I personally think was not a very pleasant woman) wrote it as a response to communism. However, some of the principles of the book could well apply today. The idea behind the book is that people should be rewarded for their intellect, especially those whi are able to design things for the betterment of mankind and these skills should not be donated for the greater good free of charge. A modern reader will bauk at some of the precedents but the ideas put forward are interesting and thought provoking. What would happen if the brains of the world went on strike.?

Atlas Shrugged is one of those books that divides its readers. The book is extremely long and does get become unnecessarily long and repetitive at points, but is still a good read nonetheless.The story is set many decades in the past and focuses on a rail executive who finds herself in a world where business leaders are disappearing. The story is interesting and gripping, but not the main reason why people read this book.The story is suppose to express Rand's "Objectivism" to readers in a way that is easy to understand and convincing. This world view attempts to justify extreme egoism and reject altruism. This is perhaps the only bit of Rand's Objectivisms that comes through well. Other parts such as her epistemology and metaphysics are easy to understand, but very unconvincing.This book is a commitment to read, but one that everyone should take in their life. This book has influenced countless leaders throughout the world, and it is good to have read it to better understand their thought process.