John Galt is wrong.
Posted by Korben_Rage 6 years, 10 months ago to Going Galt
I'm an Ayn Rand fan, but I think in her character of John Galt and in particular the strike and gulch she was incorrect.
Both are in many ways no different then Marx and his utopia. An unrealistic fantasy, and ultimately just another form of altruism.
Both are in many ways no different then Marx and his utopia. An unrealistic fantasy, and ultimately just another form of altruism.
Of course nobody forced me. Nobody ever forces me to post my opinion.
I simply think you have nothing intelligent to say, and I wanted to convey that to you. It was a waste of space.
Some think: House wives, but that's not it at all, there is a whole lot more that goes with it, like, efficient planning and finances...not to mention challenging supportive interactions...the latter is what I crave...I can cook and keep house myself, My wife doesn't support my writing career.
Laughing, we each want our partners to have it all...
I'm confident so to would Ayn. Even Dagny was quite submissive when it came to Male/female roles.
I have met a few that were awake and a pleasure to have discussions with.
For each of us, our answers are different. Unless you’re somehow tethered to some collective mind, like in the movie, “Avatar.”
It's interesting it occurs to me I don't recall Galt ever making any statements about what to live for. His motto "I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.” is about what not to live for, not what to live for. One could of course say that it implies living for yourself, but he doesn't say that, nor is it really human nature.
Good people live to create for themselves, a fortune, a family, a home, a life of experiences, etc. But that doesn't exclude living in part for others. An artist may live solely to create art others enjoy. And that's ok as long as it's what the artist wants and doesn't expect others to support it.
But what does Galt live to create? Sure he invented his motor, he created the gulch. But he spent at least as much time and effort working to destroy.
Remember if you can that I asked you "So then what's the result of going on strike?" That was your reply, is that the only result?
Irrational rubbish.
- Suicide accomplishes the same thing, the strike is just slower.
Any physicist
1B. "Utopias are all non-objective fantasies with no basis in reality." So is the gulch, it can't actually be done as described in the book, thus is not objective. It only exists as a fantasy in the book, and has no basis in reality.
2. Agreed, and then some.
3. Mostly agreed, some central planning is needed and the gulch certainly had some.
4. We don't disagree
5. The altruism is in the strike, it's in those who gave up most of what they cared about for the dream of a better future for others.
Not even in the same universe as Asimov's brilliant but truly impossible "Psychohistory"...now that's sci-fi...
Lived under communism, no but I guess that depends on how you define communism. Absorbed marxism, again, relative.
"Galt never wanted the ego-destroying submission that is a central tenet of Marxism"
- Never said he did, only implied that both Galt's gulch and Marx's utopia are equally unrealistic.
"BTW, what is your reason of joining this portal?"
- So far to have interesting and fruitful discussions. I'm very much an objectivist, I just disagree with Galt's tactics. That they are unrealistic and foolish, and thus should not be followed.
"I for one are not interested in your posts, that are not adding anything to the level of this forum. I am seeing too many of your type on the WSJ or other publications, with the only goal of posting something that generates a lot of replies, taking it as a sign of importance. Believe me, it is not."
- Then don't reply, nobody forced you to reply, yet you did so, maybe you need to ponder that.
2b) Yes and no. I didn't explain well but I wasn't thinking the Stalin type, more the 70s commune, anarcho/communist, and some modern survivalist type. They want or at least expect a collapse. They intend to insulate themselves from it and then take advantage.
It's also a question of means justifying ends. It's of course true that often the ends do justify the means. But do they for the gulchers? Say we want to end the fed, does that justify assassinating Jerome Powell? Of course not, while the intentions may be good, it's neither moral nor effective.
As for actually "going galt", simple fact is that a person of means has more options and influence then a person without. And the act of going "on strike" harms ones ability to acquire those means. Sure things can get worse, but who would you rather be when they do.
1b) An interesting twist I hadn't thought of. Certainly worth some discussion. Of course the argument can just as easily be turned around using one sentence that starts off something like this: "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations..."
2a) Agreed.
2b) If you judge a revolutionary based on the fact they want a revolution, you can equate George Washington with Josef Stalin. It's a false comparison. What matters is not that they advocate for change, but what kind of change they advocate in favor of. That is what is relevant.
2c) Agreed. And there are many who argue that this is precisely what the Fed is trying to orchestrate in the United States - and with some alarming reason.
2d) Certainly a possibility, no doubt. The other is that those with a bent for totalitarianism exterminate each other leaving the remaining to pick up the pieces. One can certainly argue that this is the course Galt advocated for, with his group of Producers coming back out of the Gulch to help with the rebuilding. It is one of the reasons he was having Judge Narragansett re-examine the Constitution. As I stated before, without a Book Two which goes into it, it is hard to see how Rand would have envisioned such a process.
3) Agreed. It's certainly worth a good discussion!
4) I think you raise valid points. Any good business relationship is going to invest in the people involved - not just the ability to make money. And that certainly extends to the employer-employee relationship. A good employer is going to be looking out for the welfare of his employees because he knows that in doing so he gets a more productive employee. This has been been shown in several psychological studies and is the reason many employers now offer amenities such as free coffee in break rooms and even day care. Many employers are also beginning to recognize that despite today's constantly "plugged-in" society, that it is psychologically beneficial for employees to leave work at work - especially when leaving for vacation.
In conclusion: can we really "Go Galt" ? I have a tendency to agree with you that from a practical perspective the notion sounds far-fetched. I don't see it happening on this planet, to be honest. But I can certainly see a planet-wide depression hitting a la "Atlas Shrugged" which bring upon everyone the calamities similar to those described in the book complete with a totalitarian regime. From there, who knows where things go.
Thanks for the link to the book.
Load more comments...