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.
Previous comments... You are currently on page 3.
2: You shot yourself in the foot here: "Galt convinced them..." Galt, using his reason was able to show people what they had never realized before. Upon thinking about what he said, they chose out of self interest to follow along with someone who had a plan. They were not pressured or forced to do so. You keep confusing Choice with Force. Galt showed people that yes, the strike is in your best interest because what you've known as The Norm is actually really screwed up and wrong. Hence his convincing made them realize this. A good example: North Korea forces you to do everything it says or you are punished in a horrible way. That's The Norm in that country. If you convince the people, more especially the mid-high ranking ones that this system isn't in their best interest and there is a much better alternative you'd see a change in the country. It's not an over night solution, it'll take years. But the end result would be a mass exodus to a better solution.
- You may think that, I don't, and it clearly isn't. There's many many people who do not desire true freedom. True freedom requires responsibility, it requires an active mind, and work both physical and mental. Many don't want that, they prefer the bliss of a caged bird, of being cared for by others, of not having to take responsibility for themselves. For this they are willing to trade their freedoms, and sadly in doing so they often trade away ours as well.
- It could be said that the above is a common trait of femininity. Even Ayn with her contrarian nature, stubbornness, bluntness, and sharp wit was still quite submissive. She showed this in her female characters, in particular Dagny and Dominique. Both strong women outwardly who were nonetheless intimately very submissive.
"It also makes rational self interested sense to behave, create value and do business based upon ethic and morals."
- This is off point, but yes however not for ethical or moral reasons. It's rational self interest for a business to behave within the moral compass of it's customers.
Your opinion is that the strike wasn't in their best interest or ours. You weren't convinced by Galt's argument (one that you never heard.) You feel that it's in your best interest to resist the system in a less radical way. I have seen that argument made by hundreds of people in the past 50 years and many people have made such attempts. The result has been bigger government and less liberty.
Take your best shot. May you succeed where others have not. Perhaps Trump's administration will restore the constitutional limits, punish the corrupt, and you will help Make America Great Again.
I disagree but it's moot, the Gulch is more then fiction it's sci-fi.
"A basic question is, what would the producers in Atlas Shrugged do if the fruits of their production was continuously exploited and there was NO other place to go where they could be free to trade value for value?"
- Now that there is the real question. A question I wish Ayn had explored more in the book instead of the sci-fi. But it is there in Atlas Shrugged as well as in her other works.
- It's in the dealings between Reardon and Dannager. It's in Reardon's trial. It's in the John Galt Line and the triumph of Wyatt Oil. It's in Ragnar sinking aid ships and blowing up factories making Reardon Metal.
Finally men do "use reason as the primary way to find truth". We do it better then any other known intelligence and we do it better now then ever before. The reason we don't have flying cars is that there's nothing reasonable about it.
2nd, That's simply not true, Galt convinced them it was in their best interest but was it. Wyatt is a great example of this, he largely had it made when Galt came to see him. How at that point was going to the Gulch better? He's also a great example of someone unable to leave the Gulch. He quite literally burned his bridges on the way out. He couldn't have gone back to his old life, and if he tried would likely have been arrested.
Of course I understand that the selfishness is good. The point is that "the strike" wasn't in their and more importantly isn't in our self interest.
It also makes rational self interested sense to behave, create value and do business based upon ethic and morals.
Case in point...many big corps today do not operate with ethics and morals...they knowingly or unknowingly endanger the end users of their products and services...how dumb is that?!
To the conscious human it is against his own rational self interest. He lives to create value for himself and therefore others as a consequence of his actions.
Your point seems to hinge on altruism. If you want to know who Galt is loyal to, it's himself. In reading what you initially said it made me reflect. In my life: I sold my business last year, am streamlining my finances, am planning to get way under the radar (as much as a family man can in America these days) in the near future. May settle outside the country. I am going to withdraw. I'm not a tycoon by any means but I'm very capable and fairly accomplished. And, I'm looking forward to doing something like driving the short school bus (disabled kids). Why? A couple reasons. I think the prog left will win, that Trump is just a speed bump. Once they get their claws in us again after his tenure this nation will quickly turn to scroad. Why have skin in the game? Qui bono? Certainly not my family. Most Americans don't realize that they're just livestock. If I'm wrong, it still works out great.
In AS, I wasn't convinced that John Galt wanted the collapse. That question has been asked here before - did he try to hasten it? I don't think so. Oh...and Marx? Marx wanted death. And, by accounts I've heard it sounds like he was a very dysfunctional weirdo in his personal life. Marx had zero appreciation for the sanctity of life, of self. I think I jumped when I read that comparison - haha!
Anyway, I'm blabbing. Haven't finished my first cup of coffee. Welcome to an interesting forum...
2nd: It's not altruistic as people were doing it for selfish reasons, not because "it was the right thing to do and that's what I should do". Galt just opened their eyes to show them they had an alternative, one that wasn't war/violence based like their opposition. At any time those who went to the Gulch could leave of their own free will based on their own selfish desires.
Selfishness is the point of the book I don't believe you understood. That selfishness can be a good thing, not a sin.
A basic question is, what would the producers in Atlas Shrugged do if the fruits of their production was continuously exploited and there was NO other place to go where they could be free to trade value for value?
It would have likely been a very different book. Although I truly believe, if back some time ago nearly all men had learned to use reason as the primary way to find truth, we would have the kind of technology today that only the sci-fi writers can dream of. We’d even have the affordable flying car.
I enjoy solving problems. All sizes. Short term and long term. America is where I plan to do my part in the fight against collectivism. That is unless America is truly lost. By that time it will likely be too late anyways.
I use the term "utopia" not because it seems like one, but because like Marx it's an idealized fantasy that does not, and can not exist. Moreover in this way objectivists on strike are no different then classical marxists. Both are sacrificing for a future that is nothing but fantasy.
"I am paying my taxes, which mostly hurts the cause. (Brutali coercion is savagely effective.)"
- Can't fault it, you gotta do what you gotta do. But do you have to. Let's say you owe $10,000, is it not better to give that 10,000 to a tax lawyer vs. the government. Maybe he says best to just pay, maybe he hassles them down to 5 and keeps 5 for his trouble. The point being that even if costs you the same in the long run, better to not only make them work for it, but also employ the opposition.
Don't give the gov a free loan. If you work for an employer odds are they'll automatically withdraw and pay your federal income tax. That's what the IRS says they have to do. But you can fill out a W-4 claiming exempt. By doing so you're telling your employer that you expect to owe no taxes and they'll stop deducting. You'll owe that money on tax day. By when paying out of your paycheck your giving them a free loan and depriving yourself of those funds through the year.
"I will be doing my part in America."
- Please be cautious of this kind of thinking. What is doing your part, what is America. There's a lot to be said for being responsible, but it can quickly turn into a duty. These are two very different things. A responsibility is something you take on yourself for your own reasons. A duty is something expected of you for others reasons. Then what is America, is it you, is it people, is it the state. The United States is a great country, and it's right to feel a responsibility to it. But for your own reasons, it's a tool of your freedom and prosperity. You owe nothing to a tool except enough care to ensure it works when you need it.
I for one do not expect a Galt’s Gultch to suddenly show up. Therefore I will be doing my part in America.
It may seem like a "Utopia" because only a small percentage of the worlds population could achieve such a state of being.
That's my take and I'm sticking to it unless you can convince me otherwise.
Respectfully...Balls in your court now.
- Well it's true Galt hasn't spoken to me yet, he doesn't exist, I've only read all of Ayn's words. As for the rest no. The premise that one must "stop producing" in order to not produce "under rules that force you to act against your interests." is incorrect and counterproductive.
There's many ways to avoid working under those rules. Cheat, break the law, succeed, change the rules, etc. In the books even this was done to decent success. Hank and Dagny defied them left and right, his trail was pivotal. Ragnar blew up factories that produced Reardon Metal, Howard blew up his building, etc.
If they'd been able to work together as a team against the looters they likely would have had quite good success without resorting to the strike. But because of the strike this was made nearly impossible.
"In a free market I produce for my best interests and it may simultaneously create a better life for others. In a free market if I want to be successful my production must be something that other individuals choose of their own free will to exchange their production for. It's trade- a voluntary fair exchange. There is nothing altruistic required. Everyone in the Gulch operated on a free market basis with others and they came to the Gulch because that was their creed. Yes, they recognized that trading with other producers voluntarily was superior than trying to produce everything themselves. That is not a collective; it's a free market. They did not pool their resources and production was not apportioned based according to need. Each producer traded only voluntarily with other producers. They did so in the Gulch after recognizing that outside the Gulch there was no longer a free market."
- This is all completely true, except the last line. The point is why the Gulch, why the strike, and why leave behind their life's work. Compared to staying put, or many other options this was an altruistic choice. They sacrificed all they had spent their lives building and all that they could have produced in the larger market, for a false hope, a story, a lie.
The real "gulch" is a power all of us have, a power that again Hank embodied well. The power to say no. That's all it takes, saying no I will not follow your rules. A few key people or enough little people saying no and the looters have a real problem. Mover publicly saying no tells others it's OK to do so as well.
One of my favorite books is called The Secret Freedom Fighter by Jefferson Mack. He outlines quite well the power of individuals saying no. He calls them bad citizens, that it's bad citizens who keep nations free. It's something Americans do well, we cheat on our taxes, speed, trade illegal goods, etc. These things are common, accepted and become big business. In doing these things we are saying no we will not follow your laws. In doing these things we force the looters to capitulate, to make no progress, etc. You really think the national 55MPH speed limit was repealed cause people went 55. That pot is getting legalized because people weren't smoking it. The concept of the strike is akin to giving away your car to protest the 55MPH limit.
In a free market I produce for my best interests and it may simultaneously create a better life for others. In a free market if I want to be successful my production must be something that other individuals choose of their own free will to exchange their production for. It's trade- a voluntary fair exchange. There is nothing altruistic required. Everyone in the Gulch operated on a free market basis with others and they came to the Gulch because that was their creed. Yes, they recognized that trading with other producers voluntarily was superior than trying to produce everything themselves. That is not a collective; it's a free market. They did not pool their resources and production was not apportioned based according to need. Each producer traded only voluntarily with other producers. They did so in the Gulch after recognizing that outside the Gulch they could no longer trade their production freely and voluntarily.
I agree that with the power of the enemies of such a free market today, in order to establish a real Gulch there must be a counterbalancing force of some kind.
But again, not the point, the point is two fold. First to feel out this site to see how involved I want to be. And secondly to do so by challenging an article of Randian faith that I think needs to be challenged. A concept that this site clearly believes in but that I think is the single biggest mistake Ayn made. A concept that I think has done a lot of harm to objectivism.
The concept of the strike has caused many to check out, to withdraw from the battle. It's convinced too many that the best course of action is to withdraw your influence and wait for the world to die. This is antithetical to the rest of Ayn's work.
Even if the strike could work, if Galt's Gulch could actually exist it wouldn't produce it's stated goals anyway. The idea was to withdraw and let them fail, then re-emerge and rebuild. That's like saying I need to remodel my bathroom so I might as well burn the house down. No matter what the seeds of altruism and socialism will always be present, letting the world fail will not eliminate it. What will minimize it however is to show it as a bad choice, to show how much better capitalism is. Just like how the success of Hong Kong had a huge influence on the opening up of the market in China.
On a computer there is "formatting help" available to the lower right of the text box that you type into, but this is not a word processing app so that is limited to italics and bold.
MrSmiggles suggestion is a good one, too.
The character of John Galt and "the strike" have two fatal flaws.
1st, it's an impossible example to follow. Most of what made it possible was the Gulch's ability to hide using Galt's shield.
2nd, it's an altruistic collective, they might as well have called it Galt's commune. Yes within the Gulch it's a capitalist utopia but for each member to get in they had to sacrifice most of what was most important to them. Galt convinced them this wasn't altruistic but it ultimately was. No matter what it was still a personal sacrifice that was at least in some part motivated by the greater good. A sacrifice that only worked as a collective, Galt alone couldn't do it. Nor could the three, it only worked as a collective. They were effectively a union, and there's nothing objective and capitalistic about a union.