Atlas Sold Out

A recent column by Amity Shales discussed the increasing sales of “Atlas Shrugged” by Ayn Rand – published in 1957 and now regaining popularity as more people see it as not only a prophetic work, but one that might just offer some hope, and a way out of our current economic (and moral) troubles, if only people would pay attention. Shales offers a comment that gets to the heart of the matter: “Rand shone a spotlight on a problem that still exists: Not pre-1989 Soviet communism, but 2009-style state capitalism. Rand depicted government and companies colluding in the name of economic rescue at the expense of the entrepreneur.”

What Shales refers to as “state capitalism” could also be described as fascism – and I defy anyone to show me any significant differences. But it should also be noted that, for Rand as for present-day libertarians, the distinction between communism on the “left” and fascism on the “right” is completely bogus, since they have virtually identical goals and methods. (I've often commented that the main differences between the two are in what I call “iconography” -- you know, the “look” that their respective propagandas (leaflets, posters, film, public ceremonies, etc.) provide. Fascists have better uniforms, for instance – and communists make more use of farm tools. That kind of thing. But in essence they are the same.)

But here's the rub. Rand's premise was that, once collectivism/socialism/totalitarianism had gotten to a certain point, the entrepreneurs – the truly productive members of society, AKA “capitalists” or “producers” -- would basically say “the hell with it” and quit – drop out, disappear. In other words, the many and varied Atlases who held up the world (though the world knew them not, assuming that the world simply held itself up) would shrug it off, and get out of the way of the chaos to follow. And sure enough, that is what happened in the book. But is that what has happened in the America of today? Are our economic troubles based on the fact that the competent, the creative, the productive have checked out as a form of protest against government meddling and oppression? It would make a nice clean, principled story line if that is what happened – but I suspect the real truth is far more depressing and much less picturesque. At some point – and I wish I could pinpoint when – those who were in charge of the major business and financial sectors made a fateful decision, and I don't doubt that it was at least partly in response to unremitting government harassment over many decades. The decision was, in effect, “If you can't beat them, join them” -- and it was, I'm sure, hastened by the thought that those who made that decision would not be made to suffer personally – at least not in the economic sense (the moral sense being an entirely different matter – but few if any cared about that aspect of things, as recent events are making abundantly clear). In other words, at some point the calculus changed, by which the ambitious, creative, self-actualizing businessman with ideas and innovations became just another gray bureaucrat – a servant of the state. How did they manage to replace the older generation – the guys who had some self respect and were rightly suspicious of government – without a struggle? I wish I knew. Were they all Trojan horses, who came out of Harvard Business School with one thing in mind – namely to transform American business from the leading edge of capitalism and free enterprise into a shuffling, subservient arm of the state? Was it, in other words, a conspiracy from the beginning, or has it just become one recently, as countless trajectories and motives have converged into, basically, one master plan – namely to sell out to socialism/collectivism/totalitarianism/fascism? Are there any retired executives of the old cloth sitting in lavishly-furnished dens in places like Grosse Pointe Farms, having strokes as they witness the abominations their heirs are committing in the name of “business?” I have no idea, but I can't imagine that there isn't some outrage out there somewhere. But it is of no avail, since those who are in charge now are, without exception, not only willing but eager to enter into a grotesque marriage with government (which even includes a “pre-nup” of sorts – i.e. they can keep all their perks and bonuses if only they will agree to sell their firms, and their stockholders, down the river).

So for all of the apparent doom and gloom that leaps off the pages of “Atlas Shrugged”, it turns out that Rand's novel was wildly optimistic. She assumed that, once collectivization reached critical mass, there would still be men (and women) of principle out there who would resist the trend, and when all else failed simply retire from the field of battle and let what was bound to happen happen. And I suppose it's possible that there have been, and even are, here and there, people of principle who have turned their back on “state capitalism” -- and on Obama “and all his pomps and works”. But, by definition, we don't hear about them -- and it is notoriously difficult to "prove a negative". What we see are the sorry specimens who have already sold out – accepting Caesar's gold and returning, again and again, to Capitol Hill and the White House to ask for more. And you can say what you want about the old-time capitalists – I mean the real McCoy. Call them ruthless... call them “robber barons” if you like... but they made the country what it is today – or was up until recently, for better or worse. What has arisen in their place is a cohort of thieves, who reap where they do not sow, and only enjoy their powers and privileges at the pleasure of the government – which can, of course, remove said powers and privileges any time it pleases, as it has been doing in at least a few cases of late. It is a sorry sight indeed – and one almost wishes for the days of unabashed highwaymen and brigands – at least they were honest! And they didn't try to hide their plans and motives behind the flowing skirts of the government. They took their chances, in other words – whereas today's system is one of full employment for the least honorable, and destitution for those who trust them. And a system with that feature can only survive as a police state – which is what we are rapidly approaching.