The Fountainhead & Atlas shrugged

[Serial_Apologist]

I love these wide, woolly, inaccurate generalisations, don’t you?

In contrast, your examples (below) compare apples and oranges.

How many people did Sir Paul McCartney crush under his feet to make millions thanks to the creative process of his mind writing songs that gave millions of people a lot of pleasure?

I think Sir Paul's greatest creative processes were mostly in the collective context of that famous group that won him his name, rather than in the post-Beatles reputation perpetuated post-hoc.

How many people did Bill Gates crush under his feet to make billions thanks to the creative process of his mind enabling you and I to converse over the distance of hundreds of miles, instantaneously?

I cede here to my predecessor Francis, who has answered this point in greater knowledge than I.

How many people did Warren Buffett crush under his feet to make billions thanks to the creative process of his mind helping people achieve their dreams by improving their investment returns?

Once again, others know much more than I about the Warren Buffetts of this world who deal in gambling on the international exchanges. The chain of causation and consequence is long, complex and convoluted, and cannot be argued one way or another by resort to rhetoric.

How many people did Sir Richard Branson (no friend of mine I assure you for personal reasons), crush under his feet to make billions thanks to the creative process of his mind helping people achieve their dreams by giving them cheap holidays? Were it not for him, British Airways would still be charging £1,000 to fly us across the Atlantic.

And we know know the costs in terms of environmental damage through pollution, diverting host nations away from self-generated economic sustainability.

Just a few examples of the billionaires that are so despised, each of which give millions to charitable causes. Not once have these individuals evaded their responsibility to the tax system, by becoming tax exiles.

I will always clap and applaud the man who works hard and achieves success by providing a service which we as his clients reward him with, through our custom.

How, then, would you find the funds to reward the supermarket check-out staffer, the refuse collector, the road sweeper, by making him or her a multi-billlionaire?

As for the comment regarding hedge funds, without personalising the issue, this is an area I’ve spent my life working in, not just in the City of London, but in Indonesia, Singapore and that very den of iniquitous capitalism, Hong Kong. I have yet to meet a receptionist who earns £150k p.a.

One wonders why not...

So, in the fairness of unbiased reporting, can we have some evidence of such mendacious approaches to tax evasion (as opposed to tax avoidance)?

There are indeed despicable individuals who use others for a leg-up (your very own politicians, with their despicable Expenses Claims scandal, are an example), but to tar everyone with the same brush – no, that is not fair.

With so much of the media pointed away from such practices for fear of upsetting the status quo, it is very unlikely that there are people arouind with the resources necessary for following such enquiries, which, when they do happen, usually take place many years after the event when it is much too late to do anything about it.

Again, without personalising the issue, if your own composer-in-residence writes music that millions will download, and makes himself a fortune, as reward for the hundreds of hours he has worked for no payment, no reward, no recognition, nothing to spur him on but his own will and determination, will you now deprive him of his success?

One supposes the answer to lie in one's definition of "success", preferably with examples.

You know, not all rustlings in the bushes are monsters.

Ian Hislop has made a fortune riding on the back of his criticisms of others, while collecting £20,000 for an hour’s work a week for HIGNFY. I wonder how much he contributes to charity?

Hypocrisy? Heaven forbid!

(Still, he’s not all bad – vide his You Tube video on Beethoven’s 5th)

By personalising the issues the way you in fact do, you neither do yourself nor the subject under discussion any favours, you know.

[eighthobstruction]

Why are the rich so hated? Seriously, why are the rich so hated? Always assuming they made their wealth honestly, why are the rich so hated?

Mario

....well I imagine....and I am particularly shamelessly anti aristocracy/nobility and their landgrabs over the centuries (capitalism and hedging etc/capitalist wotsit industrial wotsit - another story)....robber barons/bandits/armed thugs to start off....chopping hands off/burning an eye out for picking up twigs in wood and poaching a rabbit, feudalism/vasalism.... etc....

[Serial_Apologist]

....well I imagine....and I am particularly shamelessly anti aristocracy/nobility and their landgrabs over the centuries (capitalism and hedging etc/capitalist wotsit industrial wotsit - another story)....robber barons/bandits/armed thugs to start off....chopping hands off/burning an eye out for picking up twigs in wood and poaching a rabbit, feudalism/vasalism.... etc....

Well there are a few, and apologists often churn them out in self-justification: Carnegie, some Quakers. The point really is that in the balance of affairs their impact in measurable terms on how the world has turned out under capitalist rule has been microscopic.

I wouldn't be without Georgian and Regency architecture, mind you - I'd just have liked it to have been more widely shared out.

[eighthobstruction]

....seriously Mario....there is nothing wrong with selfmade individuals....we must not make this all boil down to that stereotype "The Rich"....human beingshave all sorts of reasons for dislking all sorts of other people (leaving out rascism /xenipobia etc)....for disloyalty/betrayal/tardiness/meanness/arrogance....neighbours not 10yards away perhaps for parking in their so say spot....and the point of most of discussion is not hate/hating....it is the matter of morality/ethics/systems and such like....I hate tinned peaches - devaluing the word perhaps but it is a very over used and an inaccurately used word these days....

[french frank]

So, in the fairness of unbiased reporting, can we have some evidence of such mendacious approaches to tax evasion (as opposed to tax avoidance)?

The nice thing about being a novelist is that you can expound your theories, introduce your protagonist and then - if you want him to succeed he will succeed in every way he wants, if you want him to fail, he will fail - according to how well he illustrates your message.

So, to answer your question, in an Ayn Rand novel the narcissistic Donald Trump ("Only the little people pay taxes") wins reelection, is admired by all his millions of 'customers' (staying in his hotels, playing on his golf courses, betting in his casinos) while putting himself and his own prioriities above everything. He holds to the Randian moral virtue of seeking his own happiness above everything else.

Life isn't always like that.

[Mario]

Hm, maybe some revision for me is called for here.

Frances’ #54 is fair. I had forgotten about Gates’ monopolistic sins. I now recall how much despised he was amongst software developers, Microsoft being (I think) the only company that didn’t share its knowledge – others may know more about this. Nevertheless, Frances, I stand corrected (not that I ever implied that Gates is a saint).

Heldenleben, I apologise. I don’t think I made myself clear. I never worked for a hedge fund, but that’s beside the point. If I read you correctly, isn’t what you’re suggesting about the receptionist laudable and to be applauded? If his/her company is sharing bonuses, isn’t this the proper thing to do, rather than huge profits going into the top executives’ pockets. Please correct me if I‘m wrong.

SA’s comments are equally valid, as far as they go. I’m sorry if my short comment on Buffett was deemed as rhetoric – that was not my intention.

I would’ve thought it is us who are polluting the world by using planes, but this is a straw man argument, isn’t it? I merely used Branson as an example against the criticism that all rich men have created their wealth dishonestly, by trampling on other people. I don’t believe Branson has done that.

The way to become wealthy seems to me to be clear-cut – create a product that doesn’t exist, or one superior to one that does, and make it so attractive that millions would want to buy it. This requires a sacrifice of mammoth proportions of the individual (Microsoft didn’t pay a dividend until 12 years after inception). I know of wealthy individuals who worked 18 hour days, 7 days a week for years to build their company. The vast majority of people are not prepared to make such sacrifices, or admittedly, don't have the opportunity, but why steal it from the man who creates an opportunity for himself?

SA is correct in his final analysis. I did indeed personalise the issue, in exactly the way I didn’t want to – talk about hoisted by my own petard! I apologise for that.

I merely saw red by all the implications made that all rich and wealthy people are dishonest miscreants, who made their money dishonestly. The conclusion of this argument I assumed it to be that all wealthy people are dishonest, and all poor people are honest. Both of these conclusions are not always true. I have met many wealthy people who are honest hard-working people who take care of their employees, and I know of poor people who are poor by choice. I am making no generalisations, as I know there are always exceptions to the rule.

I love eighthobstruction’s comment about not hating, so thank you for that.

Again FF, I have read nothing yet that the young architect will make people suffer to his own advantage. I can only go by what I’ve read so far. As I’ve so far only read about 100 pages of the Fountainhead, I don’t want to reach premature, incorrect conclusions.

You know what I regret? Unintentionally, I have taken this thread along political economic lines I am neither qualified to make nor inclined to take.

With this thread’s implied consent, I’ll quietly bow out and leave it to others to continue, while I carry on reading The Fountainhead, as I’ve just come across a reprehensible character called Ellsworth Monkton Toohey, who it seems, loves destruction for destruction's sake.

More later, and thanks to all for your responses.

Mario

(Apologies for the lengthy reply.)

[french frank]

Again FF, I have read nothing yet that the young architect will make people suffer to his own advantage. I can only go by what I’ve read so far. As I’ve so far only read about 100 pages of the Fountainhead, I don’t want to reach premature, incorrect conclusions.

That was my point: Roark is Rand's hero - why would she make him a reprehensible character? Does he prosper in the end? He is what Rand wants him to be. Thus "Ellsworth Monkton Toohey, who it seems, loves destruction for destruction's sake" is a socialist? Not because that's what socialists are like but because that's what Rand thinks of socialism.

[eighthobstruction]

(Apologies for the lengthy reply.)

you are a gentleman

[Richard Barrett]

Nothing personal against any of these people. They're all clever, talented people. But animosity towards the class that perpetuates a system that increasingly looks as though it's pushing us towards irreversible climate catastrophe, and not to mention the gross amount of inequality that is its corollary? Yes.

You perhaps ought to spend some time thinking about the sort of social and political contexts that helped create the men you mention. The Beatles benefitted from the post-war Welfare state, as did their many fans. Likewise, Richard Branson benefitted from Thatcherite privatisation, pouring millions of tax-payer money straight into his pockets. As for Warren Buffett, I admire his candour:

'There's class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning.'

Sums it up, really.

I was going to make a contribution to the thread at this point but looking over recent posts I see you've made it for me!

[Mario]

Waded in dangerous waters too deep for me here.

Shocked, truly shocked by and still reeling from some revelations made on this thread.

I really must thank Joseph K’s reference to Buffett’s quote.

What a shocking, shameful thing to say. I honestly did not know WB said this – what a despicable, unforgiveable thing to say, and now come to think of it, what an accurate reflection of the uncaring rich.

I don’t accept totally the summary of McCartney and Branson, as yet.

Thanks too to FF’s analysis of Howard Roark and E M Toohey. Will never be a book critic, will I?

I’ve stopped reading The Fountainhead. Doing some serious self-introspection here, some deep analytical re-thinking and re-analysing.

Mario

[french frank]

'There's class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning.'

I was trying to source this quote - which is everywhere on the internet, but lacking context. The nearest I could find was on the Wayback Machine: an interview in 2005 between Buffett and Lou Dobbs (now of Fox, but then of CNN), which touched on tax:

DOBBS: That's a progressive idea. In other words, the rich people would pay more?
BUFFETT: Yeah. The rich people are doing so well in this country. I mean, we never had it so good.
DOBBS: What a radical idea.
BUFFETT: It's class warfare, my class is winning, but they shouldn't be.

DOBBS: Exactly. Your class, as you put it, is winning on estate taxes, which I know you are opposed to.

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/US/05/10/buffett/index.html

Any source for JK's qote anywhere? I'd like to study the context to understand what Buffett was saying.

[Belgrove]

I’ve stopped reading The Fountainhead. Doing some serious self-introspection here, some deep analytical re-thinking and re-analysing.

Mario

Mario. You shouldn’t stop reading the book on the say-so of others, especially if they have not even read it. It seems that eigthobstruction and myself are the only contributors to this thread who have read the book. Neither of us found either book to be particularly edifying as works of literature or persuasive as a manifesto. But the books have been influential on some of those who have substantially shaped our world, and that does make them interesting (to me at least). Insofar as they novelise the writings of Nietzsche, they make his difficult, aphoristic writing accessible. Were I to trivially condense the writings of Rand and Nietzsche, they advocate an extrapolation of Darwinian ideas to human affairs. Hopefully naysayers would not then denounce reading The Origin of Species (how many have read that I wonder?) Understanding how one’s opponents think is generally more effective than having ones’s ideas reinforced by the like-minded.

[french frank]

But the books have been influential on some of those who have substantially shaped our world, and that does make them interesting (to me at least).

Yes, I absolutely agree with that. I hope I didn't advise you (Mario) not to read them. But my own personal reaction is that the possible interest they may hold in knowing what they say firsthand is overshadowed by my wish to fill other gaps in my knowledge.

Were I to trivially condense the writings of Rand and Nietzsche, they advocate an extrapolation of Darwinian ideas to human affairs. Hopefully naysayers would not then denounce reading The Origin of Species (how many have read that I wonder?) Understanding how one’s opponents think is generally more effective than having ones’s ideas reinforced by the like-minded.

Excellent advice. As to Darwin, survival of the fittest; 'and the weak suffer what they must'?

[eighthobstruction]

Mario. You shouldn’t stop reading the book on the say-so of others, especially if they have not even read it. It seems that eigthobstruction and myself are the only contributors to this thread who have read the book. Neither of us found either book to be particularly edifying as works of literature or persuasive as a manifesto. But the books have been influential on some of those who have substantially shaped our world, and that does make them interesting (to me at least). Insofar as they novelise the writings of Nietzsche, they make his difficult, aphoristic writing accessible. Were I to trivially condense the writings of Rand and Nietzsche, they advocate an extrapolation of Darwinian ideas to human affairs. Hopefully naysayers would not then denounce reading The Origin of Species (how many have read that I wonder?) Understanding how one’s opponents think is generally more effective than having ones’s ideas reinforced by the like-minded.

....that is certainly why I read the 2 books....I flagged them up at some point, wrote the names in my notebook, saw the Adam Curtis doc and was reminded to buy. Ayn Rand was seen through by many readers, and adopted by a few folk wishing to believe themselves strong intelligent heroes bestriding aloft from us ants.....but mainly they are badly written and tedious. Take out all the diatribe and polemics....you just have an awfully tedious love story about 2 very flawed unrealistic characters....by a person who couldn't recognise hypocracy, irony and double-standards in her own life.

....Ed: and i come to this debate, as a man who has 5 days of crockery washing up waiting to be tackled. I started reading Dickens Barnaby Rudge last week through a love of Dickens b) a interest as to what the Gordon Riots were....got 3 very badly written stop/start unflowing chapters into it, decided that was enough-it was a dud. Then I wikied Gordon Riots. I bought the 3 volume (1000+page) biography of Robert Frost because i didn't like him as a man or poet....

[LHC]

Incidentally, for those interested in Adam Curtis, he has a new series starting on the BBC in February:

Can't Get You Out Of My Head: An Emotional History of the Modern World premieres on BBC iPlayer in February

The highly anticipated new work from journalist and Bafta award-winning filmmaker, Adam Curtis will premiere exclusively on BBC iPlayer on 11 February 2021.

This new series of films tells the story of how we got to the strange days we are now experiencing. And why both those in power - and we - find it so difficult to move on.

The films trace different forces across the world that have led to now, not just in the West, but in China and Russia as well. It covers a wide range - including the strange roots of modern conspiracy theories, the history of China, opium and opiods, the history of Artificial Intelligence, melancholy over the loss of empire and, love and power. And explores whether modern culture, despite its radicalism, is really just part of the new system of power.

Adam Curtis says: “These strange days did not just happen. We - and those in power - created them together.”

Can't Get You Out Of My Head: An Emotional History of the Modern World is a BBC Film and BBC Three production for BBC iPlayer. Produced by Sandra Gorel, Executive Producer is Rose Garnett for BBC Film.