Atlas Shrugged has stood the test of time as an advocate of the capitalist free market, individual responsibility, and political metaphor. For 52 years Ayn Rand's political allegory has been required reading for both university level Sociology to Economics, and from the near inception of the industrial revolution to modern business endeavors, has been a blueprint of what made and defined American economic might. It is also found to have fundamental and stark contrasts to the defining changes taking place in America by the ultra- left of the Obama administration.
Seemingly, there has never been a work of fiction to embody the left's basic philosophy viewpoint until Avator presented itself to the American Christmas season, December, 2009. It may soon be realized to be the epitome of the ultra left Communistic viewpoint.
Though both works might be considered to have very potent messages, the basic premise each projects are in fundamental opposition.
The characters of Rand, John Galt, Railroad man Dagney Taggart, and Steel Industrialist Hank Reardon, are diametrically opposed to the presented standards of Cameron's Na'vi aliens. Two primary differences are as follows...
1.) The most glaring contrast is the two worlds explored. Rand's world is found in the decadent and failed futuristic city of New York. A once vibrant and productive metropolis, it is depicted as being the victim of entrenched dogmatic collectivism. Each of the characters she purports are industrial success stories, where individual dreams, education, and hard work culminates in achievements that set them apart. They are creators, dedicated to their craft with pride, and motivated by the satisfaction of a job well done. They actualize their ambition with innovations that improve the quality of life by scientific advances, and become monetary success stories in the process. It is an individualist moral code that defines them, and responsibility their greatest strength, in spite of the collective mindset of society that inhibits them, feeding on them like parasites.
Virtue from Cameron's perspective is the melding of the individual with collectivism. The tribe is connected to each other both physically and philosophically. Called a "sea of blue," character modes are virtually indistinguishable from one another, and act as one unit.
2.) The Na'vi, though portrayed to be at one with a utopian world, living in conjunctional union in a place called Pandora, little has changed for a millennia. Their world is completely void of science and technology, and live in the stone age.
Cameron instills the premise that mankind's scientific and industrial pursuits are exploitive in nature, without conscience, without spirit, unbalanced by a singular and unchecked intellect. Cameron's Parker, his representative character defining mankind's scientific and industrial pursuit, is a shallow and heartless barbaric warrior. He has violent and disparaging obsessions that are openly reviled. Reveling in his scars of war, prowess and physical strength, and his authoritative presence is emphatically denounced. He commands a company that is a blend of mindless military and soul-less conglomerate corporation representatives who will stop at nothing to acquire an element called Unobtainium.
There is an inference that this union is a melding of corporate and military, and yet displayed to be soldiers of fortune, or mercenaries, to justify and promote their annihilation.
Unlike Rand's characters who are driven by innovation and human advancement, Parker is shown to be driven by an outcome without moral compass, and yet suggests that unbridled capitalism is the fault, and the reason that earth is now a burned out cinder.
Final notes of comparison:
Though graphically splendid in presentation, 3-D animation was state of the art in Avatar, but character and plot were redundant remnants of clichés from countless other SF fantasy, and made to resemble game graphics.
From a token Native American Na'vi leader, to a token African American shaman, the casting was unimaginative and reflective of Hollywood's collectivist justification and personifying mindset, instilling subliminal and hidden messages threaded in predisposed ideological expressions. The utilization of two historically wronged minorities now endangered and predisposed, seemed farcical on the surface, but seemingly effective in the hypnotic instillation of the mindset .
The audience ardently and enthusiastically bought into it, and collectively applauded at the proper moment. There was no evident dissidence, and when the movie ended, all moved in an organized line, holding the door open for each other as exiting in the parking lot. It seemed to touch some people deeper than others, and as negativity for the movie was indicated in a previous article, some gave very volatile comments, and passionately took up for the film's social significance.
Through the glamour and glitz, a message attempted and successfully manifested itself collectively in the audience, and as military men died in a wide variety of graphically depicted circumstances, cheering echoed. As Atlas Shrugged depicts the triumph of the human spirit over the collective whole, Avatar revels in the power of the same collectivism taking hold of America by Nationalization, Socialization, to the dependency of big government in a welfare state, and brought that from the screen to the minds of the audience with success.
Though one might reflect on these works for merit, as the New World Order seeps from the wounds of change by economic uncertainty and fear, whether one will wither and the other prevail will depend not so much on circumstances, or even what propaganda is instilled, but the defining spirit in the hearts of men.
Comments
The collectivist message, which has been marketed by Hollywood for decades, is the perfect fare for those educated by the state. Any wonder it is well received?
Ironically, the industry which seemingly despises capitalism (NOT to be confused with the corporate-state economy that exists in America) relies heavily on large profits to reward investments, recoup expenses, and measure the success of its product which is, um, capitalism.
Marxist Hollywood (generally speaking) might prefer that the state force its creative output on us "free of charge", removing the "risks" all together... No more worries about that fickle "market place"... but, of course the state would then decide what is and is not appropriate... and that would hamper "creativity", would limit the producers' free choice... just as occurs when the state controls anything else.... See More
Collectivism (state control) does not work, it has been tried, tested, and failed repeatedly. It's time to give individualism (f
This conservative commentator seems threatened by the Avatar story. Perhaps it is guilt over the resemblance between the corporate-military alliance in Avatar and the real-life project of invading and occupying Iraq. What he doesn't get is that this story goes beyond capitalism vs. communism. These two value structures have BOTH failed because they have shallow, short-term goals and a perspective which fails to recognize the human need for a deeper connection to each other, to the earth, and to God. The Naa'vi culture depicted is not "collectivist," but family-relationship oriented. The writer makes the same critique of this rich and spiritual civilization that European invaders made of the cultures they conquered. That they don't have buildings and technology, so they must be impoverished savages. But the protagonist of Avatar learns along with the audience that this culture is not in fact missing anything. They are richer than we are in relationship and meaning.
Erik,
You are right in one respect. I am threatened by what Avatar represents, and you too. But, why would I have any guilt? I have done nothing but live my life according to a set of values, number one being responsibility. Whether or not we agree with what the story actually intended is not the point, but the projections we make to understand these fundamental ideals. It is amazing that you use God in your depiction of the story line, as I saw no reference to that in the film. You took that from your own perspective, and that is rare, for most liberals are amoral and Godless. You are not?
In other essays I speak of the balance between intellect and spirituality. When technology goes wrong it is usually because it was utilized without a spiritual base, a reference of good and bad and right and wrong. These ideas are confusing, but I have found the study of Situational Ethics to help me with that.
There is no doubt that the American Indian had a rich family oriented culture...
There is no doubt that the American Indian had a rich family oriented culture, every culture did, or they soon perished. The destruction of the family unit in America comes from the left. Look at the black man and you will see it.
There is nothing wrong with technology, but the misuse of it that brings evil and wrongness. AC, pipes for clean water, a toilet, medicine, even fertilizer and poison, has given us a rich life that mostly goes unappreciated. I travel back and forth to France for business and there are always people voicing how uncomfortable they are after nine hours, and yet just a hundred years ago it took almost two months to make that trip, and then an overland journey for weeks to get to Paris, by clipper and wagon.
The American Indians had a very limited life expectancy, and sometimes lived very miserable lives. A woman died in childbirth, from a cold, from infection, and a very wide variety of other ailments. When some got old, some tribes quit feeding them, and th
The American Indians had a very limited life expectancy, and sometimes lived very miserable lives. A woman died in childbirth, from a cold, from infection, and a very wide variety of other ailments. When some got old, some tribes quit feeding them, and they would wonder off into the wilderness to die. I have studied the Maya and Olmec, and they were a very violent people, but no more so than the Conquistadors, Catholic Priests, and the disease they brought, that broke their back within 20 years.
I could tell you that I'm not afraid. I am. I see in your writing a myopic, mean spirited, egotistical, and somewhat lacking in experience. When you have some tragedy in your life, When you try hard and make a business and you have to pay nearly 50 percent to a government squandering it. When you have your own children get a fever in the middle of the night and you can save them. When you travel and can find no place better, and you see the changes proposed will destroy what made us the best.
You use words like "commentator, threatened, real-life, beyond capitalism, both failed, deeper connection, depicts, oriented, connection, don't have, impoverished, protagonist, not missing anything, and the best of all...They are richer than we are in relationship and meaning." Maybe in your life, but not mine.
What do you think the reality would be if we discovered a race of beings on a far away planet? We would sterilize ourselves before exploring, and probably not breathe the air for a hundred years because of one word, responsibility. This key element is what separated you and me. If you could get over your indoctrination, your mean spirit, you would see the finer parts of yourself and humanity.
I'm afraid of you, and yet, unlike you, I sign every word with my true name. I would die for this country, my ideals, my honor, family, and most likely you under certain circumstances. What would you die for Erik?
Look at the difference between what Georgia wrote and you. You probab
Look at the difference between what Georgia wrote and you. You probably can't see the difference, but I assure you, in thirty years you will...
Objectivism holds that reality exists independent of consciousness; that individual persons are in direct contact with this reality through sensory perception; that human beings can gain objective knowledge from perception through the process of concept formation and inductive and deductive logic; that the proper moral purpose of one's life is the pursuit of one's own happiness or rational self-interest; that the only social system consistent with this morality is full respect for individual rights, embodied in pure laissez faire capitalism; and that the role of art in human life is to transform man's widest metaphysical ideas, by selective reproduction of reality, into a physical form—a work of art—that he can comprehend and to which he can respond emotionally.
The protagonist, Dagny Taggart, sees society collapse around her as the government increasingly asserts control over all industry, while society's most productive citizens, led by the mysterious John Galt, progressively disappear. Galt describes the strike as "stopping the motor of the world" by withdrawing the "minds" that drive society's growth and productivity; with their strike these creative minds hope to demonstrate that the economy and society would collapse without the profit motive and the efforts of the rational and productive.
Yep-yep! I see one point,,,Collectivists focus on community and society, and seek to give priority to group goals over individual goals. Individual responsibility gives individual liberty, and individual accountability. I really don't understand why the liberal can't see this concept. I thought they reveled in the differences in people! But what you are referring to Ken, is when government manufactures one group to war with another, like your article on The Prince, by Machiavelli. I suppose to understand this stuff you have to read more of your work... my favorite was the one about the Boy Scouts... Keep spreading knowledge Ken! Ignorance has this country by the throat!
Ayn Rand is not Ayn Rand. She is Alisa Rosenbaum, and she has a sad story: in the Russia of her youth, her dad's pharmacy, and the building which he owned was taken by the Commies. Her reaction was to write books that said that Commies are bad and capitalists are good. Unfortunately, despite being a pretty good writer, her books are unreadable -- lengthy and lugubrious. Ken LaRive fails to mention that the fact that Atlas Shrugged is required reading is often simply pay to play (Google: 'Atlas Shrugged,' and Some Faculty Members Wince).
Rosenbaum was an atheist, and yet most of the right wing wants to adopt her books as Bible. The problem is that the whole "liberals are Commies" is a strawman. Most liberals support capitalism, are invested in the stock market, and want a free market. What they don't want is for the United States to get its butt kicked by countries who are smart enough to know which force -- capitalism or collectivism -- works better for a given situation.
Pedro,
I see about 20 percent who voted for Obama to be in the category you described, most are dependant. Liberals have been duped just as we all have. What got Obama elected, other than his lies, was the mindset that government can help people by taking certain responsibility. That is the key word Pedro. "capitalism or collectivism" what specifically are you referring? China? Big business? International bankers? The Federal Reserve? All of these have a hand in what moves this country and the world.
I had no problem understanding Ryn after I understood the concept of responsibility, and what free trade is on the broader spectrum. A spiritual side is based on that concept, don't you agree, and how we deal with it is what we get in return, and it isn't always monetary. It is pride in a job well done, joy in doing what you want to do, honor in having a standard, and such.
Finding common ground is the only thing that can save us. Dwell on our similarities, and we can build.
Pedro,
When I was in north Africa in 1999, I met up with the Christian of Charity Nuns from France working with aids patients in Malabo. One thing she told me rings clear. To help people is a science. By giving a tool, a seed, and showing how to plant and harvest, is primary. The labor, the motivation, has to be their own. If they get hungry enough they will work. This is the primary reason the liberal welfare system has failed, the element of responsibility is not understood, and pride and motivation is stymied. Did welfare help the black man? Emphatically not, and quite evident looking into our prisons, and it isn't just blacks, but a large segment of society, and most of them voted for Obama to get more...
Oh, trial Lawyers like Obama too, and for obvious reasons. In an irresponsible society there will be a lot more opportunity for litigation.
You claim: "The Earthlings were shown to be insensitive, immoral in the extreme, mean spirited, money hungry, and stupid." But at least three of the human characters, including the main scientist, the tall buddy, and the chopper chick were outraged by the insensitivity of their fellow human beings and tried to stop the annihilation of life on the planet. -Not to mention the main character, who turns his life around once he's able to experience a little empathy.
You echo the representation of the Na'vi as a "sea of blue," clearly missing the distinction between warrior, chief, medicine woman, daughter of the chief, etc... This is the same kind of view that says all black people or all Asians look the same. It's more a fault of your perception than the representation of the film. You fail to mention the diversity of life of the planet--the other tribes, plants and animals that would be burned and leveled for the sake of a violent, greedy mining operation.
Thanks Ron, I see your point. Of course there are different characters, individuals, but collectively they had the same mindset. I should have made that clearer. This "perception" came entirely from my mind, and I can find no one else, as of yet,to make this comparison, or to blame. HA!
Ken, thanks for sharing! Great article, and the video is just wonderful. Our whole family are "Atlas Shrugged" and Galt fans and I will make sure they see this and the other Galt speaks videos. Very well done.
I heard it's being made into a movie (a herculean task if ever there was one) - those actors in the video with characters' names under them - any relation to the movie?
Ken, I watched the movie last night after reading your review and was shocked at just how different it was from what you presented. It was the human villains in the movie who were the thuggish brutes. The Navi actually fought for their property rights and individuality. Yes they happen to have some means of communicating collectively, but this is presented as real in the movie. So it would be rational for them to communicate this way. I think you're trying to draw parallels that the artist might not be intending.
A typically stupid Black and White interpretation. Exploitation is exploitation, it does not matter if Stalin or a community head does it or whether an MNC or the US military does it. Fundamentally what is the different between what a 'republic' Bush did versus what a 'Communist' Stalin and what a 'Nazi' Hitler did?
Dagney Taggert is a Railroad Woman...not man
Ken, you say, "I see about 20 percent who voted for Obama to be in the category you described, most are dependant". Based on what? I see most conservatives as fat, lazy and full of blood lust. How much? About 80% because making crap up is fun!
You say, "That is the key word Pedro. "capitalism or collectivism" what specifically are you referring? China? Big business? International bankers? The Federal Reserve? All of these have a hand in what moves this country and the world". When you break the back of business by having them compete with companies overseas that don't have the burden of paying for for-profit medicine and calling it American, well, I'll invite you to leave our country and go to somewhere more libertarian. Like Estonia, just voted the most libertarian! Bon Voyage!
Kevin:
And you thought the "artiest" calls the shots? No, really?
You're article is an example of the pitfalls of the internet. It's not so much in the article but in your defending comments that you show a covertly racist attitude and a prejudice attitude. Blanket statements like "most liberals are amoral and Godless." beg the question of what you think morals are. At one point you say liberal have been duped, implying that they have some altruistic desire to help people yet you say they have no morals. What does it mean to be moral? I guess you're only moral if you believe in christianity.
Great article Ken!
I immediately saw the primitivism-worship in Avatar. What struck me was the artificial ways that primitivism was supported.
For one, all the animals could "plug into" each other and share thoughts. This is a sort of make-believe symbiosis that distances the Na'vi from humanity, yet is supposed to make their primitivism more acceptable.
For another, the Na'vi could plug into the magic tree and access memory data of their ancestors. Again, this is nothing like humanity, and used to advocate primitivism.
And one other thing - the magic tree can transfer consciousness from one body to another.
All these serve to provide a spectacle of primitive people somehow living among a "natural" advanced technology - serving only to blur and confuse people about the real nature of primitivism.
In real life, animals don't plug into each other, magic trees don't store memories, or transfer consciousness.
In real life, primitive people live short and difficult l
Good article.
yawn.
Umm, hate to split hairs here, but "Parker" was the stereo-typical frat-boi, MBA, corporate middle-manager in charge of the mining operation. You know... the "suit".
"Quaritch" was the "heartless barbaric warrior" that was "Reveling in his scars of war, prowess and physical strength".
But, whatever, don't let minor details get in the way.
I liked this article. I must say I would have never thought to compare the two. I will go see this movie now because of this article.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!