Individually Collective, Collectively Individual....

Blog-buddy mike, some time ago, recommended Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead as a good introduction to her writing style, and an easier read than Atlas Shrugged. I got me a used copy of The Fountainhed, advertised as trade paperback but turned out to be a mass market paperback. Small tight print in a bulky volume. I did read a couple of chapters, but if I'm ever to get much further I shall have to find a hardback copy. In the meantime I acquired a DVD of the 1949 film version of the novel.
We watched it on Friday evening.

The film is badly dated in syle. Well - 1949 - it would be wouldn't it? Gary Cooper, never a favourite of mine, did his best with what was in the script, as did Raymond Massey. Patricia Neal, though, as love interest, was almost comical in her hamminess at times. Dialogue (also screenwritten by Ayn Rand ) was uncomfortably stilted, characters were cardboard cut-outs used only to drive home, with a sledgehammer, Ayn Rand's belief that what she saw as individualism is more important than what she saw as collectivism. Key words: "what she saw as"!

Basic plot: An architect who has avant garde ideas on design and construction, refuses to compromise his designs to make them more acceptable to the public; rather than do so he opts to go manual and work in a quarry for a spell. (The quote in the illustration, by the way, relates to his designs, not to his woman!) His bloody-mindedness wins through. He also, eventually, gets the gal. The end.

The book is likely to be far more nuanced than the almost 2-hour film. The novel's long enough, if it's not more nuanced, then what on earth is the rest of it about? The bare storyline could be told as a novella or short story.

Individualism versus collectivism? Why does it have to be one versus t'other. They could, and should, quite happily complement and compliment one another in my view. I admire individuals - those with vision, inventiveness, foresight, not of the crowd, marching to their own drummer. I also admire those who aspire to make life better for the rest of humanity, those who consider others equal to themselves, those who think of themselves as part of a whole. Why did Ayn Rand decide the two could never relate, never complete the picture together? Because she had a mind-block, possibly brought on by whatever it was she endured in early life. Because she had no tolerance, no sensitivity, no empathy. Perhaps it had been knocked out of her. It isn't for me to judge her, but that's the picture I'm getting thus far.

Atlas Shrugged ~ Pt. 1 (movie) & Ayn Rand

We were in our local stationery/book/video store the other day to buy a birthday card. About to leave, I spotted, on the "Best Rental" DVD shelf "Atlas Shrugged. Part 1". I've been curious about Ayn Rand's supposed tour de force for a long time, yet too lazy to read the 1000+ page book. Outcome: we watched the DVD that evening, so as to get the DVD back in time for a discount. The movie was certainly not worth the full rental price, we have no wish to give it a second airing.

Having made those disparaging remarks however, I didn't find the movie nearly as bad as some critics whose reviews I read after watching it.

My husband felt it'd have been better produced as a TV mini-series. I agree. He still didn't like the film though. I didn't exactly enjoy it, but was curious about Atlas Shrugged and remain so.

Part 1 takes us only part-way into the plot. It appears that parts 2 and 3 are not due out until 2012 and 2013 (if the producers still have the stomach for it after so many bad reviews), by which time we'll have forgotten all about it. That being said, and the author's politics apart, it was a mediochre, slow, and slightly weird offering rather than a totally worthless one, I'd say.

I was interested to see Ayn Rand's, for me highly objectionable, political views translated novel-wise. One oddity I spotted immediately: it was set in 2016, but everything still looked like the 1950s. Background is a dystopian USA. Air travel is almost non-existent (the reason was a bit obscure, possibly lack of oil - or maybe I just didn't catch the relevant dialogue). Trains are the preferred method of travel. Rail lines are worn out though, and iron ore is becoming a scarce commodity, making replacement of rails difficult. An enterprising manufacturer has invented a strong type of metal to use for rails and bridges which needs less, if any, iron ore. This is the focus of part 1 of the storyline. Oh yes - there's the discovery, in an abandoned factory, of a very special kind of motor which seems to violate most known laws of physics. I'm not sure where that part of the plot is likely to go in part 2.

The government appears to be attempting a mild form of socialism: restricting business owners to a single business enterprise, for instance; and trying to bring about some semblance of fairness generally. But as one reviewer put it, the action takes place in, to 21st century viewers "an unrecognisable twilight zone", labelled 2016, but with no high tech, no evidence of computers and all the trappings with which we have become so familiar. The feel of the film is a little weird throughout because of this anomaly.

Ayn Rand's philosophy was along the lines of allowing personal excellence and unrestrained industrial productivity, endorsing selfishness and the right of the successful few to hold sway over "the Great Unwashed". A form of 20th century feudalism, in fact.....or, put another way, as it often was in Britian in the
'50s: "Im alright Jack, bugger the rest of 'em!"

On a superficial level, I thought Taylor Schilling (the blonde at centre in the photograph), playing the lead part of Dagny Taggart, a "strong woman" and entrepreneurial whizz, seemed a tad too young, fragile and glamorous for the content of the part, though she turned in a decent enough performance, just didn't look right. It's only a story, I kept telling myself : poetic licence. For a toughie such as Dagny I'd envision someone more like a right-wing version of Susan Sarandon.

There's no humour in evidence. None. Even in hard times, with a dystopian background, surely someone would have cracked the odd joke or seen the funny side of something?



Adding to the "twilight zone" feel of the tale is a constant mention of one John Galt, who we can only surmise is a guy who occupies himself in spiriting away all the best and brightest of business people, financiers, inventors and suchlike - putting them on a kind of "strike" footing. No doubt he aims to show the Great Unwashed how far they'll get with la crème de la crème out of the picture (I guess that's what's going on).

I'd watch part 2 and part 3 if the DVDs were available now, but fear my interest will have waned by the time they appear.

The best advice about the novel Atlas Shrugged I came across in my searches was that it'd be best to read it in tandem with The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists, by Robert Tressell, a novel portraying the other side of the coin. Balance is everything - in all things!

The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists tells the story of a group of working men who are joined one day by Owen, a journeyman-prophet with a vision of a just society. Owen's spirited attacks on the greed and dishonesty of the capitalist system rouse his fellow men from their political quietism. The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists is both a masterpiece of wit and political passion and one of the most authentic novels of English working class life ever written. (See here)

Tressell's cast of hypocritical Christians, exploitative capitalists and corrupt councillors provide a backdrop for his main target — the workers who think that a better life is "not for the likes of them".

ASTROLOGY ~~~
I've muttered about Ayn Rand's astrology before in these posts. Once in comparing some politicos all born with Sun in Aquarius, then on another occasion more generally about her and her chart. I'll copy a few relevant lines from my archived posts, along with her natal chart.



She was born in St. Petersburg, Russia on 2 February 1905. Astrodatabank gives a "C" rated birth time, probably rectified, not 100% to be trusted as accurate, but I've used it anyway. The rising sign may or may not be as shown, Moon's degree likewise, but Moon would have been in Capricorn whatever her time of birth.

Perhaps the best way to safely describe Aquarius Sun people is to say that many, or most have a inclination towards politics. My Pollyanna-ish idea, formed years ago, that Aquarius Sun people are always going to think as I do is wrong, wrong, wrong!

.... Aquarius has co-rulers: Saturn and Uranus. Saturn traditionally ruled the sign, before the discovery of Uranus. That these two planets stand for opposite ideas is significant. Saturn = conservative, status quo, authoritarianism, Uranus = forward thinking and change. Two other zodiac signs have co-rulers: Pisces has Jupiter/Neptune; Scorpio has Mars/Pluto. They do not suffer from the clash of opposites as does Aquarius....But some fundamental differences lie not in the stars but in education, environment, experience and family background. Sun sign is just one component in a natal chart, astrology is just one component in the structure of character and personality.

The astro-key to Rand's right-wing conservative/libertarian views is the placement of Saturn in Aquarius, with a secondary key being Moon in Capricorn (ruled by Saturn). Aquarius Sun people are often politically inclined, with a yen to "change the world" in one direction or t'other - direction being governed by the rest of their chart, and by their own life experiences.

There's an interesting piece by Cathy Young from 2005: Ayn Rand at 100.Penultimate paragraph of that piece kind of describes the conflicting traits of Aquarius/Saturn/Capricorn within Rand:

Rand herself was a creature of paradox. She was a prophet of freedom and individualism who tolerated no disobedience or independent thought in her acolytes, a rationalist who refused to debate her views. She was an atheist whose worship of Man led her to see the human mind as a godlike entity, impervious to the failings of the body or to environmental influences. (Nathaniel Branden reports that she even disliked the idea of evolution.) She was a strong woman who created independent heroines yet saw sexual submission as the essence of femininity and argued that no healthy woman would want to be president of the United States because it would put her above all men.

Analogies ~ Ayn Rand ~ Barack Obama ~ Capitalism ~ Libertarianism

Analogy is one of the most useful of all language tools. A good analogy can serve to more clearly explain a difficult or foreign (to the receiver) concept in a way no other effort at explanation can come near.

I feel in need of good analogies to fully appreciate what's what in politics these days, in the USA, and elsewhere - and in issues relating to "the economy". Luckily there are excellent journalists and commenters around who can oblige.

"One good analogy is worth three hours discussion."
(Dudley Field Malone)

Three quickies first:

From a commenter using the screen name conan 776 ( I regret losing the link to the website where I found this little gem). An analogy to illustrate socialism versus capitalism.

"If the government wants to move a pile of dirt from point A to B, buying a bulldozer and hiring an operator is socialism.

But if it contracts that out to a company, where the CEO gets 20%, the VP gets 15%, upper management gets 10%, lower management gets 7%, the lawyers get 5%, the author of the contract gets another 5%, the stockholders reap whatever else, and the operator gets minimum wage anyway, that's capitalism at it's finest!

And we wonder why government can't do anything under budget!"

Two referring to President Obama:

A sporting analogy from Tsalco, commenting on and improving another commenter's analogy at HuffPo on a piece by Steven Weber titled simply "Well...?"

"Obama doesn't punt on third down. He often huddles with the opposition­, while ignoring his own teams huddle altogether­. He tends to throw the game. He punts on first down BEFORE his own line is even in position."

One thing I would disagree with - Obama doesn't punt on third down. He often huddles with the opposition­, while ignoring his own teams huddle altogether­. He tends to throw the game. He punts on first down BEFORE his own line is even in position.

And from Noel Sheppard at Newsbusters - and this one can be related to much I and others interested in astrology have seen - the illusion of Neptune emanating from the Prez.

He is an illusion masterfully crafted by himself, his handlers, and his sychophant supporters in the press.
What (Robert) Redford and "so many others" are beginning to realize is that when you strip back the veneer, there's nothing but cheap particleboard held together with Elmer's Glue.

And one on finance from blog-buddy Jefferson's Guardian at No Corporate Rule, in his post of 31 August: Around the Monopoly Board

Whatever is happening, one thing's for sure. The lending institutions are making out like bandits. While they're drawing interest on public funds given to them to stay alive, they're capitalizing into derivatives, commodities, precious metals, and god know what else, while we're feeling the double-whammy of increased food prices, increased energy costs, and increased everything. It's like when we played Monopoly as kids, and one person had everything. Their stack of money just sat and didn't help anyone. All we could do was go around the board and hope to land on Community Chest (i.e., public assistance) or Free Parking (i.e., the lottery), but eventually we knew it was just a matter of time before we were sucked down the drain with the little money we had left. Our only other hope was going to jail. In our current real life scenario, that's not a pleasant thought.

Next, a stab at Libertarianism and Ayn Rand, but before launching into the next analogy, as this is an astrology blog, a look at Ayn Rand's natal chart. She was a Sun Aquarian, as I noted in a blog on Aquarius-types : Aquarius Pro & Con (Progressive & Conservative).

She was born in St. Petersburg, Russia on 2 February 1905. Astrodatabank gives a "C" rated birth time, probably rectified, not 100% to be trusted as accurate, but I've used it here anyway. The rising sign may or may not be as shown, Moon's degree likewise, but Moon would have been in Capricorn whatever her time of birth.



For me the key to Rand's right-wing conservative/libertarian views is the placement of Saturn in Aquarius, with a secondary key being Moon in Capricorn (ruled by Saturn). Aquarius Sun people are often politically inclined, with a yen to "change the world" in one direction or t'other - direction being governed by the rest of their chart, and by their own life experiences.

For an astrologer's interpretation of Ayn Rand's chart see Joseph Crane's take on it in the Astrology Institute's Newsletter, here.

Disclaimer: I have not read Atlas Shrugged, the long novel many see as Ayn Rand's "magnum opus" . The more I read about it the less inclined I feel to read it. The novel is said to portray the idea that a world in which the individual is not free to create is doomed, that civilization cannot exist where people are slaves to society and government, and that the destruction of the profit motive leads to the collapse of society.

There's an interesting piece by Cathy Young from 2005: Ayn Rand at 100.
Penultimate paragraph of that piece kind of describes the conflicting traits of Aquarius/Saturn/Capricorn within Ayn rand:

Rand herself was a creature of paradox. She was a prophet of freedom and individualism who tolerated no disobedience or independent thought in her acolytes, a rationalist who refused to debate her views. She was an atheist whose worship of Man led her to see the human mind as a godlike entity, impervious to the failings of the body or to environmental influences. (Nathaniel Branden reports that she even disliked the idea of evolution.) She was a strong woman who created independent heroines yet saw sexual submission as the essence of femininity and argued that no healthy woman would want to be president of the United States because it would put her above all men.

The best one-line review of Atlas Shrugged I came across in my searches is to read it in tandem with The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists, by Robert Tressell - a novel portraying the other side of the coin:

"Clearly frustrated at the refusal of his contemporaries to recognise the inequity and iniquity of society, Tressell's cast of hypocritical Christians, exploitative capitalists and corrupt councillors provide a backdrop for his main target — the workers who think that a better life is "not for the likes of them".

Balance is everything - in all things!

Back to analogyland then, and John Atcheson's piece from last week: Atlas Mugged: The Ayn Rand Six Step. Mr Atcheson uses the analogy of an apartment building as the USA.

Imagine your landlord coming to you one day and saying, “It’s everyone for himself. We’re not going to supply heat or water or electricity any longer, and we’re not going to conduct repairs.Of course, you and the rest of the tenants wouldn’t stand for such a thing . You’d kick him out if you could and move out if you couldn’t.

But suppose, over the years, he cuts the part of the portion of your rent that goes to utilities and repair work. Year after year, he’d stop by and announce his cuts with great fanfare, telling you how much money you’ll save.

On each visit, as he handed out the meager savings, he’d rail about how the utilities were incompetent, and filled with lazy workers, and that repair and maintenance work was a rip-off perpetrated by equally lazy laborers.

“We’re gonna show them,” he’d say, “The market will take care of these bozos.”

Meanwhile, year after year, you pay a little less. Things might get a little ragged. The maintenance man might not show up every day; the fire alarms might stop working; the elevators get stuck more, there’s an occasional power outage, water’s a bit murky … but there’s those savings.

Unbeknownst to you, most of the money the landlord saves is going to upgrade the top floor where he and his cronies live, bringing in their own dependable power and clean water. But you don’t investigate much because … there’s those savings.

Every time you passed him in the hall, he’d give you his spiel. “Those repair guys are thieves,” he’d tell you, again and again. “And you might as well burn money as give it to the utilities,” he’d say with a sage nod of his head. “Just wait ‘til those market forces hit, that’ll show them.” But he’d begin to add a new verse to his rant. “And hey. What about those gays in 3G? Or the Mexicans in 2D? Disgrace how they double up like that …”

Then finally, one year, he announces he can no longer afford to supply heat, electricity or water, and he can’t be repairing anything that breaks any longer. “Just not enough money – besides, look what’s happening around here … throwing more money at those lazy good-for-nothings is no solution.”

Now imagine complaining to him about the frozen pipes, or your child’s pneumonia and him responding with: “Hey. It’s all about the market – if you want it, figure out a way to get it – the market will provide if you’re diligent. Look at the top floor. Besides, it’s all the fault of those Mexicans. Or those gays … or …”

Would you believe that crap? Would you put up with it?

.......Call it the Ayan Rand six step. Step one: discredit government. Step two, starve it. Step three, when the underfunded government can’t perform, stand back and say “I told you so.” Step four, create the myth of the individual uber-alles – the Marlboro man on steroids; Step five, if anyone gets wise, find a scapegoat and blame it on them – gays, immigrants, government workers; government working gay immigrants. Step six, when things get bad, divide and conquer – “if it wasn’t’ for them…"

The whole comment thread is well worth perusing, but a couple of especially insightful comments ought to be highlighted here - these match my own thought. Several commenters agree that if the author of the piece is relating his analogy only to Republicans/Libertarians he is missing something. Both major parties in this two-party nation serve the same master.

At 2.06pm on 2 September in the comment thread Rick Wright commented:

....both parties ultimately serve the same social interests, but in different ways, utilizing different types of rhetoric, & appeals to different constituencies. The 2-party system is a kind of "division of labor," allowing the Repubs to specialize in appeals to nationalists, militarists, Christian evangelicals, anti-abortion fanatics, racists, militia types, libertarians, Red States, etc. Meanwhile the Dems specialize in herding constituencies like the liberal intelligentsia, groups connected to organized labor, & traditionally Blue State populations.
The point is that both parties are in effect working together to herd the entire population to submit to the prevailing social structure (including its enormous military establishment, & the 2-party system itself), with the corporate plutocracy sitting atop the social pyramid.

At 1.46pm on 2 September Obedient Servant wrote the following. (Hint...hint) the new character introduced ought to be ringing loud bells for any current or former Democrats!

.......it (Mr. Atcheson's piece) needs critical tweaks for the sake of authenticity, verisimilitude, and relevance.

For one thing, it's sorely lacking a Good Landlord to complement the Bad Landlord villain of the piece. You know-- a partner, perhaps a spouse, who meekly tiptoes around, ostensibly behind the Bad Landlord's back, and commiserates with the increasingly beleaguered tenants.

The Good Landlord administers tea and sympathy, whispers encouragement and even promises to the tenants, praises the maintenance staff, and is particularly solicitous to those lazy good-for-nothings scapegoated by the malignant but dominant Bad Landlord.

The Good Landlord by turns seems to cry real tears and shake a fist in real defiance when the Bad Landlord isn't around. In fact, the Good Landlord piteously stage-whispers that he or she would like to do so much more for the tenants, if the mean, bullying Bad Landlord didn't constantly intimidate it and thwart its best intentions.

To demonstrate his or her benevolence, the Good Landlord furtively hands out occasional amenities-- blankets, candles, matches, aspirin.

Oh, and the Good Landlord isn't above accepting, and even soliciting, tips and gratuities from the grateful and desperate tenants in return for his or her apparent good will and promises to usurp the Bad Landlord's place once he or she has sufficient resources and support to manage it.

Only then will the place become the Tenants' Paradise advertised in the prospectus!

Postscript for Monday 5 September ~~
It's Labor Day in the USA. A day on which, once upon a time, the people celebrated "the workers", their solidarity and their efforts. Nowadays it represents little more than a long weekend. Unions have been gradually de-fanged by successive governments. Solidarity among the workers scarcely exists now. If the lot of ordinary folk in the USA is ever to improve, some form of solidarity, something akin to the old union movements, will need to arise. Until then the working class (or as Americans for some reason prefer to call it "middle class") is right "up a creek without a paddle", and if things don't change soon, "without a canoe". Another analogy!

AQUARIUS PRO & CON (Progressive & Conservative)

We don't have to look far to see how unwise it is to expect people born with Sun in the same sign to have similar natures and outlooks on life. Aquarius may well lead the field of 12 when it comes to such differences, though Libra and Gemini come close in my experience. Perhaps it's due to their Airy Suns. Air is never static, even in the case of Fixed Air Aquarius.

Aquarius is usually represented by a human figure pouring water from an urn - symbolic of the circulation of ideas, pouring knowledge into the world at large. (I am womanfully trying to stifle my cynicism here; I know what's coming next!)

What brought me to these thoughts was the realisation that Sarah Palin and Glen Beck, described by one wag as "lipstick and dipstick" both have natal Sun in Aquarius, born a day apart - 10 and 11 February 1964. They might well have similarities one to another, but there IS another Sun Aquarian type, exemplified by Franklin D. Roosevelt (30 Jan. 1882), Adlai Stevenson (5 Feb. 1900), or Abraham Lincoln (12 Feb 1809).









Those men represent the way Aquarius presented in past centuries, however. Question: Are Palin and Beck representative of today's version of Aquarius, due to different positions of outer planets decade to decade, century to century? Especially bearing in mind that outer planet Uranus is Aquarius' modern ruler? Not really. Keith Olbermann (27 Jan.1959) and Glen Beck, though in the same business, broadly same age group, doing essentially the same job are almost the direct opposites in attitude and demeanour.

Although astrology links Aquarius to social reform and humanitarianism, and one road to these is politics, not all Sun Aquarians think alike as to how to bring about reforms and improvements. Take Ronald Reagan, Dick Cheney, US Chief Justice John Roberts - all VERY conservative in outlook - all would run screaming from the very idea of even the mildest, European form of democratic socialism, which I (also Sun Aquarius) see as being the best way to create a just and fair society and world.



Ayn Rand (2 Feb.1905) and Bertolt Brecht (10 Feb 1898), both writers, both politically inclined, one extreme right the other extreme left - opposite sides of the political divide.

Perhaps the best way to safely describe Aquarius Sun people is to say that many, or most have a inclination towards politics. My Pollyanna-ish idea, formed years ago, that Aquarius Sun people are always going to think as I do is wrong, wrong, wrong!

Another factor which could be in play here is that Aquarius has co-rulers: Saturn and Uranus. Saturn traditionally ruled the sign, before the discovery of Uranus. That these two planets stand for opposite ideas is significant. Saturn = conservative, status quo, authoritarianism, Uranus = forward thinking and change. Two other zodiac signs have co-rulers: Pisces has Jupiter/Neptune; Scorpio has Mars/Pluto. They do not suffer from the clash of opposites as does Aquarius. This could be a symbolic key to it all.....or not.

Dissecting natal charts of all those named in this post might present us with "evidence" for their variations in character and outlook, based on Moon sign, ascendant and other placements. But some fundamental differences lie not in the stars but in education, environment, experience and family background. Sun sign is just one component in a natal chart, astrology is just one component in the structure of character and personality.