Aug
24
A (brief) review of Atlas Shrugged (Updated x2)
August 24, 2009 | 41 Comments
Well, anything is brief compared to that insipid read.
In short, my feelings about the book are akin to those of Officer Barbrady. Though I will not discontinue reading for all eternity, the book did nearly sap me of my life precious.
I did have a few positive reactions to the book. It wasn’t nearly as dry or dull a read as I had expected. In fact, Ayn Rand’s prose style is eminently readable and somewhat engrossing.
Did I say a few? Okay, I really only had one nice comment because this book is both an artistic and philosophical nightmare.
Though Rand’s prose prevents the book from becoming completely tedious, the fact of the matter is that it is still long, and it feels long. I own a relatively small print edition of the book, and it still clocked in at 1,069 pages, and by about page 250 I was ready to wrap up. I can deal with long books – when they are good books, and when the author is not repetetive. Unfortunately Atlas Shrugged is not a good book but Ayn Rand is certainly repetitive. She had basically made her point effectively about a third of the way through, but she insisted on writing essentially the same dialogue for another 700 pages. We get it: producers are good, self-interest is a virtue, non-producers are scum. Understood. Stop repeating it.
There’s also the little problem that there are no realistic characters worth supporting. The villains are indeed villainous, but frankly the protagonists are no walk in the park. And does every single male character really need to fall in love with Dagny Taggart?
Speaking of falling in love, I didn’t think it was humanly possible to write worse sex scenes than Barry Eisler in the otherwise excellent John Rain series, but Rand takes out every romantic and humanizing aspect of love-making and turns it into an ugly and frankly repulsive act. I’m no prude, but I could have lived without what were essentially a bunch of rape scenes, for that’s the best way to describe Rand’s vision of sex.
Amazingly, Rand’s one virtue disappears at the book’s pinnacle moment: John Galt’s ponderous speech to the world. For 900 pages Rand had at least eloquently stated her philosophic vision, but that is completely erased by Galt’s excruciatingly dull and insipid talk. If I had been a member of the listening audience I would have turned off the radio and quickly made like Cheryl Taggart (Dagny’s sister-in-law, who ends up killing herself), because I would have realized that my only choices were a dehumanizing totalitarian system and a dehumanizing and boring capitalist system. Joy.
Besides, the speech doesn’t even make sense from the plot’s standpoint. The strikers have slowly been implementing their plan, and the way they choose to finally go public is a three-hour lecture? Would that actually work in the real world? I’m sure people had longer attention spans in 1957, but there are limits to anyone’s endurance.
And that leads to the philosophic problems with the book, namely with Rand’s objectivist philosophy. Now as a conservative with libertarian sympathies, especially as it relates to economics, one would expect me to agree with much of what Rand has written. In a word, no. In two words, hell no. Oh, that’s right, there is no hell.
The atheism is only a small part of the issue with objectivism. Galt (and thus Rand’s) objection to the concept of original sin is naive, but even absent this aspect of objectivism, it remains a dehumanizing and abhorrent moral philosophy. Rand detests totalitarianism, it is true, but other writers have written better and less repugnant works in defense of capitalism and against totalitarianism. If libertarians and conservatives wish to seek out inspirational works on the topic, they are better off with the likes of George Orwell, C.S. Lewis, Thomas Sowell, Wilhelm Roepke, F.A. Hayek and countless others.
The fundamental problem is that Rand is as naive about human nature as the socialist utopians. After all, a utopian is a utopian, whether they are Marxian or Randian utopians. Therefore the rejection of the concept of original sin is something of a problem because it blinds Rand to the idea that human beings cannot simply shut off their passionate desires. If totalitarians are blind to the reality that human nature cannot be perfected, Rand is blind to the fact that the altruistic tendencies of humans cannot similarly be wiped out. Believe it or not, we are social beings (Aristotle and Aquinas being right), and it is simply unrealistic – and Rand is supposed to be about reason and realism – to expect humans to simply ignore these aspects of their personality.
It is as if Rand desired to turn Rousseau on his head. I expected her to write at some point that the “man who feels is a depraved animal.” Where Rousseau and his followers glorified the passions, the Randians put reason above all else. Neither seems to understand that humans are reasonable and passionate animals, and to deny either aspect of their natures is to reject human nature altogether.
It is understandable why Rand’s works might be popular these days. Some of what she wrote about clearly strikes a chord, and she wasn’t a complete crank in that regard. But surely we can reject the opposite extreme. So let’s not go all John Galt, because then I might be forced to go all Cheryl Taggart.
Update: Donald McLarey links to the excellent Whittaker Chambers review from National Review. Also check out Maclin Horton’s blog post, and do note the ensuing kerfuffle in the comments section. (Pay particular attention to the very first commenter.) H/t: Chris Blosser.
Update 2: Again courtesy of Christopher Blosser, Objectivism Illustrated:
Comments
41 Comments so far
So, the rejection of original sin (the idea that you are innately evil through no choice of your own) is “naive.” You are calling for a fait accompli that man is evil as an absolute. Nice.
You complain about the passionate sex (it is never r_pe, sorry REJECTED) yet excoriate her for for championing reason as an absolute. Seeming contradiction, right? Check your premises.
Note: your blog will not allow me to submit with the word meant by r_pe, even though the essay itself contains the word.
Your understanding of original sin is as misguided as Ayn Rand’s. I suggest that you, ahem, check your premises.
And if you want to describe the sex as “passionate,” well, I guess I’m glad I’m not Mrs. Donohue.
Good review Paul. Now I know not to read it
Never thought I wanted to, anyway.
I will merely link to this and say ditto:
http://www.nationalreview.com/flashback/flashback200501050715.asp
Thanks, Donald. I was just thinking of that review, so I am glad you linked to it.
Yes of course you were thinking of that giant piece of garbage by a Communist spy but did not have the guts to spew it yourself. I could hear you thinking it when I read the essay. You are transparent.
Original sin means: through no action, choice thought or moral betrayal of my own, I am evil. That’s what it means. To Catholics, you are born as a sinner, right? Unless “by the miracle of a magic sacrament” you are not cleansed of this evil you were born with, you go to hell or limbo or some such torture, right?
And if you say recent Popes have moderated that hateful position, then please apologize to the billions that lived under threat of it for the last 2000 years and still believe it today.
I know why Ayn Rand irritates Catholics on the Original Sin issue. She gets it. She sees it for what it is. She talks about it a lot. She exposes it as an anti-man irrational belief.
To anyone else reading this about the sex: the author is cherry picking the intense sexual scenes (the ones that scare him), all of which are powerful, beautiful and consensual, and conveniently ignoring the direct and indirect descriptions of happy, loving erotic exchanges.
Exellent review. To not believe in Original Sin is utterly naive. Those who claim that man is only responsible for his own actions and not also his ancestors, are revealing a view on man that leads to totalitarianism. That is just self evident. It goes without saying that man is not responsible for his own character and actions and should not therefore delude himself into thinking that he is not the logical outcome of the actions of Eve in the eh, well, Garden of Eve. Eve, which was as we all know a bitch that had the viciousness to eat fruit and seek knowledge and so corrupt the nature of man for eternity. It is unbelievable that anyone can question this scientifically, evidence-based description of human nature. These Objectivists must be evildoers par excellence. Thank God we have non-naive, creationist bible Seers who can correct the naive ways of Ayn Rand et. al. As for all the disgusting p*rn in Atlas Shrugged, i.e. the descriptions of passionate sex between two consenting adults, I completely agree that Ayn Rand is over the top. We all know that sex is dirty and a duty we only perform to procreate our degenerate species.
LOL
“Yes of course you were thinking of that giant piece of garbage by a Communist spy but did not have the guts to spew it yourself.”
Chambers, was of course an ex-communist spy who did his very best to expose Alger Hiss and the rest of his espionage ring. Your knowledge of history is apparently as inadequate as your knowledge of Rand. Typical for an “Objectivist”.
As Mrs. Cranky, I’m laughing my ass off at the description of the Crankycon as a sexually repressed creationist bible thumper. But I digress…
I read Atlas Shrugged at age 18, and was very taken with it the way one can be when confronted with big ideas in early adulthood. I never found her atheism compelling, and I’ve moved on in the last 12 years. That being said, Atlas Sh. was a stepping point in my conservative conversion. I can’t completely dismiss the book.
As for the love scenes, I just think they are badly written. It is difficult to write good love scenes that don’t sound cheesy, silly, or like p-rn. What I found most ridiculous about the romantic relationships in A.S. is that attraction seems based on ones productive qualities. “Oh you’re so sexy. I must have you. You workaholic single minded steel magnet.”
[...] Zummo (Crankycon) has written an good review of Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged: The atheism is only a small part of the issue with objectivism. Galt (and thus Rand’s) objection [...]
Having made my way through a third of Atlas Shrugged, I admire your stamina. Even so, I can relate to “the shorter Ayn Rand”.
through no action, choice thought or moral betrayal of my own, I am evil. That’s what it means. To Catholics, you are born as a sinner, right?
Um, no. The doctrine is not that people are evil or are born sinners, but rather that people have a tendency towards evil and are born into the tribe (for lack of a better word) of sinners.
Nothing is more efficient than raising small children to help one to the realization that our innate response to situations is generally selfish, and that developing virtue (which certainly possible — thus it would be wrong to say that we are evil) is a long and often difficult process. Learning that the proper response to a difficult question is not to lie, and that the proper response to seeing someone else with something you want is not to take it away by force is something which does not come naturally to people, but rather must be inculcated.
And yes, to think otherwise does seem rather shockingly naive.
“…our innate response to situations is generally selfish.”
Rand recognized this and actually embraced it. In fact it was central to her philosophy. Except, instead of seeing it as a negative, she exposed it for what it really is: an undeniable fact around which all human beings revolve.
Every choice we make is inherently selfish, and in fact it is impossible to make a non-selfish decision. To do so would be to disrespect your beliefs and, in essence, commit moral suicide.
The problem is that many people misunderstand the idea of selfishness and only assume it to mean an action that benefits the doer in the short-term, irregardless of the effect it has on those around him/her. But, due to the fact that men in a social environment are largely reliant on the respect and cooperation of those around them, such a view on selfishness would be extremely incompetent resulting in “selfish” actions that have negative consequences for the doer in the long run.
What Rand spent her lifetime attempting to describe, was the beautiful way in which human beings can live together if each were to regard their own personal happiness and prosperity above all else. Rather than treating man as a sacrificial animal to the herd, in which all men must then suffer, Rand elevates the individual to the highest pedestal, enabling everyone to seek the betterment of society at large through the betterment of each man at his own will.
If men are in fact inherently selfish, why not teach them how to embrace their selfishness and use it to their benefit. To become a criminal and evildoer in society is not a selfish act, but rather a self-destructive one. To build good relationships with the world around you and give value back to that world will reward you in the long run, and is the real selfish action that men must pursue.
I think that most moral teachings attempt to reach this conclusion, but unfortunately in a way that relegates the individual to a position in which they cannot possibly contribute their highest value to society.
If you truly believe in the betterment of society as a whole, let each man pursue his own happiness, and allow the consequences of each man’s actions teach him/her the moral code of selfishness in the long run.
Ugh, sorry about the wall of text. It didn’t look as long in the textbox ><
[...] Over at CrankyCon, Paul Zummo offers a brief review of Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged: The atheism is only a small part of the issue with objectivism. Galt (and thus Rand’s) objection [...]
What Rand spent her lifetime attempting to describe, was the beautiful way in which human beings can live together if each were to regard their own personal happiness and prosperity above all else. Rather than treating man as a sacrificial animal to the herd, in which all men must then suffer, Rand elevates the individual to the highest pedestal, enabling everyone to seek the betterment of society at large through the betterment of each man at his own will.
In a certain sense (and working from premises that Rand would disagree with) this is no different from what Christianity teaches within the context of original sin — that people must learn to pursue the highest good, that that this will in the end prove to be of the greatest benefit both to themselves and to others.
The problem is, Rand deviates from what I think reality to be in a number of key areas:
- She didn’t think God existed, and thus her concept of “good” was ultimately materialistic and to an extent relative.
- She didn’t understand sexuality to be contextualized within an overall meaning (other than mutual pleasure) for relations between persons.
- She didn’t understand the limits of physical “good” and the extent to which human thriving.
And so on.
She also seems, by your account, to have misunderstood what it is that traditional theologies and philosophies in Western Culture are actually saying. Neither Aquinas or Augustine, nor Plato or Aristotle argues that our fundamental purpose is to sacrifice ourselves for the “herd”.
This book sounds like nothing but a temper tantrum in defense of privilege.
In reality, no one would care if CEOs went on strike. Assuming that the means of production could still be operated by the workers – that they weren’t locked out and threatened by the police – business at all levels could continue as usual.
Also, the end of that book – replacing the sign of the cross with the sign of the dollar? And there are Catholics that stand up for this trash?
Christianity is a lot of things; important for this discussion is that it is Matthew 25, which in no way can be reconciled with AS. We are to be judged on the basis of how we cared for the least of our brothers, not the extent to which, and the glee we felt, as we trampled them underfoot. That’s elementary.
My freshman journalism professor warned me that it might be best to put off reading Rand until I was at least 30. I wish I had listened.
These are the warmest fuzziest spin jobs on “original sin” I’ve heard. I guess DeNile is a very pretty brook in Egypt with flowers and goldfish.
Or perhaps you’re just an ignoramus who doesn’t really understand the concept. Either/or I guess.
Original sin, as described in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Section 405:
Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin – an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence”. Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.
OS states that we are born with an inclination toward sin, not as actual sinners. Which is what Augustine, and the Council of Trent following him, taught (i.e., so much for the recent revision argument).
In other words, your formulation is wrong, Mr. Donohue. Care to retract?
Every choice we make is inherently selfish, and in fact it is impossible to make a non-selfish decision. To do so would be to disrespect your beliefs and, in essence, commit moral suicide.
This is exactly why people who study philosophy seriously generally see Rand as a joke – this is a serious misunderstanding of the concepts of decision, motive, intention, and selfishness. One can either broaden the term “selfish” so that it describes all intentional action, or one can restrict it so that it indicates certain more specific motives and character traits – what one cannot do, without serious error, is to simply conflate the two, and pass from the trivial point that all actions, if they’re actions, are selfish in the first sense, to the controversial (and false) point that all actions are selfish in the second sense.
No retraction. You are simply constructing reality as you wish.
You posit “sin” as presuppositional axiomatic truth; we are supposed to know what that is and that the ‘definition’ is beyond challenge. So,since you don’t have to justify what ‘sin’ is, you can spin it to what you want it to be. On a day when you want sin to be not so evil, it can be “an inclination” and all the birdies along DeNile twitter; it’s okay that man is born with this unfortunate but not so awful Original Sin. The next day when you want sin to be a sword of death, you can say that a ‘sinner’ who does not get cleansed will burn in hellfire for eternity.
In either case, God and Jesus are required. That is a racket.
If you not in DeNile (trying out different spellings) about that, then admit that an Objectivist, someone who has no god, no supernatural, no higher authority, no heaven or earth and no un-earned guilt in his soul, will still spend eternity with God, the Catholic God, the day he dies.
As for calling me an “ignoramus”, hey shut the hell up. I know FAR FAR more about Catholicism than you do or ever will about objective reality, let alone Ayn Rand. That is revealed in your smarmy and ignorant essay about Atlas Shrugged.
Yes, no doubt you have a better understanding of what the Church actually teaches than Popes, Cardinals, and adherents of the faith. Thank you for sharing the knowledge you have acquired from Dan Brown novels and Bill Maher documentaries.
By the way, I don’t think Ms. Rand would find your trolling of internet comboxes to be very productive. I think your behavior is much more representative of the looters she spent so much precious time bitching about.
1) You started this by trolling Ayn Rand. Does God think that is ‘wasting your time?’
2) I did not claim I know more than some church dignitary, only that I know more about Catholicism than you do about objective reality or Ayn Rand.
If I had to explain to her why I was taking the time, I’d say “well Miss Rand just like Galt did not approved Ragnar’s methods, you might not approve my role as the ‘rude Objectivist’. Anyway, it only takes a minute to smack them and I am practicing my objection handling, street fighter style to be ready for any actual battles.”
hmmm….just saw the so-called updates above.
first, i revisited that other hit piece. You know, I was far too kind over there. Ive grown less tolerant since fall of ’08, thank God.
Second, i really don’t ‘get’ that tree illustration.
“1) You started this by trolling Ayn Rand. Does God think that is ‘wasting your time?”
First of all, posting something on one’s own personal blog is hardly trolling. Secondly, now, God does not think that CrankyCon is wasting his time. “Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them.” – Ephesians 5:11. CrankyCon is exposing un unfruitful work od darkness.
“2) I did not claim I know more than some church dignitary, only that I know more about Catholicism than you do about objective reality or Ayn Rand.”
You posited that Original Sin meant that people were born evil. People reproved you, and you claimed that they didn’t know what they were talking about. They cite the specific claim in the official teaching of their religious body, and you claim still that they don’t know what they’re talking about. Therefore you are claiming to know more about Original Sin than the Church dignitaries who formulated it, promulgated it, taught it, and continue to teach it.
For the record, the doctrine of Original Sin is the statement that nature of human beings has been wounded. That people naturally, that is by their natures, desire that which is good. However, for reasons that puzzled, and continure to puzzle philosophers, people do not always do what is good. They make bad choices, and choose to do bad things, including good people. The doctrine of Original Sin stated a bit differently than normal, says that human beings’ moral sight is clouded, and that they don’t necessarily see the good completely clearly. It is clouded as through a glass darkly. So they make poor choices and choose to things that are not good, but bad or even evil. Baptism removes the wound of original sin, as a field surgeon might stitch up a wound on a soldier. However, the scar of original sin remains, and just like a battle-wounded soldier, the peerson baptized may not regain full use of his faculties. Thus, even baptized people will commit sin and not see clearly, some might even become objectivists. But, the Church teaches that there is eternally hope for them.
Anyway, it only takes a minute to smack them and I am practicing my objection handling, street fighter style to be ready for any actual battles.”
Wow. Not only does your grammar suck, but you also have a deluded sense of self worth. For all the “street fighter” smacking down that you’ve done, have you actually ever converted anyone to your cause? I mean look at you. You go around trolling websites where Rand is considered a joke, and she’s considered a joke by about 99% of the people who treat philosophy seriously. Your system has been tried by no one, and will never be adapted by any society as long as the Earth exists. Where is the productivity in that? And for all of your obsession with this infantile creed, what exactly have you produced? Why is it that the only people who even know you exist are blog writers and commenters? Still working on that great invention that will make life better for us all, are you on strike?
No, I imagine if you ever had to explain yourself to Miss Rand, she would stop you first to ask who the hell you are.
No retraction. You are simply constructing reality as you wish.
You posit “sin” as presuppositional axiomatic truth; we are supposed to know what that is and that the ‘definition’ is beyond challenge.
Goalpost moving: the first refuge of the refuted scoundrel. Followed by the inevitable squirt of electronic ink to surround the refuge.
You know this is not that difficult: correctly representing what a particular religion teaches about a particular subject is not a metaphysical exercise. In fact, it is quite falsifiable. Your comment about what Catholicism teaches about original sin is manifestly false.
It is the equivalent of saying that Sunni Muslims teach that the Koran is a created book written by Muhammad. This is an *objectively* false statement, one that should be retracted when called upon it. As is obvious to anyone with a shred of honesty and integrity, regardless of how one happens to feel about specifically Islamic truth claims.
Likewise here, with your *objectively* false statement of what Catholics teach about original sin. The Catechism demonstrates the falsity of your argument.
The proper response (from anyone with a shred of honesty and integrity) is to say–”Oops–got that one wrong.” Instead of, say, changing the subject, thumping your chest about how much you allegedly know about the religion in question, repeating borrowed catchphrases about “DeNile,” (objectivist creativity?), and calling the blog host an ignoramus.
Nevertheless, I accept your concession.
Your blog is not private. It is indexed on Google and therefore what you write is exposed to the world. A hit piece on Ayn Rand will draw attention.
I do not care one bit what Catholics supposedly “teach” Original Sin is. (I challenge even your claims, however: I am highly aware, that in dogma and practice the teaching has not always and does not always match your hyper-mild formulations above.)
What matters is the effect of the Catholic construction of reality. That’s what I have been addressing and you all evade. I made that clear above, but your hubris is so titanic you think your constructed theoretical definition or a verse from the Bible is reality, not the operative effect of the notion of Original Sin.
I need not repeat my identification of your spinning “sin” and its polar “good.” I could list a huge number of acts that Catholics consider sinful, now and in the past, which are indeed actually loving, life-giving and affirmative, and stupendously large numbers of things Catholics have and do consider “good” that are downright hateful and destructive.
So enjoy your illusion that you think I don’t have your spun definition “down.” I have it down. It is irrelevant compared to the actual practice and effect. I want to discuss the effect, not your definition.
That effect — not your cover story — is: man needs God to save him. Without God he is defective and evil and doomed.
I have no idea why you people are so concerned with my productivity in life. It is unknown to you, and therefore judging it blind is bizarrely foolish. Desperate.
To Dale, you make the same error, that I was commenting on what the Church teaches. I don’t care what you teach, and I dispute you even HAVE a consistent teaching on it.
I called the host an ignoramus to insult him. If he retracts calling me one, I will do the same.
And…..what concession did I make?
To Dale, you make the same error, that I was commenting on what the Church teaches. I don’t care what you teach, and I dispute you even HAVE a consistent teaching on it.
Bullshit. You are such a transparent fraud, Donahue. To review–here are your words:
Original sin means: through no action, choice thought or moral betrayal of my own, I am evil. That’s what it means. To Catholics, you are born as a sinner, right?
Wrong. As in every last statement you made. Absolute, utter falsehood. Confronted with the fact your understanding was false, you chose to double-down, changing the subject not once (uh…it’s a meaningless concept!), not twice (uhhhh…I wasn’t talking about what you guys teach!), but three times (uhhhhhhh…what you say about it isn’t consistent anyway!).
Actually, the only things that lack consistency in this thread are your arguments. Such as they are.
Your utter lack of honesty and integrity have been duly noted. Changing the subject a fourth time would be gilding the stinkweed, so spare us that. That, and three tacit concessions are enough.
This is easy and I don’t have to swear. I’ll just re-quote.
Original sin means: through no action, choice thought or moral betrayal of my own, I am evil. That’s what it means. To Catholics, you are born as a sinner, right?
I stand by that. However, I will amplify for clarify and moderate the rhetoric. When I say and said “Original sin means….” I was not and am not referring to what Catholic authorities or the bible or Encyclicals or Augustine “say” it means. I refer to what it actually comes down to in reality. Now, I fault myself for not pounding that difference home higher up in this discussion. My lack of hammering and the responses that relentlessly assault me for ‘not knowing the “teaching”‘ . . . granted you would be unhappy.
In analyzing Original Sin I am not, however, confined to the teaching; I can shift to the reality.
Note that there is and was a context: Ayn Rand. Rand heard and understood what has been “taught” as the meaning of Original Sin for millennia, including the notion that “man is born with free will, but with a “tendency” to evil.” Her specific attack on the Doctrine of Original Sin is not on the dogma, but on the actual effect, the damage to a human soul when confronted with the existential meaning of this concept. This essay is on Ayn Rand and invokes Original Sin. It was a fair assumption on my part that the author was aware of Rand’s iconoclastic and famous skewering of Original Sin.
So, let’s try again…..a reformulation, not of what the Catholic authorities teach, but what is the actual impact on a human person:
Original Sin: through no volition (action, choice, thought or moral betrayal of my own), I am yet a sinner. Since no one is perfect except Jesus, I will sin. I am born a sinner. You need God for redemption. You can’t save your immortal soul after death unless you surrender to God and become cleansed of sin.
NOTE: my pointing out the presupposed definition of “sin” and “good” above in this thread has not even been factored into my argument. Just a reminder that it looms.
I am still unaware of any concessions I made except as noted (didn’t hammer enough) above
Dale:
Forget it. John is too obtuse and ignorant to even bother dealing with. Let him pretend he’s made his point so he can go back to his imagination land where he’s the champion of the great objectivist cause -the same land where more than 10 people actually think it isn’t a farce of an ideology.
No problem, CC. It’s your porch–I’m happy just to be a guest here.
[...] been interested in the reaction to my review of Atlas Shrugged which Chris Blosser linked to here. First of all, it might be the only thing [...]
Anyone who would list Orwell among defenders of capitalism really oughtn’t write too many book reviews.
I wasn’t referring to Orwell’s views on capitalism, but rather his hostility to totalitarianism.
[...] A (brief) review of Atlas Shrugged by Paul Zummo (The Cranky Conservative) [...]