Scan barcode
draybaum's review against another edition
Oh no ! The poor billionaires are being oppressed after making all the jobs :’(. This author is literally insane and has absolutely no understanding of human nature, statistics, motivations or even an ounce of empathy for people with less than ideal circumstances. We are more than just greed, we are social animals. A main point of this book appears to be : follow logic and listen to data and yet the author ignores all data and makes ridiculous unfounded assumptions. Billionaires are allegedly the most brilliant of humanity and the uneducated are the ones to make scientific discovery but years of Vigorous tests confirms that title belongs to doctors, scientists, and mathematicians while the average iq of businessmen is startlingly low. The author claims that a government would insist on monopolies when that’s exactly the opposite of what they do, unbound capitalism and a free market automatically leads to monopolies as it is in the interest of the profits of the business to consume others and decrease competition so as to inflate prices (as we see today with insulin) . The author claims the great sufferers of society are the wealthy business owners and yet the people around them are starving and destitute and studies indicate a strong link to destitution and lack of motivation and when these people are given a head start their motivation changes (perhaps because they actually have hope and access to fair work conditions).
I’m convinced she is psychopathic and demonizes empathy, the only characteristic that has kept humans from destroying ourselves with the nuclear bombs we possess
My boss (who makes 10x what I make) told me to read this and I sincerely regret it especially the 90% of it that is repetitive circular arguments that can be made by a 14 year old and easily refuted with dozens of peer reviewed studies . A pathetic dated McCarthyism shitpile. They act as though business owners (not bound by any moral duties to the people in any official capacity) are the ones who are moral while the careers founded on morality and the general interest of humanity, are immoral and corrupt with absolutely no evidence to back up the claim. Every single scientific advancement that leads to increased profits is undoubtedly out through and the verification process by experts in their fields and spent years of study are necessary for the safety of consumers.
It’s pathetic that this book totes logic but the author is unable to use actual data and follow logical conclusions to their end point.
While a professor might say “ everything is relative and nothing has meaning” it is not a literal fact and is always followed by “there is objective rules we have tested and devoted our lives to learning and adjusting for the benefit of humanity” but she leaves this part out because it implodes her ridiculous circumstances and arguments.
The key ingredient missing in her utopia is that there are no billionaires or industrialists who have any capability to do any of the skills of those that they employ let alone to do dishes or build a house or even do their own laundry without the help of servants. The winners of capitalism are those who know how to skim from the top or exploit those with actual skills that is why the average scientist makes a fraction of a fraction of what a stockbroker makes. This idea that the mind attracts money ignores the corruption of capitalism and the logical path of exploitation to profit. This is why government accountable to people (which corporations are not ) has the duty to skim this fat they take and insert it back into the economy and rule out corporate corruption and excess greed. So unfortunate all of these people don’t critically think when reading this book and compare her ideal with real facts and logic.
So pathetic that people are stupid enough to gobble this up without actually looking at facts data and figures as the protagonist claims to do.
I’m convinced she is psychopathic and demonizes empathy, the only characteristic that has kept humans from destroying ourselves with the nuclear bombs we possess
My boss (who makes 10x what I make) told me to read this and I sincerely regret it especially the 90% of it that is repetitive circular arguments that can be made by a 14 year old and easily refuted with dozens of peer reviewed studies . A pathetic dated McCarthyism shitpile. They act as though business owners (not bound by any moral duties to the people in any official capacity) are the ones who are moral while the careers founded on morality and the general interest of humanity, are immoral and corrupt with absolutely no evidence to back up the claim. Every single scientific advancement that leads to increased profits is undoubtedly out through and the verification process by experts in their fields and spent years of study are necessary for the safety of consumers.
It’s pathetic that this book totes logic but the author is unable to use actual data and follow logical conclusions to their end point.
While a professor might say “ everything is relative and nothing has meaning” it is not a literal fact and is always followed by “there is objective rules we have tested and devoted our lives to learning and adjusting for the benefit of humanity” but she leaves this part out because it implodes her ridiculous circumstances and arguments.
The key ingredient missing in her utopia is that there are no billionaires or industrialists who have any capability to do any of the skills of those that they employ let alone to do dishes or build a house or even do their own laundry without the help of servants. The winners of capitalism are those who know how to skim from the top or exploit those with actual skills that is why the average scientist makes a fraction of a fraction of what a stockbroker makes. This idea that the mind attracts money ignores the corruption of capitalism and the logical path of exploitation to profit. This is why government accountable to people (which corporations are not ) has the duty to skim this fat they take and insert it back into the economy and rule out corporate corruption and excess greed. So unfortunate all of these people don’t critically think when reading this book and compare her ideal with real facts and logic.
So pathetic that people are stupid enough to gobble this up without actually looking at facts data and figures as the protagonist claims to do.
quasario's review against another edition
3.0
Paul Krugman: "There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs."
mhumby123's review against another edition
5.0
This book changes you...these kind of the books are the best kind. “I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine"
tinab4's review against another edition
challenging
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
0.25
midwifereading's review against another edition
4.0
Once again, I find myself annoyed that I didn't take notes while reading this ginormous tome, to keep my thoughts together in order to write a review. Not that a piece of classic literature needs a review.
Anyway, I thought I would just share my own personal take-aways from Atlas Shrugged. Here's what I liked about what it had to say:
-The "greater good" argument is total bunk. I've always thought it was, but Ayn Rand sums up why I think this. Doing things "for the greater good" always results from the willingness to sacrifice the few to the many. If your "greater good" requires sacrificial victims, then I am not on board. Ever.
-One should not be ashamed to have a profit motive. Just because someone is doing something to make money does not make them inherently greedy. Some of the most generous people are able to be so generous because they make a lot of money!!!
-Needs should never be mistaken for rights. Just because you need something does not mean you have a right to someone else's labor.
-Just because someone is driven by passion and a calling, does not mean that anyone else is entitled to the fruits of their success.
-Do not be ashamed of success. Get government out of the way to let producers actually make things.
-You are not obligated to rescue anyone whose failure has bankrupted them.
Here's what I didn't like:
-She makes God out to be the arbiter of "sacrifce is the highest virtue," as if that's a bad thing. I think what she doesn't understand is that God never commands us to demand sacrifice of others, but to instead be responsible for laying down our own lives. I get that she's trying to say that, if you are successful, do not let the world guilt you into giving away your success, just because they want it. But there is a time and a place for self-sacrifice.
-Happiness and pride are the highest forms of virtue.
-Her utopian view of the hidden valley is as unrealistic as any other utopia we can conceive of, because it presumes the basic moral goodness of its residents and producers.
My conclusion:
I am so glad I read this book. It's full of so much that validates my own views, but there are definitely several basic premises that I disagree with on a fundamental level. I can see myself reading this again. Even though it probably could have been told in half the pages.
Anyway, I thought I would just share my own personal take-aways from Atlas Shrugged. Here's what I liked about what it had to say:
-The "greater good" argument is total bunk. I've always thought it was, but Ayn Rand sums up why I think this. Doing things "for the greater good" always results from the willingness to sacrifice the few to the many. If your "greater good" requires sacrificial victims, then I am not on board. Ever.
-One should not be ashamed to have a profit motive. Just because someone is doing something to make money does not make them inherently greedy. Some of the most generous people are able to be so generous because they make a lot of money!!!
-Needs should never be mistaken for rights. Just because you need something does not mean you have a right to someone else's labor.
-Just because someone is driven by passion and a calling, does not mean that anyone else is entitled to the fruits of their success.
-Do not be ashamed of success. Get government out of the way to let producers actually make things.
-You are not obligated to rescue anyone whose failure has bankrupted them.
Here's what I didn't like:
-She makes God out to be the arbiter of "sacrifce is the highest virtue," as if that's a bad thing. I think what she doesn't understand is that God never commands us to demand sacrifice of others, but to instead be responsible for laying down our own lives. I get that she's trying to say that, if you are successful, do not let the world guilt you into giving away your success, just because they want it. But there is a time and a place for self-sacrifice.
-Happiness and pride are the highest forms of virtue.
-Her utopian view of the hidden valley is as unrealistic as any other utopia we can conceive of, because it presumes the basic moral goodness of its residents and producers.
My conclusion:
I am so glad I read this book. It's full of so much that validates my own views, but there are definitely several basic premises that I disagree with on a fundamental level. I can see myself reading this again. Even though it probably could have been told in half the pages.
teokajlibroj's review against another edition
1.0
Horrendous book that was unnecessarily long and the most unrealistic characters in unbelievable scenarios. Each character was either a capitalist (in which case they would be extremely beautiful, extremely smart and succeed in everything they do) or a moocher (in which case they would be fat, ugly, stupid, cowardly and complete failures). Most of the book involves businesses making decisions no business would ever make, governments passing laws that no government would ever pass and individuals making speeches that no one would ever make.
There are far too many fallacies, strawmen and factual inaccuracies for me to debunk here, but suffice the say that the book is so ridiculous that only the most extreme libertarian could agree with it.
There are far too many fallacies, strawmen and factual inaccuracies for me to debunk here, but suffice the say that the book is so ridiculous that only the most extreme libertarian could agree with it.
lerkk_a's review against another edition
challenging
hopeful
reflective
tense
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
3.5
galidar's review against another edition
1.0
I could write a long review here, but I'll sum this up real fast:
No. Just...no.
No. Just...no.
votesforwomen's review against another edition
4.0
This was really, really thought-provoking.
I'll come right out and say it: I am, in fact, a capitalist. So this book didn't challenge my ideology so much as confirm it, although I don't agree with much of Rand's objectivism. In fact, I have a great many bones to pick with her ideology, but I don't really want to go into a ton of that here.
I think this book falls into two categories: the story and the philosophy. The story is the conductor for the philosophy, but they're still somewhat separate elements, even if the story could not exist without the philosophy. So...I'll deal with them both as separate elements xD
STORY:
The story is deeply complex and vast in scope. We've got Dagny Taggart, our heroine, a whip-smart business executive who runs a train company and has horrible taste in men. We've got Hank Rearden, the steel tycoon who's only loosely based on John D. Rockefeller and who really isn't as sympathetic as he seems at the beginning. We've got Eddie Willers, the only decent man in this story in terms of morality, who's really just trying to do his job. Then there's Jim Taggart, who's a horrible, horrible person and needs to die. Lillian Rearden was my least favorite character in the whole book--while I could have felt bad for her if she'd let herself be the victim, the way she played everyone else was infuriating and I honestly completely understood why Hank hated her. The cast of both heroes and villains was vast. I loved that.
In terms of plot: this honestly read a lot like your average YA dystopian. We've got Special Snowflake Girl Dagny, who's completely unaware that she's sort of the driving force of a revolution even as she opposes it. There's four separate guys who are in love with her; this kind of drove me crazy. Every one of those guys (except for one, who was my favorite character overall because he was just Plain Nice) is the aggressive alpha male type guy who has a creepily strong sex drive and feels the need to act on his rush of feelings long before he actually states his love. The sexuality in this novel was entirely of one nature, and I hated it, if I'm being frank, which is part of the reason for the deducted star. Faaaar too much on-screen sex and the attitude of the characters toward it...I was quite uncomfortable with that whole thing. xD So...definitely can't recommend on that count.
The story was a negative arc, honestly. It starts out with the pinnacle of big businesses and only proceeds to spiral downward from them. I hated that. I hated it more than I could say. But not in a stars-deducted way--in a fury at the characters sort of way. The emotion of this story was expertly written, especially for a story that is supposed to not deal with emotions and only be about the mind. So...points for that.
The ending was another negative point for me. I felt it was remarkably weak, but that's to be expected with a story this long and detailed. How do you land a 1,100 page novel dealing with so many social issues? I don't know, and Rand doesn't seem to either. It was an okay ending in the context of the story, but I would have liked to see a different ending. Not sure what...but I digress xD
Dagny was a very compelling heroine, even if I hated her decisions as regarded men. I started out liking Hank, very quickly learned to hate him, and then had sort-of forgiven him by the end of the story. John...oh, what to say? Who is John Galt? Much of the rest of the cast ran together, although their roles are very iconic (a philosopher pirate? A copper baron playboy? A Cinderella story that ends in utter tragedy?) It's well done and I genuinely enjoyed this purely as a novel. Was it infuriating? Was it annoying? Was it aggravating? Yes to all of that. But...I liked it at the same time. I liked it a lot. I was addicted. xD
Now for:
THE PHILOSOPHY
This book gave two sorts of cautionary tales: one regarding the state of the economy when the government takes over, and one regarding the fact that when man lives without God, man's depravity will unconditionally take over.
The anti-capitalism presented in this story was terrifying. I dislike socialism and I'm not afraid to admit that, but the view of it presented by Rand horrified me. I was especially riveted by Jeff Allen's description of the Twentieth Century Motor Factory; here the ideal of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" was put into practice on a small scale, and oh, what a concept this book gave of it. After all, how can we really decide what a man's "ability" and "need" are? Rand's answer--men vote on it, and use it to throw their fellow men under the bus. It's dangerous. It's a dangerous notion and a dangerous act to put into practice.
Yeah, I'm a capitalist, and I'm proud to admit it xD
But in terms of the depravity...oh, such depravity.
That's why I'm not going to embrace objectivism. Rand is unapologetically an atheist and her characters are too, and there is no kindness or love in their hearts. "I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine" is the mantra of the man characters...and I have a problem with that. Kindness is not weakness. Selflessness is not weakness. Giving to others does not reduce you in esteem. And oh, what horrific things were done by even the good characters. They don't need God, for they are their own gods...and that is a terrible thing for man to embrace.
Who is John Galt? That is the question this massive tome undertakes to answer, and while it takes forever to get there, it does answer it. In detail, great detail. It's fascinating. It's riveting. It's addicting. And oh, it's troubling.
4 stars.
I'll come right out and say it: I am, in fact, a capitalist. So this book didn't challenge my ideology so much as confirm it, although I don't agree with much of Rand's objectivism. In fact, I have a great many bones to pick with her ideology, but I don't really want to go into a ton of that here.
I think this book falls into two categories: the story and the philosophy. The story is the conductor for the philosophy, but they're still somewhat separate elements, even if the story could not exist without the philosophy. So...I'll deal with them both as separate elements xD
STORY:
The story is deeply complex and vast in scope. We've got Dagny Taggart, our heroine, a whip-smart business executive who runs a train company and has horrible taste in men. We've got Hank Rearden, the steel tycoon who's only loosely based on John D. Rockefeller and who really isn't as sympathetic as he seems at the beginning. We've got Eddie Willers, the only decent man in this story in terms of morality, who's really just trying to do his job. Then there's Jim Taggart, who's a horrible, horrible person and needs to die. Lillian Rearden was my least favorite character in the whole book--while I could have felt bad for her if she'd let herself be the victim, the way she played everyone else was infuriating and I honestly completely understood why Hank hated her. The cast of both heroes and villains was vast. I loved that.
In terms of plot: this honestly read a lot like your average YA dystopian. We've got Special Snowflake Girl Dagny, who's completely unaware that she's sort of the driving force of a revolution even as she opposes it. There's four separate guys who are in love with her; this kind of drove me crazy. Every one of those guys (except for one, who was my favorite character overall because he was just Plain Nice) is the aggressive alpha male type guy who has a creepily strong sex drive and feels the need to act on his rush of feelings long before he actually states his love. The sexuality in this novel was entirely of one nature, and I hated it, if I'm being frank, which is part of the reason for the deducted star. Faaaar too much on-screen sex and the attitude of the characters toward it...I was quite uncomfortable with that whole thing. xD So...definitely can't recommend on that count.
The story was a negative arc, honestly. It starts out with the pinnacle of big businesses and only proceeds to spiral downward from them. I hated that. I hated it more than I could say. But not in a stars-deducted way--in a fury at the characters sort of way. The emotion of this story was expertly written, especially for a story that is supposed to not deal with emotions and only be about the mind. So...points for that.
The ending was another negative point for me. I felt it was remarkably weak, but that's to be expected with a story this long and detailed. How do you land a 1,100 page novel dealing with so many social issues? I don't know, and Rand doesn't seem to either. It was an okay ending in the context of the story, but I would have liked to see a different ending. Not sure what...but I digress xD
Dagny was a very compelling heroine, even if I hated her decisions as regarded men. I started out liking Hank, very quickly learned to hate him, and then had sort-of forgiven him by the end of the story. John...oh, what to say? Who is John Galt? Much of the rest of the cast ran together, although their roles are very iconic (a philosopher pirate? A copper baron playboy? A Cinderella story that ends in utter tragedy?) It's well done and I genuinely enjoyed this purely as a novel. Was it infuriating? Was it annoying? Was it aggravating? Yes to all of that. But...I liked it at the same time. I liked it a lot. I was addicted. xD
Now for:
THE PHILOSOPHY
This book gave two sorts of cautionary tales: one regarding the state of the economy when the government takes over, and one regarding the fact that when man lives without God, man's depravity will unconditionally take over.
The anti-capitalism presented in this story was terrifying. I dislike socialism and I'm not afraid to admit that, but the view of it presented by Rand horrified me. I was especially riveted by Jeff Allen's description of the Twentieth Century Motor Factory; here the ideal of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" was put into practice on a small scale, and oh, what a concept this book gave of it. After all, how can we really decide what a man's "ability" and "need" are? Rand's answer--men vote on it, and use it to throw their fellow men under the bus. It's dangerous. It's a dangerous notion and a dangerous act to put into practice.
Yeah, I'm a capitalist, and I'm proud to admit it xD
But in terms of the depravity...oh, such depravity.
That's why I'm not going to embrace objectivism. Rand is unapologetically an atheist and her characters are too, and there is no kindness or love in their hearts. "I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine" is the mantra of the man characters...and I have a problem with that. Kindness is not weakness. Selflessness is not weakness. Giving to others does not reduce you in esteem. And oh, what horrific things were done by even the good characters. They don't need God, for they are their own gods...and that is a terrible thing for man to embrace.
Who is John Galt? That is the question this massive tome undertakes to answer, and while it takes forever to get there, it does answer it. In detail, great detail. It's fascinating. It's riveting. It's addicting. And oh, it's troubling.
4 stars.
besiktas's review against another edition
3.0
took me awhile to finish this and the end was a slog. the book was definitely not something i would normally read but seemed like i should given its cultural impact