Force
Posted: Fri Oct 19, 2012 2:15 pm
I want to take a look at and compare two books by two authors which have been discussed within this book discussion. The two books are Atlas Shrugged and The Grapes of Wrath, written by Rand and Steinbeck respectively.
I want to show the difference of what should/can happen versus what will happen, the focus of both books, their final causes, and when the use of force is justified as it is a major question that both books seek to find out.
These two books provide views on different ends of a spectrum. Atlas Shrugged shows how welfare can be detrimental to growth/freedom and in Grapes of Wrath we see that lack of some sort of social engineering can lead to a loss of freedom and wealth. Both books show that individuality, pursuit of happiness, and justice is squashed.
While Rand's book is pure fiction, Grapes presents a more plausible argument and displays a reality that did happen rather than something that may happen. While Rand's book is threatening and is based in the hypothetical, Steinbeck uses history to show what 'does' happen as a proof. While we can use Rand's ideas as something to think about, we must put more weight in Steinbeck as it is more squarely and firmly based in reality.
With that in mind, I'll continue.
Rand's idea of social welfare is not fully developed in the book and Steinbeck presents no direct argument for or against the level of welfare needed or justified within a state. Rand doesn't explore just how little social welfare is needed but there is a strong undercurrent in the book which promotes laissez faire with respect to how people succeed - leaving the free market to decide on who gets what jobs and earns what based on their ability.
The beneficial aspect of comparing these two books is that Steinbeck's story is based in a free market and occurs in the type of society/economy that Rand is promoting. Steinbeck's story shows the effects of what can happen rather than what could. He shows the effects rather than presents a case of mere conjecture.
Rand's idea of government is incomplete. Her only goal is to limit the government's ability to abridge the freedoms of business. In what way she means this is not 100% certain from her book but the idea of welfare is out of the question.
Steinbeck's main focus in his story is the plight of tenant farmers that are made that way through the leveraging of their homes in order to survive. When they find that they can't compete because of environmental factors, technological advancements they can't afford, and the ability of large farms to produce with economies of scale, they're forced to give up the land their fore-fathers owned and move to find a job that they hope will be waiting for them in California. No social safety net is set in place to retrain them or support them briefly while they transition.
The people in Steinbeck's novel represent those without special ability. They represent less than average minds who know only a single skill set. They are mature adults well past the age when most go to college, they have children, and support their parents with their earnings. They are hard working in the physical sense of the word - not in the sense in which Dagny sits at her desk and barks orders. They are Rand's mindless. The ones with the least value.
There are thousands of these people. As the land refuses to give, they are subject to the free market and find they must find a different career or another job in the same career. As they have no other skills and no time to learn them as they must feed themselves and their families immediately, they seek employment elsewhere rather than change career fields. They move to California. Thousands of them. They use their savings to do so without any help from anyone.
When they get to California they find that they've flooded the labor market and that there isn't work for them. The wages, because of all the surplus of labor, get severely depressed. The owners of the farms in California use this to their advantage and in various ways make good their attempt to turn these people in flight into chattel slaves.
The only real government help comes in the form of camps. These camps are run by, policed by, cleaned by, and lived in by the people in flight. This is federal land. Anyone not living in these camps, as there's not room for all of them, are again subject to the free market and there are no free rides. The local police continual burn any squatters quarters that they find, harass non-residents, and make life impossible for the men and women trying to find work. The only other alternative for these people is to stay in quarters made by the farmers for their workers. These quarters are slave barracks. The grocery store they must purchase from is owned by the farmer. He sells them food at high prices that they buy with the depressed wages he pays them. Now the people make only enough money to be able to eat and barely survive in the most basic and crude way imaginable. They exist and nothing more. They exist solely to work. They are trapped. If they get fired, they die. If they don't work 12 hour days, they die. The reward for their slavery is being able to exist another day in a situation that is dirty, precarious, and hopeless.
They live this way while the farmer, made wealthy by their labor, remains profitable. He uses his money to buy more lands and hire more armed guards to suppress any worker who snaps due to the sudden realization that their plight is a hopeless one and that they're working to support a system that enslaves them.
So, Rand proposes that men of ability are made to produce at the cost of their freedom and Steinbeck's argument is a similar one.
So when is use of force justified? If the people take the farm and divide it up amongst themselves it will make everyone all the poorer - yet if they stay in the position that they're in, they're doomed. What's to be done? Is it preferable to steal than to die? Is it preferable to use force to see your child live? Who is social engineering?
The final effect of Rand's philosophy does not show the person who, not being able to compete finds a different career and succeeds, but shows the person who is unable to do so along with thousands of others and is put in a condition infinitely worse than their previous one. It shows how the people who have benefited use their new wealth to oppress those who they once competed with - making them servants rather than free men. Democracy? Is democracy able to survive in this environment?
Aristotle invites you on a journey. He wants you to join him in trying to find out why things are the way they are. This is a major difference between him and Rand. Aristotle invites while Rand compels. Aristotle asks while Rand tells.
Aristotle considered that too much aristocracy or too much democracy were evil things. He didn't despise the middle as Rand seems too. He finds a great stabilizer in a wide middle class and there is value in that. I believe this is for a reason. He understands that all people are different with varying degrees of ability and with varying degrees of moral correctness. He understands that all men are grasping. He also understands that a government can be a power that influences individual behavior.
Rand is not advocating the oppression of the many but Steinbeck shows how her lack of consideration can create an intolerable human state and one that is justified in the use of force to seek advantage.
I want to show the difference of what should/can happen versus what will happen, the focus of both books, their final causes, and when the use of force is justified as it is a major question that both books seek to find out.
These two books provide views on different ends of a spectrum. Atlas Shrugged shows how welfare can be detrimental to growth/freedom and in Grapes of Wrath we see that lack of some sort of social engineering can lead to a loss of freedom and wealth. Both books show that individuality, pursuit of happiness, and justice is squashed.
While Rand's book is pure fiction, Grapes presents a more plausible argument and displays a reality that did happen rather than something that may happen. While Rand's book is threatening and is based in the hypothetical, Steinbeck uses history to show what 'does' happen as a proof. While we can use Rand's ideas as something to think about, we must put more weight in Steinbeck as it is more squarely and firmly based in reality.
With that in mind, I'll continue.
Rand's idea of social welfare is not fully developed in the book and Steinbeck presents no direct argument for or against the level of welfare needed or justified within a state. Rand doesn't explore just how little social welfare is needed but there is a strong undercurrent in the book which promotes laissez faire with respect to how people succeed - leaving the free market to decide on who gets what jobs and earns what based on their ability.
The beneficial aspect of comparing these two books is that Steinbeck's story is based in a free market and occurs in the type of society/economy that Rand is promoting. Steinbeck's story shows the effects of what can happen rather than what could. He shows the effects rather than presents a case of mere conjecture.
Rand's idea of government is incomplete. Her only goal is to limit the government's ability to abridge the freedoms of business. In what way she means this is not 100% certain from her book but the idea of welfare is out of the question.
Steinbeck's main focus in his story is the plight of tenant farmers that are made that way through the leveraging of their homes in order to survive. When they find that they can't compete because of environmental factors, technological advancements they can't afford, and the ability of large farms to produce with economies of scale, they're forced to give up the land their fore-fathers owned and move to find a job that they hope will be waiting for them in California. No social safety net is set in place to retrain them or support them briefly while they transition.
The people in Steinbeck's novel represent those without special ability. They represent less than average minds who know only a single skill set. They are mature adults well past the age when most go to college, they have children, and support their parents with their earnings. They are hard working in the physical sense of the word - not in the sense in which Dagny sits at her desk and barks orders. They are Rand's mindless. The ones with the least value.
There are thousands of these people. As the land refuses to give, they are subject to the free market and find they must find a different career or another job in the same career. As they have no other skills and no time to learn them as they must feed themselves and their families immediately, they seek employment elsewhere rather than change career fields. They move to California. Thousands of them. They use their savings to do so without any help from anyone.
When they get to California they find that they've flooded the labor market and that there isn't work for them. The wages, because of all the surplus of labor, get severely depressed. The owners of the farms in California use this to their advantage and in various ways make good their attempt to turn these people in flight into chattel slaves.
The only real government help comes in the form of camps. These camps are run by, policed by, cleaned by, and lived in by the people in flight. This is federal land. Anyone not living in these camps, as there's not room for all of them, are again subject to the free market and there are no free rides. The local police continual burn any squatters quarters that they find, harass non-residents, and make life impossible for the men and women trying to find work. The only other alternative for these people is to stay in quarters made by the farmers for their workers. These quarters are slave barracks. The grocery store they must purchase from is owned by the farmer. He sells them food at high prices that they buy with the depressed wages he pays them. Now the people make only enough money to be able to eat and barely survive in the most basic and crude way imaginable. They exist and nothing more. They exist solely to work. They are trapped. If they get fired, they die. If they don't work 12 hour days, they die. The reward for their slavery is being able to exist another day in a situation that is dirty, precarious, and hopeless.
They live this way while the farmer, made wealthy by their labor, remains profitable. He uses his money to buy more lands and hire more armed guards to suppress any worker who snaps due to the sudden realization that their plight is a hopeless one and that they're working to support a system that enslaves them.
So, Rand proposes that men of ability are made to produce at the cost of their freedom and Steinbeck's argument is a similar one.
So when is use of force justified? If the people take the farm and divide it up amongst themselves it will make everyone all the poorer - yet if they stay in the position that they're in, they're doomed. What's to be done? Is it preferable to steal than to die? Is it preferable to use force to see your child live? Who is social engineering?
The final effect of Rand's philosophy does not show the person who, not being able to compete finds a different career and succeeds, but shows the person who is unable to do so along with thousands of others and is put in a condition infinitely worse than their previous one. It shows how the people who have benefited use their new wealth to oppress those who they once competed with - making them servants rather than free men. Democracy? Is democracy able to survive in this environment?
Aristotle invites you on a journey. He wants you to join him in trying to find out why things are the way they are. This is a major difference between him and Rand. Aristotle invites while Rand compels. Aristotle asks while Rand tells.
Aristotle considered that too much aristocracy or too much democracy were evil things. He didn't despise the middle as Rand seems too. He finds a great stabilizer in a wide middle class and there is value in that. I believe this is for a reason. He understands that all people are different with varying degrees of ability and with varying degrees of moral correctness. He understands that all men are grasping. He also understands that a government can be a power that influences individual behavior.
Rand is not advocating the oppression of the many but Steinbeck shows how her lack of consideration can create an intolerable human state and one that is justified in the use of force to seek advantage.