Did Ayn Rand Call for a Deliberate ‘Destruction of Society’ in Atlas Shrugged?

WARNING: THIS POST CONTAINS PLOT SPOILERS. ANYONE WHO HAS NOT READ ATLAS SHRUGGED BUT THINKS THEY MAY SOME DAY SHOULD TAKE NOTE.

This post deals with a question that I think is somewhat controversial. A while back I came across this hit piece against Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged on Facebook, since deleted:

Only the philosophers whose entire learning comes from books can be naive and arrogant enough to believe that all the political and cultural institutions have to be destroyed before a better society can be built. But once the institutions are destroyed  there will be chaos and massive violence. I admire Ayn Rand’s novel Atlas Shrugged but I am against John Galt’s idea of “stopping the motor of the world”, because I know that once the motor is stopped millions of lives will be lost and the rebuilding of society will take several generations.

I think the writer—who will go unnamed—is completely misreading the meaning of Atlas Shrugged. As Ayn Rand explicitly explained, the theme of Atlas Shrugged is “the role of the mind in human existence.” She considered the human mind and those who use it to address the challenges of human existence to be “the motor of the world.”  She referred to the thinkers as “the men of the mind.” And the leading, most talented, most motivated, most productive  men of the mind she called the “prime movers.” It is the prime movers, the pinnacle of all who think and thus the most highly productive, who mostly go on strike, initially. The strike eventually spreads, with workers leaving their jobs in droves even though they have not officially joined Galt’s strikers.

The strike is not intended to be taken as a literal call for “a strike of the men of the mind.” In fact, of Atlas Shrugged, she wrote in her journals, “I start with the fantastic premise of the prime movers going on strike.” The italics are hers. Rand herself described Galt’s strike as “a fantastic premise.” Mirriam -Webster defines fantastic as “based on fantasy” and “so extreme as to challenge belief.” Rand goes on:

This is the actual heart and center of the novel. A distinction carefully to be observed here: I do not set out to glorify the prime mover (that was The Fountainhead). I set out to show how desperately the world needs prime movers, and how viciously it treats them. And I show it on a hypothetical case—what happens to the world without them. [again, italics are hers.]

The strike is “a hypothetical case.” She herself did not call for any kind of organized strike, or even believe it possible. (She did, however, call on America’s businessmen to fight back, first and foremost by not sanctioning their exploiters and destroyers.) The strike is intended to dramatize, in fiction form, what happens when the human mind is not free to function. It may be “naive and arrogant” to think such a literal organized strike is realistic or desirable. But I don’t see anything “naive and arrogant” about the message. I take Atlas Shrugged to be a warning, not in any way a cruel call to destroy society in order to rebuild it. In Atlas Shrugged, society is already on its way to destruction. “John Galt’s idea of ‘stopping the motor of the world’” is misleading, I think. The motor of the world is already grinding to a halt. Galt’s mission is to rescue as many victims of the altruist/collectivist assault as he can.

This is important. The strike is a work of fiction. It could never happen in real life, in that way. In real life, an increasingly dictatorial government makes it progressively harder for people to act on their own judgment. At some point, the government’s controls reach a tipping point and the economy and society collapse into poverty, brutality, and tyranny, as every fully socialist country has demonstrated. In Atlas Shrugged, the U.S. is deteriorating toward the inevitable “tipping point.” Galt’s strike accelerates the deterioration, but does not change the inevitable collapse. 

But again, this is a work of fiction intended to dramatize the results of what happens when the motor of the world, the human mind, can no longer freely function. 

Yes, in Atlas Shrugged, the collapse is being given a deliberate push. But that is the mystery part of the story. The fact that “chaos and massive violence” will ensue and “millions of lives will be lost and the rebuilding of society will take several generations” is not the fault of the strikers or of John Galt and his allies. In the novel, it is already happening all over the world and America is next if the villains aren’t driven from power. Galt’s strikers are victims too, destined for destruction, except that they learn that it is not good to sanction their own destroyers--what Ayn Rand called “the sanction of the victims”--and thus meekly accept inevitable destruction. The strikers are heroes fighting evil by not sanctioning and thus helping evil to triumph. They are not villains who want to destroy society. They are heroes who want to save it. In reality, Ayn Rand spent more than two decades after Atlas Shrugged on non-fiction writing and lecturing on how people, especially businessmen, can fight back rather than quit.

Of course, if any particular prime mover -- a businessman, investor, inventor, entrepreneur, scientist chooses to stop working and retire, or simply leave that society rather than deal with draconian taxes and regulation, it is her moral right. There is a limit to how much a productive individual will tolerate exploitation. 

And, in fact, producers have been silently “going on strike” against altruistic/collectivistic societies throughout history. The Dark ages was a massive “strike” of intelligence. In Britain’s flirtation with full-blown socialism in the 1960s, this phenomenon of talented people giving up and/or leaving came to be called a “brain drain”. The same goes for any productive individual on any level of ability. A prime contemporary example -- no pun intended -- is Venezuela, which began descending into hell when Hugo Chavez and his socialist thugs were voted into office about a quarter century ago. As AP reports:

It’s a frequent scene across the U.S.-Mexico border at a time of swelling migration. But these aren’t farmers and low-wage workers from Mexico or Central America, who make up the bulk of those crossing. They’re bankers, doctors and engineers from Venezuela, and they’re arriving in record numbers as they flee turmoil in the country with the world’s largest oil reserves and pandemic-induced pain across South America. 

Hunger, poverty, and unnecessary deaths have spread across Venezuela. Are these bankers, doctors, and engineers the villains -- the cause of Venezuelans’ misery? Or is it the socialist regime and the majority that voted them into power?  

AP goes on to say “The surprise increase has drawn comparisons to the midcentury influx of Cubans fleeing Fidel Castro’s communist rule.” These are examples of Atlas Shrugging in real life.

I think the writer is all wet. Rand never advocated nor desired the destruction of society. Her whole life in America was a crusade to save it. She did not believe that “all the political and cultural institutions have to be destroyed before a better society can be built.” She advocated standing and fighting. “So long as there isn’t censorship,” Rand said in answer to a question, “one doesn’t have to leave society the way the characters did in Atlas Shrugged.” The quote at the start of this post is a classic example of blaming the victims, not the villains.

Related reading:

Ayn Rand: Tea Party Voice of the Founding Fathers

Golden Anniversary of an Inspiration

Why is a "Liberal" Promoting Atlas Shrugged?

Is Atlas Shrugging?

Atlas Shrugged; Heros or Villains?

Paul Hsieh's Tribute to Steve Jobs