Atlas Shrugged isn't a perfect book by any means, however it is something that should be read - particularly by the bleeding heard lefties that abound in our society at the moment.

There is another message that the book espouses that the author of this article doesn't mention: Personal responsibility. In our paternalistic society, with tax churns like baby bonus', family tax rebates, child care rebates and all the others, personal responsibility is sadly lacking.

However this book goes on and on about it, and that's the single most important reason to read this book - so that readers can get a feel for what happens if you take the reigns of your own life.

This has been done: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1154

I know I get a bit pedantic but The Shock Doctrine explains exactly how capitalism---Ayn Rand's "unknown ideal" works.

1. http://www.naomiklein.org/schock-doctrine

The politics and anti-"culture" that Rand promoted was that of the hard edged loveless heart and her "god" was the god of the hard edged machine---a machine which inevitably and relentlessly reduces everything to rubble.

These references describe the inevitable results of the anti-"culture" of competitive individualism or extreme social darwinism that she promoted---the war of all against All and everything.

1. http://www.ispeace723/youthepeople2.html
2. http://www.coteda.com/fundamentals/index.html

I tend to agree with the analysis here, though I'd argue that there are fundamentalists in any belief set, including free market theory, so there's no stupidity in calling a spoon a spoon.

Capitalism is of course a far better system than socialism, though pure capitalism wouldn't be ideal at all, as the author mentions. Some however, do try and push this line, and I'd certainly categorise these people as fundamentalists.

I read two of Ayn Rand's books including Atlas Shrugged when Malcolm Fraser was in power as he attributed much of his then philosophy to reading her books. His Road to Damascus "conversion" occurred, I believe, after he was appointed to the Eminent Persons group which investigated conditions in aparthied South Africa.
One thing I recall from reading Rand's books was that she thought that smoking was noble behaviour.
Having worked close to leaders in industry I know that major company controlled businesses are not capitalist or free enterprise in the sense described by Adam Smith. They are political bureaucracies out to manipulate and keep the top eschelons in power. Bill Gates and Microsoft in the formative years were entrepreneurial but have now been shown to have become anti-competitive as have Amcor and Visy. I think I have always been interested in fair play and as a consequence have gradually move to the left in the sense that I don't rate brains, cunning and greed all that highly against physical effort but then in my youth I worked in the physical and hot end of heavy industry while earning my tertiary qualifications.

Whether or not capitalism is 'naturally' a better system than socialism is questionable. Neither a 'pure' market nor a Stalinist command economy provide the necessary social protections and economic liberties. For a 'good society' we need to strike a balance between individualism and collectivism. Liberal social democracy or liberal democratic market socialism - seem better concepts to entertain.

If Rand's selfish template can be seen as feeding into the neo-liberal nightmare that has struck the US, and which led to social catastrophes in countries such as Chile - then she has a lot to answer for. Social and economic rights and political liberties need to find reflection in law, popular culture and identity. Individuals should enjoy the right to invest capital; but they ought also enjoy a social wage provided for through progressive taxation, and have their economic rights provided for through labour market regulation. See my earlier article in On Line Opinion:

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=4944

Not only does Rand reject collectivism - she embraces selfishness as an ideal: an ideal that undermines society to its very core; and which rejects compassion 'on principle'.

John Galt is alive and well. He once bought a farm that the previous owner had been forced to clear as a condition of the grant of title. He spent decades quietly assisting the regeneration of the full suite of the original native species. But when it became time to thin the trees to maintain the health of the resulting forest, he was told by powerful political activists who owned no trees that his now "pristine" forest was too special to be left to his own management discretion.

They went on to deprive him of markets for his timber by encouraging consumers to buy wood from clonal, monocultural plantations that provide minimal habitat values while they grow and are then clear felled to the boundary, with, wait for it, full certification as environmentally sustainable.

They then set up a system of carbon credits that will reward those who plant the above mentioned clonal monocultures after 1990 and impose a penalty on those who started decades earlier and produced a forest that wildlife actually thrive in. And it was all done in the name of environmental stewardship and intergenerational equity.

And if you think Ayn Rand was a bit melodramatic, then take a look around you and ask yourself why people who have spent their entire life tending a native forest are now quite willing to sit back and wait for the inevitable conflagration that will wipe what was once their proudest achievement from the face of the earth.

There was a time when "how you get there" was what the journey was all about. Not so in the brave new green utopia. Communities get the environment they deserve.

Hohum - I am with you.

Capitalism was Pinochet murdering workers in support of free market, Bolivians workers being suppressed for the same cause, Chinese suppressing their own people to ensure a free market, South Africa, Poland, Iraq - all in teh name of the free market.

I agree - if the market is the only thing that matters, if families and pensions for our old don't matter, if we are to be economic units rather than people and merely be part of a market rather than live in a society or community, Ayn Rand is wonderful.

Naomi Klein has exposed the true nature of societies governed only by free market principles - a la Ayn Rand and as interpreted by economists who follow Milton Friedman.

"Atlas Shrugged" was a lumbering, soporific book. I expect that the movie will be much the same.

"... it is true that capitalism has resulted in far fewer deaths than socialist dictatorships, whether they be fascist or Communist in name."

Really?

http://www.versobooks.com/books/cdef/d-titles/davis_m_late_victorian.shtml
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/article408636.ece
http://www.schillerinstitute.org/food_for_peace/kiss_nssm_jb_1995.html
http://www.fsmitha.com/h2/ch17arab.html
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/5846.php
http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2004pres/20040309.html
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2003/12/12/iraq6582.htm
http://www.mindfully.org/GE/2005/Geopolitics-GM-Food6mar05.htm
http://www.infoshop.org/inews/article.php?story=20070918122056800
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_military_history_events#Covert_operations.2C_coups.2C_military_advisers_etc.
http://www.stateofnature.org/southAmericaUsHegemony.html

Of course it's true, because the capitalism idealised by Ayn Rand has never existed. It never could exist and never will exist.

I might as well say, socialist dictatorships never killed anyone because there has never been a "truly socialist" dictatorship.

Real capitalism is the real world: capitalist countries' governments have health and trade and agriculture and energy policies and aid budgets and armies and police forces and presidents that launch offensive wars.

"Capitalism" refers to real societies with real landowners and real people and poverty and illness and hunger, dominated by governments who wield big sticks and businesses which view the world as a chessboard. Capitalism refers to the system of revolving doors that shuffle senior officials between corporate boardrooms and national executives.

Of course capitalism has caused more deaths than socialist dictatorships. Imperialist powers have abetted, installed, propped up and torn down more brutal dictatorships and regimes with devastating economic policies than socialist governments of any origin have ever existed.

Poverty in market-oriented countries and in countries assaulted or beseiged by "capitalist" armed forces, is the biggest killer of them all.

Socialist dictatorships are awful, and I wouldn't choose to live under one.

But don't lie to yourself regarding the callous brutality of the real, existing capitalist system. For sheer numbers, it can't be beaten.

Whilst there might be some value for people who've never read a serious work before to have Rand's fiction question some their assumptions, the author is seriously misguided if he thinks Ayn Rand's shallow objectivist philosophy, which is hammered down our throats throughout her work, is some kind of revelatory tour de force. Just as in real life, where she regarded anyone who disagreed with her as morally evil, her fiction exhibits the same pigheadedness with an use cardboard cutout deviants and unconvincing controlled consequences to push her unrelenting opinions. I would suggest that anyone predisposed to libertarian politics & ethical egoism could easily find far worthier proponents elsewhere, eg. Nozick. In the real word, Rand gets no respect from the philosophical community because her ideas are caricatures. It succeeds because it plays on emo right-wing college student type sensitivities, where there is comfort and succur knowing you're really a repressed genius and everyone else is just jealous and dragging you down.

I reckon the author should go play the game Bioshock. :D

The reason capitalism has always had such a good press is because the press is owned by capitalists. Otherwise, the notion that the more selfish the individual is allowed to be, the more compassionate the society becomes, would be exposed for the absurdity it is. Capitalism is the runaway train. Socialism is the brake.

Xoddam … I agree. These socialism versus capitalism body counts are often skewed to surgically remove the hundreds of millions of deaths caused directly and indirectly by capitalism throughout its two-hundred year history – especially when it operates hand-in-glove with its partner-in-crime, imperialism.

BBoy … Love your “everyone’s just jealous” comment. It sums up the conceit of this essay beautifully.

I have tried, and failed, to read Ayn Rand several times. Every time her turgid prose, plywood characters and ludicrous plots saw me give up in disgust. I managed to sit through the film version of "The Fountainhead", fascinated that dialogue so stilted could actually be immortalised on celluloid. One IMDB reviewer described it as "Pompous, Sanctimonious BILGE". Couldn't have put it better myself...

Political ideas can be embodied in great works of art. "Triumph of the Will". "Battleship Potemkin", "Candide". "The Road to Wigan Pier" (or anything else by Orwell) are just a few examples. Rand simply didn't have the talent to do it. Her books are one-note polemics, pushing her muddle-headed "philosophy" of objectivism.

Which is not to say that a film "Atlas Shrugged" couldn't be a hit in America. Check last years American box office http://www.the-movie-times.com/thrsdir/moviesofyear.mv?moviesof2006+ByTGross and you'll see that quality is no prerequisite for success. But Ayn Rand, with her contempt for "the mob", could have told you that.

Are capitalist societies more free and prosperous?

The problem with Rand is that the definitions of Capitalism, Prosperity and Freedom are not fixed They are rapidly changing. In some cases they are converging to precisely the meaning of those terms in pre-war Nazi Germany. With technologies like genetic engineering and media and energy monopolies those definitions will further change dramatically as we approach PEAKOIL and a global population of 8.5 billion within two decades. Think about it!

In short capitalism, freedom and prosperity(CFP)will be defined by those who will successfully monopolise global resources through force of arms. We can only guess what CFP will mean in a world with 8.5 billion people an sufficient energy to keep only 2billion of those people in the comforts thay have become used to. Unlike true capitalism, this bastardisation will NOT select the best, brightest and most talented humans to lead future generations. It will just select the biggest, most successful thugs.

Adolph Hitler was perhaps ahead of his times. If he were alive today he would be running Halliburton and Fox studios.

The closing convergegence of the CFPdefinitions has important Thermodynamic consequences: most human gene sets given the right (low entropy) thermodynamic gradient for their full expression will naturally become a superior human beings with all the attributes necessary to lead in a true capitalist setting.

The differential entropy on the global 3-surface economic manifold needs to be rid of "bubbles" or false concentrations of wealth in order to realise a true level playing field capitalism, the true antithesis of socialism.

That seems contradictory but this mathematiacal approach to global economics based on Hamilton's 1981 work and more recently on Perelman's Ricci flow dynamic solutions to the Poincarre conjecture, can indeed modify the CFP definitions such that a true capitalism with greater global participation and harmony can be secured

Continued..

One intrinsic aspect of this work is KAEP- Kyoto Alternative Energy Protocol where all nations will contribute to SPACE based solar energy, terrestrial Geothermal energy R&D and Engineered wetland construction projects as the Thermodynamic BMP(Best-Management-Practice) for evening out "bubbles" in the global environment energy manifold.

If it can be shown that KAEP gives a feasible, infinite supply of energy to our planet then human civilisations will CFP in harmony till the Sun starts to wane ... in some 4 billion years time.

This highlights the key ingredient for true capitalism incarnations work .... an INFINITE SUPPLY OF ENERGY.

Anything less or even localised bubbles of pseudo-infinite energy like in the US today yield pseudo-capitalist-systems which are not capitalism but rather IMPERIALISM. These pseudo-systems very naturally develop human-hurricanes(terror) on the global economic manifold just as surely as strongly localised entropy bunching creates hurricanes on the sea surface manifold.

And I don't think Rand was wrong either. She just didn't have the history, the experience or the mathematics and science, in her times, to fully perfect & enunciate her theories.

rand was about as good a philosopher as hitler, about as readable as nietzsche. but she had a vogue, and may still be found in libraries, because she had an idea that many 14 year olds find deeply appealing, the notion that society constrains and exploits the truly talented.

most 14 year olds grow up and discover that society is the work of all of us. as warren buffett put it " 90% of what i have achieved was only possible with the co-operation of my society."

an example from the other end would be leonardo da vinci: his genius in engineering was fruitless because his society was not ready to match his capacity.

those that don't grow up call themselves 'libertarians'. functioning autistic syndrome might explain the failure to mature. or they're just selfish and shallow.

some libertarians are interesting people: ron paul is charming and persuasive, an american seneca trying to turn back the clock to a time before americans realized they were greedy, arrogant imperialists. one can wish for his success, without having the slightest hope for it.

Perhaps its a bit late in the day but please check out the work of Alfie Kohn via his marvellous book NO CONTEST at:

1. http://www.alfiekohn.org/books/nc.htm

Alfie Kohn also puts the pernicious nonsense of competitive education in its place. A very healthy antidote to the kind of "education" that a certain contributor to this forum pushes. His initials are KD.

And that the federal government is hell bent on forcing all Oz schools to adopt. All the demeaning and disheartening nonsense about competitive ranking and "achievement" tables.

The fact of the matter is that in a society based on unbridled competition, EVERYONE, including the so called winners, loses.
And that when a society is reduced to a mass of competing individuals it is well on the way to chronic breakdown.

The tragic irony being that all of us in our presumed difference are inhabitants of the picture sung by Malvina Reynolds in her hit song of the sixties, Little Boxes.
Everybody all robotically doing the same thing programmed by the Captains of Consciousness as described by Stuart Ewen.

xoddam said:

"I might as well say, socialist dictatorships never killed anyone because there has never been a "truly socialist" dictatorship."

Yeah but isn't this part of the author's point? That the reality of socialism never coincides with the theory?

Curiously, the author at one point talks about fascism as a form of socialist dictatorship... since when can fascism be considered 'socialist' in any way?!? National socialism was surely the ultimate in ironic titles.. at least a strong contender with the GDR - German Democratic Republic!! ;)

I have no comment either way on Rand, have never read her.

Tristam Ewings “Whether or not capitalism is 'naturally' a better system than socialism is questionable.”

Capitalism is a better option to the piffling drivel which your post (http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=4944 ) espoused.

I would note even the Israeli kibbutz collectivism has collapsed. The reason was the collective zeal broke down once individuals formed intimate relationships and had children.

I guess that just goes to confirm what one famous anti-socialist said

“There is no such thing as Society. There are individual men and women, and there are families.” (Margaret Thatcher)

Alternatively the idea you espouse that

“Neither a 'pure' market nor a Stalinist command economy provide the necessary social protections and economic liberties.”

I would observe it was Lenin who said “The goal of socialism is communism.”

And certainly, history records, the consequence of communism was Stalinism

I would observe, your rhetoric implies you are biased against giving any “market economy”, regardless of how “pure”, a real chance.

Of course, along with

"A lie told often enough becomes truth”

Lenin also said

“While the State exists, there can be no freedom.
When there is freedom there will be no State.”

From which we can conclude

A socialist “State” only exists by eliminating the freedom of the people it directs and commands.

Whereas an (Ayn Rand) capitalist “state” exists, on a smaller scale, to support the people it was created to serve.

I have to burst the bubble of "Plaza-Toro" who said the following:

"Capitalism was Pinochet murdering workers in support of free market, Bolivians workers being suppressed for the same cause, Chinese suppressing their own people to ensure a free market, South Africa, Poland, Iraq - all in the name of the free market."

This indicates a misunderstanding of Ayn Rand's capitalism. I'm not attacking you for making this mistake; you would only be expected to know this if you'd read her philosophy books. Most people haven't. So let me clarify.

Capitalism, as defined by Ayn Rand, is an economic & political system that respects the rights of individuals -- fundamentally. No man can take another man's life or property. This means you cannot steal; it means the government cannot enforce taxation; and it most certainly means a government cannot kill its own people, regardless of which slogans are chanted or which greater good it is supposedly in the name of.

I realize this is different from what we presently call "capitalism" in my country (The United States). I do not approve of the US's current system, but please do not call it capitalism. It is a discombobulated mixed economy that would horrify (but not necessarily surprise) Ayn Rand were she alive today.

Of course Ayn Rand's philosophy is not perfect. But the imperfectly perfect is incomparably better to the IDEALISTICALLY perfect. The philosophy of the freedom of the individual, Rand's writings embody, is the powerhouse of human creativity. It's the 'locomotive of history' which has moved peoles and nations from materially and spiritually poor lands to the rich lands of individual freedom on whose wealth were built the great achievements of Western civilization which so many from the Left so doltishly decry.
http://australiacalls.blogspot.com

For a rational objectivist, Ryan wasnt particularly objective. She was big on Aristotles concept of A is A. She has some intoxicatingly romantic notions on individualism, her philosophy is a bit shallow.

Makes no reference to the idea that there is no such thing as objectivity, all objectivity being necessarily clouded by the viewers perception. Driven as it were, by self interest... rationalised.

Shrugged runs 1000+ pages, approximately 600-700 of which are self indulgent dribble of no illucidation to plot. There are some excellent ideas beyond the fluff. Has a penchant for text that goes something like... 'he looked at her and fealt as if he was feeling what he was feeling, which could only be fealt by looking at her and seeing in her eyes the acknowledgement that she understood that he understood what she meant with a simple gesture and look in her eye'. A capacity for skim reading is indespensible.

Her philosophy is too idealised for practical use. She admitted that she sees man as an idealised highly romantic embodiment of the power of his (rational) mind. Doubt she ever envisaged much practical use for her concepts of rugged individualism. Her concept of rational self interest based on reasonable values are very useful. Tho, self interest needs no rationalising, afterall... A is A.

The main point in her philosophy is personal responsibility. Which is hard to deny. And not making the strong, intelligent and able, slow down so the weak, stupid and less capable can pretend to be equals. Given the current trend of not keeping score in juniors sports and handing out blue ribbons to everyone, and the rabid PC behind which everyone hides their pretentions to mediocrity inspired sameness, l'd say its a message long overdue.

l like her idea of shrugging off the worries and burdens of the world, instead of going thru life like Atlas. Constantly being punished for one's good deeds. People often bite the hand that feeds and spin a gift into an entitlement, help into obligation.

Blanchett would be a better choice than Jolie for the movie.

She was also absolutely spot in in the idea that society destroys the individual. It uses the individual as a sort of fuel. Nurtures the individual to the point at which it can steal from him.

This is the nature of society... it nurtures our innate capacities in service to itself. Raises us up, steals the contents of our minds, the sweat off our backs, the babes from mother's arms and destroys the individual.

The individual is to society what a blade of grass is to a dairy cow.

The individual can never grow... society will not allow it. Ironically, stunting itself in the process. Society made the Dark Ages. It is only individuals who can lift it out of the dark, toward that light, at the end of the tunnel. Tho 'society' will constantly have you believe that that light is a train coming the other way.

Society rarely if ever embraces the original thinkers, the ground breakers, those that go against the flow. The very same people who actually shape this world and bring to pass everything we take for granted, eveything whic creates and supports 'society.'

Society mates with the individual and then devours it.

Who wants to actually ever grow up... not society, thats for sure.

Arguing about the ideology of individualism vs socialism is never going to prove anything. I'll admit myself that individualism generally *sounds* much more appealing, but ideologies are one thing...reality is another.

As it is, the Scandinavian economies collectively prove Rand (and Hayek and Friedman et al) wrong: they tax at very high levels, provide very generous social welfare, have high levels of government involvement, yet are among the most successful in the world.

Further, a look at the various approximation of laissez-faire capitalist economies that have existed from time to time (e.g. the US in the late 19th century and early 20th century) demostrates that it simply doesn't work. Too many individuals determine to beat the system, to get ahead no matter what the cost, insufficient well-paid workers to act as markets for the capitalists, etc. etc. And ultimately, letting wealth disparities grow to the massive levels that unregulated capitalism would is just a recipe for social unrest and, ultimately, revolution.

"...that values which promote innovation, productivity and genius are superior..."

I don't disagree with the importance of such values, however I don't see any argument put forth that capitalism is the only, or even the best, means of promoting these values. (Note: haven't read the book or seen the movie)

"A social system which rewards people for creating their own wealth, rather than enjoying the wealth of others..."

I think the notion of creating wealth is important; many businessmen simply create wealth with the same way a bandit creates wealth by robbing someone. It's important to balance the freedom to create wealth with the assurance that those creating it are the ones who benefit.

"The reverse is in fact the case: values provide the intellectual and moral basis for the social and economic systems which exist."

I'd argue that values and systems coexist and are codependent on one another; forcing a system upon people who do not hold the values will result in unrest and resistance against the system. However, if a system is forced for long enough then the values of the people will begin to change.

"...accusing its proponents of being "market fundamentalists", among other silly labels."

"Market fundamentalists" are called such because they push the fundamental market ideology without thought for the underlying values. They push the "free market" as a be all and end all, only possible solution to every economic situation despite strong evidence that it will not work.

"Atlas Shrugged" is, on an aesthetic level, a turgid attempt at literature which only retains popularity because of the cult that supports it. Ayn Rand has a freshman's knowledge of Aristotlean philosophy and Objectivism can offer no answers for matters of significant consideration - it is the Harlequin romance of philosophy - and Rand herself is L. Ron Hubbard in drag.

And what does it support these days? Why, collective responsibility and punishment of individuals for the actions of their State leaders. Oh, the irony!

"The Objectivist Death Cult"
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/raimondo1.html

Col - re Lenin's views on the State - I would guess the quote you're using comes from 'The State and Revolution' - which is perhaps Lenin's most radical work. For Marx, the goal was to destroy the state - but before this could happen, the means of production had first to be developed, and the repressive apparatus of state taken from the ruling class.

In 'State and Revolution', Lenin was trying to outflank his rivals to his Left - and in doing so demanding impossible. Specialists from the middle class, bourgeois managers, small farmers - all had a legitimate role to play... It is a shame, also, that Stalin collectivised agriculture, supressing the market, and causing great misery.

Communists still hold that this is possible - the 'smash' the state - but while I borrow from Marxist ideas, I find the ideal of communism utopian at the best.

Communists want an egalitarian stateless utopia where people spontaneously and collectively share work and the spoils of work to ensure the implementation of the philosopy "from each according to their means, to each according to their needs."

While I broadly agree with this philosophy; I am a liberal who believes there is an essential role for the state in mediating conflict and fostering pluralism, free speech, free association, free assembly etc.

One consequence of this is that you are free to condmen anything I write as 'piffling dribble' - without engaging in any way with the substance of what I say. Anyway: By failing to engage with my ideas, and by resorting to that kind of language, you only condemn yourself.
It is my guess, anyway, that you barely came to grips with my article at all; just bringing out the 'socialist bogey'/ 'straw man' - because, after all, it's far easier to do that, isn't it?

Tristan Ewings “It is my guess, anyway, that you barely came to grips with my article at all; just bringing out the 'socialist bogey'/ 'straw man' - because, after all, it's far easier to do that, isn't it?”

Oh how wrong..

I saw right through it.

The bland, soulless pseudo-rationalism of the uninventive and unimaginative, who steeps himself in the writings of failed economic philosophers and tyrants.

Although it continues to fail, repeatedly, “entryism” remains a source of evil in the world,
It finds its acolytes and recruits in the ranks of the intellectually immature and emotionally unbalanced, who seek to prove that “collectivism” works, despite the catastrophic failures which are heaped at the feet of Marx, Lenin, Stalin and other collective despots like Mao Tse Tung and Pol Pot, right up to that incompetent brinkman Kim Jong-il.

Libertarian Capitalism is about every person endeavouring to become the best they can, from which all will benefit more than we would if fettered by a repressive socialist alternative.

Socialism is the cowards, the dullards and the weaklings path. Everyone held in check, no one allowed to succeed because it might make others look like failures.

Just as Lenin produced some wonder quotations which revealed the cynical and corrupt soul of communism (which evolves from socialism), so too the words of libertarians produce far superior aspirations and expectations of what individuals can achieve when, freed from the shackles of the state and free to walk their own chosen path

Words like

“We want a society where people are free to make choices, to make mistakes, to be generous and compassionate. This is what we mean by a moral society; not a society where the state is responsible for everything, and no one is responsible for the state.”
Margaret Thatcher.

Enjoy, I know I do.

So, will an unreadably turgid book (and irrelevant Cold War relic) be made into an equally tedious film? I doubt it. No working film-maker or Hollywood studio would allow themselves to produce anything quite that bad.

As is often the case the book will be compromised and sanitised so that it fits the entertainment formula - only in this case the changes will constitute an improvement.

Ayn Rand's view of the world was shaped by her families' experience of living in Stalinist Russia. One of the Soviet Union's greatest acts of oppression was denying their people the right to emigrate . One of their lesser crimes was letting Ayn Rand out of the country

The debate between “pure capitalism” and communism is an anachronism. Neither exists and as one of the previous posts pointed out, the Scandinavian economies prove that no one really needs them. The Chinese situation as it currently stands makes a mockery of both ideologies.

Ideology, is a bit like religion. Nobody really needs that either and an ideology that has the pursuit of personal gain as its central theme represents nothing more than a pathetic attempt at raising small-minded avarice to the level of high philosophy.

- Mr Smith

Mr Smith that was a wonderful post; from your satirical comments about the quality of Hollywood studios, to the comments about the crimes of the Soviet's, to the comments of the Scandanavians and the Chinese. Well done sir!

Thanks Lev,
I'll keep them coming.

- Mr Smith