Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Was the strike, a purge?

Rate this topic


intellectualammo
 Share

Recommended Posts

Perhaps he wanted to shake loose the few who were still "on the fence".

What about those not on the fence, like babies, children.

In fact in The Speech he explicitly urged those of independent spirit to quit and go on strike.

ruveyn1

I was talking about before, but yes, since you bring it up. He specifically mention those that want to live. He tells them to go to the wilderness, be a rallying point, etc. He also spoke that the "gates" of the city will only be open to this that deserve to enter it, as in - hiskind. It's another way of getting hiskind away from those he wants to perish. The goal all along. Was to get them to perish. That is how to do it. A moral way, easier way, than outright open violence or war against theirkind to get them the hell out of their way.

Edited by intellectualammo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

At risk of assuming the nature of a broken record, I'll restate:

"You seem to imply that if they were not his "kind" (you keep forgetting a space between those two words), then Galt would hunt them down and continue the purge; or, if he stumbled across of a band of altruists in the wilderness, he'd exterminate them on the spot.

You curse Galt for wanting to live, and damn him for not caring enough to stop living his life long enough to show you how to live yours. It's his life! That's kind of the theme of the novel, that Atlas has a right to his own life, no matter what the demands of the entire globe might be. Galt doesn't want to plie-drive the globe, Ragnar doesn't want to teach them a lesson they'll never forget, they just wanna be fuckin' free, man, and the easiest way to do it AIN'T going door to door with pamphlets extolling the virtues of freedom. They saw that the world was going to shit, and they withdrew to a safe location... one where whatever the rest of assholes on the planet did to themselves didn't affect them, one where they could be free.

What could Galt have said to Cuffy Meigs that would have made a man like that want to give it all up?"

And what about the babies... all the babies, so innocent, so unentangled with the affairs of the world.... Indeed, unentangled and and innocent they may be, but John Galt's responsibility they are not. Should he remain a slave, because society has rigged it so that if he frees himself, innocents suffer?

Why wage war or commit violence against a society that is already committing suicide? Why do you equate the recognition of the fact that a society is comitting suicide, with the murder of that society by the one who recognizes that fact and steps out of its influence?

You even admit that it's moral to let a society act how it wants, rather than wage war against it, which is just what Galt did. What exactly is your beef?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"If you desire ever again to live in an industrial society, it will be on our moral terms."

"We offer him life as a reward for accepting ours."

And if you don't, perish in and of you own void; you will not stop us.

"We do not need you."

We just need you to get the hell out of the way, "until the wreckage of the morality of sacrifice has been wiped out of our way"

"You will not sneak by with the rest of your lifespan."

"I have foreshortened the usual course of history."

"You had been living on borrowed time - and I am the man who had called in the loan."

"you will mot stay much longer on this earth, which we love and will not permit you to damn."

"Yes, you are bearing punishment for your evil."

"This country will once more become a sanctuary for a vanishing species: the rational being."

Hiskind, his "brothers in spirit", heroes, traders, men of the mind.

The rest, well, they "are not a concern of mine."

Only those that "deserve will enter" "by the rules and term of my code"

And when in "You will live in a world of responsible beings, who will be as consistent and reliable as facts."

Remember, "If you desire ever again to live in an industrial society, it will be on our moral terms." "choose to perish, or to learn" it.

"For centuries[…] no one came to say that your life belongs to you and that the good is to live it."

Galt: I didn't either. I'm only saying all this to you now, when so many have perished so much has collapsed, so its easier for mykind to be liberated at last from theirkind. We even have rewritten the Constitution in order to take over, I mean, fully liberate, separate. Remember only those that deserve will enter, "choose to perish, or learn" I could have taught you before, but I didn't want to! Ha Ha Ha, thus laughs John Galt. I, too, could have taught you, Ha Ha Ha, thus also laughs Hugh Akston. Ha Ha Ha, thus laughs Ragnar at this too.

Go on strike, those among you that want to live, against the very last of theirkind: thus shrugging and shaking off the last of them with us!!!

"All-too-many live, and all-too-long they hang on their branches. Would that a storm came to shake all this worm-eaten rot from the tree! Would that there came preachers of quick death! I would like them as the true storms and shakers of the trees of life!"*

Live by our terms or perish!!!! thus spoke John Galt.

*Thus Spoke Zarathustra(Walter Kaufmann translation)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your statement in bold, my response beneath:

"If you desire ever again to live in an industrial society, it will be on our moral terms."

If you want the fruits of our labors, you shall have them only as those that produce it are willing to trade it.

"We offer him life as a reward for accepting ours."

The previous world was a culture of death. The strikers made very clear that people of meagre accomplishment were not without worth- so long as they did not extort and blackmail those that made an industrial nation's standard of living possible. In other words "do not attempt to hurt us and you can enjoy the surplus of what we produce".

And if you don't, perish in and of you own void; you will not stop us.

I don't see this as being hostile. If you refuse to let us exist for ourselves in peace we will withdraw and leave you to the fruits of *your* beliefs. They are nihilists and the strikers refuse to continue creating for those that believe in nothingness and they refuse to be held prisoner to perish with those that have destroyed the world.

"We do not need you."

I have trouble seeing the problem with this. Galt, Ragnar, Reardon... they don't need the second handers... would you prefer they lie and pretend otherwise?

We just need you to get the hell out of the way, "until the wreckage of the morality of sacrifice has been wiped out of our way"

Again, what is your problem with this? To say you want wreckage swept out of your way doesn't mean you caused the destruction. I work at a bar. Someone broke a bunch of glass... I didn't break it, I swept it up because it was hazardous.

"You will not sneak by with the rest of your lifespan."

The ending of a parasitic relationship. The tick has been noticed and shall no longer be given a ride. The second handers had always lied to themselves pretending that their relationship with the producers was a symbiotic one. This is simply a statement that people will have to choose actively to live, there will be no mooching from the corners escaping notice.

"I have foreshortened the usual course of history."

I think we have already been over that Galt's actions caused the inevitable to happen faster than it would have otherwise. If you rescue the victims of a cannibal the cannibal's food is gone. He must cease being a cannibal, find others victims, or starve.

"You had been living on borrowed time - and I am the man who had called in the loan."

What is wrong with stating the obvious? You can refuse to accept reality but the consequences will come down upon you nontheless. That Galt is the man who spells this out clearly no more makes him the killer than a doctor letting a person know they have terminal cancer is a murderer.

"you will mot stay much longer on this earth, which we love and will not permit you to damn."

What exactly is wrong with telling someone they may not destroy something of value to you?

"Yes, you are bearing punishment for your evil."

Stating that someone is experiencing the consequences of their actions does not mean that you created the nature of cause and effect. My telling you that you are bleeding, and could in fact bleed to death because you got drunk and cut your hand off with a chainsaw does not mean that I am responsible for that which is taking place. In others words "I didn't make the news, I am just reporting it"

"This country will once more become a sanctuary for a vanishing species: the rational being."

He is just speaking their language, what is the problem with this?

Hiskind, his "brothers in spirit", heroes, traders, men of the mind.

The rest, well, they "are not a concern of mine."

This statement seems to prove what the rest of us are saying against your point. These people are incidental to the strikers. The strikers do not wish to harm the second handers- they simply refuse to continue having their lives focused around them.

Only those that "deserve will enter" "by the rules and term of my code"

The same could be said of my house.

And when in "You will live in a world of responsible beings, who will be as consistent and reliable as facts."

Sign me up.

Remember, "If you desire ever again to live in an industrial society, it will be on our moral terms." "choose to perish, or to learn" it.

Again, he didn't make the news, he's just spelling it out for them. They (the looters) have proven they can't sustain an industrial society. The strikers are simply letting the people know that if they (the strikers) return to produce that they will no longer have terms dictated to them by the people that need them. Essentially saying "you need us, we don't need you- we're willing to exist amongst you and let you have the benefit of our surplus but we will not let you set the terms".

"For centuries[…] no one came to say that your life belongs to you and that the good is to live it."

You're right. How horrible of him to remind people that they have every right to be as free, productive and joyful as he is. The monster!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You took what I wrote out of the context I had it in.

Galt was able to take over the country after having successfully purged theirkind from hiskind. Only certain people would be allowed to enter, those he deems deserves to. Wouldnt that be Social Darwinism?

... You really got all the way through Atlas Shrugged and you still think that what Galt wanted to do was "take over?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You took what I wrote out of the context I had it in.

Galt was able to take over the country after having successfully purged theirkind from hiskind. Only certain people would be allowed to enter, those he deems deserves to. Wouldnt that be Social Darwinism?

I did no such thing, you are attemtping to change the meaning of the entire book.

He and his friends retired to a small bit of private property and yes, only certain people were allowed to enter their private property.

They left the outside world to the looters. If the looters had changed their ways and become rational and productive they would not have destroyed themselves.

And one of the biggest points you seem to be willfully ignoring- John Galt did not "come back to take over"

He stayed in the outside world to watch over and protect the woman he loved.

The looters who you think he should have sacrificed himself to save

stalked and followed Galt out

assaulted and kidnapped Galt

imprisoned and tortured Galt

attempted to enslave Galt

and in fact, tried to force Galt to take over

This is why none of what you are saying makes sense. He tried to avoid them. They came to get him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Intellectual Ammo, let me ask you a question.

If I decide that I either can't or don't want to grow my own food and I seize you and force you to plant, sow and reap crops and raise livestock to feed me.

If you see a way to escape the bondage I have kept you in must you ignore the opportunity and instead try to debate me on the ethics of slavery? Give up your chance to escape to freedom to convince me to be more just?

And if you do escape from the slavery I have kept you in, and take all my other slaves with you, and I refuse to start trading value for value and I refuse to raise my crops myself are you then guilty of murder when I starve to death?

Could it be said you "purged" me?

Edit:typo

Edited by SapereAude
Link to comment
Share on other sites

... You really got all the way through Atlas Shrugged and you still think that what Galt wanted to do was "take over?"

One of them even made changes to an ancient document, the Constituition.

By our rules, on our moral terms:

"we will reclaim this country"

"the political system we will build"

Edited by intellectualammo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

SapereAude, Galt was not a slave, so the question is of no relevance to me.

He was not yet enslaved but what was done to the productive was indeed slavery.

You know, the part where they are not allowed to move, to switch jobs, their property rights taken from them, they are not allowed to quit working.

What is slavery if not having your physical movement restricted, your property rights stripped, and being forced to work against your will with the benefit going to others not of your choosing?

He simply left before being enslaved because he saw it coming.

So the question should be relevent to you.

It sounds like you think Galt owed something to those that would destroy him simply by nature of his being able to see a little bit further than they could.

You seem to keep coming back to Galt somehow *owing* the very people who sought to destroy him.

Now, perhaps a kinder man, a more generous man might take pity and try to teach the masses at his own personal risk.

But kindness and generousity are both subjective.

It does not seem like Rand intended Galt to be perceived as generous and kind, he was intended to be just. Justice can be divorced from generousity and most certainly it can exist absent kindness.

It seems to me you are creating out of thin air an obligation that cannot exist.

Your argument, to me, really seems to me to hold echoes of "from each according to his ability to each according to his need"

But in this case, the ability and needs being intangibles like intelligence and foresight.

How is your claim that he should have shared his knowledge of what was to come with the very people who would destroy him (remember-he did share with many, just the people of his choosing) any different than someone redistributing wealth?

Edited by SapereAude
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Galt: I will not even try to flatter them by trying to appeal to their minds; instead, crush their fucking heads- by leaving and getting pillars to join me - thereby no longer holding their structure up collapsing it upon their heads, getting them to die that way, getting them the hell out of the way, so we can build a political system for us, by us. This is a Moral Revolution. A brilliant and creative, moral purging of theirkind once and for all, liberating us from them, we will be on the inside instead of on the outside, and ourkind will no longer be the "vanishing species."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Galt: I will not even try to flatter them by trying to appeal to their minds; instead, crush their fucking heads- by leaving and getting pillars to join me - thereby no longer holding their structure up collapsing it upon their heads, getting them to die that way, getting them the hell out of the way, so we can build a political system for us, by us. This is a Moral Revolution. A brilliant and creative, moral purging of theirkind once and for all, liberating us from them, we will be on the inside instead of on the outside, and ourkind will no longer be the "vanishing species."

I didn't know this forum was the right place to post speculative fan-fic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Constitution is not ancient.

Yes and No. The United States is the longest existing republic under the same constitution. Same, in the sense that the basic structure of function of what government is or is not to do is still in effect (sort of) although much of the constitution is now ignored or perversely interpreted by our Lords and Masters. The provenance of the basic principles go back to John Locke circa 350 years.

ruveyn1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Their list they made initially when they struck, was premeditated in who they were going to get, who'd be the hardest was Dagny. The policies and directives made later on made it so much easier for them to collapse the structure since the weight kept shifting to certain pillars, and Galt was able to pull them in with hiskind by getting them to join himhim. So that definitely worked to his advantage big time.

Edited by intellectualammo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Their list they made initially when they struck, was premeditated in who they were going to get, who'd be the hardest was Dagny. The policies and directives made later on made it so much easier for them to collapse the structure since the weight kept shifting to certain pillars, and Galt was able to pull them in with hiskind by getting them to join himhim. So that definitely worked to his advantage big time.

But by using the device of a strike wasn't she commenting on the actions of a group aligned by a common cause.? On acting on principles they chose who to ask to strike based on the individuals that most examplified the attributes worth saving. A purge would seem to connote choosing on a more personal level, not necessarily a political one. Edited by tadmjones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

He created the shrinking chamber, and as the gas of theirkinds code rapidly filled it, when he thought those on the list had enough of it, he offered a breath of fresh air to them.

Now when they return to the world they will probably have to hold their noses because of other gases... the smell of all the rotting corpses in NYC. Unless they survived by being cannibals, since there was no food at the end, right?

Edited by intellectualammo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not clear on what all would happen to any survivors still out there in the country when they come back. Parts of his speech seem like only hiskind would deserve to enter, as in, only those that go by the rules and moral terms of his morality of life, but with the political system they will build, I don't know if it's cool for anyone as long as they do not initiate force against others they would deserve to enter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Frisco destroying D'Anconia Copper was definitely a calculated maneuver to bring about the collapse, because it was "so rich that it would last for three more generations of looting"

Rearden said to him "you chose the easiest, most vicious way" "deliberate destruction"

He's not the only one. It was easier and faster to get rid of all those in their way, rather than simply trying to appeal to minds initially. Either way would be moral.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...