Atlas Shrugged - The Next "Story of Us"?

When Ayn Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged” was published in 1957, it was considered a work of science fiction. The theme of “Atlas Shrugged”, as Rand described it, is "the role of man's mind in existence." The book explores a number of themes that Rand would subsequently develop into the philosophy of Objectivism. She was sharply criticized for her ideas and her philosophy of “Objectivism” was denigrated as selfish and regressive in the light of the needs of the general public.

Despite these charges, “Atlas Shrugged” achieved enduring popularity and has maintained consistent sales in the following decades. In the wake of the late 2000s recession, sales of Atlas Shrugged have sharply increased, according to The Economist magazine and The New York Times. The Economist reported that the fifty-two-year-old novel ranked #33 among Amazon's top-selling books on January 13, 2009.

What is the new-found interest in this book? “Atlas Shrugged”, originally called “The Strike” by its working title, portrays an America much like we see today. Overbearing government regulations, distributive policies and a generally accepted point of view held by public officials that radical progressive action must be taken for the good of all and anyone opposed to those policies are disgraced and openly chastised.

In the book, one by one, leaders of industry were disappearing, leaving their businesses deserted and their workers displaced. The book does take an odd turn when those business owners begin to reappear as Objectivist pirates seeking to topple the existing system to establish a new government that promotes the virtues self-reliance for the good of their progeny.

No one really believes that pirates will begin raiding the United States in retaliation for government intervention and oppressive taxation but Atlas is apparently beginning to shrug. New York and California have been seeing a trend of wealthy citizens fleeing the latest round of taxes that have been unfairly levied on them. The computer age no longer necessitates that these people congregate in major centers of commerce since the internet itself, has become the lifeline. The point is, there is no longer any status associated with a Park Avenue address, particularly if that address comes with a personal income tax rate of nearly 60%, now that Healthcare Reform has actually passed. Is it really that bad? Well, the latest figures show that out of eight and a half million people in New York City, a little over forty-three thousand pay more than forty percent of the City's tax revenues. That is obscene by anyone's standards.

The tax exodus not a new trend; in 2006, the rate at which college graduates were escaping New York had risen 127% and the same problems plague California as job prospects evaporate and taxes climb skyward. The real problem for these two bastions of liberal politics and “social responsibility” is that the vacuum created by those that are leaving is being filled by people that do not possess the same earning power so state and city tax revenues have been steadily falling as well. Heaven forbid these states would re-evaluate their commitment to redistributive policy. No, they would prefer to find new revenue sources to fill the void.

The next tax adding to the burden is the so-called “millionaires tax” to fund part of the healthcare reform bill. The truth is the millionaires tax kicks in at income levels well below a million dollars and when combined with the existing tax burden experienced by New York residents, the top marginal rate will effectively be 57%. Since the exodus has begun, New York Governor David Patterson has been insistent that New York must adopt a tax system that is at least competitive with neighboring states and in fact, should consider tax incentives that encourage businesses to relocate to New York, not flee in fear. These ideas have not met with much favor among the more liberal members of the elected elite in New York and in fact, have cost Patterson his position as Governor of New York as the power brokers in NY politics pushed him out of the race.

Anyone looking at the unemployment figures knows that the stimulus plan hasn’t produced the economic results the government had hoped for. The first mistake was the stimulus money was doled out to recipients that understand job creation as poorly as the Federal government does; the Cities and States. It was spent in the worst possible ways with New York again, leading the pack. When comparing the number of jobs that were claimed to have been created directly through stimulus expenditures against the amount of money that was spent, the national average was seventy-three thousand dollars per job with New York reportedly spending nine million per job. As with any short term infusion of capital, the results are bound to be short term as well so we can imagine that those extraordinarily expensive jobs will disappear when the money does.

So why has the stimulus plan failed to deliver? Once again, Atlas is shrugging. Business owners are cringing as they look at the antics and bribes used in Washington to pass healthcare that are now being dusted off to pass the climate bill. Back door meetings and massive spending bills with threats of more taxes, penalties and mandates do not encourage small business to expand, let alone re-hire those that were laid off in last year’s economic downturn. Additionally, if the mandate for private business participation under the current healthcare proposal is fifty employees, how many companies with forty-nine employees will resist expansion and stay right where they are? How many companies with fifty-two employees will downsize to escape the mandates and worse yet, how many will decide that the benefits of operating a business in America just don’t make sense anymore?

The stock market hasn’t rallied yet either. Not only have the threats of increased capital gains taxes dissuaded participation, with the Federal Reserve running the printing presses on overtime, not even Treasury Bills look safe anymore. We also have a new ominous specter; the threat of direct government interference in business. 60% of General Motors is now owned by the Federal government, which should make any advocate of capitalism nervous. There have been executive salary caps placed on banks that received Tarp money and while the legality of that was still under debate, the government announced its plan to cap the executive salaries of all financial institutions since they fall under the regulatory jurisdiction of the Federal government. Following that logic, who is safe? After all, don’t all corporations fall under the regulatory jurisdiction of the Federal government at one level or another?

So what happens if Atlas truly does shrug? What would happen if owning a business became a liability as the Federal government placed more of the burden of America’s social programs on their shoulders in the form of new mandates? What happens if the wealthy decide that leaving New York or California doesn’t offer enough protection against confiscatory taxes? Will they leave the country? The “top one percent” that the Obama regime keeps targeting certainly has the means to do just that. In fact, many have the resources to pull out of the game entirely and live quite comfortably for the rest of their lives on what they have already accumulated. What would happen to the great plans of progressive politics if the top one percent stopped earning a taxable income and just started living? What would happen if the “top one percent” suddenly became people with incomes of one-hundred thousand dollars, eighty-thousand dollars or maybe fifty-thousand dollars when the real wealth in America decides they are not playing anymore?

Some argue that Europe has had massive social programs and progressive taxes for years and business still thrives there. Really? Greece is now on fire because the bills have finally come due and the rest of Europe is now teetering on the brink of fiscal disaster since all of their economies are tied together. The only real advantages Europe has is that European trade agreements favor those at home as does their patent process. Also true is that much of the European infrastructure is fairly new when compared to America’s. Don’t forget that much of Europe was destroyed and rebuilt after World War II. We don’t have that luxury and our older industrial centers find it continually harder to compete with our modernized competitors. Most of Europe has never embarked on the self destructive path of paying its people to stay home that began with Johnson’s “Great Society”.

We have created a new class of subsidized dependents. These are people that have been subjugated by an unfair social services system that demands that you either collect all from the government or get nothing. Fear of losing housing, healthcare and a meager cash allowance keeps them neatly enrolled in the system and insures that they will continue to vote for the people that promise the money will keep coming. After all, when you rob Peter to pay Paul, you can always count on Paul’s support. As unemployment increases and the wealthy “shrug”, who will keep these programs in place? We cannot print much more money or the world financial institutions will lock American currency out of the global economy. What will we do if Atlas does shrug?

Paul

The Roots of Socialism in America

I listen to students and young people comment on politics or society and wonder “how could they possibly believe what they are saying?” It dawned on me that to be able to draw reasonable conclusions, these young minds would have to have been properly educated and have access to all of the facts and not just the select few that suit the political agenda of the educator. While frustrating, there are reasons for this apparent lack of common sense.

The roots of socialism in America are found much as they were in Europe; a revolt against the harsh working conditions of the industrial revolution. It was Karl Marx, a philosopher, political economist, historian, political theorist, sociologist, communist and revolutionary, whose ideas are credited as the foundation of modern communism. Marx summarized his approach in the first line of the first chapter of The Communist Manifesto, published in 1848: “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.”

Marx argued that capitalism, like previous socioeconomic systems, will inevitably produce internal tensions which will lead to its destruction. Just as capitalism replaced feudalism, he believed socialism would, in turn, replace capitalism, and lead to a stateless, classless society called pure communism. This would emerge after a transitional period called the "dictatorship of the proletariat": a period sometimes referred to as the "workers state" or "workers' democracy".

While Marx remained a relatively obscure figure in his own lifetime, his ideas began to exert a major influence on workers' movements shortly after his death. This influence gained added impetus with the victory of the Marxist Bolsheviks in the Russian October Revolution in 1917, and few parts of the world remained significantly untouched by Marxian ideas in the course of the twentieth century.

Teddy Roosevelt would never be known as a Socialist but he did espouse many ideas that were Socialist in nature. He considered himself a progressive and while he did believe in American Imperialism and a strong world military presence, he also believed in heavy government regulation, government control of wages and the redistribution of wealth for the public good.

On the heels of the Russian Revolution, Communist and Socialist movements found an audience in the American Labor movement. The Socialist Party of America was a coalition of local parties based in industrial cities. Even though by 1912 they claimed more than a thousand locally elected officials in 33 states and 160 cities, the party was factionalized. The conservatives, led by Victor Berger, promoted progressive causes of efficiency and an end to corruption. The radicals wanted to overthrow capitalism, tried to infiltrate labor unions, and sought to cooperate with The Industrial Workers of the World (IWW). With few exceptions the party had weak or nonexistent links to local labor unions.

Once the stock market collapsed in 1929 forcing enormous numbers of people into unemployment, the communists surged once again and began to organize rallies and marches in support of workers and workers rights. In March, 1930, hundreds of thousands of unemployed workers marched through New York City, Detroit, Washington, San Francisco and other cities in a mass protest organized by the Communist Party’s Unemployed Councils. In 1931, more than 400 relief protests erupted in Chicago and that number grew by 150 in 1932. The leadership behind these organizations often came from radical groups like Communists and Socialists, who wanted to organize “unfocused neighborhood militancy into organized popular defense organizations.” Workers turned to these radical groups until organized labor became more active in 1932, with the passage of the Norris-La Guardia Act

While Communists and Socialists did gain a foothold in these turbulent years, Walter Philip Reuther the president of the United Auto Workers (UAW) would soon change that. As a prominent figure in the anti-Communist left, he was a founder of the Americans for Democratic Action in 1947. He had left the Socialist party in 1939, and throughout the 1950s and 1960s was a leading spokesman for liberal interests in the CIO and in the Democratic Party.

Labor unions eventually eliminated the public connections between the unions, Communism and Socialism. They traded those links for something less troubling in the public eye, the progressive arm of the Democratic Party which espoused many of the same ideals as Socialists without the negative connotations; what some would call “Communism light”. Now the real work to transform the nation could begin under the American flag and right under the noses of the American people.

Nikita Khrushchev, the Soviet leader 1958 to 1964, had once made a statement is a speech saying that he would “bury” America. Some thought that meant that he meant military action or that he would launch a nuclear attack to bring about his prophecy. That raised even more fear among average Americans during the cold war even though war was hardly his intention.

Khrushchev was perfectly willing to let America move to the left incrementally; here a little, there a little. When speaking about FDR’s New Deal, Khrushchev said, "We can't expect the American people to jump from capitalism to communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving them small doses of socialism, until they awaken one day to find that they have communism."

Changing terminology and calling socialist programs “compassionate conservativism” doesn’t change the nature of the beast itself. Redistributing the wealth to win votes will produce the same devastating end as redistributing the wealth because you are an outright socialist.

From 1959 until 1989, the Communist Party of the United States of America (CPUSA) received a substantial subsidy from the Soviet Union. Starting with $75,000 in 1959 this was increased gradually to $3 million in 1987. This substantial amount reflected the Party's subservience to the Moscow

Yuri Alexandrovic Bezmenov, now known as Tomas David Schuman, was born in 1939 in the former Soviet Union and worked as a journalist for Pravda. In this capacity, he secretly answered to the KGB. His true job was to further the aims of communist Russia After being assigned to a station in India, Bezmenov eventually grew to love the people and culture of India, while, at the same time, he began to resent the KGB-sanctioned oppression of intellectuals who dissented from Moscow's policies. He decided to defect to the West.

Bezmenov/Schuman is best remembered for his Pro-American Anti-communist lectures and books from the 1980s. From his writings and speeches Mr. Bezmenov said: “Ideological subversion is the process which is legitimate and open. You can see it with your own eyes.... It has nothing to do with espionage. I know that intelligence gathering looks more romantic.... That's probably why your Hollywood producers are so crazy about James Bond types of films. But in reality the main emphasis of the KGB is NOT in the area of intelligence at all. According to my opinion, and the opinions of many defectors of my caliber, only about 15% of time, money, and manpower is spent on espionage as such. The other 85% is a slow process which we call either ideological subversion, active measures, or psychological warfare. What it basically means is: to change the perception of reality of every American that despite of the abundance of information no one is able to come to sensible conclusions in the interest of defending themselves, their families, their community, and their country.

It's a great brainwashing process which goes very slow and is divided into four basic stages. The first one being "demoralization". It takes from 15 to 20 years to demoralize a nation. Why that many years? Because this is the minimum number of years required to educate one generation of students in the country of your enemy exposed to the ideology of [their] enemy. In other words, Marxism-Leninism ideology is being pumped into the soft heads of at least three generation of American students without being challenged or counterbalanced by the basic values of Americanism; American patriotism....

The result? The result you can see ... the people who graduated in the 60's, dropouts or half-baked intellectuals, are now occupying the positions of power in the government, civil service, business, mass media, and educational systems. You are stuck with them. You can't get through to them. They are contaminated. They are programmed to think and react to certain stimuli in a certain pattern. You cannot change their mind even if you expose them to authentic information. Even if you prove that white is white and black is black, you still can not change the basic perception and the logic of behavior.”

Thanks to the soviet doctrine in “ideological subversion”, America now has over 10,000 avowed socialist professors teaching in our universities that continue the practice of indoctrination. We also have over 70 members of Congress that consider themselves socialists or progressive socialists. In fact, Henry Waxman and Ed Markey, the authors of the Climate Bill (cap and trade) are two of the Progressive Socialists in Congress which a great reason to oppose that Bill all by itself.

Tomorrow: Joseph McCarthy and the House Un-American Activities Committee.

Paul