望长城内外

It is said to be the second most influential book in the U.S., the first being The Bible.

1168 pages, three parts, 10 chapters each. My favorite is Part I, Chapter 5. In essence, the resonance is given by this sentence: "...[T]here's only one form of human depravity -- the man without a purpose." The pure joy of achievement after long struggling efforts is both so near and remote that I cannot resist the invisible pulling force of the story, but followed it half-blindly, half-astonished while Ayn Rand unfolding her fiction.

Well, to some extent, it's not a fiction; it was also part of the history of China, where, once upon a time, people were taught, as the book described, that high morality means sacrifice, or "share" in their language; people were taught that everyone should work to the extent of his ability but rewarded the same as every other citizen in the country -- there should be equal distribution based on needs. Chinese were, and still are to some extent, proud of this high morality, the altruism. There was no private property right; everything belonged to the society, to the country. It was predicted that they would achieve a harmonious state where no exploitation exists because monopolies, the mountains that suppresses the working class have been removed, where no poverty suffered because people are equally rich country-wide. But will this altruistic moral code lead them to this harmonious state? Ayn Rand said, firmly, NO!

Then what will happen to a society that worship such moral codes? As shown in Atlas Shrugged, these sacrificial moral codes triggered moral hazard, since no matter how much effort one put in, he receives as much as his neighbor does, and then what's the incentive to work? For those at or below the average ability, which was the majority, they might be better of at first, because they may receive wealth that used to belong to the minority who are above the average. However, what if those above the average become aware of the rule, of their status, i.e. being exploited, and decide to quit? What if they, the Atlas who pillars the society, stop producing -- stop exploiting, if you wish, the average and below? Wherever there are crowds, there are left, middle and right. Therefore, the average dropped. Don't be too naive to think that the average would be stable after removing a handful of industrialists, who were targeted as the enemy of the society. Instead of a "happily-thereafter", the only path the society faced was an ever-dropping average, for the lack of incentive and ability, as well as the drainage of the mind.  People who are capable of becoming Atlas were smart enough (most of them) to hide their intelligence so as not to be aimed; the rest, the incapable, were those who took the power. They obtained important occupations in key industries, in government agencies, not by merit, but by their connections, their friends in Washington. Production kept dropping due to inefficient management by laymen and unskilled labor. A natural, but futile effort the government made to maintain the economy at the then current level was to "order" the quantity being produced by each firm to remain the same. People are assigned to a certain amount of food, of necessities. Everyone has to consume exactly the same amount of goods across years. It is against law to change job, or to fire people. Yet the law is not absolute under certain condition -- if you are useful in certain ways to Washington, or if you have a background influential enough in Washington, you may be granted an exception. There was no need to improve, for the key issue was to maintain the status quo, no reward for creativity, no personal opinion necessary, for obedience, serving your neighbor, were regarded as virtue. Entertainments and beauty were considered guilty and therefore were sacrificed to idling and ugliness. Average, or middle, was the safest one wanted to be. People were not supposed to ask questions, simply taking orders. No need for being responsible either, besides, there was nobody who dare to take any, for both lack of ability to do so and for the hope that people above the average would take care of everything. Everyone should have faith in Washington. For instance, when it is said that wheat is no long the best choice for food, all transportation of wheat stopped and the harvest rotted by the railroad, watching the spread of a country wide famine. The so-called best food was unripe, and some second best was simply fruit that grown by people who have connections in Washington. This famine, of course, was claimed as a result from natural disaster, without any doubt. How amazing it is that all these were exactly what happened in China! 1958, the Great Leap Forward started.  1959-1961, a country wide natural disaster.  And do keep in mind, this book was published in 1957.

Ayn Rand's prediction went on. Some intellectuals, the Atlas, thought they are not satisfied with what the world was becoming and they wanted to be the change. They believe that their voice should be heard, either out of responsibility for the country (or over confident, in Rand's word), or simply out of optimism (over optimistic). Before long, they became the public enemy because the moral code they claimed are opposite to, or diverge from what Washington said. They were about to be removed. Media had lost its independence long ago, along with some intellectuals who gave up and became living corpse, speaking for Washington. The rest, in the book, were "rescued" by John Galt and found Atlantis, where they lived happily thereafter. As what happened in China, as you known, it was 10-year Cultural Revolution, whose effect ripples generations later.

Well, I should not be too pessimistic. After all, Cultural Revolution ended long before Rand's predicted disaster and the leader at that time was wiser than those in the book. After all, it is Capitalism, with Chinese characteristics, that we chose to follow. Also, perhaps, Chinese Atlas indeed found their Atlantis, though in America, Australia, and Europe.

It's said that when Ayn Rand gave her book to the publisher, who was astonished by the length of the book, she asked, was there anyone who thought the Bible was too lengthy?

However, after all, it is not The Bible. She created an Atlantis for Atlas, but what about those who realize the game but not prominent enough to be admitted by the Atlantis? She offered them, death. Her solution to the society as a whole, which is to fully follow the market, also fails to convince me.  We all know that market has failures, for instance, monopoly. The fact that monopoly earns extraordinarily unfair profit and thus inefficient is as black-and-white and severe as the inefficiency caused by improper government control.

In essence, this is a book of Rand's philosophy. She doesn't believe in the middle ground. Whereas I always believe that life is about searching balance points between different pairs of contradictions, in other words, about searching for the middle ground. Pure market won't lead to efficiency, nor will pure government planning; there has to be a combination of the two, at a ratio determined by a given country. However, it is much more difficult to implicate than to say so. Perhaps, this is the root why Americans are so afraid of nationalization. Nevertheless, I do agree that market should be the base; government should merely be the adjustment. I have no doubt that even Karl Max would agree, that Capitalism comes before Socialism.

The major struggle I had while reading the book was about her moral code, which given as John Galt's oath: "I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for the sake of mine.” I find it too selfish to lead to a sustainable and harmonious Atlantis promised in the book. When Ayn Rand emphasized on the moral hazard brought about by the sacrificial moral code, she ignored the aftermath of her own -- the best example being the current financial crisis. Besides, what about love from parents to their children? What about compromises between lovers? Isn't such sanctification exist, as merely knowing your children are happy, or your lover are happy because of you?

Nevertheless, I agree on not accepting "undeserved rewards and unrewarded duties". I know that I agree on this, but I've not been living on it. Or to be more specific, I accept undeserved rewards but reject unrewarded duties. After all, I am greedy. Yet, this is something that worth keeping in mind: to work hard enough to deserve the reward I want.

I also agree on loving one's life, regarding it as the highest of all. I thought I've always lived this, though occasionally, I'd thought about Patrovics whose poem was one of the corner stone of Chinese education: "For my love, I'll sacrifice life; for liberty, I'll sacrifice my love." By this, we were taught to accept the rank: liberty > love > life. Also, we were taught the revenge story of Emperor Gou Jian, who endured being a slave of Emperor Fu Chai who defeated him, and waited for years before regained his freedom and won the next war against Emperor Fu Chai and earned liberty for himself and his citizens. By this story, we were taught to accept this rank: life > liberty. For as long as you are alive, you still have chance to get what you want. But aren't these creed contradict each other? At this stage, I'm not capable for philosophical challenges. But I when I'm puzzled I do try to understand the situation from the principle aspect.  It was during the wind surfing class. The girl in my team sailed out but fell in the water on her way back. As she paddled back towards the shore, it's obvious that she's getting exhausted. Nobody in our team offered help. As she swam nearer, I, who was taught by so many heroic stories in which heroes saved others selflessly, who believed that it's a ultimate virtue to help others in difficulty, swam towards her and helped her back without a second thought, simply believed that I should do this. I don't remember if she thanked me, but I do remember what my best friend said to me when we landed:"Scarlett, you shouldn't have done that. You shouldn't have swum out there without a life jacket." I was astonished and muttered:"I thought she needed help..." "There are tutors who would take care of that." Very true. It was somebody else's duty. I should not have done that. I should treasure my life. What if the river is more dangerous than I expected? My swimming towards the girl might make things more complicated once the tutor comes to help. The bottom line is, different part of the society should fulfill its own duty and let people mind their own business. Some people consider this as "cultural difference". Other examples/stereotypes being: Americans are more independent than Chinese;  Americans are more self-awared than Chinese, etc. In my opinion, these are only superficial phenomena. The underlying cause is the value system, the moral code the society identified.

Similarly, should I give my money to beggars? It's Government's responsibility to offer shelters and social benefits, with tax-payer's money.  Suppose people are willing to help the beggars on the street, then the beggars would prefer to stay where they are and be fed instead of traveling to the shelter, which in turn become a waste of tax-payers' money, inefficiency thus created. Additionally, there are always lazy people who might want to use others' generosity and don't mind becoming beggars. In this way, it's not difficult to predict a vicious cycle. Of course, some may argue that people's kindness/tolerance are bounded. But doesn't this mean that we need to check our premise, and to adjust assumption? There are many other similar issues that once magnified, become principle issues. It seems that myself have come to a contradiction: I was against Ayn Rand's extremism, but trapped in my middle ground searching as well. Alas, I'll stop here.

Provided that the book represents the essence of American culture, it definitely worth the time and effort to read and digest. After all, to understand a culture is to decipher its moral codes and value system.