The Layman’s Summary
• I loved The Fountainhead. I hated Atlas Shrugged.
• Merchants make that money.
• We Americans historically hoist the Merchant class high above all others.
• Merchants aren’t such bad guys, actually… except when they are.
The Fountainhead vs Atlas Shrugged
Many years ago, at a time before I talked about such things with people, I read The Fountainhead. It’s one of my favorite books, even though the courtroom at the end is so very preachy. I loved Howard Rourke. I understood his drive for creation instead of approval, his breed of independent, relentless creativity, both his patience and lack of it, and his frustration with the world in which he lived. He made choices that I would not have made, but I understand why he made them.
Rather than continuing to try to bend society into something better (my foolish quest), his visions and creations were only for people who understood them for what they were. Having to justify the existence of what was obviously exceptional was beneath him and beneath what was exceptional. His craft was at a level higher than those that judged it. Why should he care what they thought when what he created was so obviously beautiful? I understood this thoroughly, viscerally.
I tried to find other books written by Ayn Rand and immediately discovered Atlas Shrugged. I made it, I think, three chapters in. I just couldn’t finish it. Revulsion is the only word that comes to mind. I recently watched the Atlas Shrugged movies (Parts Iⅈ I may not be able to handle III when it comes out) and they triggered a similar revulsion. I endured this and watched the entire performance, as it seemed unfair not to let them get their complete message out. The story registered on virtually every one of my senses as something to reject thoroughly, viscerally.
What does it say about me that I liked The Fountainhead but I didn’t like Atlas Shrugged? They were by the same author and, ostensibly, carried the same message. My gut reaction was that it was celebrating a monarchical interpretation of capitalism and defending elitism all to make clear the assumed greater value of one kind of person. It appeared to me, ultimately, to be a defense of the supremacy of the merchant class.
The Merchant Class
“Merchant” isn’t really a word that we use anymore. We prefer “salesperson,” “entrepreneur,” “business person,” “banker,” etc. These terms all fall under the umbrella of the term “merchant.” A merchant is a wealth specialist; one who accumulates wealth for its own sake. A merchant studies the behaviors of all things that affect wealth and then uses that knowledge to accrue more wealth through trade.
Let me explain. A non-merchant does a job and is paid, then immediately goes to spend the money on necessities, hobbies, interests, etc. A merchant does a job, is paid, and then immediately reinvests as much as can be parted with in order to accumulate more wealth. The merchant’s argument is not, “I need to work more hours to make more money so that I can buy a house.” Rather, the merchant’s argument is, “I need to work more hours to make more money so that I can have more money.” A merchant’s trade is not the goods or services provided. A merchant’s trade is trade.
There are definitions of “merchant” available in Merriam-Webster and The Free Dictionary. As is often the case, I prefer the definition I found on Wikipedia.
A merchant is a businessperson who trades in commodities produced by others, in order to earn a profit.
I called the merchants a “class,” a term I should probably also define. For this, I’ll go with Merriam-Webster’s third definition.
3: a group, set, or kind sharing common attributes
…though the more common interpretation would be the second definition.
2.a: a group sharing the same economic or social status (the working class)
Who are the merchants? What are they like? They are roughly as diverse as any other class. Much like other types, they can be extraordinarily obtuse with any threat to their ideas, mores, or profession. They tend to be opinionated, pushy, brash, arrogant… most of the characteristics you would associate with an asshole, except that many assholes are lazy. The true merchant is not.
Fourth Floor, Swimming Pools, Movie Stars…
The United States was built by and for merchants. We elevate the merchant class, associating their characteristics (the good and the bad) with our national identity. As a result, the merchant class and classes that support it (goods and entertainment; the things that make the common person feel like royalty) do very well in America. If you are most proud of your ability to sell ketchup to a woman in white gloves or snow to an Eskimo… or water in a bottle to an American, or you produce that ketchup, snow, or water (well, collect it), then you will probably do well.
Should we really be surprised, then, that the people who make it out of squalor are often merchants at heart? Call them what you will; drug dealers, athletes, entertainers. They are merchants or supported by merchants and they exhibit those easily recognizable traits, often taking these traits over the top and out of proportion.
Our culture elevates this brash extrovert, but why? There’s an obvious answer to that. Sometimes that’s the solution to the problem. Sometimes that’s the person that you need to resolve the problem at hand. Sometimes. But not all the time. In fact, sometimes that person is the problem and the solution person is the complete opposite. In our culture, the quiet, contemplative person is often portrayed as the sidekick or the villain.
In other cultures, it’s the reverse is true. For example, in Japanese culture, it is the quiet, contemplative person that is the hero. It is the loud, brash extrovert that is the villain. There is, of course, more variety in this today than historically, but the trend can still be easily observed. The dominant character is the loud, impatient, pushy, self-righteous American stereotype.
Son of a Loving Mother
The irony is that they are not necessarily a bunch of bastards. Certainly the purpose of the movie version of Atlas Shrugged was to imbue us all with that sense, but I believed this before I saw it. The entire movie and, presumably, the book were in defense of the characteristics that make the merchant a valuable, indispensable contributor to our society.
And their arguments are obviously true. Many innovations owe their successful births and distributions to the entrepreneur who saw the new thing, imagined a world with it, and took the risk upon themselves to make that vision a reality. Here’s a short list of examples:
• Most of the technology booms in history (railroad, computers, and the internet)
• Economic equality and opportunity across cultural barriers
• The global economic interconnectedness that has led to no more gigantic wars
That said, when the merchant has had free reign to do as they please, bad things have happened. Here’s another short list of examples:
• Enron, the Auto Industry and Bank Crises, and the Recession
• New world (17th – 19th century) and modern agricultural, sexual, and industrial slavery (some of old world slavery can be attributed to other classes)
• Initiation of many wars whose purpose was almost entirely economic (American Revolution, Confederate Secession, Mexican-American War, etc)
But, even ignoring many ethically questionable (and reprehensible) decisions in history and of late, there are some problems with a society run by merchants.
Be sure to catch a neat way of thinking about this in the next post, The Crossing.
Play nice,
-CG