This week’s
reading consisted of so much negativity it was hard to bear. Yet Rand was able
to create a situation in which she has truly defined what the apexes of both
the good and bad sides are in society, well at least in her mind. Jim Taggart
is an absolutely terrible man, even I will attest to this. He laughs at the
failures of others and more specifically enjoys when he himself causes others
to fail. Even so I do not believe that this type of person is a looter than can
only exist in a socialistic society.
Jim Taggart
represents what I believe is all the evil that comes along when business and
human nature are intertwined. Let’s be honest, we all want to succeed and in
this process we have accepted the fact that for us to do so others must fail.
That is how competition, the root of all capitalism, works. I believe that Jim
Taggart is not the king of all looters, nor is he the absolute product of socialism,
I believe that Jim Taggart is the product and result of what is a part of every
one of us, human nature.
There is a
strong parallelism that goes on in this particular reading between polar opposites
of the novel, Rearden and Taggart. Both men see their families fall apart.
Rearden really no longer cares and Taggart is just lost in his own world where
he has become the king. These two men are different in the way that Rand
describes how Rearden is a hard worker and Taggart thrives as a parasite on
people like Rearden, but are these men really that different. If Rearden is abandoning
his company and therefore society does him really care about saving what is
left. Taggart obviously doesn’t care, as he cackles as it burns. Both men have
given up on society. Rearden chose not to fight to the bitter end, which is
what a truly virtuous man in this society must do.
It is obvious
at this point that the world as we know it in the novel is coming ever so close
to its bitter end. Signs like the destruction of the mines as well as the
famine caused by the diversion of the Taggart train cars are showing that this
society does not work. Jim Taggart has now been identified as a killer, even in
a way of his own wife. Jim Taggart is evil; I just feel that this is the kind
of man that will always find ways to thrive in society. This is the kind of man
that we all despise, yet all of us have a little part of him in us. Jim Taggart
is not a looter; he is the root of evil, an evil that exists always, in capitalism
and socialism.
I agree with Zane on a variety of ideas including the concept that Taggart is really not the most admirable character in the novel. Throughout the readings, his character is constantly arrogant and over competitive. However, to an extent, I actually do admire Taggart because in reality, where would a company like Taggart’s be without his kind of leadership? Taggart’s aggressive attitude along with his overall confidence may come off as annoying to the reader, but it is undoubtedly effective. Furthermore, the part of Zane’s post that I really struggle to comprehend is how he calls Taggart “evil”. In addition, through his comments he implies that people like Taggart are the roots for division between large and small businesses. I would have to completely disagree with Zane in relation to the idea that Taggart is “evil”. It would interest me to see an America without business leaders as effective as Taggart. The economy would be a complete disaster. To conclude, I find it hard to believe that one could call a hardworking man “evil” when people like Taggart are the leaders that help establish a legitimate economy.
ReplyDelete