October 28, 2025
Atlas Shrugged Revisited | “The Non-Commercial//The Exploiters and the Exploited” [01|06//07]
Chapters 6 and 7 mark a strange transition in Atlas Shrugged. Chapter 6 opens with something we’ve seen before: another gathering of the elite, another polished room full of people pretending they still believe in the world they live in. After the tense party in Chapter 5, it almost feels like a rerun — same champagne, same elegant dresses, same avoidance of anything real.
But this time, it lands a little differently. By Chapter 7, the mood shifts — not because the world suddenly changes, but because the setting does. We leave Manhattan and follow Dagny into Colorado, a place that still seems to pulse with energy, risk, and effort. The contrast is sharp. What we’re shown here isn’t just about plot progression. It’s a thematic pivot — from surface to structure, from what’s performed to what’s actually built.
And that’s where the deeper tension of these chapters sits: not just between individuals, but between value systems. One world runs on presentation. The other runs on production. One lives in Manhattan. The other is still being built in the mountains.
⸻
The Socialist Gala (Chapter 6)
Chapter 6 revolves around a charity gala for the National Theatre — another high-society event filled with all the usual suspects: Hank Rearden, Dagny Taggart, Lillian Rearden, and Francisco d’Anconia. But as it’s often the case in Rand’s world, the real action isn’t always in the announcements or speeches. It’s in the atmosphere. And here, again, that very atmosphere is all performance — just dressed in a more self-righteous tone.
The gala’s stated purpose is noble: raising funds for the arts. But what it really reveals is a deep fixation on appearances — not just personal style, but moral posturing. Lillian Rearden, in particular, shines as an emblem of this world: polished, socially sharp, and completely hollow. She flaunts her diamond bracelet while mocking the one Hank gave her — the one made from the first batch of Rearden Metal. To her, the real symbol of achievement is “ugly.” What matters is status, not meaning.
Francisco’s appearance complicates things. He arrives like he always does — smooth, aloof, enigmatic — but this time, something else cuts through. His flirtation with Lillian seems playful on the surface, but underneath, it’s aggressive. He’s not charming her. He’s undermining her. And Hank notices. The moment is uncomfortable — not just because of jealousy, but because it’s unclear what Francisco is even doing anymore. Is he a fool? A manipulator? Or something else entirely?
Everything about this gala is about illusion — about saying the right things, wearing the right symbols, supporting the right causes. But it’s empty. No one builds. No one risks. No one creates anything of real value. In that sense, Chapter 6 isn’t telling us anything new — it’s just showing us the same condition through a different lens. Where Chapter 5 exposed the hollowness beneath social conversation, Chapter 6 reveals the same beneath so-called “moral culture.” The elite aren’t celebrating the arts — they’re using the arts to polish their reputations. At this stage of Atlas Shrugged, even virtue has become a costume.
⸻
What Colorado Represents (Chapter 7)
If Chapter 6 was another glimpse into the stillness of the old world, Chapter 7 takes us somewhere new. The setting shifts — quite literally — to Colorado, and with it comes a different kind of energy. Dagny Taggart travels west to meet Ellis Wyatt, an independent oil tycoon who’s succeeding in spite of a culture that seems determined to punish success. The mood changes immediately. The decay, the false smiles, the talk-show morality of New York is gone. Here, there’s heat. Tension. Movement. Colorado is Rand’s answer to the question: What if somewhere, the world still works?
Everything in this chapter — the land, the people, even the conversations — feels charged with purpose. Ellis Wyatt himself is a firebrand - sharp and impatient - but also alive in a way none of the Manhattan socialites are. He doesn’t want compliments. He wants rail lines that actually work. He doesn’t want to argue theory. He wants to build. Dagny respects him instantly — not because he flatters her, but because he needs her. Not emotionally, but practically. He needs the rails she’s trying to lay, and she needs the energy he’s literally pulling out of the ground.
This is where she introduces the John Galt Line — her plan to build a new transcontinental railroad using Rearden Metal, which the government refuses to approve or support and which the media is actively attacking. But here, in Colorado, her idea isn’t ridiculed. It’s welcomed. Not blindly, but pragmatically. Wyatt wants to see results, not headlines. And the sense you get is that Dagny, for the first time in the novel, is finally in a place that matches her rhythm.
But even here, the tension isn’t gone. Back in New York, the pushback is growing. The media has begun to twist the story, turning Rearden Metal into a “public risk.” Politicians aren’t regulating for safety — they’re sabotaging out of fear. Every step forward comes with threats of lawsuits, bad press, and bureaucratic interference. The contrast between the people who build and the people who block couldn’t be sharper. The former are working 14-hour days in steel and heat. The latter are writing memos.
Somewhere in the background of all this, Francisco d’Anconia reappears — not in his usual tuxedo, but in a quieter, more human moment. He speaks with Dagny in private, and something about him has changed. There’s less arrogance now, more weight. He looks tired. She sees something like regret in him — maybe even shame. The moment passes quickly, but it lingers. Who is this man? And why is he pretending not to care?
The key takeaway from this chapter isn’t just the contrast in geography. It’s the contrast in values. Manhattan runs on appearances. Colorado runs on outcomes. And between them stands Dagny — trying to build a bridge with a material the world refuses to accept.
⸻
What If the System Actually Protects You from Growth?
One of the most counterintuitive questions that rises from these chapters is this: What if most people aren’t being oppressed by the system — but protected from a world that demands more than they’re willing (or even able) to give? It’s a dangerous idea, and Rand knows it. It flips the marxist victim narrative that many of us are more familiar with — the one where the working class is crushed by the elite, or the average person is boxed in by broken systems. That story isn’t entirely false. But Rand asks us to consider the inverse: that many of those systems — education, media, politics — aren’t just failing to demand excellence. They’re designed not to.
Rand’s critique - at its sharpest - is that mediocrity isn’t just tolerated. It’s rewarded. And anyone who insists on excellence, on merit, on standards — especially moral standards — becomes a threat. Not because they’re wrong, but because they expose the (moral) laziness in the rest of us. This is why in Rand’s world, the high achiever becomes a target. Not only because they succeed, but because they succeed without permission. And that forces everyone else to look inward — to confront the possibility that the gap isn’t always about “privilege”, but about discipline, vision, and a refusal to settle.
Now, you can push back here. Not everyone has the same resources, temperament, or background. Not everyone can be Hank Rearden. That’s fair. But Rand’s point isn’t that everyone needs to be a titan of industry. It’s that no one should be punished for trying — and that when a society begins to sabotage its builders in order to protect its bystanders, the decline isn’t just economic. It’s spiritual. What begins as resentment turns into ideology. And what looks like fairness can quickly become fear in disguise.
⸻
Rand vs. Populism
In Atlas Shrugged, Rand sketches the early outlines of a media–academia–politics triangle long before it became a modern talking point. Characters like Bertram Scudder - a journalist for The Future - twist public perception through emotionalism and guilt, painting industrialists as villains not through facts but vague moral condemnation. These narratives don’t come from nowhere — they’re rooted in academic dogma. Figures like Dr. Simon Pritchett - a philosopher at Taggart’s university - deny objectivity, celebrate helplessness, and teach that the human mind is powerless.
That worldview then becomes institutionalized: politicians like Wesley Mouch, cloaked in concern for the “public good,” use these popularized theories to justify destructive legislation. It’s a feedback loop — but also a chain of descent. For Rand, the root cause is never political or economic or cultural. It’s philosophical. Bad ideas become bad curricula, bad journalism, and ultimately, bad law. The crisis of civilization doesn’t begin with corrupt government. It begins with a rejection of reason — and everything else follows downstream of that.
At this point, you might notice something strange: Ayn Rand and today’s populist movements — e.g. figures like Trump and J.D. Vance — both attack the same target. They both rail against the “establishment”: the politicians, the academics, the media class. Both claim that a corrupt elite has captured the system and is using it to control or mislead the public. But the similarity ends there.
Populism, at least in its modern form, rallies around the image of the “common man.” The factory worker. The farmer. The forgotten middle class. It glorifies the ordinary citizen — not necessarily because he builds, but because he belongs. His suffering is what gives him virtue.
Rand, on the other hand, doesn’t glorify anyone just for existing. In her world, virtue doesn’t come from hardship — it comes from creation. She champions the doer, the thinker, the person who makes things better not just for themselves, but for others — through competence, through effort, and through choice. That kind of excellence can’t be handed to you by your background or your pain. It has to be earned. This is what makes her vision so different — and, for many, so uncomfortable.
The populist says: “You’ve been forgotten. You matter”. Rand says: “You matter if you produce something that matters.” And yet — they both wage war against the same class of people. The intellectual bureaucrats. The media opinionists. The university elites. So the question becomes: why?
In Atlas Shrugged, it’s because these people talk in moral terms, but don’t live them. They write theories they don’t test. They make declarations they don’t follow. They accumulate influence without creating value. In her view, they’ve hijacked the language of morality to cover for mediocrity — and built a system that punishes those who expose it. But what about populists? Do they really believe in the virtue of the common man — or is it just a Machiavellian PR-performance to secure votes, to stir emotion, to win power in a system they claim to hate?
Hard to say. But here’s the irony: while populists pretend to uplift the common man and resent the elite, Rand does the opposite. She attacks the elite — but only because they no longer live up to the standard of excellence they claim to represent. In the end, both movements want to overthrow the same regime. But only one of them wants to replace it with something better.
⸻
Will vs. Ability — Is Rand Too Harsh?
As the novel sharpens its moral lines — between builders and talkers, effort and evasion — a deeper question begins to surface: Is Rand being too harsh?
When Dagny and Rearden push through every obstacle, when Ellis Wyatt blazes with energy, when Francisco whispers through a mask of irony, the message is clear: greatness is a choice. Excellence is a duty. The world is built by those who refuse to stop. But what about the rest?
Not everyone can be Hank Rearden. Not everyone wants to be. Some people are less risk-taking, have other life-goals than chasing innovation, or are just too overwhelmed by the demands of modern life. Some don’t know what they’re meant to do. Some are just trying to survive. And so the question emerges: Is non-productivity always a moral failure — or just a human limit?
Rand, at least in Atlas Shrugged, draws her lines with a firm hand. But there’s room to ask whether her model leaves space for the “ordinary,” for those whose lives don’t scale, whose contributions aren’t industrial or intellectual or monumental — but real nonetheless.
One way out of the dilemma might be to shift the frame: What if the moral distinction isn’t between producers and non-producers — but between people who are moving forward and people who have decided not to try?
That would make the real issue orientation, not output. Willingness, not worldly impact. Maybe the deepest sin in Rand’s world isn’t being small — it’s being evasive. It’s hiding from the responsibility of thought, the call of growth, the risk of effort. In that light, the contrast isn’t between titans and “losers.” It’s between people who face their lives — and people who run from them.
And that makes the story less elitist than it first appears. Because courage, clarity, and self-direction — they’re not tied to IQ or income or industry-impact. They’re choices. And they’re available - at least in some way - to everyone.
⸻
Merit, Labor, and New Definitions?
Rand’s world is built around visible productivity — steel, rails, engines. But not all value is so tangible. What about the slow work of healing, caregiving, learning, or building relationships? What about the emotional labor that holds communities together? These aren’t questions Rand addresses directly — but they matter deeply in 2025. As we continue into the next chapters, we’ll keep asking: What counts as growth today? And who gets to define it?
⸻
Postscript: A Glimpse at the Cultural Infrastructure
It’s tempting to dismiss Rand’s “looters” as relics of the 20th century — bureaucrats in gray suits, cloaked in government jargon, quietly sabotaging those who build. But part of what keeps her critique relevant is how familiar the broader structure remains.
In Rand’s view, universities, media, and government weren’t isolated institutions. They formed a kind of cultural supply chain — a feedback loop in which abstract theories became journalistic narratives, which then shaped political action. A bad idea, once legitimized in academia, could be popularized in the press and then codified into law. Anyone who challenged that loop — whether through innovation, critique, or success — risked being labeled immoral.
Today, that apparatus no longer functions with the same cohesion. Journalism is fragmented. Academia is polarized. The state is often gridlocked. There is no longer one dominant consensus being handed down from above. But what has replaced it?
The collapse of top-down authority hasn’t led to clarity — it’s led to noise. The signal-to-noise ratio has dropped, public trust has eroded, and while more people are speaking than ever before, fewer are truly being heard. Institutions may no longer hold the same moral authority — but the void they’ve left hasn’t been filled with reason. Just distraction. Rand wanted to clear away the fog — but the fog hasn’t lifted. It’s just changed shape.
“Times are bad. Children no longer obey their parents, and everyone is writing a book” (or a philosophical blog) - Marcus Tullius Cicero (allegedly)
⸻
Final Thought: Something Is Falling Apart — But What?
By the end of Chapter 7, it’s no longer just the railroads or the industries that feel like they’re collapsing. It’s something deeper — something under the surface. The characters are moving, the conflict is rising, but the air has changed. And not just in Manhattan.
Francisco is no longer just a mask. Dagny is no longer just a rail executive. Rearden is no longer just a steel man. The battle is no longer just about metal, or money, or regulation. It’s about meaning. About the will to stand behind what you build.
And so the chapter ends not in triumph — but in tension. Ellis Wyatt says it plainly: “I don’t want to be protected from danger. I want to face it and beat it.” That might be the clearest expression of Rand’s whole moral framework. Don’t protect me. Don’t pity me. Don’t manage me. Just give me the space to try.
In that world, the true heroes aren’t the loudest or the richest. They’re the ones who don’t look away. Who stay in the fight. Who still believe it’s possible to make something new. But what happens when even they start to disappear? That question — still quiet, still waiting — is the real cliffhanger.