I didn't "see" the same thing in Atlas Shrugged that I was apparently supposed to see. To me, the protagonists were the altruistic, non-objectivists. The antag

I didn't "see" the same thing in Atlas Shrugged that I was apparently supposed to see. To me, the protagonists were the altruistic, non-objectivists. The antagonists, far from being "collectivists" were actually compulsively selfish, even to the point of using collectivism as a means to advance their own selfish agendas (for an objectivist, why isn't subjugation of the masses a legitimate means to achieve personal fulfillment?) Of course this is, in part, just good writing on Rand's part, the protagonist is supposed to at least garner sympathy, if not admiration. But in order to make the characters sympathetic or admirable I feel she compromised what was, supposedly, her vision (or maybe it is her vision that has been distorted recently, I don't know). People who are exclusively self-interested don't try to contribute to the world. They do whatever gets them what they want (of course you can argue that Dagney Taggart wanted a successful transportation empire, but that seems like a pretty esoteric thing to lust after). The fact that the heroes and heroines were outraged by what they saw in society means, to me anyway, that they weren't exclusively self-interested (and if they were, then they derived significant personal utility from the welfare of others, which is really the same thing as being tribal/social/collectivist). They were acting as collectivists. Maybe I misunderstood the entire book, who knows.