The Electrostatic Engine, Rearden Metal, Project Xylophone, The Gulch Stealth Screen, etc. These technological story elements do not actually exist, but could come to be in some form or another.

So Rand cast Atlas Shrugged in the realm of Science Fiction, but yes, it is obviously social and ecomomic commentary as well.

I have no definitive answer, maybe a theory. A lot of science fiction is pro-Liberty, or anti-authoritarian, like 1984 and Fahrenheit 451. One possibility.

But as a major in Economics and minor in Philosophy, AS is definitely more realistic and predictive than science fiction. For God's sake, it's coming true just as written, and clearly to me has been since my first of many readings in 1969.

My other theory is that the people who fear it being read call it science fiction in order to marginalize the truth in it, and minimize the profound lessons to be found in both the novel and her incomparable leap forward in Rationist Philosophy

Science fiction is known for offering social and economic commentary.

"What's in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet;"

Happier that it is SciFi. Attractive to larger audience.

Say what?? I first read AS more than 40 years ago, and this is the first time I've ever seen the "Science Fiction" label on it. Most of what I read is science fiction, and I've been haunting that section of bookstores since the ink was barely dry on the first printing of AS. I've never once seen it on the shelves there.

Me dino had never heard of Ayn Rand when AS1 came out.
Fortunately for old dino, I like speculative science fiction about the near future.
The "labeling" led me in.
I found the social and economic commentary fascinating.
Thus I became exposed the Ayn Rand's philosophy and discovered the Gulch doing research.

It is science fiction that is social and economic commentary with a strong hunk of morality and ethics thrown in. The science part is to provide a vehicle for the philosophical backbone of the story.

I hardly ever hear Atlas Shrugged labeled as science fiction. Most critiques center on its political and philosophical content. However, I discovered that a major science fiction magazine published two reviews of Ayn Rand's novel in 1958:
http://www.troynovant.com/Franson/Ran...

Really I usually hear it called a philosophical novel, or a thriller, or literary fiction.

Four elements of the plot of Atlas Shrugged qualify as science-fiction plot devices. They are:

1. John Galt's electrostatic motor,

2. Rearden Metal,

3. Project X, and

4.John Galt's refractor-ray camouflage screen.

Of these, I'd pick the electrostatic motor as the main element.

Years ago, for a project to discuss Atlas Shrugged on Conservapedia, I researched each of these four elements, to decide whether and how well I could explain them. The electrostatic motor was a staple of the science fiction of Jules Verne. Captain Nemo's Nautilus (Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea) had an electrostatic power plant, and so did Robur's Albatross (Master of the World, Robur the Conqueror). (The film adaptation of Twenty Thousand Leagues changed the electrostatic power plant to a nuclear power plant. But the adaptation of the Robur story kept the electrostatic power plant for Albatross. Considering the latter was a multi-rotor helicopter, it made sense.)

People have tried to build the electrostatic motor, but have achieved no success beyond a student-level project. Rearden Metal remains a dream of metallurgy: a substitutionary alloy of iron and copper, with interstitial carbon to harden it. The refractor-ray screen frankly needed a microprocessor to run it. But Project X, in view of the coherent sound beam project at Leeds University, now becomes a feasible project in present day.

Having said all that, I did not regard Atlas Shrugged as science fiction. The inventions seemed to me to be the kind of thing one would expect in a few years from a contemporary setting. And most of the story took place in the setting of contemporary inventions. So whoever labeled it science fiction, probably didn't want to believe some of the other future-history elements. Like the runaway Constitutional convention that is the only thing that could have produced a generically named "Head of State," and a unicameral Legislature that could grant such sweeping powers to the quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial bodies we saw in Directive 10-289 and the Railroad Unification Plan.

In all fairness, Karl Marx's "Capital" should be called un-scientific fiction.

I think that the critics choice of a "scifi" category is an attempt to reduce the influence of the novel. In the minds of some Scifi is not a serious literary category.

I never looked AS as sci-fi. The tech advancements were used as a vehicle to exemplify her philosophy. It's actually odd for me to learn AS is considered sci-fi.

Those doing the labeling are biased?

In the dark past of Science Fiction, the Future (at least the way the future was supposed to be) belonged to technocrats, progressives and socialists. In a sort of Hegelian antithesis and synthesis, some sf writers, including Bob Heinlein, produced stories that were anti-progressive or anti-socialist.

The question of which books ARE science fiction and which are not has occupied the minds of sf fans for decades.

Referring to Rand's works as (mere) science fiction is one of the many methods of disparagement applied by her detractors over the decades. Rand herself did not care for the sf genre, according to remarks that I heard her make in answer to questions about sf. She often bristled at attempts to classify her style into some literary compartment, but I recollect hearing her say that "Anthem" was a poem.

In the vast library of the MIT Science Fiction Society ("We're not fans, we just read the stuff.) the Bible was at one time shelved under Anthologies, G.

Let's check the catalogue:

http://mitsfs.mit.edu/pinkdex/index?t...

author(s) . . . title(s)
GOD . . . . HOLY BIBLE, THE (GIDEON)

Let's see if they have anything by Ayn Rand:

http://mitsfs.mit.edu/pinkdex/index?t...

author(s) . . . title(s)
RAND, AYN . . . ANTHEM
RAND, AYN . . . ATLAS SHRUGGED
RAND, AYN . . . FOUNTAINHEAD, THE

The MITSFS library is missing, according to the aforementioned Pinkdex, a notable work (a cookbook) by sf author Anne McCaffrey: "Cooking Out Of This World." Someone should donate a copy to them.
https://www.amazon.com/Cooking-This-W...

Or perhaps not. The MITSFS Library is running out of shelf space. Perhaps someone would like to donate them a building.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_Sci...

The social planners are always trying to discredit Ayn's work in hopes that it will not be read. When I first heard of Ayn Rand I was told that she was interested in witchcraft and her books were based on that theme. I avoided her books until a friend of mine read one and told me that the previous report was erroneous and I would find her work very interesting. I am thankful someone I trusted had referred me to her work, I devoured everything I could find of hers after reading one book.

Because "social and economic commentary" is not a category? I haven't found that section of the library yet..

From Wikipedia: “Atlas Shrugged includes elements of science fiction, mystery, and romance, and it contains Rand's most extensive statement of Objectivism in any of her works of fiction.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_S...

1984, which is definitely social and economic commentary, is also usually grouped in science fiction. Technically, novels of this type are in the subtype of alternate history.

Actually, it is a love story. Ayn Rand said: "That's all it ever was." If you read the other comments and follow the link provided by CBJ https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post... you will see that John W. Campbell identified the fact that the story starts with individuals and their families.

I do not agree that calling AS "science fiction" works to discredit it in a society that cannot get enough Star Trek. As has been pointed out by others, in all my years since 1966, I have never seen it shelved with other science fiction.