![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
flewellynI wrote this for the forums at Democratic Underground, but I thought that I'd repost it here.
Ahh, the joys of Randianism.
I refuse to call it "Objectivism", because that implies that it's somehow objective, divorced from sentiment and preconceived notions. Just a quick read of Rand's philosophies will tell you otherwise. Rand not only ignores the fact that people have the urge for altruism, and that this urge has helped build society; she also ignores many of the core virtues that helped build capitalism, such as loyalty, devotion to the community, and yes, even a desire to help those less fortunate. For, you see, helping the less fortunate not only is the right thing to do from a strictly moralistic standpoint, it has many practical benefits as well, since the people you help join the workforce and become both producers and consumers.
This is the thing that our "business leaders" always miss: their workers are also consumers, and buy things themselves, which helps the economy in general, and their company in particular, in the long term. The better paid the workers are, the more they will be able to buy and invest in, and the better off everyone will do. As the Republicans are fond of saying (in a different context), "a rising tide lifts all boats". But do our great and illustrious "business leaders" notice this fact, and thus hold off on layoffs in order to help maintain a good level of commerce? No, they go for the quick cash that layoffs gain them by raising the stock price. This mistake is so classically Randian.
In Rand's world, you see, there is no benefit to helping the less fortunate. In fact, she felt that it was wrong to do so, since by helping them, you were encouraging them not to help themselves. The "right" thing to do was to help yourself, and encourage others to help themselves, and if everyone just looked after number one, then all of society would somehow be a better place. Sound familiar?
It's not a moral philosophy, because it discourages the very virtues that society depends on, and it's not a practical philosophy, because it discourages the very virtues that classical capitalism (as opposed to corporatism) depends on. So, what's it good for? Why, justifying to the wealthy why they are wealthy, and making them feel better about not helping the poor, of course.
Libertarians would be so much saner if they didn't have so many Randroids in their midst.
Thoughts, feelings, plaudits, brickbats? Cupcakes?
Ahh, the joys of Randianism.
I refuse to call it "Objectivism", because that implies that it's somehow objective, divorced from sentiment and preconceived notions. Just a quick read of Rand's philosophies will tell you otherwise. Rand not only ignores the fact that people have the urge for altruism, and that this urge has helped build society; she also ignores many of the core virtues that helped build capitalism, such as loyalty, devotion to the community, and yes, even a desire to help those less fortunate. For, you see, helping the less fortunate not only is the right thing to do from a strictly moralistic standpoint, it has many practical benefits as well, since the people you help join the workforce and become both producers and consumers.
This is the thing that our "business leaders" always miss: their workers are also consumers, and buy things themselves, which helps the economy in general, and their company in particular, in the long term. The better paid the workers are, the more they will be able to buy and invest in, and the better off everyone will do. As the Republicans are fond of saying (in a different context), "a rising tide lifts all boats". But do our great and illustrious "business leaders" notice this fact, and thus hold off on layoffs in order to help maintain a good level of commerce? No, they go for the quick cash that layoffs gain them by raising the stock price. This mistake is so classically Randian.
In Rand's world, you see, there is no benefit to helping the less fortunate. In fact, she felt that it was wrong to do so, since by helping them, you were encouraging them not to help themselves. The "right" thing to do was to help yourself, and encourage others to help themselves, and if everyone just looked after number one, then all of society would somehow be a better place. Sound familiar?
It's not a moral philosophy, because it discourages the very virtues that society depends on, and it's not a practical philosophy, because it discourages the very virtues that classical capitalism (as opposed to corporatism) depends on. So, what's it good for? Why, justifying to the wealthy why they are wealthy, and making them feel better about not helping the poor, of course.
Libertarians would be so much saner if they didn't have so many Randroids in their midst.
Thoughts, feelings, plaudits, brickbats? Cupcakes?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-05-30 09:08 am (UTC)