Not really. Many, probably most people are neither of those things; they are the people the looters/moochers feed off of in the first place. Capitalism/Objectivism is highly dependent on most people not actually being good capitalists, but being willing to sacrifice themselves for the group.
Capitalism would collapse almost immediately if most people were good, self-interested capitalists. It’s essentially psychopathy as an economic system, and like any other sort of predator psychopaths can only flourish as a minority. Everyone being a good capitalist would do to the economy what turning every animal into a lion would do to the ecology.
Though one might rightfully ask, if human nature isn’t to gravitate toward mooching when conditions are favorable, why would we need a whole philosophy to demonize it? Natural behavior shouldn’t need policing, it should just happen. And on what basis would that philosophy argue that mooching is not a natural human drive?
This is where Rand utterly falls down as a philosopher imo. She starts from a place of how things “ought to be” and simply insists that it’s the natural state of things, which is justification for how we ought to act, which is not only circular reasoning but appeal to nature.
Simple; to justify demonizing, abusing and exploiting the overwhelming majority of the population. It’s so the wealthiest among up can sneer at the rest of us as parasites and feel no guilt over all the suffering they inflict. And pat themselves on the back about how they are the “Atlas” that sustains society & progress, while the employees below them are evil parasites mooching off their genius.
Ayn Rand’s philosophy seems rooted in the idea that all people can attain honorable self fulfillment alone and take care of every one of their needs all on their own. She might be right and that may be possible, but we do not need that person nor do I desire that society.
Let’s pretend we have a High School and every month there is a test. If you do well on this test you are provided with balloons, candy, good teachers who care and great plentiful materials on a wide array of topics. If you fail, it’s just the Shop Class for you until you learn to value your education. So everyone graduates and a record 5% go on to MIT, however the other 95% are going to be future criminals or at best never see the sun their entire working life in either a Walmart or Amazon distribution center.
I get why some want this, I do not understand why anyone passed their teen years thinks this is really a good idea and so I suspect the appeal of this philosophy is it’s inherent selfishness.
I suppose in Ayn Rand’s mind, human beings are capable of reason and logic. Humans are only able to loot and mooch because of what she called the “sanction of the victim”. They need someone who is willing to allow they to take what they built in the name of “fairness” or “the greater good”.
It seems kind of straightforward to me. I didn’t build the apartment I live in or the car I drive. I didn’t make my clothes or kill or grow the food I eat. Someone else had to do that. A bunch of people in a long line of activities, actually. So the only reason I have any of this stuff is because I worked at a job that presumably provided value to someone else.
Not even Rand but basic economics tells us that if too many people are buying stuff and not enough people making stuff, the price of stuff goes up.
Now to @Der_Trihs ‘s point, where it becomes predatory is when the company has disproportionate control over the labor market and uses it to abuse and exploit their workers.
There’s also the perception of “fairness”. Lets take for granted that working in a coal mine is dark, dangerous, unpleasant work. Let’s even say that the successful running of a coal mine is the difference between the worker living in an actual town with houses and stores vs just living in the woods in makeshift shelters. Typically the mine owners and management are not sharing in the risk and unpleasantness. So it seems very callous to squeeze every cent out of your workforce and not invest in any safety equipment while you live in a giant mansion.
Here’s a thing that amuses me greatly about Rand. According to objectivism, physical attraction is not limited to the physical, but must necessarily include philosophical and intellectual compatibility. Further, any rational person must, of course, be an objectivist. As the creator of objectivism, Rand herself is the most rational and philosophically correct person to ever live.
Thus, QED, Ayn Rand is logically the most attractive person in the world, and anyone who did not agree is irrational. She actually seemed to believe this.
Right. So this recapitulates the point that people seek to become moochers when conditions are favorable. People are capable of reason and logic, which leads them to think “I can get something for less effort, so therefore I will do so, and not be over-burdened with fairness”.
In fact this recapitulates Rand’s philosophy in a nutshell, except that in her universe, only the wealthy get to decide what’s fair, and what’s fair for the wealthy is termed “objective reality”. When workers and laborers want fairness, it’s mooching and apparently a crime against reality.
It’s really wild that the whole philosophy makes a whole show of sneering “the world ain’t fair, pumpkin” and then goes on a 70-page tirade about how things are so unfair for the poor suffering factory owners and railway heirs.
Yep. This is what I think is (one of) the fundamental flaw(s) in her philosophy. She actually thinks, as I said above, that human beings are by their nature reasonable and logical and are only beat down by society to be irrational… whereas any parent will tell you how much of a struggle it is to civilize the little savages. So she’s starting from an intrinsically flawed premise. And, of course, she herself was rather flawed on the rationality side:
Haha, yes! This is hilarious to me too. I don’t have the book with me so can’t look it up, but I believe this was basically her reaction when her lover Nathaniel Branden quite reasonably decided he preferred someone nearer his own age (she was a quarter-century older) who was physically attractive.
(Rand also decided that it was very rational for her husband and Branden’s wife at the time to be totally okay with their affair, because… because she was the most rational and philosophically correct person ever, of course her wanting an affair with a much younger man was the most rational and philosophically correct course of action ever. She was kind of a hot mess, really.)
In Rand’s formulation ever-increasing redistribution of the proceeds of production downwards is a crime against Nature. But ever-increasing redistribution of the proceeds of production upwards is merely Objective reality obvious to any right-thinking person.
Once the titans of finance and wealth are redistributing inexorably upwards, they are moochers. The standard economic term is “rent-seeking” and it is a very real phenomenon. But those two terms mean the same thing: rigging the game so you get outsized rewards for undersized contributions.
If I keep getting told by others that what she really meant was (fill in the blank), and the accounts of what she really meant differ from person to person, then it may be that she just wasn’t a very good writer.
In the case of coal mining– or raising cotton, or any number of other industries– the product is a commodity: something completely fungible for a given quality grade, and the consumers of which, usually in value-added industries, care only about the absolute rock bottom price. In such a situation wages and non-productive concessions to health and safety will be the absolute minimum the commodity producer can pay and still have workers simply because any producer who didn’t would be priced out of the market. It took external intervention in the form of labor laws placing a common floor beneath which no producer could legally sink to allow for reform.
Except what she really means based on her writings seems to differ from what some people are saying she means. Which implies to me they either didn’t read it or understand it or are possibly projecting their own biases.
Buying up your competitors or driving them out of business with loss leaders to bleed them white while your deeper pockets permit you to do that, then jacking your prices is also rent-seeking.
Rand seems to have a blind spot that the only way to exploit is to persuade government to do it on your behalf. That’s a political POV that is not connected to human nature or to reality. But it is totally within her mistaken worldview mislabeled “Objectivism” while being anything but.
Again, though, “what she really means based on her writings” is a matter of interpretation of said writings. The fact that reasonable people can interpret them in such divergent ways is an indication that Rand’s thinking and writing weren’t very coherent.
Really? If there is one thing you can say about Ayn Rand is that her writing isn’t subtle. Right or wrong, I thought it was pretty clear what she believed because she repeats it ad nauseum for 1100 pages.
I would agree with @LSLGuy in that Rand did have a blind spot with regards to businesses engaging in predatory behavior that did not involve government privilege.
And in the areas of her blind spots, of which she had many, she writes stuff that isn’t logically coherent and thus invites widely different competing interpretations. Look at all the libertarians who embrace Objectivism on the grounds that it philosophically validates libertarianism, for example, when Rand herself often criticized libertarianism.
Rand was categorical and dogmatic in the expression of her opinions, for sure, but that’s not the same thing as being clear and coherent.