D_Welch t1_j21vydc wrote
Okay, so there are very few Reddit subs where you could possibly have a reasonable conversation about Ayn Rand and her literature. So if I may....
When I was 16 I read Atlas Shrugged. It hit me hard and I read everything by her after that. To me, Ayn Rand was about personal responsibility and not relying on the world around me for a free meal. She still is. Her treatise Capitalism, the Unknown Ideal, (and The Virtue of Selfishness) opened my eyes to how the world should be and actually was. Capitalism has done so much for the world but the vitriol that is so popularly thrown at it ... I've had a hard time understanding it. Capitalism get's blamed for everything that it's not, and rarely for what it is. I am going to say "To me, this is what Capitalism is": It's simply two people or groups willingly doing "business" with one another. It's my grandmother trading a chicken for eggs from the neighbor. There has to be a name for this type of system and Capitalism is what it is. But when some billionaire decides he's going to abuse his employees, or take all the water from a lake that the locals need or whatever, suddenly capitalism is to blame? Yeah, no.
And Selfishness. There is literally no such thing as altruism. People do NOT do things for others "selflessly". There is ALWAYS some personal satisfaction, whatever it may be, in helping others. And it's absolutely a good thing and absolutely compatible with Capitalism. Being selfish is our base nature. Not just by our mind, but by our entire being. We are constructed as selfish beings who care more about breathing and food and survival foremost, before we can ever think of others. And this is the great thing about Capitalism. It has given us a system where we can be free of the base needs to actually care about others. The human being is ... I'll say "normally" here because I believe this ... the Human Being is normally empathetic towards others. And this is because he's a social animal that does better in the company of others.
Anyway ... I've had a few holiday drinks which likely has had something to do with this post including the fact it really didn't make a very cohesive whole. I probably will regret it in the morning when I see 1000 downvotes and a few posts spewing hate with no real justification. But hey. Got to say my piece.
Merry Christmas to those who are able to enjoy it, and a Happy New years to those who may be able to make it so.
urbanek2525 t1_j224lij wrote
Yours is a very common take on Rand's stuff. I don't think you're wrong about capitalism. It's a tool, neither good nor bad, but what people make it.
There's a book you should read. "The Sea Wolf" by Jack London. It is an excellent contrast of philosophies, one based on aggressive selfishness, another based on idealizing selflessness. Jack London is also 100x the writer Ayn Rand could dream of being.
Humans are not simply selfish. That would be a model for a lone predator, like a tiger. Humans aren't that self sufficient. Humans are, by necessity, co-dependant, even more than wolves. A lone human is very soon, a dead human.
We are cooperative and this is what Rand misses. Capitalism requires trust. Trust requires cooperation and rules. Rules require sometimes not pressing your advantage and showing restraint. Rules are not synonymous with communism.
I read this book when I was a teen as well. It has always struck me as shallow thinking passing as profound truths for people who had not thought about this stuff before.
reugeneh t1_j22pk64 wrote
Excellent recommendation!
reugeneh t1_j22p9sg wrote
This really isn't the sub for it, but I'm going to do it anyway since you spoke of her beliefs and not the writing.
What you describe as "capitalism" isnt. What you describe is economic exchange, and in this case the exchange of bartering. That decidedly is NOT Capitalism. Capitalism is a very specific form of economic exchange which includes commodification of labor and --for better or worse-- large systems of maneagable private ownership.
And re: selfishness you're addressing an issue that rand doesn't really deal much with. Sure, fine if I give to my starving neighbor that makes me feel good, and so isn't a purely selfless act. Big deal. The controversial take that rand has is that selfishness is, in and of itself, the highest good. Correlary to that: altruism is actually an evil. In other words, she goes beyond saying altruism is just another form of selfishness to saying: altruism exists and is a wrong. It's an asinine view of the world that doesn't take into account the most basic of biological facts, and is totally lacking in self consistency. Her entire make believe world falls apart when you start asking what the "self" is that is the beneficiary of this selfishness.
Alternative_Effort t1_j22q6au wrote
>It's my grandmother trading a chicken for eggs from the neighbor. There has to be a name for this type of system and Capitalism is what it is.
Randians like to fall back on trading chicken eggs as though "Capitalism" just means bartering or that Capitalism is somehow 'natural'. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Property is what you can carry -- anything else is an agreement. Your grandmother can own the eggs, but not the chickens, and certainly not the land beneath the chicken's feet. Most of all, she can't own any songs she sings or ideas she has.
The dark genius of Rand was her starting off with "I'm just a simple unfrozen caveman lawyer, and when I wanted to trade eggs..." and yet somehow finishing with ultra-specific conclusions about the capital gains tax in the 21st century.
>We are constructed as selfish beings who care more about breathing and food and survival foremost, before we can ever think of others.
But we're not 'constructed' that way -- mammals in general but especially human parents will routinely prioritize the lives of their children over their own. If there's even ONE crying baby on a plane, every single person on the plane has an instinctive bad reaction that way out of proportion with the actual volume of the noise produced by the baby.
SetentaeBolg t1_j23jluq wrote
>There is literally no such thing as altruism. People do NOT do things for others "selflessly". There is ALWAYS some personal satisfaction, whatever it may be, in helping others.
This is hopelessly naive and exactly the same kind of lame reductionism that creates a prison for thought.
Of course there is altruism. Hunting around in it and dressing it up as selfish says significantly more about you than it does the concept of altruism itself.
[deleted] t1_j2466et wrote
Not the OP, but I'd be interested in why you think so. I agree with you that altruism exists, but I've always believed at the root of any action is some selfishness. When I do things for others, I base that action in what I think should be or what makes me feel good. Since humans often have overlapping interests, this tends to benefit everyone. I don't consider this naive, but necessarily honest.
SetentaeBolg t1_j253dxu wrote
Defining "selfishness" as "doing what you think is right" or "doing what you think will make you feel morally good about yourself" robs the word of its usual meaning. Selfishness is pursuing your self interest regardless of others.
When our self interest is tied into the good of others, it's absurd to use the same term - it robs us of a meaningful distinction between two very different motivations for our actions.
A stranger risks her life to save a child - only the cheapest moral outlook can shrug its shoulders and equate that with a miser robbing his employees of their due. The only connection is that both acted as they wished to act. Equating them morally is a profound absurdity.
[deleted] t1_j2599tb wrote
Mostly down to semantics then. I don't think anyone is saying saving a child and theft are the same, just that the deepest underlying motivator is a selfish one. But you are right, there is much more nuance and other motivation and I would think the OP would agree.
SetentaeBolg t1_j25a4qk wrote
It's not a "selfish" motivator to give up your happiness or well being for another.
Semantics is not an irrelevance. Words carry meaning. When you use the word "selfish" to mean "self chosen" you, deliberately it seems, rob the word of its usual meaning.
The "deepest underlying motive" of giving one's life for another is not selfish. It's selfless. Redefining those words is a choice whose effect is to blur the moral value of the act in exactly the way Ayn Rand would like.
"Selfish" does not mean "anything done through free will". As the vast majority of people understand the term, it means doing what you want regardless of the effect on others. Choosing to define it differently is choosing to misunderstand the common meaning of the term without any benefit.
[deleted] t1_j25f97g wrote
>Choosing to define it differently is choosing to misunderstand the common meaning of the term without any benefit.
You know, If you can come up with a better word for me, that would be great. In normal every-day conversation, I use the words selfish and selfless like you suggest. In this specific type of conversation, I feel like it's okay to use it, because we're talking about something very specific. Every act a person does, even sacrificing yourself for others, pleases you on some level, which means it has a selfish component. That doesn't make it entirely selfish, if we are judging the act in other, more practical ways.
In other words, this is mostly semantics.
Notcoded419 t1_j220upx wrote
So capitalism is good because it encourages natural selfish behavior, but when capitalist billionaires do selfish things like abuse employees and drain lakes needed by locals, that cannot in any way, shape or form be tied to capitalism in a negative way? I can see why her "logic" appeals to you.
SectorEducational460 t1_j29m1cb wrote
Lmfao. Only things that make capitalism look good is fine everything else that is a direct product of capitalism is not capitalism. Libertarianism in a nutshell.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments