(no subject)
http://pragcap.com/deep-thoughts-by-ayn-rand
“Do you wish to know whether that day is coming? Watch money. Money is the barometer of a society’s virtue. When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion-when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing-when you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors-when you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don’t protect you against them, but protect them against you-when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice-you may know that your society is doomed.”
--Ayn Rand
Funny how her followers are self-described capitalists, huh?
Wait, isn't this a rant against government?
What is government, anyway, but an organization of men?
She's talking about state power. Capitalism is against state power.
Well, no, it's not, actually. Anyway, she's talking about the authority to rule without a sense of responsibility to the ruled. She's talking about authority in the hands of those who feel no obligation to the worker. She practically sounds like Adam Smith here.
She's talking about freedom.
She's talking about governance in the hands of those who care not for others' well-being. Ironic, considering the rest of her output; but this passage is one of the reasons people see Objectivism as highly moral.
It's against government.
Is it? It's against arbitrary power in the hands of an aristocratic government. Is the formal state the only agency capable of governance?
Ayn Rand was for free enterprise and against the state.
But this passage is about the abuse of power by those who get more from society than they produce.
That's politicians and civil servants, right there.
Actually, it's a fair description of the ownership class. Ayn Rand hated bankers too.
More to the point, it is exactly a description of capitalism, as a leftist would define it.
More proof that leftists are just not right about anything.
And yet we lefties defined the term "capitalism." One of us even wrote a book about it.
No, capitalism is about freedom and fair play. Value for value.
Capitalism is about wealth in the hands of an ownership class, separate from the working class.
Only to a communist.
To a dictionary.
So real capitalists are the government then?
Do you think Wall Street are real workers?
I hear they put in long hours.
OK, we've gotten way off track here.
Modern righties think that strengthening the private corporation is the same as weakening the government, and that the government is always, magically, uniquely bad. So if you weaken government power, that's good. If you strengthen Exxon or Google, that's good, because you're siding with the good power over the bad power.
Uh...
But you're still siding with a power. A power with serious controlling power over men's lives.
Exxon and Google can't levy taxes, though. Nor draft me.
But they control resources. If a private company controlled your water supply, would you say they had no power?
I get my water from a private company.
A regulated utility.
Weaken public power, weaken the power of a democratic institution, while strengthening the power of one with no obligation to the people, and are the common people any better off?
Rand wasn't a great workerist, but her moral arguments were workerist, because that is what sold. Then she could switch in her own somewhat aristocratic contempt for everyone, and sell her misanthropy as an extension of her moralism, when really it didn't logically follow.
You say.
Now the right wing take that legacy, switch in an advocacy for private banking power--
The hard right didn't believe in the bailout.
Their constituents didn't, no. But arms were twisted and it still passed. Remember that the hard left was against it too.
So left and right agree with Rand, and the bad guys are the "middle"?
Well, the left don't agree with Rand, nor she with them. Not entirely. Nothing is simple. But corrupt power does not require the state to exist, which is my point. A private corporation can be just as much a menace to what Rand would consider real producers as the state.
But I'm free to take my business elsewhere.
Yeah? What about that water company?
I can drink bottled water.
At a cost. You can also break the law, you also can evade taxes. Coercion is imperfect and negotiated. Doesn't mean it isn't happening. The state is not uniquely magic.
But the state is the enemy, right? The "moderates" who engineered the bailout. They're the state, the ruling party.
They're not the institution of the state, no, just a faction that paint themselves as the reasonable middle.
But they're the faction of power for power's sake. The "Establishment."
But they are not the state. They're not the constitution or something. They're just called "establishment," "moderate," and "mainstream," it doesn't mean anything fundamental.
But you agree they're the bad guys.
Not entirely. They're the guys in power, so they are called the center. They are not perfectly good or bad. Just right now, some of their ideas are wrong.
All of them.
Maybe all imperfect, not all malicious.
But they're the state.
No, we're all the state.
What?!!!
“Do you wish to know whether that day is coming? Watch money. Money is the barometer of a society’s virtue. When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion-when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing-when you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors-when you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don’t protect you against them, but protect them against you-when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice-you may know that your society is doomed.”
--Ayn Rand
Funny how her followers are self-described capitalists, huh?
Wait, isn't this a rant against government?
What is government, anyway, but an organization of men?
She's talking about state power. Capitalism is against state power.
Well, no, it's not, actually. Anyway, she's talking about the authority to rule without a sense of responsibility to the ruled. She's talking about authority in the hands of those who feel no obligation to the worker. She practically sounds like Adam Smith here.
She's talking about freedom.
She's talking about governance in the hands of those who care not for others' well-being. Ironic, considering the rest of her output; but this passage is one of the reasons people see Objectivism as highly moral.
It's against government.
Is it? It's against arbitrary power in the hands of an aristocratic government. Is the formal state the only agency capable of governance?
Ayn Rand was for free enterprise and against the state.
But this passage is about the abuse of power by those who get more from society than they produce.
That's politicians and civil servants, right there.
Actually, it's a fair description of the ownership class. Ayn Rand hated bankers too.
More to the point, it is exactly a description of capitalism, as a leftist would define it.
More proof that leftists are just not right about anything.
And yet we lefties defined the term "capitalism." One of us even wrote a book about it.
No, capitalism is about freedom and fair play. Value for value.
Capitalism is about wealth in the hands of an ownership class, separate from the working class.
Only to a communist.
To a dictionary.
So real capitalists are the government then?
Do you think Wall Street are real workers?
I hear they put in long hours.
OK, we've gotten way off track here.
Modern righties think that strengthening the private corporation is the same as weakening the government, and that the government is always, magically, uniquely bad. So if you weaken government power, that's good. If you strengthen Exxon or Google, that's good, because you're siding with the good power over the bad power.
Uh...
But you're still siding with a power. A power with serious controlling power over men's lives.
Exxon and Google can't levy taxes, though. Nor draft me.
But they control resources. If a private company controlled your water supply, would you say they had no power?
I get my water from a private company.
A regulated utility.
Weaken public power, weaken the power of a democratic institution, while strengthening the power of one with no obligation to the people, and are the common people any better off?
Rand wasn't a great workerist, but her moral arguments were workerist, because that is what sold. Then she could switch in her own somewhat aristocratic contempt for everyone, and sell her misanthropy as an extension of her moralism, when really it didn't logically follow.
You say.
Now the right wing take that legacy, switch in an advocacy for private banking power--
The hard right didn't believe in the bailout.
Their constituents didn't, no. But arms were twisted and it still passed. Remember that the hard left was against it too.
So left and right agree with Rand, and the bad guys are the "middle"?
Well, the left don't agree with Rand, nor she with them. Not entirely. Nothing is simple. But corrupt power does not require the state to exist, which is my point. A private corporation can be just as much a menace to what Rand would consider real producers as the state.
But I'm free to take my business elsewhere.
Yeah? What about that water company?
I can drink bottled water.
At a cost. You can also break the law, you also can evade taxes. Coercion is imperfect and negotiated. Doesn't mean it isn't happening. The state is not uniquely magic.
But the state is the enemy, right? The "moderates" who engineered the bailout. They're the state, the ruling party.
They're not the institution of the state, no, just a faction that paint themselves as the reasonable middle.
But they're the faction of power for power's sake. The "Establishment."
But they are not the state. They're not the constitution or something. They're just called "establishment," "moderate," and "mainstream," it doesn't mean anything fundamental.
But you agree they're the bad guys.
Not entirely. They're the guys in power, so they are called the center. They are not perfectly good or bad. Just right now, some of their ideas are wrong.
All of them.
Maybe all imperfect, not all malicious.
But they're the state.
No, we're all the state.
What?!!!