Rand gives expression to a moral basis of democratic capitalism in Atlas Shrugged
. In the process, she identifies various vices to which democracy might submit. Let me see if I can summarize it.
. In the process, she identifies various vices to which democracy might submit. Let me see if I can summarize it. A definite virtue is the heroic and creative individual. “The public” and “the common good” rely upon these individuals. The vice of democracy is that it runs the risk of not valuing what these individuals do by electing people to government who suppress individuality in favor of “the common good.” Society benefits from the passions and interests of business people far more than experience oppression. The greatest vice is that democracy will squash excellence and courage in pursuing what one loves to do because it focuses on the individual in a way that supposedly harms the collective or community spirit. Someone pursuing a dream, and using private property to achieve that dream, is a virtue. The contrasting vice is viewing such a person as “anti-social.” The result of the success of this vice is that “the people” become serfs of the federal government.
I need to add one caveat to the way Rand discusses this virtue. In capitalism, communal spirit is more of a virtue than in socialism, for in socialism, there is “looting” and compulsion. In democratic capitalism, people freely engage in communal efforts. Thus, I am not aware of anywhere in this book were she celebrates the type of communal spirit that capitalism itself requires. Employees need to learn to work with producers, producers must find a good or service that meets a need of potential customers, the creative individual needs to imagine what others might need or desire, and all must work together to accomplish great goals. In that sense, capitalism is intensely communal, and therefore Rand suffers from a fault of many defenders of capitalism, who often do a disservice by making capitalism sound far more selfish and individualist than it is.
Closely connected, I need to offer another caveat. She criticizes the praise of non-profit ventures, and all religion, under the guise that it detracts from both morality and self-esteem. Yet, properly understood, people freely give money to and support such “non-profits,” and they do so largely because they have a concern for both the morality and self-esteem of some members of this free society who have not been able to discover the hero who lives within. I get the concern that some will lift non-profit enterprises above that of profit, but I think she goes too far. Such efforts enhance important communal qualities of mercy and compassion that Rand rarely sees as significant or positive.
A virtue is profit and competition. Businesses need to make a profit. Extremely successful businesses make much profit for their investors. Yes, they also employ thousands of people. Yet, that is not their purpose. Yes, they can improve the life of the community. Yet, that is not the purpose of the business. It must make a profit, or it will die. Profit is the bottom line, even if it is not the only factor in making a business decision.
The greatest vice in a democracy is the growth of government into the business sector as it harms productivity and takes energy away from where one could place it far more effectively.
A virtue is private property. A vice occurs when a society puts free enterprise on trial. Thus, to suggest that private property must serve the public is another way of surrendering individual initiative and property to a collective mentality, which will in turn destroy “the people” and “the common good.”
A virtue is wealthy people. They earn income by pleasing others with their product or service. A vice is any group of people or government duly elected by the people who considers wealthy people as evil. The danger to society is that wealthy people will choose not to harm or exploit any longer … and abandon society to mediocrity.
A vice that threatens the common good, doing so in the name of the common good, is that elected representatives will crush individual initiative, thereby destroying the public that they claim to serve. Such elected representatives become “The looters” of the world, those in government who take the wealth of citizens and appropriate it as they see fit.
A virtue is recognizing the value of machines, while the vice is thinking it noble to return to an age when there were fewer of them.
A virtue is valuing living well and happily on this earth, and therefore finding ways to improve human life on this planet. Happiness is a successful state of life. Rand hints at the purpose of business and government. It is actually quite in line with Aristotle. We want to learn of ways to live well and happily here. We will do this by celebrating heroic individuals, the motor that powers society along. We will not submit to the vice of laying a burden upon those who do so.
A virtue is the human mind, which is the source of wealth and productivity. The mind is a basic human tool for survival. To think and reason is a choice. In this context, money has its proper place. Money is simply a tool of exchange, which cannot exist unless there are goods produced and people able to produce them. Money is the material shape of the principle that people who wish to deal with each other must deal by trade and give value for value. Money becomes possible because people produce things useful to other people. Wealth is the product of the human capacity to think. A vice related to this is the one who damns money. This person has obtained it dishonorably. People who respect money have earned it.
A vice would be to become “worshippers of the zero,” those who want to just barely live, rather than achieving life.
A vice is living off the effort of others, rather than your own effort. The sacrifice for “the public” turns “the public” into anyone who has failed to achieve.
There is a “moral arrangement” of the economy. Any arrangement that distorts value eventually leads to the destruction of productivity. Thus, a significant vice are moochers, people who try to get your money by tears. Of course, another vice are looters, those in government who take money by force. A significant vice is that if I choose to live off government aid, I am choosing to ask other people to provide for my life and sustenance. Another significant vice is in the political culture, in which you have a philosophy of government that encourages some segments of society to be moochers. This is a vice because you are encouraging people to make an immoral choice.
A virtue is recognizing that the producers of the world already served “the public” by sharing the products of their thinking, expecting a rational return. They have already “served” and “returned back to the community,” simply by achieving their lives, which has overflown toward others with work and enjoyment. He states that “the looters’ state” will collapse, because it is deprived of its best slaves, namely, the producers.
A virtue is recognizing that the only proper purpose of a government is to protect the rights of individuals, which primarily means from physical violence. Government needs only the police, the army, and the courts. Today, of course, with massive entitlement programs, this is hardly realistic, but it is a reminder of what the constitution says concerning the enumerated powers of government.
John Galt urges in his final speech, “Do not let the hero in your soul perish.” I hope that even the most ardent opponent of Rand could agree with this.
I've really enjoyed your posts on "Atlas Shrugged." I read the book a couple of years ago and found it uncanny how many current events it described--50 years hence. I'm not anxious to see the movie, though, as I cannot imagine it doing justice to the book.
ReplyDeleteWhile I do agree that Rand values many of the same things valued by a moral theology, I'm increasingly disturbed by much of her objectivism and pure materialist motivation. A teacher in the school where I've been working teaches "The Fountainhead" each year and cannot understand how conservative Christians can agree with Rand's objectivism. What would you say to her? In reasoning it for myself, I remembered Pope John Paul II's writings on the theology of work. Here is a link to some of his thoughts. http://www.catholic.net/index.php?option=dedestaca&id=3501. The crux of his comments, for me, as compared to Rand: "Man cannot relinquish himself or the place in the visible world that belongs to him; he cannot become the slave of things, the slave of economic systems, the slave of production, the slave of his own products. A civilization purely materialistic in outline condemns man to such slavery, even if at times, no doubt, this occurs contrary to the intentions and the very premises of its pioneers."
Sandy, good comments all. I do not think Christians agree with her "objectivism" and certainly not her materialism and selfishness. What I have tried to do in this particular post is to focus upon what I think attracts a certain group of conservative political thinkers. That is why I have put in some caveats to her moral system, meaning that Christians and political conservatives can appreciate her in some areas, and not accept her in others. In other words, they can be discerning readers.
ReplyDeleteTo be clear, Rand's objectivism is described as the principle that human knowledge and values are objective: they are not created by the thoughts one has, but are determined by the nature of reality, to be discovered by the human mind. It holds that reality exists independent of consciousness, that human beings have direct contact with reality through sense perception, that one can attain objective knowledge from perception through the process of concept formation and inductive and deductive logic, that the proper moral purpose of one's life is the pursuit of one's own happiness or rational self-interest, that the only social system consistent with this morality is full respect for individual rights, embodied in laissez faire capitalism.
If this is what the teacher means, then, although I disagree with her that "reality" is as independent of the mind as she says, I can appreciate her emphasis that humanity keeps bumping up against "reality" in a way that is independent of consciousness. In general, I do not think Christians who appreciate Rand get to that level of accepting her over-arching philosophy, which also includes selfishness and sensuality and materialism. I think what they like, from a conservative perspective, is the valuing of the individual above the political state.
From my reading of Rand, the quote to which you refer from Pope John Paul II would be one with which Rand would agree, in that individuals are not to become slaves to anything, especially "the products" of the mind. However, the second sentence is one with which Rand would disagree completely, probably charging that he is making a virtue of sacrifice.
The main thing I would say to your teacher friend is that people can read Rand in a discerning way, parsing out those things that are objectionable and appreciating her insights into the modern liberal state and its effect upon individuals. That is what I have attempted to do in this blog.
Sandy, another thought occurs concerning your teacher friend. I would point out that liberation theology adopts Marxist critiques of Western Civilization in an undiscriminating way. In contrast, if a Republican, a political conservative, or a Christian, finds helpful insights from Rand, it is "ad hoc." The same is true for most of what goes for progressive political thought, which is largely an expansion of the Marxist economic critique into areas like race and gender.
ReplyDelete