b. Why, if capitalism is so beneficial, do capitalist nations such as the United States modify the system so extensively that true believers in capitalism, such as Randians, can hardly recognize it as such? Why doesn't the United States economic system become more and more, instead of less and less, capitalistic?
c. If the principles of capitalism operate in a way that rewards effort and achievement and that penalizes passivity, why do capitalists try to get away from its pure state and why do they passively go along with the intrusion of so much governmental control over the capitalist system? Can it be that people are naturally more passive than active, that therefore they do not get along too well under capitalism, and that consequently they adopt non-capitalist goals such as the welfare state, government subsidies for industry, agreements between management and labor unions?
Irrelevant arguments of Randians . The objectivists, who again are supposed to be so logical in their appeals, ceaselessly repeat irrelevant arguments in favor of capitalism and against any form of collectivism. Here are a few of their irrelevancies.
1. John Galt, in his famous speech in Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged gives this typically weak objectivist argument: What determines the material value of people's work? Nothing but the productive effort of their minds. If people lived on a desert island, their brains would think less efficiently, the less their physical labor would bring them, and they could spend their life on a single routine, collecting a precarious harvest or hunting with bow and arrows, unable to think any further. But by living in a rational society, where people are free to trade, they receive an incalculable bonus: the value of their work is determined not only by their effort, but by the effort of the best productive minds who exist in the world around them.
This is a great argument in support of the notion that if you work in a factory or in a social group you will normally derive more benefits than if you work in isolation--for, as Rand notes, you may then benefit from the productivity of others. This fact, however, has virtually nothing to do with capitalism or the free market; the same thing is true in a collectivist society. Even a highly efficient worker in a collectivist nation benefits more from working for the government than from working entirely for himself. As Rand says, the material value of his work is partly determined not only by his effort, but by the effort of the best productive minds who exist in the nation around him, (1957).
2. By the same token, of course, a physician who works with other physicians will benefit from their efforts as well as from his own; and Nathaniel Branden in a vehement argument against socialized medicine, forgets this point, (1965b). It may indeed be somewhat unfair for a good physician to be remunerated in exactly the same way as is a poor physician, when medicine is socialized. But if there were no socialization of medicine whatever, from medical school to hospital and clinical work, probably no physician would be very competent--nor perhaps would she have many patients left to pay her!
3. Along somewhat similar lines, we have the irrelevant argument of Ayn Rand against socialized medicine. Says Rand: Gigantic achievements of American medicine "were created by men who were individualists and egoists in the highest sense of these words," people of unusual ability, judgment, ambition, and courage, the courage to be innovators. The implication here is that collectivist medicine has no achievements; and that in the collectivist nations there are no physicians of unusual ability, of independent judgment, ambition and courage, including the courage to be innovators, (1963). This, of course, is absurd. It is certainly possible that a collectivized system of medicine will eventually produce fewer fine physicians and fewer medical achievements than a capitalistic system of medicine. But there is no evidence, as yet or likely in the future, that this is true.
4. Nathaniel Branden insists that, like every form of progress, economic progress has only one ultimate source: "man's mind--and can exist only to the extent that man is free to translate his thought into action." (1966g). The implication, once again, is that only under capitalism can economic pioneers, creators, and inventors exist. Obviously, economic pioneers, creators, and inventors existed as slaves, under feudalism, and in collectivized communities. Quite probably, political freedom aids inventiveness; and quite possibly, capitalism (or some reasonable facsimile) aids political freedom. But it is silly to down human creativity under any kind of economic system; and it is presumptuous to contend that it can only flower under ideal capitalism.
5. Ayn Rand contends that if a government holds economic control, it has to create a special "elite," an "aristocracy of pull." It will attract the corrupt type of politician into the legislature, will work to the advantage of the dishonest businessman, and will penalize and destroy honest and able people, (1966b). While this statement may be partly true, there is every reason to believe that it applies as much to "free capitalism" as to state capitalism or to collectivism. For special "elites" have easily existed in all societies; and it is probably more likely that they will be uncontrolled under "free capitalism" than under government controlled economies, where there are likely to be restrictions on them.
Rand's point that, when the government holds the power of economic control, honest and able individuals will eventually be completely destroyed, is a gross exaggeration. Honest people may well be handicapped when a corrupt politico-economic system exists; but able individuals, instead of being destroyed, often wind up running the system.
Strawmanism. This leads us logically into our next heading--strawmanism. As I shall show later in more detail, Randians have a remarkable penchant for setting up straw-men, by claiming that their opponents believe in all kinds of things in which they really do not believe, and then enthusiastically knocking down these setups. They do this in the realm of economics as they do in most other realms. For example:
1. Ayn Rand has John Galt exclaim in Atlas Shrugged (1957): "Were we supposed to want to work for the love of our brothers? What brothers? For the bums, the loafers, the moochers we saw all around us?" This statement has at least three major strawmen in it: (a) It is assumed that, under collectivism, all men are supposed to work only for the love of their brothers. This, of course, is nonsense. Collectivists work mainly for themselves; but they believe--whether rightly or wrongly--that they will help themselves by working cooperatively and collectively rather than by working individually. They are by no means pure altruists--except in the distorting eyes of Ayn Rand! (b) Certainly, many people shirk under collectivism--as, of course, they do under capitalism and any other economic system that has yet been devised. Some of them shirk because they are "lazy"; others are emotionally disturbed; others are relatively incompetent and are afraid to compete with more competent individuals; and still others have different reasons for their indolence and escapism. But the objectivists pejoratively label all of these shirkers as "bums," "loafers," and "moochers"--implying that they are only out to exploit the industrious workers and producers, and that they should be totally condemned for being what they are. (c) Rand implies that these people are hopelessly evil and cannot change. She dehumanizes them so she can justify leaving them to die along the road or be cast into prison for being the pure evil she contends they are. If her ideas are great, then she should have a realistic, step-by-step method to cure these "loafers", etc. Instead she implies that they are evil or hopeless from birth. What Rand is really advocating is the death of all those that oppose her; social Darwinism based on a person's abilities in capitalism.
2. Rand holds that the rank injustices toward racial or religious minorities are specifically practiced toward businessmen. For instance, condemning some men and absolving others, without a hearing: Today's "liberals' consider a businessman guilty in any conflict with a labor union, regardless of the facts or issues involved, and boast that they will not cross a picket line "right or wrong.' Consider the evil of judging people by a double standard and of denying to some the rights granted to others. "Liberals" recognize workers' (the majority) right to their livelihood (their wages), but deny the businessmen's (the minority's) right to their livelihood (their profits), (1966b). Again, we have several exaggerated accusations here and Rand demonstrates her own "racism" towards people who do not completely agree with her:
a. It is assumed that a class of "liberals" exists today, and that all individuals who think of themselves as "liberal" are one hundred per cent opposed to businesspersons and ceaselessly condemn and persecute them. On the face of it, this is a type of "racism" lumping together all "liberals" as the same and asserting that they are less desirable than objectivists. Ironically enough, most of the "liberals" that Rand talks about are or aspire to be businesspeople (i.e., proprietors, doctors, lawyers, psychologists, professors who consult with industry). And most of them are opposed to some, but hardly all, the practices of businesspersons.
b. It is surely something of an absurd exaggeration to imply that businesspersons in the United States, at the present time, are being persecuted in exactly the same way, as have been Negroes in the Deep South, Jews in Nazi Germany, and businesspersons during the years of the Soviet revolution in Russia.
c. There is no evidence that many American "liberals" incessantly condemn businesspersons and uphold workers' rights regardless of facts. Liberal newspapers and periodicals, for example, uphold labor unions in one dispute and uphold management in another dispute--or change from one side to the other in the course of a single dispute. And "liberals" frequently condemn labor unions for their racketeering, ultra-conservative policies, inefficiency, for their political ties, and for many other things.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
1
1
