In "Atlas Shrugged", the character John Galt dominates the third part of the story (Book Three). It is Galt who has been responsible for persuading the "best and brightest" to join him in his "New Atlantis", in a remote valley, where these people can live their lives according to their own efforts, without involvement of government.
As said in my earliest articles on this subject, biblical symbolism runs a deep vein through the novel: in its scope and ambition, "Atlas Shrugged" could well be called the most influential piece of fiction of the 20th century. This is the "Fall From Heaven" of the beginning of the Old Testament, but seen from the perspective of Satan/ Lucifer.
Furthermore, in the same way that Satan and his allies are banished to live their own form of existence in Hell, Rand has Galt and his followers living their "pure" form of life from complete scratch, with nothing from their successful and rich lifestyle of the outside world. In the remote valley these "exiles" live in, all their efforts are made by their own hand alone. They build their own houses themselves; they live simply (at least, appear to). From a psychological point of view, they have sacrificed their materialistic ego (i.e. their riches in the outside world) for the sake of a moral ego (i.e. the pride they have in doing things by their own efforts and in their own way). In "Atlas Shrugged", these "best and brightest" have made the ultimate material sacrifice in order to live true to their ideas; it could be argued that Satan and his followers were made to make the pay the same price by God when they were banished from Heaven.
John Galt is the mouthpiece of Rand's philosophy, spelled out in various ways in the novel. Galt explains Rand's own thinking on morality and the nature of government: Galt has stopped "the motor of the world" by taking away the "best and brightest" in society. In other words, Galt simply equates wealth with talent and effort; you cannot have the former without the latter. This is the basic premise of the novel, stripped of its baubles and fancy rhetoric. All those in his "New Atlantis" are rich because they are clever and/or hardworking. People are poor, therefore, because they are stupid and/ or lazy. It is as simple as that.
His moral objection to life in the outside world, where government controls much of day-to-day life, is that he refuses to live in a society where he sees the clever having to work for the sake of the stupid, and the hardworking for the sake of the lazy.
Galt's own vow is that he swears to "never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine". In Galt's eyes, this is the only moral way for a man to live: by his efforts alone.
Light-bringer or destroyer?
This philosophy as hardly anything new, as George Monbiot explains. The question is: whose philosophy is it? Blaming poverty on the poor has a long history, most recently expounded by George Osborne with his "strivers versus skivers" rhetoric. It goes down well because, like all successful ideas, it is easy to explain - regardless of the reality.
According to Christian belief "the meek shall inherit the earth". According to Galt, it is the strong who shall inherit the earth. If Galt and his followers represent the "best and brightest", then "government" must seemingly represent the opposite - the worst and the weakest. What Galt finds offensive (i.e. immoral) is the strong being obliged to support the weak. Underpinning the tenets of Rand's philosophy - Objectivism - is the idea of social Darwinism. Society can only progress if its weakest elements are allowed to die. Accordingly, in a society where everyone is responsible for his own efforts, it is natural that the weakest specimens of society will not succeed. When neo-liberals and Conservatives talk about how "inequality is good", this is what they mean; they see it as being "natural".
So who is John Galt then, really? What does he represent?
My previous article on this subject mentioned "Luciferianism", and the role that some see Lucifer (Satan's name before The Fall) having in promoting the pursuit of objective knowledge. Lucifer is the "light-giver", whose gift is to free man from the shackles of God's narrow doctrine. Seen in this way, Lucifer's role is to test and push mankind on to better things; a kind of "disciplinarian teacher" for humanity. This seems to be the role that Galt is playing in "Atlas Shrugged", punishing society - robbing it for its "best and brightest" - for the sake of itself. This theme, and further biblical references, are continued in the second article about the role of John Galt here.
Perception is one thing; the reality is another. Rand may seem inequality as "just", but that does not make the world "just". Those nations with the highest levels of inequality are not the most successful ones in the world; on the contrary, all the evidence suggests that nations with low levels of inequality (e.g. in Scandinavia) are those with the highest levels of development.
John Galt may be an idol for the neo-liberal scene, and people like the "TEA Party", but Galt represents a philosophy that ridicules the concept of empathy. And we all know what a society without empathy can be capable of.
On the one hand, Galt seemingly symbolises the "best" in humanity - its pursuit of knowledge and excellence, and its individualist spirit. But on the other, Galt symbolizes the very destruction of the concept of "humanity" - by destroying the very concept of human empathy, teaching it as something immoral and obscene.
In this way, "John Galt" may well be termed as a new, modern form of the Trickster: the "serpent" that encouraged Adam and Eve to eat the Forbidden Fruit, and then suffered God's wrath.
It is in Galt's "manifesto", discussing in detail the symbolism of the Fall Of Man, that reaches the crux of Ayn Rand's philosophy, and the real meaning of her work.
Showing posts with label Objectivism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Objectivism. Show all posts
Wednesday, June 24, 2015
Saturday, June 13, 2015
Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged": morality, Christianity and Lucifer
In a recent article the author went into some detail about the biblical symbolism evident in the story of "Atlas Shrugged". It is ironic that Ayn Rand's seminal masterpiece - given that she was a profound atheist - is so full of Christian imagery. But her work on this great novel displays the contempt she had for the "conventional morality" of the day, when "Atlas Shrugged" was published in the 1950s, with the novel acting as a philosophical marker for a different form of morality, which she called Objectivism.
As argued in my previous article on this subject, Rand's morality tale bears some strong similarities to a retelling of the story of Satan's fall from heaven in the Old Testament - but crucially, with the moral perspective reversed. As Atlas Shrugged is about industrial "heroes" fleeing the constraints of government, a "revision" of the Fall From Heaven sees Satan and his followers lose their battle with God, and decide to flee to exist independently from God's power.
I said (in jest) that Rand could be said to be a kind of "Satanist"; but more accurately, she could be called a "Luciferian". Her philosophy of extolling independence, self-love, the pursuit of knowledge and rationalism comes very close to the ideas also shared by Luciferianism. Lucifer himself represents the symbolic "Fallen Angel".
Lucifer (Satan) is seen as the symbol of the pursuit of ultimate knowledge and personal growth. More exactly, this is the name given to Satan before "The Fall". Seemingly inspired by the pursuit of knowledge and self-advancement, he grows frustrated with God's arbitrary use of power, seeks more independence, and refuses to bow down to man, God's creation. And yet, after The Fall, in the guise of The Serpent, his temptation of Eve may better be seen as a method of trying to lift the veil from the first humans' eyes about God's intentions and deception (by eating from from the Tree Of The Knowledge Of Good and Evil the humans will be "like God"). What are Satan's motives here? By labeling Satan's motives as purely evil, this is something that Christian theology struggles to convincingly answer.
Rand's use of biblical symbolism in the novel is self-evident in some of phrasing she chooses: using words such as "hymns" to describe the ideas expressed by the heroic characters in Atlas Shrugged; the industrialists talking of themselves as "sacrificial victims"; and the pirate Ragnar Danneskjold describing himself as an "avenging angel". This is the morality of Christianity turned on its head.
The Anti-Pope
In the modern day, the current Pope, Francis, has been seen as a paragon of Christian virtue: going back to the "old values" of a "poor" church that focuses as much on social welfare as spiritual purity. Rand's philosophy stands for the exact opposite to this idea of altruism and self-sacrifice. Her morality is one based on people's value being based purely on the talents, not their "need". In her eyes, people are rich due to their own talents and efforts; likewise, people are poor for their lack of the same properties. This is not something for "society" or government to be concerned about; it is a matter of individual responsibility. In other words, "inequality" is the state of nature. Modern-day Conservatives talk of the same thing.
Pope Francis talks about ideas such as love for our fellow man; in "Atlas Shrugged", the government of the day uses the same language, while Rand twists this thinking into meaning the exact opposite: turning the rich into the victims, and the poor into looters. In Part Two, Chapter Seven of the novel, the pirate character, Ragnar Danneskjold, talks about how he is effectively a "Robin Hood" for the rich: taking back the money "stolen" from the rich by the government (on behalf of the poor) and returning it back to them. Rand also (through the character of Danneskjold) gives an astonishing attack on the "morality" of the legendary Robin Hood, damning his methods as the epitome of evil. As the pirate says:
"He is a man who became the symbol of the idea that need, not achievement, is the source of rights; that we don't have to produce, only to want, that the earned does not belong to us, but the unearned does. He became a justification for every mediocrity who, unable to make his own living, had demanded the power to dispose of the property of his betters, by proclaiming his willingness to devote his life to his inferiors at the price of robbing his superiors"
This gives a small example of the morality behind Rand, and her ability to make the counter-intuitive appear logical. To her mind, because Pope Francis wishes to "help the poor", he represents evil in human form.
Where does this leave ideas such as "love" or empathy? As said earlier, people like Pope Francis extol the idea of self-sacrifice and love for our fellow man. In Rand's morality, these ideas are anathema: "love" can only be earned. "Empathy" appears entirely absent from Rand's value system.
A "psychopathic" morality?
"Empathy" is generally understood to be the ability to recognise how someone else feels emotionally, and being able to respond to this appropriately. In the field of psychology, psychopaths (who represent around 1% of the overall population) are distinguishable for their absence of human empathy. Because of their lack of empathy, they cannot understand or react to, for example, human suffering. This results in their being capable of extremely callous and cold-hearted behaviour.
Going back to the example of Satan, it could be argued that descriptions of his actions in Christian literature mark him as being one of the prime examples of a psychopathic character in scripture. What many consider "evil" could likewise be called "psychopathic". While the terms can never be exactly interchangeable, it is true that psychopathy is responsible for a great deal of crime and social ills.
With this in mind, Ayn Rand's philosophy has been held to blame for the neo-liberal economic model that has ruled much of the world for the past thirty years. It is this system that has resulted in a widening gap between rich and poor, the re-shaping of the global economy, as well as being responsible for the conditions that caused the financial crisis of 2008, which many people even now are still feeling the after-effects of, seven years later.
The moral system that underpins the economic system of today's world was written by Ayn Rand. For this reason, it could well be said that "Atlas Shrugged" was the most influential - and dangerous - novel of the 20th century. It takes a special kind of genius to take an idea that almost everyone considers to be immoral, and transform it into the appearance of the highest virtue.
In many ways, "Atlas Shrugged" is a kind of Bible of our time. It certainly reads like one, and may well also have been responsible for causing human suffering in the same way as the Word Of God, thanks to the "Pied Piper"-like quality of the words contained in its many pages.
In "Atlas Shrugged", the "Pied Piper" role is played by the character John Galt, whose role is explored in more detail in the following article.
As argued in my previous article on this subject, Rand's morality tale bears some strong similarities to a retelling of the story of Satan's fall from heaven in the Old Testament - but crucially, with the moral perspective reversed. As Atlas Shrugged is about industrial "heroes" fleeing the constraints of government, a "revision" of the Fall From Heaven sees Satan and his followers lose their battle with God, and decide to flee to exist independently from God's power.
I said (in jest) that Rand could be said to be a kind of "Satanist"; but more accurately, she could be called a "Luciferian". Her philosophy of extolling independence, self-love, the pursuit of knowledge and rationalism comes very close to the ideas also shared by Luciferianism. Lucifer himself represents the symbolic "Fallen Angel".
Lucifer (Satan) is seen as the symbol of the pursuit of ultimate knowledge and personal growth. More exactly, this is the name given to Satan before "The Fall". Seemingly inspired by the pursuit of knowledge and self-advancement, he grows frustrated with God's arbitrary use of power, seeks more independence, and refuses to bow down to man, God's creation. And yet, after The Fall, in the guise of The Serpent, his temptation of Eve may better be seen as a method of trying to lift the veil from the first humans' eyes about God's intentions and deception (by eating from from the Tree Of The Knowledge Of Good and Evil the humans will be "like God"). What are Satan's motives here? By labeling Satan's motives as purely evil, this is something that Christian theology struggles to convincingly answer.
Rand's use of biblical symbolism in the novel is self-evident in some of phrasing she chooses: using words such as "hymns" to describe the ideas expressed by the heroic characters in Atlas Shrugged; the industrialists talking of themselves as "sacrificial victims"; and the pirate Ragnar Danneskjold describing himself as an "avenging angel". This is the morality of Christianity turned on its head.
The Anti-Pope
In the modern day, the current Pope, Francis, has been seen as a paragon of Christian virtue: going back to the "old values" of a "poor" church that focuses as much on social welfare as spiritual purity. Rand's philosophy stands for the exact opposite to this idea of altruism and self-sacrifice. Her morality is one based on people's value being based purely on the talents, not their "need". In her eyes, people are rich due to their own talents and efforts; likewise, people are poor for their lack of the same properties. This is not something for "society" or government to be concerned about; it is a matter of individual responsibility. In other words, "inequality" is the state of nature. Modern-day Conservatives talk of the same thing.
Pope Francis talks about ideas such as love for our fellow man; in "Atlas Shrugged", the government of the day uses the same language, while Rand twists this thinking into meaning the exact opposite: turning the rich into the victims, and the poor into looters. In Part Two, Chapter Seven of the novel, the pirate character, Ragnar Danneskjold, talks about how he is effectively a "Robin Hood" for the rich: taking back the money "stolen" from the rich by the government (on behalf of the poor) and returning it back to them. Rand also (through the character of Danneskjold) gives an astonishing attack on the "morality" of the legendary Robin Hood, damning his methods as the epitome of evil. As the pirate says:
"He is a man who became the symbol of the idea that need, not achievement, is the source of rights; that we don't have to produce, only to want, that the earned does not belong to us, but the unearned does. He became a justification for every mediocrity who, unable to make his own living, had demanded the power to dispose of the property of his betters, by proclaiming his willingness to devote his life to his inferiors at the price of robbing his superiors"
This gives a small example of the morality behind Rand, and her ability to make the counter-intuitive appear logical. To her mind, because Pope Francis wishes to "help the poor", he represents evil in human form.
Where does this leave ideas such as "love" or empathy? As said earlier, people like Pope Francis extol the idea of self-sacrifice and love for our fellow man. In Rand's morality, these ideas are anathema: "love" can only be earned. "Empathy" appears entirely absent from Rand's value system.
A "psychopathic" morality?
"Empathy" is generally understood to be the ability to recognise how someone else feels emotionally, and being able to respond to this appropriately. In the field of psychology, psychopaths (who represent around 1% of the overall population) are distinguishable for their absence of human empathy. Because of their lack of empathy, they cannot understand or react to, for example, human suffering. This results in their being capable of extremely callous and cold-hearted behaviour.
Going back to the example of Satan, it could be argued that descriptions of his actions in Christian literature mark him as being one of the prime examples of a psychopathic character in scripture. What many consider "evil" could likewise be called "psychopathic". While the terms can never be exactly interchangeable, it is true that psychopathy is responsible for a great deal of crime and social ills.
With this in mind, Ayn Rand's philosophy has been held to blame for the neo-liberal economic model that has ruled much of the world for the past thirty years. It is this system that has resulted in a widening gap between rich and poor, the re-shaping of the global economy, as well as being responsible for the conditions that caused the financial crisis of 2008, which many people even now are still feeling the after-effects of, seven years later.
The moral system that underpins the economic system of today's world was written by Ayn Rand. For this reason, it could well be said that "Atlas Shrugged" was the most influential - and dangerous - novel of the 20th century. It takes a special kind of genius to take an idea that almost everyone considers to be immoral, and transform it into the appearance of the highest virtue.
In many ways, "Atlas Shrugged" is a kind of Bible of our time. It certainly reads like one, and may well also have been responsible for causing human suffering in the same way as the Word Of God, thanks to the "Pied Piper"-like quality of the words contained in its many pages.
In "Atlas Shrugged", the "Pied Piper" role is played by the character John Galt, whose role is explored in more detail in the following article.
Friday, June 5, 2015
Ayn Rand, "Atlas Shrugged" and biblical symbolism: God, Government and Satan
Ayn Rand's magnum opus, "Atlas Shrugged" was published a little under sixty years ago. At the time, the novel - and the philosophy behind its key message - was considered unfashionable and even controversial, as it went against every moral fibre of the society that existed at the time. As one of the main advocates of pure Capitalism (i.e. a society and economy effectively without government interference), Rand took the economic ideas of the "Austrian School" and created a "moral code" from them:she called this new philosophy "Objectivism". As this novel was published in the middle of the so-called "post-war consensus", her ideas took conventional morality and turned it on its head.
Rand's sense of morality - of right and wrong - is displayed and explained in stunning clarity in"Atlas Shrugged". It tells a morality tale, but one relevant to modern times and written in an accessible, highly-readable form. As a piece of literature it is a true masterpiece; a contemporary work of art. It is breathtaking, terrifying, electrifying yet dangerous. It is breathtaking in the enormous scope of vision, a piece of literature over a thousand pages long that takes in everything from big industry to the lowest poverty. It is terrifying in its description of gradual social breakdown, with its predictions of how government can easily lose sight of how society functions. It is electrifying in the manner of how morality and ideas are explained with cut-glass sharpness and a refined clarity of thought. And yet, as a piece of writing, it is also dangerous: dangerous for the great convincing intelligence shown in its pages, but also the horrible truth of what these ideas mean in the real world.
As dangerous as "The Communist Manifesto" was to society when its ideas began to put put into practice, the ideas of "Atlas Shrugged" have been as dangerous to society when implemented by governments for the past thirty-five years. Communism brought about the poverty of any society that implemented its ideas; meanwhile, trying to implement "pure" Capitalism in the last thirty years simply resulted in a complete collapse in the system. Russia after Communism was as good an example of this as any: the result was complete anarchy and a depression-style collapse in living standards. And lest we forget, it was only "government" that saved the global system from complete collapse in 2008.
For both pure Communism as preached by Karl Marx, and pure Capitalism as described by Ayn Rand, are simply dangerous - but convincing - pipedreams; opposite versions of a nightmarish dystopia.
The Word Of Rand
As said earlier, Atlas Shrugged is a morality tale. It is a document, in fictional form, of Rand's view of the world.
In essence, the story revolves around several "heroic" characters who are people of industry. These characters (such as Hank Rearden and Dagny Taggart, who dominate the first half of the story) are moral purists, who wish to make (more) money and become (more) successful, it seems simply for the sake of becoming better. Their goal is not to do things for the benefit of others (e.g. society, or their family) but doing things that further their own goals. Any positive effect that others gain from their success is incidental. Moral purity and philosophical (and psychological) strength are key attributes, as are honesty and the principle of self-reliance. As a result, these characters have little time (and respect) for those around them that do not follow those same ideas.
Rand is a fervent believer in America as "the land of the free". In her eyes, America is the nearest thing - given she was an ardent atheist - to "heaven on earth". America for Rand was a place founded on the principles of freedom and the right to self-betterment through individual struggle and excellence without government interference. In "Atlas Shrugged", these "heroic" characters gradually fall victim to efforts by the government to prevent them from fulfilling their wishes to "become better" under their own terms. A succession of government rules obstruct them and create disincentives to working as they would wish, as the government sees these industrialists as "greedy" and "anti-social". These "heroes" are forced to either accept government's many rules, or quit.
In the end, the industrialists are shown another way of doing their work, without government interference in the "New Atlantis", which they flock to, and then thrive in.
God, Government, and The Bible
Rand sees this "New Atlantis" as a society where the only rule is that of nature and "rational self-interest". Conversely, the land of "government" is one of rules that stifle the free will and betterment of individuals who seek to make their own success and fortune - in effect, because they are rivals to the exclusive power of "government".
Anyone familiar with the Old Testament, and especially the fate of Satan, might see some interesting parallels with the morality tale of Atlas Shrugged - albeit with an important twist.
In the Bible, Satan is God's most powerful (and beautiful) angel. Satan seeks to be as powerful as God, and (according to the theologian Origen) seeks greater free will from the will of God. When God makes man in his own image, he refuses to kneel before man when God requests it. These factors result in the "war in heaven", which culminate in the ejection of Satan and his followers from Heaven and their banishment to Hell, which Satan becomes the ruler of. It is therefore only in Hell where Satan and his followers are truly "free".
Of course, the Bible goes out of its way to portray Satan as the embodiment of evil, but this is a misleading simplification, even when directly reading the Bible itself. Satan's key role in Genesis is the temptation of Eve with the apple from the Tree Of Knowledge (Of Good And Evil), which would make her and Adam "like God". Satan's other name is Lucifer, which is Latin for "light-giver", and it was this role - as the giver of "light" or knowledge - that Satan is punished for by God after the temptation of Eve. In other words, Satan's role in Genesis is to encourage the first man and woman to better themselves, while also highlighting God's arbitrary and deceitful nature.
Rand's grand morality tale, "Atlas Shrugged", could then be called a re-imagining of the tale of Satan's fall from Heaven told from the perspective of Satan rather than God. Substitute the word "God" for "Government" and Satan and his followers for the "heroic" industrialists, and the narratives are in many ways parallel, except that the sense of perspective is reversed. In the Bible, Satan and his followers are forced to leave Heaven as they refuse to follow God's (arbitrary) commands and (to their minds) twisted philosophy, and feel held back from their full potential. In "Atlas Shrugged", the "heroes" flee the control of "government" for the same reasons.
It could also be argued that God represents to Satan the same idea that "government" represents to Rand. Satan rebelled against God partly because of what he saw as God's arbitrary power, but also because Satan refused to bow before man, God's creation. In this way, Satan refused to offer man his unconditional love or respect, as he felt it was undeserved or unearned. This idea (of "conditional love" or undeserved respect or charity) also features strongly in Atlas Shrugged. For example, Hank Rearden, one of the industrial "heroes", refuses to give a job to his brother because he is unqualified and undeserving. Later, he threatens to throw his brother out of his house, rather preferring to see his brother on the street than getting charity from him for simply being part of the family. Rand's philosophy reels against the idea of charity and "brotherly love" precisely because she sees it as unearned, detrimental and pointless. Satan, given his attitude towards man, would doubtless agree: part of what Satan stands for is the opposite to the concept of Judaeo-Christian selfless, "brotherly love". Satan represents the advancement of the "self" to its moral conclusion - severing connection to "God", and the rejection of the idea of selflessness and self-sacrifice for (undeserving) others e.g. by refusing to unconditionally "love" man, or to blindly obey God's commands.
To follow "God", then, is to abandon the idea of the "self" for the benefit of the whole; this is what Satan rejects, resulting in his Fall From Heaven. Likewise, Rand's philosophy rejects the idea of "government" having the right to arbitrary power over individuals, and in her novel, Atlas Shrugged rails against this (calling those who support government's arbitrary power "looters"), and also strongly rejects the idea of (wealthy and talented) individuals sacrificing for the benefit of others who are poorer (and less talented) - the "heroic" industrialist Hank Rearden, during his trial in the novel, calls himself a "sacrificial victim". However, he refuses to accept this quietly.
It could also be argued that God represents to Satan the same idea that "government" represents to Rand. Satan rebelled against God partly because of what he saw as God's arbitrary power, but also because Satan refused to bow before man, God's creation. In this way, Satan refused to offer man his unconditional love or respect, as he felt it was undeserved or unearned. This idea (of "conditional love" or undeserved respect or charity) also features strongly in Atlas Shrugged. For example, Hank Rearden, one of the industrial "heroes", refuses to give a job to his brother because he is unqualified and undeserving. Later, he threatens to throw his brother out of his house, rather preferring to see his brother on the street than getting charity from him for simply being part of the family. Rand's philosophy reels against the idea of charity and "brotherly love" precisely because she sees it as unearned, detrimental and pointless. Satan, given his attitude towards man, would doubtless agree: part of what Satan stands for is the opposite to the concept of Judaeo-Christian selfless, "brotherly love". Satan represents the advancement of the "self" to its moral conclusion - severing connection to "God", and the rejection of the idea of selflessness and self-sacrifice for (undeserving) others e.g. by refusing to unconditionally "love" man, or to blindly obey God's commands.
To follow "God", then, is to abandon the idea of the "self" for the benefit of the whole; this is what Satan rejects, resulting in his Fall From Heaven. Likewise, Rand's philosophy rejects the idea of "government" having the right to arbitrary power over individuals, and in her novel, Atlas Shrugged rails against this (calling those who support government's arbitrary power "looters"), and also strongly rejects the idea of (wealthy and talented) individuals sacrificing for the benefit of others who are poorer (and less talented) - the "heroic" industrialist Hank Rearden, during his trial in the novel, calls himself a "sacrificial victim". However, he refuses to accept this quietly.
Seen in this light, "Atlas Shrugged" not only turns conventional morality on its head, but its symbolism - to those knowledgeable of The Bible - makes a morality tale like the "Fall From Heaven" seem instead a "Flight From Hegemony": Satan and his followers escaping the "tyranny" of God's power and "sacrificial" morality to establish their own "freedom" outside of Heaven. In Atlas Shrugged, the "heroic" industrialists similarly wish to escape the "tyranny" of government. So Rand could - arguably - be called a "Satanist" of a kind, looking at the evidence above.
Friday, December 13, 2013
Ayn Rand, Objectivism, Capitalism and Psychopathy
I wrote an article a long time ago comparing Ayn Rand's moral and economic philosophy, Objectivism, with the psychological disorder, psychopathy. The main tenets of her philosophy were explained in her own words in an interview she had after the publication of her magnum opus, "Atlas Shrugged".
It's worth remembering that Ayn Rand was a Russian Jew, born in St Petersburg the first decade of the Twentieth Century, albeit to a non-practising family. She was in her early teens when she experienced her father's business being appropriated by the Bolsheviks, which clearly had a very strong influence on her ideas about government and society. After completing university in the Soviet Union, she took an opportunity to go to the USA, and never came back.
The lunatics take over the asylum
Rand's ideas are integral to anyone who understands what free market Capitalism is, as well as understanding what the justifications are by those who pursue its ideas with such vigour. Anyone involved in finance and economics, either at the corporate or academic level, needs to have an understanding of - and more importantly, be an adherent to - its principles and ideology. If you are not a laissez-faire Capitalist in today's world, you cannot succeed in finance or economics, let alone business.
This is all the more shocking considering how the financial crisis dealt the biggest possible blow to the idea of unregulated free markets. The crisis happened because there was no effective government regulation, and that the banking sector had become dominated by giants that were "too big to fail"; this was what Rand had said should have been impossible under a laissez-faire system. The government had done precisely what the banks had told them to - what all the most distinguished economists had told them to do - and the system had collapsed in on itself as a result of their "wisdom".
If the orthodoxy of any other system - science, for example - had received such a blow to its legitimacy, it would have caused a radical reworking of their approach. In economics, however, no such worries seem to exist. The economists and financial "experts" continue as if nothing had happened, giving governments the same advice as before. The UK is suffering from the same kind of madness in government.
Rand's ideas were not new when they were first published, but prior to that, only a small number of economists and other oddballs took the idea of laissez-faire Capitalism as something that had a serious place in the world. They had been expressed before the Second World War through the "Austrian School" of economics, and after the Second World War, in the "Chicago School". It was Rand who turned an economic theory into a moral code for living.
A "Randian" perspective on living
Rand's interviewer from the clip I mentioned earlier takes a (not surprisingly) sceptical view of her ideas when she expresses them; for one thing, they go against almost every moral code known to man. She summarises her philosophy into a few main points.
Rand calls her philosophy "Objectivism" because it is a philosophy that takes its moral code not from using religious or social values (which are therefore subjective), but from the perspective solely of the individual (who is therefore "objective"). A person's moral code, according to Rand, can only be decided by what is in his or her best interests - or other words, what is convenient.
Following from this, it is against a person's interests to help someone else selflessly, because the man helping gets nothing in return for his efforts; it might also be mentioned that it makes the man receiving dependent on someone else. Looking at it from this perspective, Rand considers altruism to be evil, the opposite to what social norms tell us.
As Rand says, this attitude is based on man as a rational being: doing things based on his rational mind, and avoiding actions which are illogical (i.e. not convenient to his interests).
At around this point in the above interview that the interviewer asks Rand about "love". What about "love"? Should a man not help another out of "love"? Rand's answer is that "love" in the interviewer's (and mankind's) understanding of the word is self-defeating: one can only "love" another person for their achievements; loving a person simply for being a human being, so Rand thinks, is ludicrous, because how can you "love" someone who you don't know?
What Rand's philosophy postulates is a social network of interactions based on mutual convenience, and that it is rational that all human interactions be based on this primary principle.
(Any "Star Trek" fans might be familiar with this perspective: the character Spock, at one point in the original series, introduced his Vulcan wife to the crew. It was in this episode that the viewer was educated about the "logic" behind the marriage of two people who are without emotion)
A cynic might also recognize the same thinking in "marriages of convenience" today. But in Rand's thinking, all marriages and human interactions must be rationally so. Otherwise, why demean yourself to something that is inconvenient?
The philosophy of a psychopath
Rand's philosophy focuses on the meaning of freedom. In it, a person is free to do as he or she likes, as long as it does not impinge on the freedom of others. This is how law and order is maintained in such a society, and that the only function a government has is to maintain basic law and order and the justice system.
Government should not therefore raise any taxes that are not agreed by the consent of all people taxed. As a person's wit and wealth is his primary means of survival (only means of survival), it is not the government's role to dictate how a person spends his wealth.
As people are therefore rational, it follows that in a laissez-faire society, the free market will provide all goods and services possible, and that no-one would be unemployed or in a job they didn't like if they didn't choose it. Besides, it would be irrational to help those less fortunate than yourself for no reason and for not benefit to yourself.
Lastly, Rand's philosophy refutes the idea of democracy, seeing it as nothing more than majoritarianism. In a free society, one larger group cannot dictate to another. By this logic, "interest groups" as such couldn't possibly exist, let alone "parties". As Rand sees it, this is going back to the first principles of the "Founding Fathers".
An "Objectivist" world sounds a lot like an anarchist one (which Rand personally despised); the caveat that Rand always made against this accusation is the role of law and order and government's monopoly on the use of force. But having had Rand's philosophy largely put into practice for the last thirty years, we know the real results: a heavenly bliss for those at the top of society, and a version of hell for those at the bottom.
I've written many times before about the attributes of psychopaths. When you look at the behaviour that Rand's perspective encourages (even celebrates) - selfishness, lack of empathy towards others, being motivated by convenience - it mirrors some of the key attributes of psychopathy. The only thing that separates Rand's philosophy from being a "manual for psychopaths" is the respect for others' freedom and the need for basic law and order.
But that separation can easily be blurred. When do a company's actions cross the line towards impinging on others' "freedom"? Or an individual's? Such a society could easily make "people of ill intent" simply become more Machiavellian and cunning in order to impinge on others' freedoms indirectly, in a way not immediately obvious. From companies that get around regulations, to people who find loopholes to avoid paying tax, these things happen everywhere, everyday.
Rand's theory of "Objectivism" is clearly atheistic by nature; her views on Capitalism and turning society's moral code on its head certainly would bring out accusations from the clergy that she was nothing more than a female "Antichrist", or a servant of Lucifer himself. I've made such (tongue-in cheek) comments myself before.
Rand lived until 1982, so that she saw the first beginnings of her philosophy put into practice by Reagan and Thatcher.
It is the rest of us who have had to deal with the results of her philosophy, as it continues to rule us like a vampire that will not die, even after being intellectually "killed" by the financial crisis. The principles of her philosophy, if anything, seem to become more refined with age; given a second wind with the calls for "austerity", as the "Tea Party" in The USA take Rand's ideas to levels even Reagan didn't dare to tread, and in The UK, the Chancellor George Osborne and PM David Cameron try to out-do Thatcher at her own game.
Like Rand before them turning society's moral code on its head, today's adherents to her philosophy use counter-intuitive arguments for their policies: the "trickle-down" theory; Osborne in The UK blaming the "welfare state" for the financial crisis; the Tea Party in The USA blaming "entitlements" and "socialized medicine".
Like Rand before them, her disciples today use the sweet words of freedom to implement ideas that cause poverty and inequality.
Like the Lucifer of The Bible, Rand and her followers manipulate humanity and seduce us with talk of our own magnificence as individuals, and how evil "government" is (our modern-day "God" of The Bible). Much of this biblical symbolism is described, in a very allegorical sense, by Rand herself in the pages of her most famous work, "Atlas Shrugged".
But some people like government; like how some people like God. They both require faith to survive.
It's worth remembering that Ayn Rand was a Russian Jew, born in St Petersburg the first decade of the Twentieth Century, albeit to a non-practising family. She was in her early teens when she experienced her father's business being appropriated by the Bolsheviks, which clearly had a very strong influence on her ideas about government and society. After completing university in the Soviet Union, she took an opportunity to go to the USA, and never came back.
The lunatics take over the asylum
Rand's ideas are integral to anyone who understands what free market Capitalism is, as well as understanding what the justifications are by those who pursue its ideas with such vigour. Anyone involved in finance and economics, either at the corporate or academic level, needs to have an understanding of - and more importantly, be an adherent to - its principles and ideology. If you are not a laissez-faire Capitalist in today's world, you cannot succeed in finance or economics, let alone business.
This is all the more shocking considering how the financial crisis dealt the biggest possible blow to the idea of unregulated free markets. The crisis happened because there was no effective government regulation, and that the banking sector had become dominated by giants that were "too big to fail"; this was what Rand had said should have been impossible under a laissez-faire system. The government had done precisely what the banks had told them to - what all the most distinguished economists had told them to do - and the system had collapsed in on itself as a result of their "wisdom".
If the orthodoxy of any other system - science, for example - had received such a blow to its legitimacy, it would have caused a radical reworking of their approach. In economics, however, no such worries seem to exist. The economists and financial "experts" continue as if nothing had happened, giving governments the same advice as before. The UK is suffering from the same kind of madness in government.
Rand's ideas were not new when they were first published, but prior to that, only a small number of economists and other oddballs took the idea of laissez-faire Capitalism as something that had a serious place in the world. They had been expressed before the Second World War through the "Austrian School" of economics, and after the Second World War, in the "Chicago School". It was Rand who turned an economic theory into a moral code for living.
A "Randian" perspective on living
Rand's interviewer from the clip I mentioned earlier takes a (not surprisingly) sceptical view of her ideas when she expresses them; for one thing, they go against almost every moral code known to man. She summarises her philosophy into a few main points.
Rand calls her philosophy "Objectivism" because it is a philosophy that takes its moral code not from using religious or social values (which are therefore subjective), but from the perspective solely of the individual (who is therefore "objective"). A person's moral code, according to Rand, can only be decided by what is in his or her best interests - or other words, what is convenient.
Following from this, it is against a person's interests to help someone else selflessly, because the man helping gets nothing in return for his efforts; it might also be mentioned that it makes the man receiving dependent on someone else. Looking at it from this perspective, Rand considers altruism to be evil, the opposite to what social norms tell us.
As Rand says, this attitude is based on man as a rational being: doing things based on his rational mind, and avoiding actions which are illogical (i.e. not convenient to his interests).
At around this point in the above interview that the interviewer asks Rand about "love". What about "love"? Should a man not help another out of "love"? Rand's answer is that "love" in the interviewer's (and mankind's) understanding of the word is self-defeating: one can only "love" another person for their achievements; loving a person simply for being a human being, so Rand thinks, is ludicrous, because how can you "love" someone who you don't know?
What Rand's philosophy postulates is a social network of interactions based on mutual convenience, and that it is rational that all human interactions be based on this primary principle.
(Any "Star Trek" fans might be familiar with this perspective: the character Spock, at one point in the original series, introduced his Vulcan wife to the crew. It was in this episode that the viewer was educated about the "logic" behind the marriage of two people who are without emotion)
A cynic might also recognize the same thinking in "marriages of convenience" today. But in Rand's thinking, all marriages and human interactions must be rationally so. Otherwise, why demean yourself to something that is inconvenient?
The philosophy of a psychopath
Rand's philosophy focuses on the meaning of freedom. In it, a person is free to do as he or she likes, as long as it does not impinge on the freedom of others. This is how law and order is maintained in such a society, and that the only function a government has is to maintain basic law and order and the justice system.
Government should not therefore raise any taxes that are not agreed by the consent of all people taxed. As a person's wit and wealth is his primary means of survival (only means of survival), it is not the government's role to dictate how a person spends his wealth.
As people are therefore rational, it follows that in a laissez-faire society, the free market will provide all goods and services possible, and that no-one would be unemployed or in a job they didn't like if they didn't choose it. Besides, it would be irrational to help those less fortunate than yourself for no reason and for not benefit to yourself.
Lastly, Rand's philosophy refutes the idea of democracy, seeing it as nothing more than majoritarianism. In a free society, one larger group cannot dictate to another. By this logic, "interest groups" as such couldn't possibly exist, let alone "parties". As Rand sees it, this is going back to the first principles of the "Founding Fathers".
An "Objectivist" world sounds a lot like an anarchist one (which Rand personally despised); the caveat that Rand always made against this accusation is the role of law and order and government's monopoly on the use of force. But having had Rand's philosophy largely put into practice for the last thirty years, we know the real results: a heavenly bliss for those at the top of society, and a version of hell for those at the bottom.
I've written many times before about the attributes of psychopaths. When you look at the behaviour that Rand's perspective encourages (even celebrates) - selfishness, lack of empathy towards others, being motivated by convenience - it mirrors some of the key attributes of psychopathy. The only thing that separates Rand's philosophy from being a "manual for psychopaths" is the respect for others' freedom and the need for basic law and order.
But that separation can easily be blurred. When do a company's actions cross the line towards impinging on others' "freedom"? Or an individual's? Such a society could easily make "people of ill intent" simply become more Machiavellian and cunning in order to impinge on others' freedoms indirectly, in a way not immediately obvious. From companies that get around regulations, to people who find loopholes to avoid paying tax, these things happen everywhere, everyday.
Rand's theory of "Objectivism" is clearly atheistic by nature; her views on Capitalism and turning society's moral code on its head certainly would bring out accusations from the clergy that she was nothing more than a female "Antichrist", or a servant of Lucifer himself. I've made such (tongue-in cheek) comments myself before.
Rand lived until 1982, so that she saw the first beginnings of her philosophy put into practice by Reagan and Thatcher.
It is the rest of us who have had to deal with the results of her philosophy, as it continues to rule us like a vampire that will not die, even after being intellectually "killed" by the financial crisis. The principles of her philosophy, if anything, seem to become more refined with age; given a second wind with the calls for "austerity", as the "Tea Party" in The USA take Rand's ideas to levels even Reagan didn't dare to tread, and in The UK, the Chancellor George Osborne and PM David Cameron try to out-do Thatcher at her own game.
Like Rand before them turning society's moral code on its head, today's adherents to her philosophy use counter-intuitive arguments for their policies: the "trickle-down" theory; Osborne in The UK blaming the "welfare state" for the financial crisis; the Tea Party in The USA blaming "entitlements" and "socialized medicine".
Like Rand before them, her disciples today use the sweet words of freedom to implement ideas that cause poverty and inequality.
Like the Lucifer of The Bible, Rand and her followers manipulate humanity and seduce us with talk of our own magnificence as individuals, and how evil "government" is (our modern-day "God" of The Bible). Much of this biblical symbolism is described, in a very allegorical sense, by Rand herself in the pages of her most famous work, "Atlas Shrugged".
But some people like government; like how some people like God. They both require faith to survive.
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
Is Capitalism In League With Lucifer?
If the Devil himself had thought up a vision of hell on earth, then Capitalism may well be one version of it. Capitalists may well reply that Communism is a version of hell as well, and that may well be true. But what these two ideologies represent are merely two opposing visions of hell.
The Devil, from looking at the pronouncements made in his name in Holy Scripture, was not a Communist. In fact, if anyone in Holy Scripture were Communists, it was the early Christians and ancient Jews. Early Christianity was mainly about selflessness and charity; the very things that Capitalists are philosophically opposed to.
The main purpose of the Devil, paraphrasing from Holy Scripture, was to test man and prove his irrationality and lack of virtue. Lucifer, in the Old Testament, refused to kneel before the image of man, as, being one of the archangels, he knew he was better than him. He was cast out of Heaven for his pride and disdain towards man. The story of Lucifer in the Holy Scripture is a history of repeated attempts to demonstrate man’s inherent psychological weaknesses.
If the Devil was against the Christian virtues of selflessness and charity we can logically assume that his principal drives were selfishness and indifference to human suffering. As we have seen, these two attributes are also shared with psychopaths and Capitalists.
Another strategy of the Devil in the Holy Scripture was to deceive and trick the pious into doing evil deeds, in order to prove man’s unworthiness and “irrationality”.
If we look at the principles of Capitalism, they are formulated to give the appearance of promoting freedom, rationalism and human progress. As we have seen, the reality easily creates something entirely opposite. When Capitalists’ behaviour is put under the microscope, we see the behaviour of a psychopath. Capitalism creates a state in nature close to chaos, albeit with the sham of human “civilisation” due to a minimal jurisdiction of law and order. It is this chaotic sham of human “civilisation” that Capitalists claim is the height of human rationalism.
If the Devil wished to create the conditions on Earth in order to bring about the downfall of human “civilisation” he could perhaps not go far wrong in implementing the philosophy of Objectivism and the economic ideology of Capitalism.
For the beauty of Capitalism is its mass appeal to the human desire, by intellectually turning all human conventions on their head. It is a philosophy that says that we can all have our cake and eat it. It is able to intellectualise psychopathic behaviour as virtue. The socially liberal and conscientious intellectual is demonised for his selfless behaviour, while encouraged to see those less fortunate than him as less worthy than him and to be ignored for the sake of his, and their, best interests. The hard-working middle-class craftsman is encouraged to discard any pretence of social niceties to his peers and see them as commodities to be used and exploited where possible in order to advance his career further, while at the same time encouraged to work his subordinates harder to further his own purse and, through his underlings’ hardships, encourage their motivation for self-advancement. While the impoverished outcast is encouraged by his own misfortune and the successes of others to do as much as he can to find a place for himself in the world, in whatever way he can.
What may well be the most appealing aspect of Objectivism to the Devil, therefore, is its plausible intellectual argument for encouraging evil behaviour. There is perhaps nothing more dangerously persuasive than a person being told what appears a clearly evil act is perfectly rational in the circumstances. The Nazis used similar thinking in carrying out the Holocaust; Stalin did the same when justifying the deaths of millions of his own people.
As said before, while a Capitalist is not directly or openly violent in the way that the Nazis were or Stalin was, millions may still die under a Capitalist’s watch. The only difference is that they would die through omission rather than commission. They would die because of indifference rather than intent.
But, if the Devil had learnt anything over the ensuing millennia, it may be than humanity is not as easily tricked as in the ancient or medieval past. Lucifer would have to get smarter in order to bring out the end of human civilisation, and finally prove man’s barbarity to man. He would not be able to be evil openly; it would have to subtly, indirectly. Cloaking evil in an intellectual veil of virtue would be the way Lucifer would have to do it these days, in the days of such human cynicism. Becoming a Capitalist would be an excellent way to go about it.
The Devil, from looking at the pronouncements made in his name in Holy Scripture, was not a Communist. In fact, if anyone in Holy Scripture were Communists, it was the early Christians and ancient Jews. Early Christianity was mainly about selflessness and charity; the very things that Capitalists are philosophically opposed to.
The main purpose of the Devil, paraphrasing from Holy Scripture, was to test man and prove his irrationality and lack of virtue. Lucifer, in the Old Testament, refused to kneel before the image of man, as, being one of the archangels, he knew he was better than him. He was cast out of Heaven for his pride and disdain towards man. The story of Lucifer in the Holy Scripture is a history of repeated attempts to demonstrate man’s inherent psychological weaknesses.
If the Devil was against the Christian virtues of selflessness and charity we can logically assume that his principal drives were selfishness and indifference to human suffering. As we have seen, these two attributes are also shared with psychopaths and Capitalists.
Another strategy of the Devil in the Holy Scripture was to deceive and trick the pious into doing evil deeds, in order to prove man’s unworthiness and “irrationality”.
If we look at the principles of Capitalism, they are formulated to give the appearance of promoting freedom, rationalism and human progress. As we have seen, the reality easily creates something entirely opposite. When Capitalists’ behaviour is put under the microscope, we see the behaviour of a psychopath. Capitalism creates a state in nature close to chaos, albeit with the sham of human “civilisation” due to a minimal jurisdiction of law and order. It is this chaotic sham of human “civilisation” that Capitalists claim is the height of human rationalism.
If the Devil wished to create the conditions on Earth in order to bring about the downfall of human “civilisation” he could perhaps not go far wrong in implementing the philosophy of Objectivism and the economic ideology of Capitalism.
For the beauty of Capitalism is its mass appeal to the human desire, by intellectually turning all human conventions on their head. It is a philosophy that says that we can all have our cake and eat it. It is able to intellectualise psychopathic behaviour as virtue. The socially liberal and conscientious intellectual is demonised for his selfless behaviour, while encouraged to see those less fortunate than him as less worthy than him and to be ignored for the sake of his, and their, best interests. The hard-working middle-class craftsman is encouraged to discard any pretence of social niceties to his peers and see them as commodities to be used and exploited where possible in order to advance his career further, while at the same time encouraged to work his subordinates harder to further his own purse and, through his underlings’ hardships, encourage their motivation for self-advancement. While the impoverished outcast is encouraged by his own misfortune and the successes of others to do as much as he can to find a place for himself in the world, in whatever way he can.
What may well be the most appealing aspect of Objectivism to the Devil, therefore, is its plausible intellectual argument for encouraging evil behaviour. There is perhaps nothing more dangerously persuasive than a person being told what appears a clearly evil act is perfectly rational in the circumstances. The Nazis used similar thinking in carrying out the Holocaust; Stalin did the same when justifying the deaths of millions of his own people.
As said before, while a Capitalist is not directly or openly violent in the way that the Nazis were or Stalin was, millions may still die under a Capitalist’s watch. The only difference is that they would die through omission rather than commission. They would die because of indifference rather than intent.
But, if the Devil had learnt anything over the ensuing millennia, it may be than humanity is not as easily tricked as in the ancient or medieval past. Lucifer would have to get smarter in order to bring out the end of human civilisation, and finally prove man’s barbarity to man. He would not be able to be evil openly; it would have to subtly, indirectly. Cloaking evil in an intellectual veil of virtue would be the way Lucifer would have to do it these days, in the days of such human cynicism. Becoming a Capitalist would be an excellent way to go about it.
Putting the Capitalist Experiment into Practice
If Capitalism as a thought experiment sounds like a society populated by psychopaths, you shouldn’t be surprised.
Thus far, such a society does not exist, but Monetarists (inspired by the philosophy of Objectivism, founded by Ayn Rand), who became highly influential after the 1970s, in particular in the Anglo-Saxon world, had a chance to get closer to it.
After implementing these principles into the financial and industrial sectors of the Anglo-Saxon civilisations (as much as they dared), and exporting them to other developing nations (as much as they could get away with), the end result, after almost thirty years, was a near-total collapse of the financial and industrial sectors of the Anglo-Saxon civilisations and their dependent economies in the developing world. The only thing that prevented a total, catastrophic collapse was that the Monetarists convinced governments around the world to pay for their irresponsibility. They could convince them because the governments knew the alternative was likely to be the eventual collapse of human (or, at least, Anglo-Saxon) civilisation.
There is another word for this: extortion. This is the “do-what-I-say-or-else” line of thinking. It is also how criminal gangs cultivate protection rackets; by fear. By Capitalist standards, even a protection racket can be called a legitimate business as it offers a service in exchange for money: the service of safety. The difference is that a security company offers a consensual form of security (payment against the risk of crime), whereas a racket is a coerced form of security (payment against crime).
When the governments bailed-out the banks, this was, in effect, the largest example of coercion in financial history. They were rewarding criminal behaviour because the alternative was the death of Anglo-Saxon civilisation. In this way, the actions of the Monetarists during the Financial Crisis display all the hallmarks of psychopathology: Financial Irresponsibility; Impulsive behaviour and failing to plan for the future; recklessness; lack of guilt for the harm caused to others; deceiving and conning others.
The bailout was a typical example of Capitalist passive-aggressive behaviour; there was no direct use of force involved in the bailout on the part of the Monetarists, but it was clear to the government that in this “transaction”, there was no option on the government side.
The government agreement with the Monetarists just over thirty years ago was, in effect, like a Faustian pact. Like Mephistopheles, who sold his soul to the Devil, the governments of the Anglo-Saxon world surrendered financial responsibility to the Objectivist psychopaths.
Put another way, when put into practice, Capitalism is like nuclear energy: it creates enormous amounts of energy (profit), but is highly unstable if left unregulated and has potentially unimaginable destructive power. So why would “rational” governments, and people, take the risk? The reason is because, like Mephistopheles, they can become seduced by greed.
Because the Monetarists/Objectivists/Capitalists knew that all governments are, by nature, “irrational”, they also knew that they would be able to convince governments that “greed is good”: because this precisely coincided with the Capitalist world view. What is more intellectually puzzling is how Capitalists view government’s greed as “irrational”, but Capitalist greed as “rational”. The Capitalists exploited governments’ greed for their own ends: the Monetarists, who routinely accuse “government” as acting as a parasite on the individual, acted like a parasite on the government itself.
At the risk of tiring the metaphors, the philosophy of Objectivism is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Under the cloak of promoting freedom and individual rights, society is destroyed and the individual wakes up discovering that, in fact, he has NO rights. The only “right” he has (in terms of being guaranteed from birth) is the right to breathe and the minimum of law and order. Everything else in the world is up to his own efforts. Everyone is competing to survive. Everything is up for grabs. Everyone is out for what they can get from everyone else. True, you are free to speak your mind, but what is the point of having an opinion if you can do nothing with it? What is the point of “freedom” if you have no money?
Thus far, such a society does not exist, but Monetarists (inspired by the philosophy of Objectivism, founded by Ayn Rand), who became highly influential after the 1970s, in particular in the Anglo-Saxon world, had a chance to get closer to it.
After implementing these principles into the financial and industrial sectors of the Anglo-Saxon civilisations (as much as they dared), and exporting them to other developing nations (as much as they could get away with), the end result, after almost thirty years, was a near-total collapse of the financial and industrial sectors of the Anglo-Saxon civilisations and their dependent economies in the developing world. The only thing that prevented a total, catastrophic collapse was that the Monetarists convinced governments around the world to pay for their irresponsibility. They could convince them because the governments knew the alternative was likely to be the eventual collapse of human (or, at least, Anglo-Saxon) civilisation.
There is another word for this: extortion. This is the “do-what-I-say-or-else” line of thinking. It is also how criminal gangs cultivate protection rackets; by fear. By Capitalist standards, even a protection racket can be called a legitimate business as it offers a service in exchange for money: the service of safety. The difference is that a security company offers a consensual form of security (payment against the risk of crime), whereas a racket is a coerced form of security (payment against crime).
When the governments bailed-out the banks, this was, in effect, the largest example of coercion in financial history. They were rewarding criminal behaviour because the alternative was the death of Anglo-Saxon civilisation. In this way, the actions of the Monetarists during the Financial Crisis display all the hallmarks of psychopathology: Financial Irresponsibility; Impulsive behaviour and failing to plan for the future; recklessness; lack of guilt for the harm caused to others; deceiving and conning others.
The bailout was a typical example of Capitalist passive-aggressive behaviour; there was no direct use of force involved in the bailout on the part of the Monetarists, but it was clear to the government that in this “transaction”, there was no option on the government side.
The government agreement with the Monetarists just over thirty years ago was, in effect, like a Faustian pact. Like Mephistopheles, who sold his soul to the Devil, the governments of the Anglo-Saxon world surrendered financial responsibility to the Objectivist psychopaths.
Put another way, when put into practice, Capitalism is like nuclear energy: it creates enormous amounts of energy (profit), but is highly unstable if left unregulated and has potentially unimaginable destructive power. So why would “rational” governments, and people, take the risk? The reason is because, like Mephistopheles, they can become seduced by greed.
Because the Monetarists/Objectivists/Capitalists knew that all governments are, by nature, “irrational”, they also knew that they would be able to convince governments that “greed is good”: because this precisely coincided with the Capitalist world view. What is more intellectually puzzling is how Capitalists view government’s greed as “irrational”, but Capitalist greed as “rational”. The Capitalists exploited governments’ greed for their own ends: the Monetarists, who routinely accuse “government” as acting as a parasite on the individual, acted like a parasite on the government itself.
At the risk of tiring the metaphors, the philosophy of Objectivism is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Under the cloak of promoting freedom and individual rights, society is destroyed and the individual wakes up discovering that, in fact, he has NO rights. The only “right” he has (in terms of being guaranteed from birth) is the right to breathe and the minimum of law and order. Everything else in the world is up to his own efforts. Everyone is competing to survive. Everything is up for grabs. Everyone is out for what they can get from everyone else. True, you are free to speak your mind, but what is the point of having an opinion if you can do nothing with it? What is the point of “freedom” if you have no money?
Notes on Capitalism and Psychopathology
To paraphrase the American Psychiatric Association, there are seven characteristics that identify psychopaths. However, in order to considered a real “psychopath”, only three of these characteristics needs to be in evidence. They are:
Repeated anti-social or socially unacceptable behaviour (that would normally be thought of as inconsiderate or openly rude).
Repeated lying or deceit; conning others for personal gain or pleasure.
Impulsive or thoughtless behaviour; failing to plan or think ahead.
Recklessness towards the safety or yourself or others.
Consistent irresponsibility; not fulfilling social, work or financial obligations.
Lack of guilt towards the harm you have caused or may cause others.
Aggressive or easily turned violent (i.e. with an explosive and short temper).
In other words, psychopaths tend to be aggressive and violent; find excuses for causing evil actions; have no sense of responsibility to others; are reckless; are impulsive and have little sense of the future; lie, cheat, conspire and trick others for their own ends; and have no concept of social rules.
To paraphrase the ideas of Capitalism as explained by Ayn Rand of the “Objectivist” school of thought, the key principles of Objectivism are:
To be against all forms of control (either by governments or other people) except for those necessary for maintaining “law and order”
Believe that people are by nature rational (though some may not be; see below).
Mankind progresses through each individual using the mind independently and not depending on others for their survival.
Those that depend on others are therefore, by definition, irrational; those that do not use their minds are morons.
Selfishness is therefore the highest virtue. Selflessness and altruism are the highest forms of evil as they disrupt a person’s ability to think for themselves and impose controls of people’s decisions.
Society functions through the value of exchange in a “free market”; all actions are carried out for the sake of what can be got in return.
There can be no such thing as “social rights”, as “society” is an artificial construct; the only rights are “individual rights”.
There can be no such thing as “democracy”; this is the rule of the mob, and therefore philosophically no different from tyranny.
To paraphrase George Orwell, every liberal is always a few steps away from being a fascist. Comparing the principles of Capitalism and the behavioural characteristics, it doesn’t take long for a pure Capitalist to turn into a psychopath.
Let’s compare the characteristics of both.
In order to be a Capitalist, one, by definition, has to have a negative (cynical) view of governments and society as a whole. A psychopath also has a cynical view of humanity; this is how they justify exploiting and using people for their own benefit.
A Capitalist believes that people are usually rational; the caveat is that those who are not must therefore be “lesser” human beings – irrational animals rather than rational humans. Believing that some people may be “lower” than others is also a mentality that can be held by psychopaths; this is how they would give a second justification to guiltless behaviour.
Just as a Capitalist believes that all actions by a “rational” human being are done for what they can get out of them, so would a psychopath. A psychopath is not interested in other person’s feelings and attitudes; neither is a Capitalist. Capitalists consider “feelings” and “emotions” to be sentimental leftovers of an animalistic and irrational mind, and get in the way of the exchange of goods and services.
For this reason, friendships and human relationships, to a Capitalist, are purely for the purpose of benefit to the self. To have a human relationship for the purpose of “helping others” is an anathema to a Capitalist. The same could be said of a psychopath.
As there is no such thing as society, Capitalists see the world as a state of informal “war of exchange” between a mass of individuals. While a “light touch” government maintains the minimum of law of order, a state of nature close to chaos exists in reality, allowing the strong and mentally adept to take the most advantage of the situation. A psychopath would feel well at home in such an environment.
As Capitalists do not believe in artificially imposed “social norms” (as they are leftovers of an irrational, medievalist mind), people therefore would have no need to worry about their social behaviour. If people are free to act as they please, provided they do not actively control other people’s actions, then naturally there would no need to respect “old-fashioned” social norms. This fits neatly with the thinking of a psychopath, who also has no need to respect social norms.
When a “rational” Capitalist encounters a person in a much direr situation than them, what would the result be? A Capitalist, by definition, would refuse to help those in a much direr situation than them; so the outcast will eventually die without help. The Capitalist, logically, would know this to be the case also, all things being equal. This would make the Capitalist an indirect party to the death of the outcast. From an intellectual point of view, because the Capitalist is “rational”, he is of greater consciousness of his actions than the “irrational” outcast; therefore, the Capitalist would legally take the greater responsibility for failing to prevent a previously knowable death. The “irrational” outcast cannot be equally to blame for his own death for he knows no better than to ask for help; in this way, the Capitalist therefore acts with the same rationale as a psychopath: by being knowingly reckless and irresponsible towards the safety of others. He literally does not care if the outcast lives or dies – worse, he intellectually would be able to rationalise the death to himself.
To the Capitalist, the death of the outcast would be the fault of the outcast. The Capitalist has no right to interfere in the actions of another individual. To the psychopath, the death of another person is no concern of his. The effect is the same; only the rationale is subtly different. The psychopath is mentally deranged, so has no obvious rational faculty; but the Capitalist is, as we have seen, a “rational” human being. Which, then, is more evil: death through the indifference of a mentally disturbed psychopath; or death through the “rational” omission of the Capitalist?
These things being the case, we can see that a Capitalist easily matches most of the behaviour perpetrated by psychopaths; certainly the majority of these characteristics. In fact, in some ways, Capitalism, after this intellectual and psychological analysis, seems even more inhumane than the madness of psychopathology: at least psychopaths have the excuse of mental illness for their behaviour. But Capitalists are capable of almost the exact same behaviour, yet still able to claim a “rational” mind.
How is this intellectually possible?
A psychopath is generally considered as someone who is by nature violent. This perception is a stereotype: violent behaviour, as we can see from the list of most common behavioural traits of psychopathology, is merely one symptom. Psychopaths are not always violent. Violence is just a side-effect of a syndrome that is indifferent to other’s fate, and a possible behavioural outcome. In this way, violence is an option to a psychopath that a rational person would not normally consider.
Capitalists are, by nature, non-violent. The principles of Capitalism forbid violence as they are a form of control on others, breaking the fundamental principle of free-will. However, Capitalists are, by nature, also indifferent to others’ fate (like psychopaths). Moreover, they are able to rationally justify such behaviour into their belief system. Although a Capitalist may be non-violent, they would also be indifferent to violence committed onto others, provided it does not affect them directly. There is a psychological term for this behavioural trait: passive-aggressive.
This is the difference between the direct violence of psychopaths (who have no sense of right or wrong), and the indirect violence of Capitalists (who are indifferent to the fate of others): as said earlier, the effect is the same, only the method and rationale is different.
Here is a typical example in point: a psychopath as a national leader can justify the killing of a segment of the population as a necessary act to “maintain order”. A Capitalist as a single person can rationally justify deaths of millions through starvation and neglect because those people chose to neglect themselves and starve. There is no sense of “morality” to either the psychopath or the Capitalist because these questions are not his concern and “morality” is a considered a socially-artificial concept. The only concern to the psychopath and the Capitalist is the self. Society and “social responsibility” is an alien concept; therefore, they are both indifferent to it.
A Capitalist does not need to be a psychopath in order to be successful, but psychopaths can make very successful Capitalists.
A discussion of this issue continues here
Repeated anti-social or socially unacceptable behaviour (that would normally be thought of as inconsiderate or openly rude).
Repeated lying or deceit; conning others for personal gain or pleasure.
Impulsive or thoughtless behaviour; failing to plan or think ahead.
Recklessness towards the safety or yourself or others.
Consistent irresponsibility; not fulfilling social, work or financial obligations.
Lack of guilt towards the harm you have caused or may cause others.
Aggressive or easily turned violent (i.e. with an explosive and short temper).
In other words, psychopaths tend to be aggressive and violent; find excuses for causing evil actions; have no sense of responsibility to others; are reckless; are impulsive and have little sense of the future; lie, cheat, conspire and trick others for their own ends; and have no concept of social rules.
To paraphrase the ideas of Capitalism as explained by Ayn Rand of the “Objectivist” school of thought, the key principles of Objectivism are:
To be against all forms of control (either by governments or other people) except for those necessary for maintaining “law and order”
Believe that people are by nature rational (though some may not be; see below).
Mankind progresses through each individual using the mind independently and not depending on others for their survival.
Those that depend on others are therefore, by definition, irrational; those that do not use their minds are morons.
Selfishness is therefore the highest virtue. Selflessness and altruism are the highest forms of evil as they disrupt a person’s ability to think for themselves and impose controls of people’s decisions.
Society functions through the value of exchange in a “free market”; all actions are carried out for the sake of what can be got in return.
There can be no such thing as “social rights”, as “society” is an artificial construct; the only rights are “individual rights”.
There can be no such thing as “democracy”; this is the rule of the mob, and therefore philosophically no different from tyranny.
To paraphrase George Orwell, every liberal is always a few steps away from being a fascist. Comparing the principles of Capitalism and the behavioural characteristics, it doesn’t take long for a pure Capitalist to turn into a psychopath.
Let’s compare the characteristics of both.
In order to be a Capitalist, one, by definition, has to have a negative (cynical) view of governments and society as a whole. A psychopath also has a cynical view of humanity; this is how they justify exploiting and using people for their own benefit.
A Capitalist believes that people are usually rational; the caveat is that those who are not must therefore be “lesser” human beings – irrational animals rather than rational humans. Believing that some people may be “lower” than others is also a mentality that can be held by psychopaths; this is how they would give a second justification to guiltless behaviour.
Just as a Capitalist believes that all actions by a “rational” human being are done for what they can get out of them, so would a psychopath. A psychopath is not interested in other person’s feelings and attitudes; neither is a Capitalist. Capitalists consider “feelings” and “emotions” to be sentimental leftovers of an animalistic and irrational mind, and get in the way of the exchange of goods and services.
For this reason, friendships and human relationships, to a Capitalist, are purely for the purpose of benefit to the self. To have a human relationship for the purpose of “helping others” is an anathema to a Capitalist. The same could be said of a psychopath.
As there is no such thing as society, Capitalists see the world as a state of informal “war of exchange” between a mass of individuals. While a “light touch” government maintains the minimum of law of order, a state of nature close to chaos exists in reality, allowing the strong and mentally adept to take the most advantage of the situation. A psychopath would feel well at home in such an environment.
As Capitalists do not believe in artificially imposed “social norms” (as they are leftovers of an irrational, medievalist mind), people therefore would have no need to worry about their social behaviour. If people are free to act as they please, provided they do not actively control other people’s actions, then naturally there would no need to respect “old-fashioned” social norms. This fits neatly with the thinking of a psychopath, who also has no need to respect social norms.
When a “rational” Capitalist encounters a person in a much direr situation than them, what would the result be? A Capitalist, by definition, would refuse to help those in a much direr situation than them; so the outcast will eventually die without help. The Capitalist, logically, would know this to be the case also, all things being equal. This would make the Capitalist an indirect party to the death of the outcast. From an intellectual point of view, because the Capitalist is “rational”, he is of greater consciousness of his actions than the “irrational” outcast; therefore, the Capitalist would legally take the greater responsibility for failing to prevent a previously knowable death. The “irrational” outcast cannot be equally to blame for his own death for he knows no better than to ask for help; in this way, the Capitalist therefore acts with the same rationale as a psychopath: by being knowingly reckless and irresponsible towards the safety of others. He literally does not care if the outcast lives or dies – worse, he intellectually would be able to rationalise the death to himself.
To the Capitalist, the death of the outcast would be the fault of the outcast. The Capitalist has no right to interfere in the actions of another individual. To the psychopath, the death of another person is no concern of his. The effect is the same; only the rationale is subtly different. The psychopath is mentally deranged, so has no obvious rational faculty; but the Capitalist is, as we have seen, a “rational” human being. Which, then, is more evil: death through the indifference of a mentally disturbed psychopath; or death through the “rational” omission of the Capitalist?
These things being the case, we can see that a Capitalist easily matches most of the behaviour perpetrated by psychopaths; certainly the majority of these characteristics. In fact, in some ways, Capitalism, after this intellectual and psychological analysis, seems even more inhumane than the madness of psychopathology: at least psychopaths have the excuse of mental illness for their behaviour. But Capitalists are capable of almost the exact same behaviour, yet still able to claim a “rational” mind.
How is this intellectually possible?
A psychopath is generally considered as someone who is by nature violent. This perception is a stereotype: violent behaviour, as we can see from the list of most common behavioural traits of psychopathology, is merely one symptom. Psychopaths are not always violent. Violence is just a side-effect of a syndrome that is indifferent to other’s fate, and a possible behavioural outcome. In this way, violence is an option to a psychopath that a rational person would not normally consider.
Capitalists are, by nature, non-violent. The principles of Capitalism forbid violence as they are a form of control on others, breaking the fundamental principle of free-will. However, Capitalists are, by nature, also indifferent to others’ fate (like psychopaths). Moreover, they are able to rationally justify such behaviour into their belief system. Although a Capitalist may be non-violent, they would also be indifferent to violence committed onto others, provided it does not affect them directly. There is a psychological term for this behavioural trait: passive-aggressive.
This is the difference between the direct violence of psychopaths (who have no sense of right or wrong), and the indirect violence of Capitalists (who are indifferent to the fate of others): as said earlier, the effect is the same, only the method and rationale is different.
Here is a typical example in point: a psychopath as a national leader can justify the killing of a segment of the population as a necessary act to “maintain order”. A Capitalist as a single person can rationally justify deaths of millions through starvation and neglect because those people chose to neglect themselves and starve. There is no sense of “morality” to either the psychopath or the Capitalist because these questions are not his concern and “morality” is a considered a socially-artificial concept. The only concern to the psychopath and the Capitalist is the self. Society and “social responsibility” is an alien concept; therefore, they are both indifferent to it.
A Capitalist does not need to be a psychopath in order to be successful, but psychopaths can make very successful Capitalists.
A discussion of this issue continues here
Saturday, May 14, 2011
In Defence Of Capitalism. No, really...
First, a quick summary of what Capitalism actually means, to the purists (like Ayn Rand):
1. Freedom from control (by government, or other people)
2. People always know what's best (i.e. they are rational)
3. Government's only role is to implement the law (as agreed by the people)
4. Democracy therefore is a bad idea (because it is control of the many over the few; see rule 1)
5. When people are free to pursue lives free from interference, they flourish (see rules 1 and 2)
6. Altruism (helping people, in particular, the weak) therefore is morally wrong; because it is interference into another person's life, and denies them the opportunity of self-improvement
In Capitalism, people are free to do what they like, provided they do not interfere with other people's wishes or control them (eg. by theft).
In Capitalism, people are able to deal with problems logically; people always know what the best option is in any given situation. They always know how to plan ahead and deal with problems before they happen. Companies are therefore intellectually incapable of making mistakes. Everything is for the best.
In Capitalism, the only thing that prevents people from happiness is government, or a lack of their own personal desire or motivation. Government is the highest evil because their function is to control (i.e. deny people freedom).
In Capitalism, because government's only function is to dispense justice, people are open to pursue and exchange all goods and services freely. In this Utopia, because people always know best, prices would be as low as possible because everyone would be competing to attract attention from other people. Unemployment would only be a symptom of those mentally disturbed people who do not have the desire to work. The best motivator to look for work is desire for opportunity.
In Capitalism, "democracy" would be meaningless because there would be no real need for internal goverment; merely the maintainance of justice, the armed forces and foreign relations. In any case, Democracy is the control of the many over the few; the rule of the mob. But in Capitalism, everyone is free and has the equal chance to thrive because everyone knows best. Government only blocks people's natural chances to thrive on their own intellectual steam.
In Capitalism, selfishness is the highest virtue because helping others means to control others; all despots have begun with the highest motives of wanting to "help mankind"; all have ended by enslaving it. If someone tries to help you, in Capitalism, you are morally entitled to punish them for daring to stamp on your freedom. All things that happen in life are a result of people's individual decisions; free-will and all that.
In Capitalism, everyone is free and has the right to pursue happiness. If they are unhappy, don't blame yourself; blame them.
1. Freedom from control (by government, or other people)
2. People always know what's best (i.e. they are rational)
3. Government's only role is to implement the law (as agreed by the people)
4. Democracy therefore is a bad idea (because it is control of the many over the few; see rule 1)
5. When people are free to pursue lives free from interference, they flourish (see rules 1 and 2)
6. Altruism (helping people, in particular, the weak) therefore is morally wrong; because it is interference into another person's life, and denies them the opportunity of self-improvement
In Capitalism, people are free to do what they like, provided they do not interfere with other people's wishes or control them (eg. by theft).
In Capitalism, people are able to deal with problems logically; people always know what the best option is in any given situation. They always know how to plan ahead and deal with problems before they happen. Companies are therefore intellectually incapable of making mistakes. Everything is for the best.
In Capitalism, the only thing that prevents people from happiness is government, or a lack of their own personal desire or motivation. Government is the highest evil because their function is to control (i.e. deny people freedom).
In Capitalism, because government's only function is to dispense justice, people are open to pursue and exchange all goods and services freely. In this Utopia, because people always know best, prices would be as low as possible because everyone would be competing to attract attention from other people. Unemployment would only be a symptom of those mentally disturbed people who do not have the desire to work. The best motivator to look for work is desire for opportunity.
In Capitalism, "democracy" would be meaningless because there would be no real need for internal goverment; merely the maintainance of justice, the armed forces and foreign relations. In any case, Democracy is the control of the many over the few; the rule of the mob. But in Capitalism, everyone is free and has the equal chance to thrive because everyone knows best. Government only blocks people's natural chances to thrive on their own intellectual steam.
In Capitalism, selfishness is the highest virtue because helping others means to control others; all despots have begun with the highest motives of wanting to "help mankind"; all have ended by enslaving it. If someone tries to help you, in Capitalism, you are morally entitled to punish them for daring to stamp on your freedom. All things that happen in life are a result of people's individual decisions; free-will and all that.
In Capitalism, everyone is free and has the right to pursue happiness. If they are unhappy, don't blame yourself; blame them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)