Considerations on Capitalism

[Riomacleod]

Truthseeker:

Are you trying to say that objects have their own moral virtue? I hope not. In every example you've given you've shown that the objects themselves are morally neutral. Money sitting in the corner of a room can't kill someone, it can't fund medicinal research. A gun can't choose whether to shoot and kill someone. Money is a tool, just like anything else, and it is up to the person wielding the tool to have the sense to act correctly.

Counterbalance:

It's good to see this thread is alive and well since way back when when we discussed all of this. I just picked up "For the New Intellectual" by Rand, and I was wondering if there were any other contemporary philosophers that you could suggest? I'm about to start on my admission papers for grad school. (On a complete off-topic note, my prof was very supportive for me to go-woo!)

 

[Barney_TRubble]

Tiassa...

Many of your questions regarding the substance of Rand's work would be answered if, instead of reading the non-fiction works she wrote, you read something like "The Fountainhead" or "Atlass Shrugged". I myself get bored with simply reading a work of philosophy and perhaps dont put in the effort required to understand it, out of boredom and a lack of concentration. Therefore I found her fictional works to be more enlightening, because they described her position using examples and fictional characters I could identify with.
"Atlass Shrugged" is a good one to read if you are interested in what might have happened to Gould.

One thing it's important to realise about Rand is that her ideal capitalists were those who RECEIVED, and EXPECTED, value in return for RENDERING A GOOD OR SERVICE. Unfortunately capitalism in our world is infested with "freeloaders", or those who make profit from someone ELSE'S goods or services. There is a difference between, for example, the Musician and the Manager who takes half the profits. Which of the two is rendering the service, and therefore entitled to profit? Which of the two holds real Value?

Perhaps another problem is that, while the ideal capitalist would produce a product which has value in terms of quality and longevity, a modern day capitalist is more interested in the profit than in the product. In the interest of cost cutting, and the production of a more competitive product, the aspect of quality is often lost. In addition, the product is sold to us, rather than selling itself. We find ourselves thinking a brand name is "good" more as a result of clever advertising than of the quality of the product itself. (McDonalds is perhaps one of the best examples of this).

In essence, the ideal capitalist, of which Rand speaks, does indeed exist, but is in a postition where he or she will find it very difficult to survive, due to the outside influences of other agencies.
Rand's ideal capitalist would not compromise his or her product to ensure survival, due to strong moral character. The real world, however, has seen that strength of character rendered almost unable to survive, let alone prosper.

 

[TruthSeeker]

Riomacleod,

Are you trying to say that objects have their own moral virtue? I hope not. In every example you've given you've shown that the objects themselves are morally neutral. Money sitting in the corner of a room can't kill someone, it can't fund medicinal research. A gun can't choose whether to shoot and kill someone. Money is a tool, just like anything else, and it is up to the person wielding the tool to have the sense to act correctly.

No... I'm trying to say that the way you use them is what gives them "moral virtue"...

If you use money for good, it will be good; if you use it for bad, it will be bad... What makes it good or not is the way you use it...

Love,
Nelson

 

[Counterbalance]

A brief digression .. Apologies to all..

Counterbalance:

It's good to see this thread is alive and well since way back when when we discussed all of this. I just picked up "For the New Intellectual" by Rand, and I was wondering if there were any other contemporary philosophers that you could suggest? I'm about to start on my admission papers for grad school. (On a complete off-topic note, my prof was very supportive for me to go-woo!)

Riomacleod,

Yep, tiassa’s thread is still alive and ripe with potential.

Been a few years since I read For the New Intellectual front to back, but if memory serves it’s a short read that includes passages from some of Rand’s more well known works like Atlas Shrugged and Anthem. Covers the fundamentals of Objectivism.

As for contemporary philosophers, I‘m not sure how contemporary you meant, but someone I’m interested in knowing more about is Raymond Aron (died in ’83, I think) who wrote
The Opium of the Intellectuals.

The following excerpts have been “borrowed” from: Raymond Aron & the power of ideals, by Roger Kimball. The remainder can be read at:

http://www.newcriterion.com/archive/19/may01/opium.htm

First published in France in 1955, at the height of the Cold War, L’Opium des intellectuels was an immediate sensation. It caused something of a sensation in the United States, too, when an English translation was published in 1957. Writing in The New York Times, the historian Crane Brinton spoke for many when he said that the book was “a kind of running commentary on the Western world today.” Aron’s subject is the bewitchment—the moral and intellectual disordering—that comes with adherence to certain ideologies. Why is it, he wondered, that certain intellectuals are “merciless toward the failings of the democracies but ready to tolerate the worst crimes as long as they are committed in the name of the proper doctrines”? Aron’s title is an inversion of Marx’s contemptuous remark that religion is “the opium of the people.” He quotes Simone Weil’s sly reversal as an epigraph: “Marxism is undoubtedly a religion, in the lowest sense of the word. the people.” In fact—and fortunately—Weil got it only partly right. Marxism and kindred forms of thought never really became the people’s narcotic. But they certainly became—and in essentials they still are—the drug of choice for the group that Aron anatomized: the intellectuals...

“The man who no longer expects miraculous changes either from a revolution or from an economic plan,’ Aron wrote, is not obliged to resign himself to the unjustifiable. It is because he likes individual human beings, participates in living communities, and respects the truth, that he refuses to surrender his soul to an abstract ideal of humanity, a tyrannical party, and an absurd scholasticism. all the models and utopias, to challenge all the prophets of redemption and the heralds of catastrophe. If they can abolish fanaticism, let us pray for the advent of the skeptics.”

The article is enjoyable. You might also start at the homepage: http://www.newcriterion.com/ Check out the contents of their archives for titles on topics that appeal.

Otherwise, I have just this week packed virtually every book, magazine or pamphlet that I own in preparation for a move or I’d shift through some of that and pick out a few more. If the works of Rand or the topic of Objectivism interests you especially, there are plenty of Internet sites to peruse. At http://www.aynrandbookstore.com/ you’ll find numerous Rand titles (and a few other author’s names). For “hardcore” Objectivism try: http://www.intellectualactivist.com

I’ll also remind that by sharing these links I’m not promoting any one particular philosophy. I have my favorites of course but as far as I’m concerned no one philosopher has a monopoly on wisdom or truth. For the purpose of exploring ideas or ideals, for seeking a better understanding of how we humans have come to view ourselves, I’ve found it beneficial to look at “us” from many angles; through the eyes of various authors, be they philosophers or plowmen. Requires some (edit: ) winnowing of the grain from the chaff sometimes, but even this process is educational.

At http://www.friesian.com/history.htm you’ll also find a decent collection of philosophical essays written by ancient and modern thinkers as well as other useful bits. It’s a “history of philosophy” sort of site; a springboard if you like.

Hope some of this proves to be useful to you, good luck with the admission papers, and congratulations on having made it this far!

~~~

Counterbalance


(We now return you to “Considerations on Capitalism.”)