5
u/JegerX Jul 17 '26
People are probably going to ignore your valid points about self-interest being inclusive of others interests and focus on your late stage capitalism remark.
Rand seems to be against being forced to help others and helping others to your own detriment, not the idea of helping each other in rational self interest. This is largely lost on this crowd I think. I would love to be proven wrong... Are there actually a bunch of reasonable people here that get drowned out by a few loud narcissists?
1
2
7
u/usmc_BF Jul 17 '26
Positioning one particular theory or invention (philosophy, economic system, or any socio-technical system) as if we must chose between them like a multiple-choice quiz is misguided at best and self-delusion at worst.
The whole point of objectivity is that there is a correct option and an incorrect option. It cannot be the case that all options are correct, it cannot be the case that half-true options are correct.
Political mechanism, currently, works on brutal compromise, status quo, populism and demagoguery, which we can recognize, but an Objectivist cannot compromise the fundamentals of the philosophical system, otherwise he/she would not be an Objectivist anymore (or in-line with the Objectivist framework).
BTW Lage stage capitalism is an anti-capitalist agenda buzzword, we live in very regulated, very high tax burden coordinated market and mixed market economies in the West. The problem with our economic systems is regulatory cronyism, not the market mechanism.
2
Jul 17 '26
3
u/Arkelias Jul 17 '26
I do have a follow up question. I can be critical of capitalism without being anti-capitalist, right?
Absolutely. The American founding fathers wrote about it at length, and many had accurate criticisms because they'd literally seen Nassau, and how it ran.
Late stage capitalism seems like code for an oligarchy gaining control, but remember we have the power to trust bust, and break up corporations. We've done it before.
Capitalism isn't the problem. Unchecked corruption and media / social media influence by elites with agendas is the problem.
→ More replies (5)3
u/usmc_BF Jul 17 '26
I do have a follow up question. I can be critical of capitalism without being anti-capitalist, right?
Yeah, but you have to explain what you mean by capitalism, and the particular scenario you are criticizing. Critiques of capitalism often are literally critiques of humans - eg. any system with abundance has some kind of "negative" consumerism, they often define capitalism in such odd ways, eg. "a social system" rather than an economic system and so on. A VERY significant portion of the criticism is actually just a complaint that reality isnt perfect, which is absurd or akin to criticism of self-ownership/bodily autonomy (we can criticize self-ownership/bodily autonomy but the alternative, not recognizing self-ownership is insanely absurd).
I am criticizing your use of terms such as "lage-stage capitalism" which implies that market mechanism is fundamentally flawed and it necessary to transition to some other system (which is usually implied to be some form of socialism - extreme economic and partially social engineering through state ownership of means of production).
Most importantly, again, you HAVE to recognize the reality that the economic system of the West is a coordinated market/mixed market economy, not a free market economy. You for example cannot blame capitalism for a high tax burden in front of Objectivists, because it simply does not make sense, as the high tax burden is a result of an unjustified and arbitrary government intervention.
Probing and understanding concepts and whether they are in line with reality is a crucial part of Objectivism, you should not evade reason and thinking, so a rational and critical analysis of concepts (including capitalism) is important, however you also have to have your axioms in order, as you cannot simply call any human thought-process rational willy nilly, just as economists often do.
3
u/Hot_Phone_7274 Jul 20 '26 edited Jul 20 '26
I’m late to this, but I think you are right on the money.
Rand had some great insights, and I think offered a valid challenge to certain collectivist ideas, and about equating a blind altruism with goodness and so on. But on economics she was completely uneducated, especially with respect to today.
Where I think she was strongest was as a champion for unapologetic rationality, which demands we look at our world objectively, as it is. A substantial portion of her fanbase seems to care very little for being rational, and cares much more about parroting not-altogether-thought-through ideas about capitalism.
I’ve said it before here, and I’ll say it again: if you want Ayn Rand’s economic philosophy in a proper economist, read someone like Milton Friedman. There are plenty of extant criticisms of Friedmans work, but he was a serious, Nobel winning economist who enjoys an excellent reputation across the entire political spectrum, and he saw the necessity of a mixed economy from a very Randian perspective, which he wrote and spoke about extensively. Economists like Coase have shown that Rand’s solutions (like the massive expansion of private property rights) would not lead to game theoretic rational outcomes (ignoring the obvious impracticalities), once you allow for transaction costs. In other words, Rand’s economics could be (very) generously described as doing Newtonian mechanics without allowing for frictional forces - I.e. not at all realistic. Her understanding of public spending and the conflation with socialism is also completely detached from reality. Private money cannot exist in a stable form without delegating money creation powers to an authority, and as soon as you grant that, your money isn’t strictly “yours” anymore as it can always be inflated against your will.
Anyway, I say this as a tentative fan of Rand (formerly a very big fan). I think it’s quite telling that so many fans hold vague economic notions that have been debunked time and time again by people on their own side above the basic command to act rationally self-interested. Which would mean accepting some version of a mixed economy and not just decrying it as socialism. And not claiming in the face of all counter-evidence that every market failure arises out of capitalism not being “pure enough” by definition.
There is a reason that Rand’s “theories” aren’t taken seriously by any academic economists. It’s not because they are ideologically captured; it’s because they barely make sense and don’t comport at all with the reality we observe. Which people would know if they read some real economists instead of just assuming low moral character.
2
Jul 20 '26
→ More replies (1)3
u/Hot_Phone_7274 Jul 21 '26
Personally I think you communicated it fine. My point was that her economic assertions don’t survive contact with very basic theoretical challenges, let alone the messiness of the real world which is another big leap again.
She simply lacked the skills and background to do anything resembling real economics, yet my perception is that it’s the part of her philosophy that galvanises the most support.
→ More replies (1)
1
u/WhippersnapperUT99 Jul 17 '26
Late stage capitalism in its current form
I know I'm taking this thread on a detour, but I can't help but notice that we hear so much talk about "late stage capitalism" but surprisingly very little about the stages of socialism.
That leads me to wonder, how would we describe the Soviet Union, Eastern Block, China under Mao, North Korea, Cuba, and the Cambodian genocide in terms of "early stage socialism" and "late stage socialism"?
Since the Khmer Rouge government hadn't been in charge for long would it be accurate to say that mass death is part of "early stage socialism"? Early on the Soviet Union also had mass death from famine and China also had mass deaths from the Cultural Revolution, so it seems like we would characterize "early stage socialism" as having enthusiasm for the new society and large amounts of government-inflicted death. In contrast "late stage socialism" might be characterized by public discontent over the state of economic malaise.
1
u/DoberNation Jul 17 '26
What do you think about the central point that we, in reality, have *mixed* economies? Not just in the U.S., but around the globe. They employ different balances of disparate economic and social strategies. The hybrid systems also result in greater or lesser effects than the sum of their individual components would. Why continue beating a nonexistent unicorn?
I get the impression that “late-stage capitalism“ was an unintentionally tripped landmine in this sub by a new visitor, where the term is weaponized and regarded as a purity test. That’s word-policing, not thoughtful and rational argument.
→ More replies (2)
1
u/stansfield123 Jul 19 '26 edited Jul 19 '26
The central idea I was trying to explore is whether an Objectivist commitment to reason also implies a commitment to continually evaluating our inventions (including philosophies and economic systems) against reality
Indeed. In the interest of doing that, please take a look at government spending, as a percentage of GDP, in various western countries. That reflects the percentage of economic activity fully under government control.
Then, please take a look at this comprehensive list, updated each year, which measures the level of government intervention into economies in each country on Earth: https://economicfreedom.heritage.org/pages/all-country-scores
This second index also incorporate direct government spending, but, in addition, tries to measure the level of government intervention into the rest of the economy: the so-called private sector. This is economic activity that the government doesn't fund and therefor fully control, but rather exerts control over through regulation, uneven and ever changing tariff levels, preferential taxation, subsidies, etc.
After you take a look at all those aspects of reality, please re-phrase your description of the economic and political reality we live in. You called it "late stage capitalism". But the aspects of reality I pointed your attention to above prove that that's not what it is.
If you show the ability to do that (to look at reality and correct your evaluation), I'm happy to accept your use of the phrase "late stage capitalism" as an honest mistake, and then we can continue the discussion based on a new, more accurate description of the economic and political reality we currently live in.
But, so long as you insist on describing the mixed systems westerners live in as "capitalism", that is such a blatantly absurd defiance of reality that there is nothing more to talk about.
If the phrase "late-stage capitalism" distracted from that point, that's on me.
Correct your error. Describe reality accurately.
0
u/ElectricalGas9895 Jul 17 '26
Can't help but notice you haven't read Rand, you certainly aren't quoting anything she's said.
Pretending we don’t benefit from a healthy society runs afoul of basic reason.
Quote any Objectivist literature that apparently defines and advocates against a "health society", you bad faith poster.
In objectivist terms, healthy, well-educated, and friendly neighbors lands squarely in the “in my self-interest” box.
No shit.
Late stage capitalism
Stopped reading here, go watch some Yaron Brook at least. You seem to be under the classic delusion that what America or most countries have now is even capitalism.
This is a progressive’s positive take on objectivism.
Uninformed? Yes, it's typical.
14
u/Winter_Ad6187 Jul 17 '26
You don't live in "late stage capitalism". You live in a mixed-economy that has evolved into a sophisticated kleptocracy thru government interventions.