EKIP– Expert Club for Economics and Politics A Different Opinion
The article is part of a series of publications dedicated to the fourth annual conference of European Students For Liberty, which will be held on 22.10 at 9 am at the Ramada Hotel in Sofia. For more information and free registration, see the official Facebook event.
AUTHOR: SILVIA YONKOVA
There is hardly any other name among the supporters of capitalism that arouses as much controversy and controversy as that of Ayn Rand. Criticisms of her, sometimes well-founded, sometimes purely ad hominem, are widespread, both among "her own" and "foreigners". Due to the fact that she fiercely stands behind capitalism (fully in line with Rand's brilliant ability to "cleanse" concepts of their substituted meanings and return them to their original meaning, we are talking about Laissez-faire capitalism, and not about any hybrids such as mixed economy, cronyism and other misunderstandings with claims to this word), it is understandable why admirers of leftist ideologies "jump" against her. What is more incomprehensible is the mutual dislike of thinkers with whom they defend seemingly similar ideas. Where does Rand's place stand among the intellectuals of capitalism?
The "mainstream" advantages of capitalism
Libertarians, broadly defined as advocates of natural rights, the rule of non-aggression, and the minimal state, are far from basing their views on a homogeneous ideological foundation. Although they emphasize the advantages of capitalism, they start from different premises, and although they all ultimately arrive at the same conclusion, they maintain many different lines of argument. One of the main starting points is the opposition to capitalism as the only alternative to the evil of statism.
Whether they proceed from the significantly higher cost of state failures, the "knowledge problem," the importance of the price mechanism, or the coercive nature of governments, all free market advocates agree that statism must be abolished and that from an economic perspective, capitalism is the system that provides the greatest welfare and prosperity, the most efficient allocation and use of resources, the most complete satisfaction of needs, and the most just "rewarding" and "punishing" the actions of individuals, while having the greatest added value for the poor, providing them with what was previously the privilege of only the rich.
Philosophically, they accept the individual as valuable, and capitalism as the best system for individuals and the only one that does not violate their natural rights to life, liberty, and property. For them, the value of the individual and his life are axiomatic, and based on the presumption of the value of the individual, they form a holistic justification for capitalism. But statism, disguised as a welfare state, continues to flourish. While libertarians argue that the individual is valuable, collectivists argue that society, the people, the nation, etc. are valuable. They view the logical inconsistency and historical collapse of collectivist movements and systems as an “accident” or “capitalist sabotage,” rather than as the only possible consequence of their ideas.
Supporters of natural rights and the market economy claim that capitalism is best for the individual, but they are silent about why the individual is "good" , something that may be trivial for them, but not for collectivists.
The intellectual "hole" that Rand "fills"
Every system, whether philosophical or economic, operates with certain basic assumptions or axioms, but are they basic enough? Here comes Ayn Rand and also says that the individual is a “good” and capitalism is the only system in which he can live, but her defense of the individual is not axiomatic. Rand calls her philosophy, Objectivism, a philosophy of life on earth and argues for the value of human life and the individual. She does not defend capitalism, but man. Stating that “… I am primarily a defender not of capitalism but of egoism and I am primarily a defender not of egoism but of reason,” she provides the moral basis for capitalism.
The political-economic structure (how people live together and cooperate) of a society is only one of the pillars of philosophy as a science, along with metaphysics (everything that exists), epistemology (the mechanisms of human knowledge), and ethics (what it means for a person to live well). In order to be able to explain how people should live in society and what the best social structure would be, one must first clarify what is good for people, but this in turn requires explaining the nature of people and the world in which they live - it is precisely the neglect of this issue that Rand became the subject of harsh criticism of other defenders of capitalism and even of serious accusations that they inflicted more damage on capitalism than they helped it, that their economic theories were built on air and therefore could not win permanently against statism. She set about building their foundations.
At the heart of Objectivism
The axioms on which Rand builds the philosophy of objectivism are existence, identity, and consciousness. There is an objective world, i.e. things exist, and independently of human consciousness. In other words, the world is not someone's fantasy, it IS, regardless of our fantasies. What exists are things, i.e. something concrete, possessing its own identity - as Aristotle said "A is A" and the same thing cannot be both A and non-A at the same time. A direct consequence of the law of identity is that things possess their own nature and behave/act in accordance with it. Consciousness is the ability to perceive what exists and its identity. Human individuals exist in an existing world, human individuals are living beings with a certain identity and possess a consciousness capable of perceiving and knowing what exists. No matter whether we call them people, a community, or a society, what exists are individual individuals. In reality, there is no such thing as society, there are many individuals, and the concept of society cannot exist without that of the individual.
Life is not an absolute state for any living organism. It requires effort to be preserved, it needs values. Values are what living beings, consciously or not, try to acquire and preserve – first of all, this is their life. It is life that makes the existence of values possible and at the same time it is impossible without the achievement of values, because there is only one alternative to life and that is death. Without being maintained, life dies. At the most basic level, the values that a person must acquire as a living being are food, protection from natural conditions, etc., from there on, in order to live as a human being, he needs spiritual values, friendship, love, etc.
Every living being is born with the specific means that it needs to achieve the values that make its life possible, the so-called means of survival – sharp teeth and claws, thick fur, a shell, the ability to run fast, and so on. What is the specific means of survival of man? He is not equipped with instincts that automatically lead him to what he needs, nor with physical characteristics similar to other animals. The means of survival of man is his mind. Mind is the tool through which people deal with reality and can maintain their lives. If a person does not use his mind, he dies. Values for man are not automatic and are not achieved automatically. Yes, a person must eat, but he can choose how and with what to satisfy his hunger. A person must choose his values and the way in which to acquire them. A person's identity requires much more from him than satisfying only his physiological needs.
The specific nature of man implies his similarity to other people, but at the same time does not make him the same as them. Individuals are different from each other. The needs of individuals are different. Each of them needs different values in order to live - on a physiological level they may be quite similar, but a person is not just a stomach. Life may be the most important value for each individual, but the values through which life will be preserved are not the same, neither the abilities nor the level to which the mind will be used are the same. Accepting life as the main value, Rand turns it into a criterion for distinguishing between good and evil - good is that which strives to preserve life, evil is everything that harms life. Andrew Bernstein summarizes Ayn Rand's idea as follows: "Since life is the standard of value, it logically follows that a person has the moral right to take any action necessary to protect his life. Since we do not live in the Garden of Eden and even the values that life requires must be made by human effort, every person has the moral right to engage in productive activity. Since thought is the tool for man's survival, it follows that every person has the right to use this tool without restriction. Rationality is the tool for man's survival; therefore, his moral right to life includes the right to live as a rational being, to perform all the activities that are necessary for his survival." This is what Rand calls "egoism" - namely, recognizing the value of one's own life and preserving it by achieving the necessary values at any cost, which, however, is NOT at the expense of other people's lives and values.
The ethical path to capitalism
The only system that allows this, that allows a person to live as such, is capitalism. In this way, its greatest virtue is that it is the only "humane" system, that it alone is compatible with human nature. Collectivist systems are not simply unable to distribute resources in the best way or use violence, they are at odds with the essence of what exists, they try to replace the law of identity and consider the world as a derivative of consciousness, they are fundamentally anti-human, not only in their means but also in their ends.
AUTHOR: SILVIA YONKOVA
