MovieChat Forums > Atlas Shrugged: Part I (2011) Discussion > A Philosophy Rotten to the Core

A Philosophy Rotten to the Core

posted 11 years ago by sammy45
12 replies | jump to latest

I have never thought about myself as a socialist in the purest sense of the word- i.e. complete government intervention in all spheres of life, private property as a non-existing term, equality as regards salaries etc.

But I would never want to accept the idea that world is really what Ayn Rand describes it to be. That people are motivated to do things first and foremost because of PROFIT they can get out of their work. And that they'd pull a plug if suddenly they could earn a million per year rather than 10 million.

I'll tell you what would happen if all the things described in the book/movie happened and the elites of the world just withdrew. New people would come in to do the job, people who, due to another viewpoint on life, nowadays are relegated to the fringes. People who do the actual work, rather than collect millions in paychecks. What would happen to the "capitalist island"? I believe those guys would claw each other's eyes out come winter with food reserves running out.

Was Steve Jobs out there to create Apple just because of profit? If so, why the hell didn't he spend a lot of it on yachts, mansions etc. Why would he innovate in places others would consider risky? I believe his idea was to create new technologies just because he knew he could and just because he knew people would love them. Compare it to Samsung, Microsoft etc. that release some clunky sh** just because of greed and constantly get ridiculed by the general public.

Consider Internet which is non-profit and works really well, consider Linux that is a well know open source project, even the Bitcoin that is taking off. I doubt greed and self interest today is the main forces that drive innovation. Perhaps it was different in the 19th century and 50s when people in Western World were still born poor (and I mean really poor, like don't have a thing to eat, not iPhone in a hand poor and whining about inability to buy luxury cars).

I support public schools and education for free as much as possible, public, free healthcare (if you have money you can pay, if don't- at least you HAVE healthcare) and I support increased taxation by governments for that because if I had 300 bucks left after paying all taxes, rent, utility bills etc. at the end of the month and I knew that to make my country a better place I have to make USD 30 more, I'd do so. And I can't understand why the *beep* somebody who has 300 million in a bank account and calls himself an entrepreneur (read: just a guy born in money, a guy who met somebody influential or hard working during the lifetime to exploit etc.) can't give more money for the betterment of society.

What I also have noticed is that countries that think more about social help end up much less likely to be ones in which you can get stabbed/mugged on a street. I'd rather be on streets of bigger cities of Norway or Sweden than those of the USA....

What Rand clearly didn't understand too is that of all of the people she mentions, scientists and really bright minds are not the ones that usually are abused by socialist countries. I don't know any socialist country that abuses its most gifted, because there are state ran projects, grants, research facilities etc. What are abused by socialist countries are so-called entrepreneurs, CEOs and such whose only accomplishment in building a business has probably been the fact that they are more risk-taking than general public and more outgoing and persuasive when stumbling upon a good idea (and many times not their own but somebody's). Now I'm not saying that these people don't deserve their millions, let them have the money. But I fail to see how these types are "choked by governments"?? Is it choking somebody that you have accumulated 1 billion USD worth and somebody says that you should share some part of this money with society?? What would a person even do with billion dollars???

I'm sad to think about the poorly remunerated school teachers, medical personnel, cops etc. when some CEOs are painted as the most abused people in the world and Oh My God, government is taking 100 million of my 3.2 billion dollars.... What madness!!!!

Of course I know there are small and medium enterprises/family businesses in areas where there are small profit margins, and I understand that these should not be as heavily taxed, but why does it happen so today that actually it's vice versa???

Those who support their viewpoint stating that America is the best when it comes to tech innovation, medicine, science etc. forget that it does not mean much for people who just want to live their lives happily and knowing that, if they happen to lose the job tomorrow, the state will take care of them. I don't know of any Scandinavian who would want to move to USA, except CEOs... And they have left... and nothing bad has happened. Furthermore, America is so good with these things just because it's so big and resourceful. I wonder if the same was true if America was an 8 million country up North...

[–] Ethereal-Cloud 11 years ago

"I'll tell you what would happen if...the elites of the world just withdrew. New people would come in to do the job."

-The Soviet Union seized all property including farms from the 'elite/bourgeoisie' and distributed it to the masses to be worked for the interest of the state. It was called collective farming. The masses didn't know what they were doing and it turned out to be a colossal failure resulting in untold masses starving to death.

[–] phantom2-2 11 years ago

no, that's not at all what happened with collective farming. nothing was distributed to the masses of peasants. their land was seized with little or no compensation, and any surplus they produced was sold at minimal cost to the state to help with the massive soviet industrialization efforts. as a result the peasants resisted, stopped working and production dropped. other soviet policies contributed to the disaster as well. it wasn't a case of peasant farmers suddenly forgetting how to farm.

[–] sammy45 9 years ago

-The Soviet Union seized all property including farms from the 'elite/bourgeoisie' and distributed it to the masses to be worked for the interest of the state. It was called collective farming. The masses didn't know what they were doing and it turned out to be a colossal failure resulting in untold masses starving to death.

I myself come from an ex-Soviet country so I know what happened. I was talking not about giving factories to people who have no clue about how to run them, but the fact that 2nd/3rd person in line of a said company would be able to do on average the same job as its CEO. Any person who could rise to that position due to their competence could. I'm not talking about randomly distributing companies to "peasants" to run them. You know, like they say "you can't replace a personality, but you can replace a person". Like Tim Cook is not Steve Jobs and maybe Apple is not innovating as much now, but they still make s huge amount of money and there are tons of new upstarts in the world that would go and take their place instantly if they went bad, like Apple did with Nokia...

So it's hard for me to see how the world would end, if Zuckerberg, Musk, Gates, Brin and Page etc. left for some fantasy land with their new invention... Other people would just found their own companies and manufacture products. The problem with Randians is that they believe in their own exceptionalism too much. That a bunch of wealthy people who got where they are due to talent and hard work (but let's not *beep* ourselves, also by a dose of luck) are some kind of an elite and nobody in the world can fill their place, because they are oh so special.

[–] bdbdbd-1 11 years ago

I am middle class and I say let the billionaire keep his money.

Hypothetical question: If 80% of the people in the U.S. agreed to abolish the income tax would you accept their decision?

[–] addresscanonlybe30letter 10 years ago

Steve Jobs bought the most expensive yacht in history on the date is was finished.

[–] rrandcoyote 10 years ago

Yeah, he lost me when he started praising Jobs...

Talk about reality distortion field!!!

Look up his Venus yacht. 100 million euros in 2011

No, he wasnt motivated by profit and insanely expensive things. Ha ha!

Gates just pledged millions to Ebola research, but he's the bad guy.

------------
They make this stuff up as they go along.

[–] nginx 9 years ago

Gates has donated more money than any man in history. If that man is evil then there exists no humanity in this world I'm afraid.

He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither ~ B. Franklin

[–] Erniesam 9 years ago

Well, funding of and pushing for Common Core so that he can get the contract to supply ALL the newly needed PC's, programs and related stuff doesn't sound really philantropic to me.

[–] phantom2-2 9 years ago

reminds me of the time microsoft was fined by the state of california for anti-competitive practices (i believe). gates wanted to pay the fine in microsoft software for the educational system (a market that apple had a lock on at the time). i don't recall whether he offered the software at list price or wholesale.

bill gates is no knight in shining armor.

[–] eddysl12 10 years ago

Rand I am afraid was a real nutcase, I never knew any prominent conservative who subscribed to her theories.

She basically hated the poor, but the poor are where a lot of fine business people originated from.

Your average small business person is usually willing and has to work much longer hours than your average employee, the employee has to get paid by law but the employer does not.

You have to have a real hunger to succeed in business, which usually involves failing until you actually achieve the success you desire. Where else does that hunger, that fire come from but from being poor or dispossessed or diminished in some fashion? The safe and the comfortable are simply less inclined to go out and take great risk in starting a business.

People are less inclined to give money away no matter how much they make when they really had to bust their butt and work harder and longer than anybody to make it.

You may call them rich and they may well be rich, even very rich but deep down inside they may still feel like the poor kid they were when they were young.

Rand is basically a mirror image of the communist, her simplistic thinking does not allow for all the complexities of the real world.

[–] nginx 9 years ago

Anyone & I mean anyone praising Jobs as some sort of philanthropist who was not fueled by greed, cannot be taken seriously.

You lost me when you started praising Jobs.

He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither ~ B. Franklin

[–] mindthinkr 8 years ago

After reading your comment that began with the people with 300 million....then you shouldn't be shopping at Walmart. Just saying that of all the big companies they do the least for their employees or fellow man. Check the facts for yourself. I'm not here to fight. Just saying...