Never Apologize, Mister, It's a Sign of Weakness

200 posts!

So I was thinking about Atlas Shrugged, and, has anyone noticed, Rand's basically a Stalinist? Cut out the lip-service to individualism and the story is Socialist Realism. Atlas Shrugged is the story of a brilliant, exemplary worker beset on all sides by "looters" and social parasites—that is, it is the tale of a Stakhanovite udarnik plagued by tunejádsti.

Someone needs to investigate whether she wasn't some kind of elaborate Soviet sleeper agent.

Anyway. I realized, one thing I hate is when people allow their opponents to define the terms of the debate. Worst, is when they literally allow their enemies to define them. One obvious example would be how French people have decided to become the caricature of themselves the English made. For instance, they think they're not a military people, and that they're copasetic about sexual misbehavior; when in fact all their current mores arose out of a reaction against the extremely militant, and sexually almost Puritanical, tradition, that arose in the period between the Bourbon Restoration and the Great War.

Or how about the Cold War? Leaving to one side my theory that Communism was a secret plot by the capitalists (it's much harder to criticize capitalism now than it was before 1917, I'll tell you that for free), what's with all the idiots who celebrate the Soviet caricature of capitalism? I mean, on the assumption Rand wasn't actually a Soviet agent, she basically said, "Capitalism's selfish and heartless and based on greed and exploits the worker and leaves him to starve in the gutter. So I'll say those things are good."

For example, the Soviets did have competition, and a mechanism for incentivizing performance. It was called "socialisticheskoje sorevnovanie" (literally competition, but officially interpreted as "emulation"). They frequently contrasted it favorably with "kapitalisticheskaja konkurencija", capitalist competition—because, of course, capitalist competition benefits only the winning capitalist, while socialist emulation benefits all of society. This is poppycock; both in theory and practice, a rising tide lifts all boats (the troubles with capitalism have to do with the fact that most of the populace is not the captain of its own boat, and that the whole enterprise is at the mercy of the tides).

But—along with the many who, of course, point out that the caricature is a caricature—I have with these mine eyes read libertarian writers who say, "Good, if the rest of society wants to benefit they should try harder." Now let us leave to one side that plainly this attitude is the enemy not only of social justice but of ordinary sportsmanship, and notice: it is not true. The only reason to favor capitalism is that its benefits outweigh its downsides. That is the only reason to favor any system.

You get it in religion, too—as in, Catholics and the Orthodox do not have to apologize to Protestants and Muslims for a damn thing, since they've killed several hundred times more of us than we have of anyone—and in stuff like entertainment. Indeed, it's at the root of cool table syndrome.

PS. Libertarianism at its extremes is no more realistic than Mao, commanding the farmers to grow incompatible crops together "in order to foster class solidarity among the cereals". Admittedly the majority of them know the real defense of capitalism, but in matters like sex and drugs they are all strict Party men—and like Soviet apparatchiks, they respond to all objections with "Oh well the theory makes it impossible.". Ironically, though, their policy positions would only work for the New Soviet Man.