Neo-liberalism as it is

You may ask, what are my moral obligations to humanity? No, only duties to oneself.
Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged"

The philosophy of mysticism, dialectical materialism, self-sacrifice and obedience brought the Soviet people only tyranny and death.
Only a philosophy of reason, rational selfishness and individualism will show them the way out.
Michael S. Berliner, Ph.D., director of the Ayn Rand Institute

Alan Greenspan, one of the world's leading liberal economists, who led for nearly twenty years (1987-2006) the U.S. Federal Reserve, in his book "The Age of Turbulence" (2007) began the chapter on Russia from the scene of his meeting with the IMF Andrei Illarionov (At that time a presidential adviser on economic issues). Last Greenspan addressed the question: "Would you like during your next visit to Moscow to meet with me and my friends and talk about Ayn Rand?" "To say that I was surprised — to say nothing — says Greenspan. — Rand was ardent supporter of free-market capitalism and the sworn enemy of communism, and an interest in her ideas in a narrow circle of Russian intellectuals in authority, just stunned me. " Not just the interest — a few years before the presentation of the Russian translation of a book of this American writer, Mr. Illarionov called her his idol and one of the greatest philosophers of the XX century. Here's what he wrote about this, The Moscow Times in April 2000: "Andrei Illarionov hopes that under the influence of the ideas Rand gets all Russia", "book publishers and translators want to try to convince the Ministry of Education to include the study of Rand's work in the school curriculum."

Hillary Clinton Ayn Rand was talking about that for her it is a role model. Rand was invited to the inauguration of U.S. presidents, and circulation of her books about the nature of capitalism in the United States yielded only the Bible. Emigrant from Russia Alisa Rosenbaum, who wrote under the pseudonym of Ayn Rand, has become an icon of neo-liberalism and one of the most important theorists of not just as the direction of the economy, but as a philosophy claiming to be the only truth in the world. Today, when the flag of that truth really is starting the "new crusade," especially interesting carefully scrutinize its primary sources. In contrast to the blissful domestic argument liberals careful silence of politicians and business leaders, making for liberalization of its "profit", where we can see the true face of this philosophy without any tinsel.

Architect of one's own fortunes

Rand's ideas, which, according to the research library of the U.S. Congress, have had on the American influence in the XX century, second only to the Bible in the comments do not need:

"Merchant — that's a symbol of the relationship between reasonable people, the moral symbol of respect for the man. We of values, not a rip-off — traders on the substance and spirit. Trader — a person who earns what he gets, not giving and not taking unearned. Merchant does not expect that someone will pay for his failure, is asking to be loved for his flaws. Merchant does not spend itself on the victim physically and spiritually for alms. (…) Merchant — a symbol of justice. "

"There is no" right to work "- there is only the right to free trade, namely: the right of a person to start work if the other person decides to hire him. There is no "right to housing", there is only the right to free trade: the right to build or buy a home. There is no "right to fair pay and fair price" if no one wants to pay it, do not want to hire someone or buy his goods. There are no rights of consumers to milk, shoes, movies or champagne if no one wants to produce these goods (there is only the very start of their right to manufacture). There are no rights of special groups, there are no rights of farmers, workers, businessmen, employees, employers, the rights of the elderly, the young and the unborn. The right to property and the right to free trade — the only economic human rights. "

"It is believed that the free market is unfair to both the genius and to the common man. The first objection is usually stated as a question: "How Elvis Presley could earn more than Einstein?"The answer is simple: people work to live and enjoy life, and if Elvis Presley for a lot of value, they have the right to spend their money on their own pleasure."

"For centuries, the battle of morality was among those who argued that our life belongs to God, what is good — it's self-denial for the sake of illusory heaven and those who preached that the good — it is self-denial for the sake of poor in the world. And no one said that life belongs to you and the good is to live it. "

"Either a new morality based on rational self-interest, and as a result, freedom, justice, progress and happiness of man on earth. Either the old morality of altruism, and, as a consequence, slavery, violence, terror and uninterrupted oven for sacrifice. "

"The only moral purpose of man — his own happiness."

The logical conclusion from all this extravaganza of "objectivism" — so Rand called her philosophy — is the most moral capitalism ad system of life in the history of mankind, as the morally just what protects the desire for personal gain.

Justification of Capitalism

Alan Greenspan himself wrote of Rand, "circle" which he attended for several years: "It was she who persuaded me to long conversations and night disputes that capitalism is not only efficient and practical, but it is moral." This phrase is something to ponder. Greenspan was never a man of the left, or any socialist convictions. In the 40s, while studying at the School of Commerce, Accounts and Finance at New York University when everything almost to a man were fans of Keynes's ideas on state regulation of the economy and there is little doubt of the correctness of Roosevelt's "New Deal", Greenspan, as he writes, In his autobiography, these views are not shared. In times less long, he was the architect of the era of neo-liberal economic schemes Reagan and Bush. What excuses?

And yet we hear them exactly. Yes, capitalism — the system is hard, but necessary. "Capitalism creates contradictions within us. Every person lives aggressive businessman and passive creature for which the preferred less competitive economic environment where everyone gets the same income. " The competition is "encouraging them to improve." "The idea of capitalism — creative destruction, abandonment of old technology in favor of the new", "The more the state safe from the competition, the more reduced the standard of living of the people."

Greenspan blames European intellectuals in their biased, contemptuous attitude toward neoliberal ideas. He quotes the Prime Minister of France Edward Baladyura: "What is the market? This is the law of the jungle, the law of nature. What is civilization? It is a struggle against nature. " And mind: but that economic growth, built on the law of the jungle, can increase lifespan, make available medicine to develop the education system and improve working conditions.

Russia now experiencing it all by yourself — only with a minus sign. Again, Greenspan argues that in countries such as Russia, the CIS region, Latin America, a certain ideal honest capitalism does not work, because the laws are not respected and not enough to protect property rights. But to believe that a man twenty years old as a key figure in the global financial system, so naive and does not know the true rules of the game, it is not necessary.

In his latest book, 80-year-old guru of free economy really wanted to convince readers that it is what he himself — then a budding economist — once seemingly convinced Ayn Rand. The fact that this is the freest economy is not just convenient, or gives the best results in terms of progress and well-being, but also morally and has the benefit of people. Although, if Alan Greenspan was really consistent, "objectivist", the last thing he would have very little care. After all, as a teacher and wrote his idol: "You ask, what are my moral obligations to humanity? No, only duties to oneself. "

Aristotle and the children of Lieutenant Schmidt

"Ayn Rand gives people the fundamental philosophy of life, a philosophy based on the ever ¬ ME. This philosophy teaches everyone that he has a moral right to live not for others, but for the sake of their own happiness, "- said Peter Schwartz, head of the Ayn Rand Institute. Where did such an interesting "selfish" reason? Argued that the founder of this idea was … Aristotle.

The great philosopher of antiquity really laid the foundations of the European logic and rationalism. But tell that this should be the ideal of "human-trader" and the pursuit of unlimited wealth, is simply ridiculous. The aristocratic culture of antiquity spurn such motives. It was Aristotle known as the forerunner of the theory of the middle class — he argued that the only stable state where wealth is distributed among the citizens without the "distortions" in the way too rich and too poor. The main virtue of the philosopher believed in moderation. It was Aristotle called human "social animal", stressing that a person carries the instinctive desire for life together, and that human life outside of society is impossible: "No one would agree to possess all the good things of the world, if he had no one to share them."

As the ideal of a society striving for personal happiness, we see some vibrant, sustainable and successful winner of the competition. But this figure has never really been an ideal of traditional European culture. Even if the "subtract" from it everything associated with Christianity. Enlightened esthete-intellectual, elitist European ideal of XX century, more like a portrait of the "majestic" — that Aristotle called the most perfect man, "So majestic manifests itself above all in relation to the honor, at the same time and in relation to wealth, and to sovereign authority, and indeed to all hit and miss it as it may be, will behave moderately and will not overly pleased fortunes nor overly suffer from failure, because even for the honor he does not refer to something as the greatest … And the one who is majestic, do not expose themselves to danger for the sake of trivia and dislikes in itself dangerous, because all respects very much. But in the name of the great, he exposes himself to danger, and at the decisive moment does not fear for his life, believing that is unworthy of any cost to stay alive. <…> It is able to render good deeds, but is ashamed to take them … Tag majestic — do not ever need anything, or very rarely, but at the same time willing to provide services. And the one who is majestic, tends to own a beautiful and unprofitable things, and not beneficial and useful for anything … "

It is hard to imagine a portrait of being more dissimilar to an intelligent selfish. Perhaps even so hated Rand and her fans communists — to the struggle of workers against their chains and the type of man the creator of titanium and spirit — are far less active on the type of superman than antique ideal of the contemplative wise philosopher.

Double deception

Formally, the main target and the enemy of liberal philosophy is communism and socialism — a society that puts the common good and justice above personal interests and are not recognized by the right use of power and money. Rand accused the Socialists of mysticism, collectivism and altruism, that they deny the mind and the desire to the active creation. Such "peredergi" can be forgiven to an individual who witnessed the revolution took place, and the civil war in Russia and who has a personal score to settle with the offenders. But not to the researcher, but still calls himself "Objectivist." If you look at the real ideals of the USSR during industrialization, there will soon discover the chanting of human-titanium, the conqueror of nature, industrial builder, the same rational actor. The same people who accuse the Soviet system of brutality against disloyal citizens, immediately criticized it in the opposite qualities — excessive altruism, sacrifice and concern for the welfare of our neighbor. "Empire of Evil" blamed for the fact that it too good? It is clear that the socialist ideals and the realities of the Soviet Union were far removed from the sacrifice and forgiveness. And they proclaimed their goals quite a different system — Christianity.

So, there is a "double" deception. First, it is argued that creativity, creativity and activism — the lot only to reasonable selfish in a competitive environment. "With all his knowledge and achievements of mankind owes to work and unwavering integrity of persistent innovators. If they do not, it would have long since died out. " Certainly. But it is doubtful that the motives of these innovators were at &#39;you — I, I — you. " The story itself is progress in the science and history of technical achievements — whether in ancient times, during the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, and in recent times, including the Soviet period — provides no basis for such a reductionist view of the motives of scientific knowledge and technical creativity . Quite impossible to imagine Galileo, Leibniz, or Tsiolkovsky with the arguments that the scientific discoveries and philosophy are needed only in the event that someone will be for them to pay the money on the open market. But again and again to the universal desire to explore and create new knowledge and the development of privatized by a single social system.

Second Global lie to this theory is that the alleged main enemy on the way to happiness — a mystical belief in the goodness and justice for all, concern for and the ideal of equality and fraternity, which prevents healthy competition, ostensibly as advocated by the Left, and in fact — Christianity. It is the Christian ideal of human "self-denial for the sake of the needy," as Rand defined it — the real target of the neo-liberal philosophy, while the left-wing ideas — only to the extent that they bear the features of this ideal.

"Wild mysticism" Rand believed — and, of course, consider her fans today — any religion, philosophy or ideology that puts the person in front of goal, surpassing personal comfort — whether it&#39;s a religious service, withdrawal from the world, or even just a banal desire to help those who are weaker. In 1967, Rand wrote "Requiem for a person" — so she called the encyclical of Pope Paul VI Populorum Progressio («On the Development of Peoples").

In his encyclical, Pope Paul VI wrote of the Industrial Revolution, "But, unfortunately, in this new environment has created a system which considers profit as the main stimulus to economic progress, competition — as the first law of economics, and private ownership of the means of production — as an absolute right which does not accept any restrictions or debt to society … has no restrictions and is not intended public duties. (…) From the first pages of Scripture teaches us that all of creation — for a man, and he must develop all reasonable efforts and improve their work, so to speak, in their favor. If the world is created in order to give each individual the means of subsistence and tools, giving the opportunity to develop, that every person has the right to acquire the world what it needs. This is reminiscent of the last Council: "God intended the earth and all that is in it, for every person and every nation. Thus, if all follow the truth and mercy, they should have a reasonable abundance of the created good. " All other rights, including the right to property and the right of free trade should be subject to this principle. (…) Personal initiative and the free play in the competition could never ensure successful development. We should strive as far as possible to avoid further enrich the rich and the rule of the strong, when the poor remain in poverty, and the oppressed — in slavery. "

In his critique of the ideas of the papal encyclical Ayn Rand pathetic-shattering. "Morality of self-destruction," created in order to "punish people for the success he has achieved, to undermine his self-confidence, cripple its independence, to poison the enjoyment of life, neutered pride, self-respect and stop paralyze the brain to destroy the civilized world and civilization as se "announces all market" objectivism. " Frankly, not every textbook on scientific atheism in the "totalitarian Soviet Union" could boast of such a passionate hatred of religion "slavery".

Ayn Rand&#39;s parents have died of hunger in besieged Leningrad, the victims of the Nazis, who are known to be highly respected by the theory of superman otrinuvshego mossy morality of compassion for the weak. This fact however did not stop her at the same time condemn Hitler while preaching as his favorite theory.

Double standard at all throughout the satellite will be liberal market theories. So, the irony is that it is now under so hated Rand slogan of the right of "all" the resources of the sovereign country of its followers wars are waged and easily to sacrifice thousands of people — both its own and others&#39; citizens. The rules will be set for the rest, and those who dictate the rules, they are completely free. To such an extent that some economists now believe that the neo-liberal model veiled throwback to the era of uncontrolled accumulation of capital — at the expense of direct violence, not blissful competition adamosmitovskih bakers.

Assignment of freedom

But the big deception of the liberal economic theory is to assign freedom. The concept of freedom reduced to the freedom of trade, people — to sell and buy a set of properties, and democracy — to the service of corporate financial flows. Milton Friedman wrote that since the essence of democracy is to make profit, any limiting market is anti-democratic government — no matter how much support these ideas are in the population. Let at least 100% of the vote against the market in a fair election — this is not a democracy. Like the "Sun King" (but at least he was the rightful absolute monarch), Mr. Friedman and followed by the rest of the fans of these ideas, do not hesitate to say: "Democracy — it&#39;s me." Hence, the economy is just the right one that provides income to "us". And not everything.

But the economy is not enough. Like Rand, who announced unregulated capitalism is not just effective, but the most moral system, the neoliberal idea only covers economic arguments about fair competition, private property and free trade is much more important point. "The moral justification of capitalism is not the altruistic argument that capitalism is the best way to achieve the common good. Yes, capitalism carries out this task if this expression makes any sense, but it is only a secondary objective. The moral justification of capitalism lies in the fact that it is the only system in accordance with the rational nature of man "- wrote Rand. And now the question of the development of the economy both in Russia and in the world — it&#39;s not a matter of economic structure — there can be quite healthy constructive discussion of the relationship between free markets and government regulation, the balance of healthy competition and social security — and the question of human nature.

"Neoliberalism, according to which market exchange is the basis for the" complete system of ethical standards sufficient to regulate all human activities, which replaced all previous ethics ", recognizes the leading contractual relationships in the market" — says David Harvey&#39;s "A Brief History of Neoliberalism . " Replace all prior ethical standards and appropriate the concept of "freedom", "development", "democracy", and to prevent their interpretation on the basis of any "non-trade" ethics — whether aristocratic aestheticism, socialism, Christianity, and whatever else — that&#39;s main strategic goal of the system.

See also Mark becomes the object of sale

Ethics of Liberty: Libertarian attitude towards abortion

Russia is obliged to support the libertarian America!

Like this post? Please share to your friends: