We don’t live in societies that are based entirely on capitalism in a way that would please Ayn Rand. We live in societies that are based on a mixture of capitalism, welfare, and democracy. Democracy means that no one’s influence goes down to zero, even if their earning potential does. And welfare means here is already a precedent for supporting those who cannot support themselves.
I think ultimately the reason why we have democracy and welfare is because those sections of society had some leverage power. Look at what capitalism was in the 19th century and how it evolved especially in the early 20th through a lot of strikes, protests, and the general fear of communism, which produced both repression and appeasement. Democracy and welfare were compromises to keep society stable and productive. Consider some of the stuff that was done to protestors back in those times (we’re talking episodes of army firing cannons on unarmed crowds of civilians), then consider how that would have gone if the ruling classes also had an infinitely loyal army of unbeatable killer robots and no need whatsoever for human workers.
I think ultimately the reason why we have democracy and welfare is because those sections of society had some leverage power. Look at what capitalism was in the 19th century and how it evolved especially in the early 20th through a lot of strikes, protests, and the general fear of communism,
And some of the elites being genuinely in favour of liberalism and socialism. It didn’t happen without conflict, but it’s not conflict all the way. The working poor sympathised with the non-working poor, the elderly and sick too—they didn’t get their own rights by staging their own strike.
Sure. Some butchers are benevolent. But that’s usually not enough to turn the tide. Look at slavery in the US: plenty of people who disliked it even among the founding fathers, but in the end, it took industrialisation making it economically obsolete and a war to solve the issue.
We don’t live in societies that are based entirely on capitalism in a way that would please Ayn Rand. We live in societies that are based on a mixture of capitalism, welfare, and democracy. Democracy means that no one’s influence goes down to zero, even if their earning potential does. And welfare means here is already a precedent for supporting those who cannot support themselves.
I think ultimately the reason why we have democracy and welfare is because those sections of society had some leverage power. Look at what capitalism was in the 19th century and how it evolved especially in the early 20th through a lot of strikes, protests, and the general fear of communism, which produced both repression and appeasement. Democracy and welfare were compromises to keep society stable and productive. Consider some of the stuff that was done to protestors back in those times (we’re talking episodes of army firing cannons on unarmed crowds of civilians), then consider how that would have gone if the ruling classes also had an infinitely loyal army of unbeatable killer robots and no need whatsoever for human workers.
And some of the elites being genuinely in favour of liberalism and socialism. It didn’t happen without conflict, but it’s not conflict all the way. The working poor sympathised with the non-working poor, the elderly and sick too—they didn’t get their own rights by staging their own strike.
Sure. Some butchers are benevolent. But that’s usually not enough to turn the tide. Look at slavery in the US: plenty of people who disliked it even among the founding fathers, but in the end, it took industrialisation making it economically obsolete and a war to solve the issue.
I didn’t say the non conflictual stuff was necessarily sufficient.