Response to "Anthem" by Ayn Rand

As a Socialist I completely dissagree with Ayn Rand's capitalistic views. In my opinion Ayn Rand shouldn't even be taken too seriously as a philosopher as she has an extreme personal bias against "left" views and opinions. Much of this bias is due to her poor personal experience with communism, and she seems to believe that the only other option is libertarianism. Ayn Rand had a very black and white, unrealistic view on politics. To her there are two options; complete libertarianism or harsh communism. As we've concluded, Ayn Rand thinks that everyone would be better off if everyone thought only of themselves, first and foremost. I get the impression that many of her fellow libertarians promote this idea because they assume that they would end up on top. The chances of this happening are slight at best. In reality what happens is that the rich get richer, the poor get poorer, and the middle-class dissapear into poverty. As a whole only a tiny percent of the population would actually benefit... until everyone else revolts.

If everyone is concerned solely with thier own views than who will help them reach the top. The world would turn into a huge battle-royale that nobody wins. If people like Ayn Rand would actually open thier eyes they may notice that many of the world's happiest countries are indeed socialist (scandinavia, 'nuff said). This idea of selfish-ness is also immoral, it is a vision where very few live extremely well, with the majority left suffering in poverty, with no social programs to boot.

To make her views even more ridiculous, if her greed-fueled followers would actually think about the future they might just realise that libertarianism is ultimately bad and unsustainable for business. In a socialist nation, people still have enough money to spend on products, meaning that even if you have to pay everyone a bit more they will have more disposible income. That was Henry Ford's philosophy, who with it made millions upon millions, whilst paying his employees enough to live decent lifes. Everyone won, and that is the goal of socialism. Note, how I am NOT endorsing communism. Socialism endorses that everyone was born equal, but everybody wasn't born the same. In communism, people will have less work initiative, why should they? They have no oppportunity for financial improvement. In socialism they do, whilst ensuring that everyone can live good lives. Just because someone doesn't have as much education as someone else, doesn't mean that they don't put in the same amount of work hours. Every (legal) job is important, so why should we force honest workers to live in poverty. I could literally be at my computer all night, typing away about why Ayn Rand's views are both un-ethical and un-intelligent, but I know we all have other things to do.

To answer the question of whether the statement still carries relevence, I would say not, or atleast it shouldn't. As I previously mentioned, there are endless examples where capitaism has failed, yet fewer where socialism and other left-wing options have. Equality-72521 is clearly living in an extreme, ad absurdum communist world where ideas are not welcomely accepted, requiring people to break free of the rules to create potentially positive change. However, in the real world (which she insists is communist) if businesses are free of regulations than they may start emploiting people. Afterall, the sole purpose of a business is to make a profit.

In conclusion Ayn Rand was a possibly sociapathic radicalist, who's world views are no longer relevent (not that they ever should have been), as they are impractical, immoral, and un-wise.

I don't mean to kick the dead horse, but Anthem was an bad book to boot.

"Happiness is only real when shared," -Christopher McCandless