Skip to content

1 Comment

  1. Fred Thornton
    October 30, 2022 @ 12:46 am

    “Cannibal Capitalism”… a truly fine figure of speech. IMO as fine a condemnation of the current as anything Ayn Rand wrote criticizing the same set of contradictions and hypocrisies from the opposite polarity. Nancy is identified in the article as a Marxist… and though I’ll die rifle in hand before I live in a Communist state the last thing I would ever assert is that because Lenin’s attempt at a solution failed all of Marx’s observations were in error! A post hoc truth the radical right in America most definitely does not want to understand. But, go figure… they didn’t want to understand what Ayn was actually trying to say either, and in truth did a better job of slandering her than the radical left ever managed.

    Cannibal Capitalism is not an incurable disease, nor is it some black magic worked on a helpless world by supernatural forces of evil. Nope. But, it is the inevitable consequence of a multi-generational failure in the logic upon which a “free market”, aka capitalistic, economy is founded. I’m pretty sure that in her later years, well after she was (in)famous, Ayn Rand realized this fact and the realization that her error in perception was every bit as grave as the errors in Marx’s writings ultimately destroyed her.

    The absolutely indisputable fact of life that is the driving force of the error is this: Human Greatness does not breed true! Doubt this? Look at the Royals… what kind of track record to they have across the run of history at keeping a great man to sit the throne of a land? One king in three? One in five? The fortunes of the wealthy are more than just money, they are (Nancy’s approach vector on the problem) also social forces of great power. Many lives entrained and entangled, planetary amounts of social momentum. Those fortunes, and the power they command, were created by extremely competent people. Mind you, I said created, not owned. When the fortunes are many generations old there is absolutely no assurance, and actually more often the contrary, that the person(s) who “own” that fortune, and wield that social power, are anything like the superlatively competent people who created those fortunes in the first place. The creators are the people Ayn wrote about, but they pass away to old age and their fortunes are, just like the Throne and the Crown, inherited by children who have not proven themselves in fair and open competition to be superior in any factor beyond the blind luck of their birth!

    Because of this fact Capitalism most definitely shares the fate of Kings. As of right now? The majority of those who have sat the economic thrones of America for the last fifty years should go into the history books as “So and So the Terrible.”

    (and in justice to those I just slammed there is another argument that, to a degree, explains and exonerates them… but that’s a different kettle of fish and must wait for a post appropriate to host the thought. Hint: contemplate the deep nuances in the conversation between Soc and the boy who was taking his father to trial)