Ayn Rand Objectivism Capatalism

Many men follow the ways and teachings of Ayn Rand’s Objectivism Capitalism. Ayn Rand was born female (afab) and so got the good life. Her teachings are incomplete and don’t see the full picture.

While I agree with Ayn Rand’s Objectivist philosophy, I do not believe Capatalism is the answer. I believe Socialism is the answer. I believe that individuals should follow their dreams, and be entrepeneurs, but that Capatalism is not the best platform to accomplish this goal. Capatalism is an oppressive framework where rich corporations control everything, and success is based on the mercy of the ultrarich. Socialism is a better framework because it doesn’t depend on the mercy of the ultrarich, all poor people are given a slight boost to help their business. Socialism is different from Communism. Communism is as equally as oppressive and Capitalism and stifles innovation. Capitalism however also stifles innovation, for instance alternative forms of Energy have been squashed by capitalism which wants to promote Status Quo.


a) by capitalism you mean anarcho-capitalism; and
b) by socialism you mean a very controlled and efficient state that provides a small set of fundamental services to guarantee dignity to the poor

then I agree with you.

1 Like

I used to be a pro Capatalist, CAPATALIST I SAY. And hated Communism.

Anyone here a gamer? Notice how games have gone to shit? Notice how the reason is ALWAYS “for the money?” Yeah, Capitalism ruins things all the time.

But then, I learned that they are both two sides of the same coin.

What we need is Socialism ran by philosopher kings. That is the ultimate society.

National socialism, crony capitalism will eat itself.

1 Like

honestly I have no idea what people mean by socialism or capitalism unless they define it first


Socialism especially, since there’s the retarded version and the not retarded version.

The retarded version is Communism-lite transitioning to Communism.

The not retarded version… well. Let’s just say it ain’t Communist.

1 Like

Depends on what kind of socialism you mean. Do you mean a marxist socialism like venezuela? if so, hell no that would suck. Also think about this logically, most incels are aspies or have learning disabilities. Under socialism you’re sorrounded by pissed off normies who are working for the ‘‘cause’’. If you aren’t working as hard as them or have a learning disability you’re going to be abused and probably tortured then taken to ‘‘the wall’’ and shot. At least under the system we have right now you can NEETBUX or live off parents. Socialism is basically upper normans on a massive power trip and is a gynocentric woman worshipping cult. By socialism im talking about lenin-marxist style socialism.

Oh most certainly, that’s a horrible system. The problem with Marxist Socialism (i.e. Communism) is like anything Marxist… it ignores biological realities and denies individual freedom in its entirety.

The kind of Socialism that is ideal is one in which the individual is obligated to contribute to society, but the society in turn must take care of the individual. Individuals must have freedoms restricted not only from harming others directly, but indirectly as well (our system only covers direct harm).

I drew a rudimentary model of this long ago. Both extremes on it exist in Anarcho-Capitalism and Communism/Marxist Socialism. The main point of it is “muh freedumb” is not always good to have more of, and that “muh equality” is equally as retarded to uphold through legislation when viewing humans as falsely equal when on a fundamental/biological level they are not.

Wasn’t aware Marx was a Venezuelan, or that Venezuela followed exactly his principles.

From what little I know about him, he was pretty based and viewed sexual intimacy as a human right. From what little I know he did the opposite of deny biological needs.

I’ve never heard this about Marx himself. His followers would definitely have most anyone believing exactly the opposite of that.

Marx’s teachings were corrupted in the 50’s so I’m not surprised.

This more an Engels’ idea. He believed the formal arrangement of a family (a father, a mother, and their children) was oppressive, because the father would oppress mother and children just like the rich oppress the working class.

Anyone that advocates against the traditional notion of family is objectively wrong and evil. Our society is broken nowadays because our families are destroyed and corrupted.

1 Like

Imagine that, the father has to work to provide for others but then isn’t supposed to have any authority?

What a bastard.

1 Like

The concept of a family isn’t inherently oppressive, the problem is people themselves. There are a lot of dysfunctional dads and moms. Generally speaking though, single moms don’t work well, estrogen makes them into colossal pussies that want to ban everything. Generally speaking single moms are overprotective and don’t let their kids have any freedom.

I hope you realize that an example of indirect harm is polygamy, right? I don’t think I need to explain why allowing a free sexual marketplace is a bad idea. We know. Such a society would outlaw that shit entirely. It also wouldn’t allow rappers to make more money than doctors, or allow such nonsense as dating apps to even exist. Your value in this society is directly tied to how useful actually you are actually. Money doesn’t talk, labour value does.

That’s the kind of thing I am talking about. People being “free to do whatever they want, as long as it doesn’t hurt anyone else” is bull shit spouted by the very same people who advocate polygamy while ignoring the fact it forces millions to be celibate forever. As just one example.

We could define “indirect harm” as something which significantly impacts on the ability of others to maintain a minimum standard of living with regard to availability of food, water, shelter, AND sexual intimacy. It doesn’t need to apply to anything beyond the essentials.

Medical treatment still costs way too much.

Not only that, but kids need to be raised in a functional family in order to develop a healthy personality. Mother and father protect them and correct their wrongdoings in different ways. Kids need this contrast otherwise they’ll have some kind of psychological problem in their adult life.

The role of a father is fundamental for his children in any possible way: Economically, psychologically, morally, emotionally etc.

Communism advocates against family, therefore it’s evil, unnatural, and unethical.

Yes, they don’t do a good job – and they aren’t supposed to do a good job. There’s no functional family without a man.

I don’t think rappers making more money than doctors is a bad thing. The Economy isn’t a zero-sum game, rappers and doctors don’t compete.

Both rappers and doctors make too much money. Although I think partly its because of being sued. People sue for too much money so they give rappers and doctors too much to compensate for being sued in the future.

The man thing is complicated. There are a lot of dysfunctional dads. Families are not automatically good nor are they automatically evil.

the 20th century isolated nuclear family with just mom and dad and their children is a new phenomenon and doesn’t seem to be that healthy, its mainly a modern capitalist/industrial thing. People were most healthy being raised with large extended families living together.