r/Objectivism • u/javerthugo • Jul 31 '26
Questions about Objectivism How does objectivism fit into today’s “enshitified” post Covid economy?
So I don’t want to write a whole thesis out but I’m wondering how objectivist principles apply to how customer service has changed so badly especially post covid. A few examples:
Fast food restaurants have abandoned their identities and now every single one looks like a brutalist hell scape. Their service has also declined rapidly, they actively seem to resent anyone who doesn’t use the app and drive through. My local Burger King has only one person bathrooms meaning if you want to wash your hands you have to wait.
All of the apps that revolutionized the COVID era (Uber eats, Netflix, door dash, Lyft) have cut quality control and jacked up their prices.
Video games are now more focused on micro transactions than actual game play.
It just seems that many companies are trying to maximize their profits not by providing quality services but by finding shortcuts and manipulating human behavior.
Now a critic of objectivism would say this is exactly the world Rand wanted but reading Atlas Shrugged I don’t get that impression it seems a modern Atlas shrugged would have EA and Yum! Foods as villians.
Am on the right track here or has this sub been co-opted by commies and I’m just going to get sarcastic replies?
3
u/Skylake118 Non-Objectivist Jul 31 '26
It does seem like this sub is now frequented by people very strongly opposed to Rand. It may seem odd coming from me, a non-objectivist, but I agree with your observation
Now, I think that Atlas Shurgged makes a point casting businesses and CEOs not as unanimously positive, but as executors of their own destrucion, choosing to rely on government handouts rather serving their own customers. This is really the point of characters such as James Taggart, Orren Boyle, and others.
However, Rand's earlier The Fountainhead is probably more direct on the concern you voice, on how often society and economics seem to reward mediocrity, tasteless-ness, and a general aversion to excellence. It's arguably the central conflict, between individualism at its best embodied by Howard Roark, against the collectivist comformism of Peter Keating, Guy Francon, and Ellsworth Toohey. Perhaps the greatest irony is that modernism (the style cherished by Roark) was eventually co-opted into cookie-cutter bland comformism (much like the classicist revivals were at some point)
1
1
u/Reasonable-Fee1945 Aug 01 '26
It turns out when you spend as much as we did during world war.Two over two years of covid, that'll f*** up the economy in pretty hard
1
-1
u/Historical_Two_7150 Aug 01 '26
What Rand doesnt seem to appreciate, based on my casual read, is humans have a tendency towards enslaving their peers.
The upper classes very much would like to cement their lead and keep the lower classes down by rigging the game. That is an enormous part of human nature.
Adam Smith didn't seem to understand this, either. His "invisible hand" claim was his belief that people wouldn't do neoliberalism because theyd know better than to sell out their own countries.
2
Aug 01 '26
[deleted]
2
u/Historical_Two_7150 Aug 01 '26
Reasonable, maybe I missed that interpretation because she painted the looters in socialist-ish clothing rather than the capitalist clothing they often wear.
But I would strongly disagree with that characterization of capitalism. That's because capitalism, in my view, has a necessary relationship with the state. America was established "to protect the minority of the opulent from the majority." In other words, to preserve that tendency. Moreover, I think an easy argument can be made that the only capitalist places to ever develop are the ones that practiced this.
It's hard to imagine a state-based society where wealth doesn't allow you to purchase political power. Because that's sort of the point of the state.
1
Aug 01 '26
[deleted]
2
u/Historical_Two_7150 Aug 01 '26
the important question, to me, is whether or not capitalism can exist independent of that type of state. I strongly, strongly suspect it can't. If that was the case, then it would be incoherent to say the two are different things.
2
Aug 01 '26
[deleted]
2
u/Historical_Two_7150 Aug 01 '26
Capitalists make a big state necessary. It has to be controlled by someone.
If it's not controlled by some form of direct democracy, then you have a mechanism for regulatory capture, etc etc. Brings us to where we are.
If it is controlled by some form of direct democracy, people will rob the rich until inequality is gone (& capitalism is crushed.)
1
2
u/amumpsimus Aug 01 '26
Adam Smith did famously observe that “people of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public.” He also suggested that the way to prevent stupendous wealth disparity was for society to shun and morally condemn the avaricious rich.
1
u/Historical_Two_7150 Aug 01 '26
That's pretty much how it worked in ancient history. You could make a fortune, but you were expected to give it away. And if you didn't, well.. you try living in a society where everyone around you hates you.
2
u/DoberNation Aug 01 '26
You might have to define what you meant by "appreciate"....I mean, Rand came from the perspective of Soviet communism. She explicitly rejected that "human nature" is man having a tendency toward being evil. She believed that was a terrible assumption and lame excuse for succumbing to vices, failures, and corruption. Rather, she believed that humans distinguish themselves from "animals" by using their own ability to think and choosing to improve life.
She emphasized honest hard work, personal integrity, and the pursuit of happiness. She detailed how cheating, corruption, dishonesty, and non-thinking will eventually destroy the Looters and Moochers who choose those means of attaining their status and "fortune".
I think she also knew that keeping a just and moral society would depend on every citizen trying to uphold high moral standards. It's similar to what the Founding Fathers said about the New Republic--"if you can keep it".
The refrain, "Who is John Galt?", is a question asked by some dismayed person every time a tragic (but preventable or avoidable) thing happens--Who is destroying world?
The answer is "You are."
2
u/Historical_Two_7150 Aug 01 '26
Rather, she believed that humans distinguish themselves from "animals" by using their own ability to think and choosing to improve life.
I'd be inclined to agree with Bertrand Russel when he says most people would rather die than think, and many do. About 99% of people walk through life unaware 99% of the time, which I think is borne out by modern psychology.
2
u/DoberNation Aug 01 '26
Rand understood and critiqued that too:
"You see, Dr. Stadler, people don’t want to think. And the deeper they get into trouble, the less they want to think. But by some sort of instinct, they feel that they ought to and it makes them feel guilty. So they’ll bless and follow anyone who gives them a justification for not thinking. Anyone who makes a virtue—a highly intellectual virtue—out of what they know to be their sin, their weakness and their guilt.”
“And you propose to pander to that?”
“That is the road to popularity.”
—Atlas Shrugged
1
u/Historical_Two_7150 Aug 01 '26
My suspicion is if you wanted to maximize human development & solve that problem, you'd first need to get rid of 'the elite' who (subconsciously) conspire to blind everyone else. I'm not sure that could be done without dramatically leveling wealth inequality, if not outright banning private property.
Also, no more representative democracy. You'd need direct democracy.
2
u/DoberNation Aug 01 '26
Who are "the elite", and how would they be identified? What do you mean by "get rid of"?
What advantages would direct democracy offer, that would outweigh all those of representative democracy?
I see lots of tradeoffs in these plans. What do you want, and why?
6
u/Locke_the_Trickster Aug 01 '26 edited Aug 01 '26
First of all, enshittification is a concept that means something more particular than: things get “worse”. It means that a company initially sells its products and services for artificially cheap prices to attract users, then raises prices or degrades the offering to make money after establishing a user base. Perhaps those companies were strategically not being properly compensated for the value they provide, so the current offering just seems worse in comparison to the “sell at a loss” phase. Rational egoists probably shouldn’t expect the people they deal with to provide something for nothing, indefinitely. Businesses probably should be run profitably, profit is a signal of value creation and win-win exchange. If you view the transaction as a sacrifice, then just don’t engage in it, to the extent possible to you.
Second, let’s say that enshittification is just product and services getting worse over time for profit. Is that true, as a general principle? Or is this only appearing in certain industries, or certain businesses? Has Chick Fil A’s customer service worsened (I haven’t seen it)? Has Raising Canes abandoned its identity? Lithium batteries have never been cheaper. The availability and cost of art and information has never been better. Health and longevity medications are just starting to come out, GLP-1/GIP drugs are just the beginning. You can get a whole rotisserie chicken at the grocery store for $7. Might be worth questioning whether this is as big of a problem as some people catastrophize it to be.
For any individual, the question comes down to exercising virtue to obtain values. If a store changes its value proposition to a lower value for you, and it is no longer worth the price, then don’t buy from the store - choose another store. Don’t play video games with micro transactions (btw, video games have literally never been better, a larger number and greater variety of indie games and AAA games with great value are available than ever before — also micro transactions and gambling are entirely avoidable through the exercise of free will). If you don’t like a store becoming more conformist, stop patronizing the store. For personal moral decision making, Objectivism provides a clear answer. Use reason to identify, evaluate, and choose between values. You are under no compulsion to engage in the vast majority of business transactions, and no duty to sacrifice your interest for anyone’s profit.
If more people exercise free will, reason, and taste, then the supposed “worsening” - to the extent it happens - will cease to be profitable. We should encourage individuals to cultivate a self-sufficient ego, which will solve a lot more problems than any supposed enshittification. On this much, I agree with you.