[debacle]

I think the right and the left recognize that wealth inequality is the issue. The problem seems to be the degree to which we correct that inequality.

In the general sense, some want an extreme (do nothing) or another (full economic equality). I think that really frames the discussion difficulty.

What it seems like is starting to arise is a sort of moral justification for a change in society. Rand's objectivism was a staunch endorsement of a brutal form of capitalism that saw a large divide between the wealthy and the common man. You might argue that objectivism is the philosophical opposite of Marxism. Weinstein and his peers are seemly exploring the moral territory between the two and focusing on what is right, rather than what is pragmatic.

This might be a useful progression from what's being called late capitalism to another system which has most or all of the benefits of capitalism, without the difficult cyclical problems.

[nannotequalnan]

i think (it's always hard to know for certain, because this is a pretty deep subject) that I agree with everything you said.

on difficulty in framing discussion: I agree that there can be two extremes, and discussions always seem to get bogged down in labeling due to these ingrained notion of what is good and bad. Is communism bad? most americans would probably say yes because that's what we learned in school. but i would argue (and I think based on what you said you'd agree) that there's no system inherently good or bad (within reason), it's just execution, implementation, situation etc that causes certain systems to be good or bad. I would argue the scandinavians, from what little I know, have done quite well, whereas most wealthy americans would take up pitchforks at that level of taxation.

and to be honest, i never was a big fan of ayn rand. it seemed to take too strong of a stance, as if there was no room to even consider if, in fact, greed (I guess they would call it something like individualism or great men or something like that) might actually be bad in some cases, or if the invisible hand might be leaving a large portion of the population in generational poverty (and simultaneously ensuring the top stay on top). my 2c is that nothing is 100% good or bad, it's situational, and there's a lot of gray areas.

lastly, at the risk of babbling on, it would be great if you are right, that there is some aspect of morality (along with, to weinstein's point, self-preservation) to the discussion. is it wrong for bezos to be worth $X billion, while a large portion of his workers live paycheck to paycheck? is it wrong that larry, sergei and the other tech elite live in an area that also suffers from rampant homelessness? at the least, I absolutely think it's a valid moral question to ask.

To your last point, I agree. I think capitalism worked pretty well for a long time when a rising tide lifted all boats, but that it's time to evolve with the times.

[debacle]

I think the critics of Rand ignore the speculative nature of her works and focus too much on the ad hominem.

Anthem was a really good work about the dangers to an individual of a collectivist utilitarian society. I think it should be regarded up there with 1984 and Brave New World. Atlas Shrugged was a bad work of art with a keen idea. In a lot of ways, I don't think Rand had any idea what she was writing about and fetishized her own works into this strange hypercapitalist ideal. The idea that society could be abandoned by "the one percent" and left to languish has become a common theme of modern science fiction, especially in young adult fiction and anime.

Capitalism will still work from the perspective of human progress, but the progress is becoming less and less shared. Spreading out the wealth curve will logically increase human development as those with potential receive more opportunity.