Steve Jobs vs. the Anti-Capitalists

[Ed Hudgins]

Steve Jobs vs. the Anti-Capitalists

by Edward Hudgins

October 5, 2011 – I hope I’m only one of many to see the irony. On the day that Steve Jobs, one of the most innovative entrepreneurs in our history, died, packs of ignorant and possibly malicious protestors roamed Wall Street demanding the death of the system that made Jobs possible.

Steve’s Great Job

Steve Jobs was a capitalist hero. He had a vision of computers for everybody in 1976, at a time when it was assumed that only the most prosperous businesses and the most advanced and well-funded research labs would ever need or be able to afford them. He built his first computer in his garage with Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak, and they marketed it from his bedroom. Good thing that local government regulators—the kind who shut down children’s lemonade stands today—didn’t arrest him for operating a business without a license and against zoning regulations!

Jobs, with his Apple colleagues, pioneered the home computer market, came out with the first commercially available system with a graphic interface, and introduced the iPod, iPhone, and iPad. Jobs himself built up Pixar, which brought a new and exciting look to movies. The result was a transformed communications and information world. Today, Apple Inc. has annual revenues of $65 billion, nearly 50,000 employees, and a market capitalization of $300 billion, second in publicly-traded companies only to Exxon. Wall Street loves Apple!

Killing Capital

But anti-capitalist protestors today do not love Wall Street. Let’s be clear here. It is quite reasonable to oppose the federal government’s handing out billions in taxpayer dollars to bail out failed investment banks. But that’s not what the protestors in New York and elsewhere are complaining about. They seem to be mostly the usual spoiled young people who want to “smash the system.” Many mouth Marxist slogans. Few have a clue what they’re talking about.

Investment bankers direct funds—called capital—to promising enterprises. While many start-up companies rely on the personal savings of their founders or funds borrowed from their friends and family, the expansions of enterprises are fueled by financiers. Commercial ventures are usually risky and many investments are lost. But that’s how the system works. Because no one—certainly not government functionaries or politicians—knows ahead of time which companies will succeed or fail. For example, most investors in the ’70s thought the idea of a personal computer on every desktop was crazy.

I suspect that many of the Wall Street protestors don’t know this because they were educated in American schools by leftist professors who detest the capitalist system that allows them their cushy jobs and salaries. And I suspect that the protestors are using iPhones and iPads as they protest without appreciating that it was the capitalist system that allowed Jobs to develop and offer such products.

Difference in Thinking

This brings us to another difference between Jobs and the anti-capitalist protestors. Jobs in his work needed to be ruthlessly rational and reality-oriented. He couldn’t just dream of personal computers or devices that no one could imagine. He and his colleagues had to figure out how to create those products and at such a low cost that millions of consumers could purchase them.

The anti-capitalist protestors are the ultimate irrationalists, living in a mental fantasy land. They simply vent emotions and frustrations, which are often the result of their ignorance and refusal to understand the capitalist system they damn. Needless to say, most have nothing to offer resembling a practical alternative.

The ugly and unthinking spirit of these protestors is manifest in the comments of unfunny comedienne Roseanne Barr. She said, “I am in favor of the return of the guillotine.” She would confiscate much of the wealth of “guilty bankers” and for those who couldn’t live on what she would allow them to keep, “they should … go to the reeducation camps and if that doesn't help, then [they should be] beheaded.” The soul of a killer versus the soul of a creator!

What we see today in the protests against capitalism is a continuation of America’s low-level civil war between producers—people like Steve Jobs—and expropriators—those like many of the anti-capitalist protestors who want to use government force to confiscate from the productive.

The wonderful thing about a capitalist system is that it allows individuals the freedom to seek their own happiness, to do what they love, and to follow their own dreams. That’s what Steve Jobs did. He loved his work. And he told us:

“Your time is limited, so don't waste it living someone else's life. Don't be trapped by dogma—which is living with the results of other people's thinking. Don't let the noise of others' opinions drown out your own inner voice. And most important, have the courage to follow your heart and intuition.”

Well said, from a man who saw life as a celebration and whose life we should celebrate!

-----------------

Explore:

*"The Debt Battle in America’s Current Civil War.” by Edward Hudgins, August 3, 2011.

*“Producers vs. Expropriators: America's Coming Civil War?” by Edward Hudgins, April 13, 2010.

*“America’s Pioneer Spirit: Government vs. New Frontiers.” by Edward Hudgins,The New Individualist, Fall/Winter 2011.

*"Fight Club: How bad politics turns good neighbors into rivals.” by William R Thomas

[studiodekadent]

Ed,

It should be noted that some of the Occupy Wall Street protestors and allied groups are actually pro-free-market, and are protesting corporatism rather than free market economics. See this: http://reason.com/blog/2011/10/05/libertarians-occupy-coachella

You are right that there are many, likely the majority, that are demanding the abolition of free markets (and deluded that we actually have free market economics at the moment, when we actually have a Keynesian-Corporatist mixed economy).

And I'm surprised you think that people should "love Wall St." What Wall Street represents in Objectivist Symbology (capital markets which allow human industry and productivity and creativity to reach unprecedented height) is not exactly a realistic portrayal of the actually-existing Wall Street. Real-life Wall Street is a highly regulated, heavily corporatist group of firms which gave Barack Obama more donations than any other Presidential candidate in history.

And speaking of "spoiled young people" wanting to "smash the system," need I remind you that Ayn Rand very much wanted to "smash the system," she simply had a more correct understanding of what "the system" is (i.e. a Keynesian-Corporatist mixed economy) as well as its intellectual underpinnings (the mysticism-altruism-collectivism meme complex which has been warring against the Enlightenment-Individualism-Free Markets meme complex). Considering how far back these intellectual underpinnings stretch (multiple millennia), Rand was monumentally iconoclastic; she was in fact more "punk" than the Sex Pistols (for one, the Sex Pistols were the ultimate exercise in marketing-generated 'faux' rebellion; their manager was a genius that hired Rent-A-Crowd dressed in Vivienne Westwood bondage gear to go on about how awesome the band was, even when said band couldn't play their instruments and only released one album ever).

This article is meant to be outreach material, but the only people it could possibly appeal to are old and crusty conservatives that want yet another reason to look down on the youth, and people who cannot grasp the crucial-to-promoting-Objectivism difference between Free Market Classical Liberalism and the current Keynesian-Corporatist mixed economy.

You could easily fix these problems by talking about the elements of Free Markets that still remain within our system and how these elements within the broader system were what made Steve Jobs possible. You could also acknowledge, explicitly, that the protestor's complaints about the corporatist elements within that broader system are absolutely justified and that on those matters, they have Objectivism's support; when the protestors move on to attacking the market elements within that broader system, they are mistaken. You could explicitly acknowledge that Wall Street may have positive symbolic meaning, but real-life Wall Street rarely measures up to this. And you could try and avoid demeaning young people.

[Philip Coates]

I have to agree with some of these criticisms. I don't think this is a strong piece of writing in terms of persuasiveness to the general public.

Without much middle ground, I tend to either really love Ed's op eds or tend to find them highly ineffective in terms of persuading or opening the eyes of a general audience (beyond those who already agree like existing libertarians or Objectivists and some conservatives).

The overall point, that there is a big difference between how Jobs approached reality and how anti-capitalists do is an important one.

But this essay doesn't drive that home to those who don't already see that.

[Ed Hudgins]

Phil - A few points. While I'm glad there are a few libertarian protesters around the country, the Occupy initiatives are lead by leftsts--e.g. Van Jones--and most participants are, as I say, either ignorant about economics or outright enemies of capitalism and liberty. "Smash the system" for these folks does not mean "Replace corporatism with laissez-faire." I was in Philadelphia Saturday and got to see the Occupation activities there. Check out these photos--not mine--on Facebook:

http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10150411564918783.419411.760873782&l=f7ee523fe3&type=1<br />

As for "loving Wall Street," I believe my meaning was quite clear:

*I opposed the government bailing of Wall Street investment banks.

*Wall Street loves Steve Jobs" = "Investors appreciate the profit potential of Apple, a testimony to Jobs and company."

*The protesters don't love Wall Street" = "They don't understand the importance of capital investment in a free market system nor the institutions, e.g. investment banks, that facilitate investments. Those who aren't outright socialists really haven't a clue."

Of course, most Tea Party activities strongly opposed bailing out investment banks as well as auto companies, and everything else. They generally favor limited government and free enterprise, though many not consistently. I'm speaking to a conference of allthe Virginia Tea Party groups next month on the topic of Atlas Shrugged, so I shall endeavor tobring a little more consistency to the cause.

Ed

[studiodekadent]

While I'm glad there are a few libertarian protesters around the country, the Occupy initiatives are led by leftists--e.g. Van Jones--and most participants are, as I say, either ignorant about economics or outright enemies of capitalism and liberty. "Smash the system" for these folks does not mean "Replace corporatism with laissez-faire."

I agree, but this article is a piece of outreach. You want to win people over to your side, especially those that are ignorant about economics. I wasn't disputing you on a factual level per se (even if I think you did paint with an excessively broad brush) but rather on a rhetorical level.

As an aside, I think its misleading to use the term "Capitalism" to refer to "laissez-faire" or "free market economics." "Capitalism" has several other definitions in the popular usage, especially amongst those sympathetic to the left. I've personally found that I cause a great deal less confusion when I speak in terms of "free markets" rather than "Capitalism" since "Capitalism" is often used to mean either 1) Corporatism (which I am against), and/or 2) Wage Labor (which I have mixed feelings about but consider an economic necessity in our current context).

As for "loving Wall Street," I believe my meaning was quite clear:

*I opposed the government bailing of Wall Street investment banks.

*Wall Street loves Steve Jobs" = "Investors appreciate the profit potential of Apple, a testimony to Jobs and company."

*The protesters don't love Wall Street" = "They don't understand the importance of capital investment in a free market system nor the institutions, e.g. investment banks, that facilitate investments. Those who aren't outright socialists really haven't a clue."

Your meaning was clear to me, but outreach pieces don't have to be written for me. That would be preaching to the choir. Outreach pieces need to be written in the kind of language and concepts that the intended audience readily understands.

I mean, this piece was an absolutely golden opportunity to look at how Atlas Shrugged attacked collusion between Big Government and Big Business; the same kind of corporatism which Occupy Wall Street has legitimate complaints against. There are tons of people that, due to honest mistakes, think of Ayn Rand as a defender of actually-existing Big Business As A Class (yes, they'd be mistaken, but given how the left have such a strangehold on cultural ideas it is automatically assumed by most people that to portray entrepreneurship as heroic is to argue that all real-life businesspeople are gods), don't know the difference between honest entrepreneurship and corporatist rent-seeking, etc. These people can be reached, and an outreach article attempting to promote a pro-market anti-corporatist philosophy should be targeted towards this audience.

My entire point is that this piece's rhetorical style is very counterproductive. It alienates this precise audience. It basically scoffs at their legitimate concerns (yes, I know you don't intend this, but how the audience interprets the piece will effect its persuasive power). Not only that, but you lace the whole thing with conservative "degenerate ungrateful young people" (quote: "spoiled young people") sentiment; this goes quite strongly against Ayn Rand's respect for the youth and Objectivism's well-documented appeal to the young.

Basically, the precise same argument could have been said in a far more persuasive (to the target audience) manner.

Of course, most Tea Party activities strongly opposed bailing out investment banks as well as auto companies, and everything else. They generally favor limited government and free enterprise, though many not consistently. I'm speaking to a conference of all the Virginia Tea Party groups next month on the topic of Atlas Shrugged, so I shall endeavor to bring a little more consistency to the cause.

I wish you the best of luck doing so. I was optimistic at the beginning of the Tea Party movement, but over time its been degenerating into a conservative group and getting way too close to the Republican Evangelical base (exceptions apply of course, and Rand Paul for all his massive flaws deserves absolute applause for opposing the reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act). I hope that your speech can enlighten them and steer them back towards libertarian sentiments.