Take a moment to think about how socialism is generally viewed. What comes to mind? Probably a noble ideal that doesn’t work in practice or hasn’t been given a proper chance.
Either way, socialism has long been heralded as a moral vision for a society where everyone is treated equally and where wealth and resources are shared so that no one suffers the sting of poverty. Except in reality, it is neither practical nor moral, and the most compelling case for why socialism is immoral comes from someone with first-hand experience.
Picture a life under the looming specter of collectivism, where dreams are stifled, individuality is cast aside, and the pursuit of happiness is a distant mirage. This is the story of a Soviet refugee, one whose experiences and insights lay bare a truth that challenges the very foundations of socialism.
But who was this refugee? In 1926, 21-year-old Alisa Zinovyevna Rosenbaum, weary of collectivist oppression, fled the Soviet Union for the United States. She subsequently became a playwright, then a novelist and philosopher who proved to be one of the 20th century’s most influential thinkers: Ayn Rand.
While the failures of socialism in practice are evident and well-documented, Ayn Rand’s critique goes much deeper than merely highlighting its inefficiency. Join us as we explore, through Rand’s unique perspective, why socialism is not merely a flawed system but is also, first and foremost, a deeply immoral one.
Ayn Rand experienced the oppressive Bolshevik regime firsthand
Ayn Rand was born in 1905 in St. Petersburg, Russia. To say she grew up during a tumultuous period in Russian history would be an understatement.
She was 12 years old when the Russian Revolution forever changed the lives of her family and those of the entire country. She witnessed firsthand the oppressive regime of the Bolsheviks, which would later become the Soviet Union.
Her family saw their prosperous, middle-class life dismantled by the iron grip of communism. The Rosenbaums, like many others, lost their family business. The Bolshevik regime, led by Vladimir Lenin, implemented policies that confiscated the property of businesses and landowners.
The Rosenbaums fled to Crimea, which initially remained under the control of anti-Bolshevik forces. But after the region fell to the communists, the family returned to St. Petersburg (then called Petrograd, and later Leningrad) where they faced dire conditions, often lacking food and having to share a small apartment with several other families.
Subsequently, Rand studied history at Petrograd State University, but was purged as a “bourgeois” shortly before she was due to graduate. Eventually, she was reinstated along with other purged students and completed her studies in 1924. Nonetheless, education in the Soviet Union remained limited by strict censorship.
As a young woman, Rand quickly recognized the destructive force of collectivist ideologies which sought to subjugate individual rights and ambitions to the state’s omnipotent will. This formative period of her life planted the seeds for her philosophical journey and her vehement opposition to the ideas of socialism and communism.
Rand’s early experiences undoubtedly left a significant mark on her. Indeed, her debut novel, We the Living, serves as a semi-autobiographical account of her own suffering under the Soviet regime.
Through the character of Kira Argounova, Rand vividly portrays the loss of individual freedom, suppression of intellectual pursuits, economic hardship, lack of opportunity, and moral conflicts faced by individuals living in Soviet Russia.
To learn more about Rand’s life and career, be sure to check out our article, ‘Who was Ayn Rand.’
The immorality of socialism: an Objectivist perspective
Ayn Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism emerged as a vigorous critique of collectivist ideologies. Her fervent opposition to socialism stemmed not only from the failures she observed but also from her deeply held belief in the sanctity of individual liberty.
From an Objectivist perspective, here are the key reasons why socialism is not only impractical but profoundly immoral:
1. Sacrificing the individual for the collective
Fundamentally, socialism is the idea that individuals must sacrifice their personal desires, ambitions, and property for the “greater good” of society. Objectivism vehemently rejects this premise.
Rand asserted that each person has an inalienable right to their own life, and no one should be compelled to live for the sake of others. The ability to pursue one’s own rational self-interest is fundamental to a free society.
Furthermore, Rand asserted that the initiation of force, as seen in socialist policies that compel individuals to comply with wealth redistribution, is morally indefensible. From her perspective, force should only be used in self-defense, never as a means to coerce individuals into serving the collective or the state.
In We the Living, the character of Kira Argounova exemplifies this struggle, as she faces the crushing weight of collectivist ideologies that demand unwavering subservience to the state.
Kira’s battle to maintain her individuality amidst the oppressive forces of socialism mirrors Rand’s own experiences and reinforces the moral opposition to the sacrifice of individual lives in the name of the collective.
2. The erosion of individual responsibility
Ayn Rand emphasized that socialism corrodes personal responsibility by creating an environment where individuals are discouraged from taking ownership of their lives.
She made the case that genuine human flourishing is only attainable when individuals possess the freedom to pursue their own values, make choices, and bear the consequences of those choices.
In socialist systems, the idea of maximizing the scope of government-provided services inevitably fosters a culture of dependency, where individuals come to rely on the state for meeting their needs rather than taking initiative and ownership over their own lives.
Ayn Rand bore witness to a society where individual responsibility was gradually eroded by the state’s ever-expanding control.
As the government’s influence extended into nearly every aspect of life, from economic decisions to personal opinions, it created an environment where individuals were actively prevented from taking ownership of their destinies.
3. Suppression of individual achievement
Throughout her writings, Ayn Rand articulated how socialism stifles the pursuit of excellence and penalizes success, ultimately hindering individual achievement, ambition, and innovation. She passionately argued that individual achievement serves as the propelling force behind societal progress and human prosperity. Socialism curtails such ambition in favor of uniformity.
Rand emphasized how individuals must have the liberty to pursue their passions and talents to the fullest extent possible, with the opportunity to reap the rewards of their efforts. Socialism, with its aim of equalizing outcomes, contradicts the Objectivist conviction in the intrinsic value of individual accomplishment.
In We the Living, Ayn Rand’s character Andrei Taganov embodies the stifling effect of socialism on individual achievement. Andrei’s once-promising career as an engineer is marred by the weight of collectivist policies that value conformity over innovation. His character serves as a stark reminder of the innovation and ambition stifled by socialist ideologies.
Moreover, in Anthem, she presents a world where extreme collectivist ideologies have become fully dominant. In this dystopian society, the very concept of individuality is suppressed, and even personal pronouns such as “I” and “me” are considered unspeakable sins.
The main character, Equality 7-2521, uncovers a hidden underground chamber filled with advanced technology and a wealth of knowledge. His discovery is valuable and undoubtedly life-enhancing, but the ruling regime does not allow individuals to pursue their own goals, excel, or stand out in any way.
4. Socialism’s reliance on coercion
Socialist systems rely heavily on the use of force and coercion to achieve their objectives. Whether it’s through taxation, regulation, or outright expropriation, the state wields power over individuals and businesses. Rand firmly contended that the use of force to advance societal goals is inherently immoral, as force should only be used in self-defense.
Her experiences in the Soviet Union during a time of profound societal upheaval allowed her to witness the extent to which socialist systems depended on coercion to enforce their policies.
The state used force, such as property expropriation and censorship, as a means to silence dissent and maintain control. Individuals had no recourse against the brutal, coercive power of the regime.
In the Soviet Union, a grim historical episode known as the Red Terror stands as a vivid testament to the coercive tactics employed by socialist regimes. During this period, the Bolshevik leadership, including prominent figures like Lenin and Trotsky, orchestrated mass executions of individuals they labeled as enemies of the state.
Rival socialists, liberals, conservatives, clergy, and anyone who dared voice their dissent became targets of widespread repression and slaughter.
These brutal and ruthless measures under which hundreds of thousands were murdered showcase the extent to which socialist ideologies have resorted to violence to maintain control and silence dissent.
5. A culture of envy and resentment
Ayn Rand’s experience of Bolshevism and the Soviet Union allowed her to see firsthand how socialist ideologies cultivate a culture of envy and resentment. Instead of celebrating individual achievements, the regime promoted a mentality that encouraged jealousy and bitterness.
People were pitted against each other in their pursuit of the limited rewards distributed by the state.
This culture of envy and resentment, coupled with state control over economic opportunities, drove a wedge between individuals and prevented them from pursuing their values and ambitions freely.
Now, after exploring Objectivism’s condemnation of socialism, let’s consider the moral alternative promoted by Ayn Rand.
Ayn Rand’s moral philosophy, explained
The ethics of Objectivism, in stark contrast to socialism, can be summarized as follows:
The primacy of individualism: Objectivism places the individual at the center of moral concern. It asserts that each person is an end in themselves, possessing inherent worth and the right to pursue their own life, happiness, and values.
Rational self-interest: Objectivism champions rational self-interest as a fundamental moral principle. It stipulates that individuals should act in their own rational self-interest, making choices that enhance their well-being and happiness, provided they respect the rights of others in the process.
Individual rights: Objectivism upholds the concept of individual rights as moral absolutes. These rights include the rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. These rights are not to be violated, and individuals have the moral obligation to respect the rights of others.
For further reading on Ayn Rand’s theory of rights, check out this article: ‘Objectivism: a philosophical defense of liberty’
Laissez-faire capitalism: Objectivism advocates for a political and economic system of laissez-faire capitalism, where individuals are free to engage in voluntary, non-coercive exchanges of goods and services. It opposes government intervention in the economy and supports the protection of property rights.
Reason as our guide: Objectivism places reason as the primary means by which individuals understand the world, make moral choices, and pursue their values. It rejects faith, mysticism, and irrationalism as unreliable and incompatible with human flourishing.
Ethics of productivity: Objectivism promotes the ethical value of productive work and achievement. It holds that individuals should take pride in their productive efforts and create value in their lives.
The pursuit of happiness: Objectivism regards the pursuit of one’s own happiness as a moral imperative. It sees happiness as the natural consequence of living a rational, virtuous life and pursuing one’s values.
The rejection of sacrifice: Objectivism vehemently rejects the moral idea of sacrificing one’s values, happiness, or well-being for the sake of others or the collective. It asserts that each individual’s life and happiness are of paramount importance and should not be sacrificed.
Ultimately, Ayn Rand’s Objectivism celebrates individualism, rational self-interest, and the protection of individual rights within a framework of reason, rationality, and the pursuit of personal happiness. It rejects coercion, collectivism, and the sacrifice of individual values as morally unjustifiable.
Ayn Rand’s legacy
In conclusion, Ayn Rand shows us how the failures of socialism extend beyond mere negative outcomes. Her philosophy of Objectivism unveils the profound immorality entrenched within socialism.
By sacrificing the individual for the collective, suppressing individual responsibility and achievement, and elevating coercion, socialism undermines the very principles of individual rights and freedom.
Ayn Rand’s enduring legacy stands as a radiant beacon of reason, pointing the way to a world where individual rights are revered, and the boundless potential of rational self-interest is celebrated.
Don’t miss out! Click the button below to claim your complimentary copy of the e-book “The Morality of Capitalism.” Inside, you’ll discover a compelling moral defense of capitalism, with insights from leading experts, including Nobel Prize laureate Vernon Smith. Get your free e-book now!
Are you a student interested in getting involved in pro-liberty activism? By applying to join Students For Liberty’s Local Coordinator Program, you can be supported in promoting the ideas of liberty while also developing your skills and meeting many like-minded students from across the world. Click on the button below to find out more and get involved!
This piece solely expresses the opinion of the author and not necessarily the organization as a whole. Students For Liberty is committed to facilitating a broad dialogue for liberty, representing a variety of opinions.