One of the primary beliefs which steer the ideals of Ayn Rand, is the belief in human exceptionalism, and her ideals can be seen as the opposite of social darwinism in many regards (although ending in the same ideals). One of her core ideas is that man is entirely separate from society, that society in-of-itself is a separate entity, that society represents the sum total of humanity. From this belief in society, she finds two ideas; one is unable to gather any information about an individual from examining society, and that man is not able to be effected by society. It is through this belief she is able to justify capitalism- as if society is wholly separate from the individual, then the capitalitst society is unable to place anything upon the individual, therefore hardship is the fault of the individual, and the individual alone. Further, she believes in a distinct separation of man and beast- believing the two to be incomparable, and that comparing the two brings about no clarity.
Although reading her work you would find yourself unable to identify what capitalism is; even when she sets out to define it, she instead spends her time tearing apart alternative systems. Therefore, prior to being able to debunk her view of capitalism, we must first define it in the way she would likely agree with how its represented; capitalism is a system, through which, the individual works and progress is made. That is all which is able to be deciphered from many of her texts, as she never refers to the systems within it, only in its outcomes- which she describes as separate from which they come about. This is for a simple reason; her world view does not allow her to examine ideas in an ecosystem, and rather to understand them as wholly separate in theory, and in practice.
With that understanding in place, we can then begin debunking her views; and we must do so with respect to her own logic, but also within respect of a more factual idea. Her central thesis which guides most of her work is the separation of man and society, and observing their interactions, or lack thereof. Even within her fictional novels she explores this heavily, take for instance Atlas Shrugged, which speaks entirely to how the mind works and how the individual interacts with the systems. She uses this to speak to her justification of the capitalist system, as explained prior. Yet it raises a question she has never addressed; if the individual is separate to society, then why engage in a system which requires the interconnection of individuals?
The capitalist system requires the individuals under it to form an interconnected society, the entire system of stocks and of supply and demands are based off the interconnectedness of individuals, and how the society will condition or affect the individual. Provided her own logic, in which the two are wholly separate, then we suddenly have no use for the capitalist system, as it exists in direct opposition to the complete individualism she advocates for. Further, should the capitalist society exist under her logic, then her own works, advertisements, endorsements, and other forms of coercion or manipulation or enlightenment should be completely ineffective- as the individual should, by her logic, come to conclusions in complete independence to society as a whole.
Furthermore, through her logic, another contradiction can be found; if humans are separate to animals, then why must capitalism prevail? She states that, “Man cannot survive, as animals do, by the guidance of mere percept,” yet in order for capitalism to function, they must. “He cannot provide for his simplest physical needs without a process of thought. He needs a process of thought to discover how to plant and grow his food or how to make weapons for hunting,” is how she continues, stating that innovation and discovery is a driving force behind mankind- yet under the capitalist system which she supports, these beliefs are unable to be obtained.
Should man truly be individual, as well as requiring innovation to survive- then that would mean the abolishment of wage labour as it stands. Through her beliefs, the cashier at a grocery store is nothing more than an average animal- subhuman in their origin. As for the cashier to be a human, it would mean that either a) the capitalist system is unnatural and not able to be justified, or b) human does not require innovation to survive. Either reason behind this shows plainly; her logic holds up under no stress, and finds themselves unable to justify capitalism nor justify her world-view as a whole.
So then, why is her thought so well respected, even in the 21st century? The answer is simple; she is a contrarian. She is a story which represents the ‘failures’ of communism. Yet her story isn’t a testament to the horrors of communism- but a testament to her own greed. She claims to have starved in the streets of St. Petersburg- and yet she attended a prestigious film school in the USSR. She claims her family to have faced extreme hardship- yet her family supported the White Army, which one seldom does without status- and then when she matured she was granted the ability to leave the USSR- a privilege given to few, especially rarely given to those who were supposedly ‘persecuted’. Although the USSR was by no means a good place to live- it paints the picture of who Ayn Rand is; a contrarian who speaks for money.