Neoliberalism entails an exchange economy characterized by a reduced role of the state, reduced government spending, and deregulation of markets. In a free market economy, individuals incidentally benefit one another by what Adam Smith refers to as the “invisible hand” of self-interest. In doing so, individuals enhance their own personal freedom as well as the condition of society. Neoliberals control the language of freedom by shaping the way people perceive the economy. The exchange of information through rational argument enhances freedom by creating a tolerant, informed, civil society. Discourse is beneficial as inspires self growth and allows for the creation of agreement on grounds understood by all parties. However, the rationality born out of discussion is vulnerable to the production of a social totality, lack of originality, and a passive public. Challenges to traditional conventions such as individualism appear to threaten democratic ideals. However, a closer look at the way these notions are communicated dispel the idea that individualism and capitalism stand in opposition.
Discussing ideas and forming consensus unites people, promotes mutual understanding, and encourages cooperation. By exchanging evidence-based reasons, truths can be defined in real terms and known to all (Rand 1943, 678). Popper describes two societies, a closed society and an open one, in order to explain the condition humans exist within and their options for transcending them (Popper 1945, 190). Studying the fundamental nature of knowledge and reality challenges theories and replaces them with certainty (Popper 1945, 191). Rand suggests that people are rulers of themselves and, like Popper, insist that discourse allows individuals to find their own truths while making decisions not tainted by external influence (Rand 1943, 678). Popper argues that exercising one’s ability to consider matters freely is a vital “part of being human” as people have a “responsibility to advance knowledge”(Popper 1945, 203). By pursuing individual rationality, one also “[furthers themselves] in knowledge, cooperation, [and] chances of survival” (Popper 1945, 203). Communication in this way promotes freedom of self-growth and self reliance which in turn advances society. Voloshinov, however, disagrees with Popper and Rand that original thoughts can be purely made by an individual with no external influence (Voloshinov 1973, 29). Voloshinov attributes the thoughts of individuals not to themselves but rather to their past experiences and relations (Voloshinov 1973, 52). Thus, extensive discourse hinders freedom by encouraging “secondhand dealers of ideas” to spread truths that lack originality and are not their own (Hayek 1949, 372). Communication under these conditions limits freedom by impeding upon another’s ability to think freely. Ideas that come from external actors such as the media or authority figures impose a singular view on their audience which creates a passive public (Voloshinov 1973, 53).
Modernity is guided by rational thought with a commitment to truth and universal reason. Reasoning can be used to “test the validity of norms,” deduce fundamental truths, and remove ambiguity (Habermas 1990, 103). However, convergence of thought reduces a society’s capacity to advance. As discourse increasingly results in general agreement amongst the public, Habermas argues that private interests become increasingly hindered by the need to compromise and comply (Habermas 1990, 77). Intellectuals essentially determine the fate of scholars by crediting or discrediting their works according to their consistency with their own beliefs (Hayek 1949, 384). The media and intellectuals, with their power to omit and filter information, present a biased version of knowledge that is passed on to the public. The filtering of information deprives the public access to original thoughts to evaluate for themselves. Habermas insists that reasoning to the point of collective thought promotes imitation (Habermas 1990, 92). Implanting ideas that manifest around a singular idea rather than allowing each individual to cultivate their own truth totalizes society. Rand asserts that people are mere parasites who rely on the few creators while giving nothing in return. The lack of challenges to the integrity of beliefs takes away people’s incentive to produce new ideas. Rand suggests that since there is no such thing as a common good, people should concern themselves with introspection because goods are products of an individual’s experience or relation to the real world (Rand 1943, 679). Rand champions objectivism and insists that everyone can discern truths and should be creators of their own original ideas unimpeded by outer influences in order to enhance freedom and advance society. Those who craft original ideas derived from sovereign inspiration are the most fit to influence the rest of society (Rand 1943, 679). Like Rand, Popper assesses that the only way to achieve an enlightened society is by employing reason as a guide (Popper 1945, 204).
Democratic ideals such as cooperation have been undermined by the internalized rationality of corporations. As Friedman asserts, the expectation for businesses to be altruistic is essentially unrealistic since corporations work to maximize their interests and do not have social responsibilities (Friedman 2007, 4). People treat each other as fundamentally greedy beings and organize society around this belief (Gilder 1996, 5). Critics also argue that privatization leads to an increased sense of detachment towards responsibility to the collective. For these reasons, capitalism is seen as a system that is morally bad but economically good. Rand takes a more radical approach and insists that those who preach altruism impose social restraints upon others and “[reverse] the base of [humankind’s] moral principles (Rand 1943, 634).” She champions using language as the means of cultivating individual reason to achieve one’s ends since “the integrity of a man’s creative work is of more importance than any charitable endeavor” (Rand 1943, 635) She asserts that altruism hinders freedom by reducing incentive to contribute fresh ideas (Rand 1943, 635). Rand puts altruism and capitalism in terms of selfishness which leads them to have negative connotations. She proposes that making people feel obligated to meet the demands of others “destroys the creator” and originality altogether (Rand 1943, 637). Rand juxtaposes people “who [do] not exist for others” with those than have been “taught dependence as a virtue” and suggests that the former will benefit society more than the latter (Rand 1943, 637). Rand’s paints altruism in a negative light, but capitalism is innately altruistic as corporations and entrepreneurs aim to succeed by providing for and fulfilling the needs of consumers. Thus, capitalism is actually consistent with altruism. The manner of her diction neglects that capitalism enables reasoned self-interest to guide actions that are economically beneficial to the collective, resulting in the achievement of moral good.
Discourse benefits society by producing certainty, agreement, and understanding within a society. As Rand believes people are rulers of themselves, she insists that every individual can know the world with certainty if they use language to develop themselves (Rand 1943, 645). In order to avoid cognitive dissonance, the media and authority figures distort the interpretation of information spread amongst the public. However, it encourages the spread of unoriginal thought, promotes social stagnation, and disincentivizes improvement. The rejection of opposing viewpoints by the media or authority figures replace individuality with universality of human thought. Changing the language by which things are conveyed changes the way they are perceived and responded to. Framing capitalism as a purely evil, selfish system manipulates its perception by the public and ignores the fact that self-interest drives people to seek advancement which motivates them to act in an altruistic manner.