We the Living

One of the problems with any class-based revolution is that the resentful are put in charge leading to distracted and arbitrary administration. Ayn Rand's first novel, "We the Living" gives a vivid account of this phenomenon. I listened to the reading on cd by Mary Wood whose manner, approaching cold and hard, suited the overall tone of this narrative. Rand states that the story is based on her experiences, though it is not a thinly veiled autobiography.[SPOILER ALERT] Kira, the 18-year-old daughter of a furnishings merchant who had included the Tsar among his customers, returns to Petrograd with her parents, and older sister, seeking help from her aunt's family, about 1922 after the Revolution has died down. Unlike her parents and uncle who cling to the hope that the Bolshevik control cannot last, Kira is indifferent to politics and ignores the restraints of both the old regime and the new party ideology. She is young, attractive without much effort, and unafraid. Unlike many women who feel for others and seemingly want to please everyone, Kira has a strong sense of boundaries and seeks to please only herself. Admitted to the university with the intent to study engineering, she rubs elbows with her cousin Viktor, a womanizer whom she rebuffs, who pragmatically embraces the Communist Party in order to secure advancement and the perquisites membership entails. She attracts the local party commissar, in part, by her lack of fear of him. She is attracted to him as they exchange conversations here and there, though his commitment to the party and its ideal, and her indifference and bourgeois background is a barrier. Then she meets a mysterious stranger whom she agrees to meet clandestinely , and subsequently leave the country with. As she makes love to him for the first time on the boat, they are arrested by Communist police. He turns out to be Leo, the son of an admiral who opposed the revolution. She is let off as being a naive girl, and he gets a light sentence. When he returns, they move in together. In a purge of the university, Kira is expelled, and must find a job, Andrei, the commissar uses his influence to help her. When Leo needs treatment at a sanitarium to head off tuberculosis, she eventually becomes Andrei's mistress, accepting financial help to make this possible. When Leo returns, she continues living with Leo, though seeing Andrei from time to time. Having lived off of charity breaks down Leo's self-respect and, unable to secure a job due to his record and background, he participates with a corrupt party official to front a shop that sells produce stolen from the state bureaucracy. Andrei pursues the corruption, makes enemies among the party higher ups, and when the he discovers that it is Kira's lover who is scapegoated so that the corrupt party official can escape, he decides to take his own life. Leo gets off because Andrei pulls some strings, and determines to leave Kira to go on vacation with a wealthy woman with connections. Kira attempts to escape to Latvia, but ends up shot by a boarder guard and dying in the snow.Kira's character exhibits the confident self-possession that we often find so compelling, especially in sexual attraction. This is a double-edged sword as she fearlessly treads where danger awaits. Other characters, notably her sister, are portrayed as simpering, confused, and helpless. Still others, Viktor and Kira's mother, forfeit their integrity by adapting to the new social realities, the former by calculation, the latter more by attrition. Andrei the true believer is eventually disillusioned, and Leo goes his own selfish way, yet despising himself for it. It is a tragic story in which there are no winners. Perhaps that is the point- the society based on impossible ideals robs everyone of freedom. Presumably the West, with its heritage of individual freedom, will allow the individual's pursuit of happiness.The indictment of Communist society recalls Orwell's classic, "Animal Farm." Those who sincerely believe in the ideals end up being exploited by the cynical manipulators of power. The Marxist interpretation of religion is applied to his own ideology- an opiate to persuade the exploited to put up with what they otherwise would not tolerate, Rand seems to be saying that it is better to embrace the selfish greed of capitalism than the hypocritical pretense of communism.Yet, the traditional Christian must recognize that the tragedy lies less with the Communist state that Rand (rightly) abhors, but with that despair of transcendence, of meaning beyond oneself, that she embraces along with the Communists and every secularist. Her view of selfishness embraces some good and admirable things- integrity, responsibility for self, respect for other selves. But even her heroine falls prey to the irrational, forfeits integrity by trading sex for money, as well as by old-fashioned two-timing. She wants with Leo a dependable relationship and even suggests marriage at one point. But those who insist that they are free are not free to make commitments that transcend the present moment.

The only other novel I have read from Ayn Rand is Atlas Shrugged. I believe this novel was written at the start of her writing career. The difference in style, characterization and approach is notable compared to Atlas. Even though it focuses on life in Soviet Russia, this is very much a book for our time. For this reason alone it is worth reading.We The Living centers around Kira Argounova as she and her family are coming to grips with leading a new life in Soviet Russia. Two other characters also come into focus as Kira becomes romantically involved with both - Leo and Andrei. I was quite surprised with Rand's treatment of her characters in this novel. While they felt like symbols and mouthpieces for Rand's objectivism philosophy in Atlas Shrugged, here they feel authentic and relatable i.e. real human beings.She does an excellent job highlighting the insidiousness of the Communist collectivist philosophy and how it slowly changes or outright destroys the individual and his/her individuality and humanity. The three main characters all deal with the oppressiveness of life in Soviet Russia in different ways all leading to losing something precious. Not even love or the simple need for honest human interaction and emotional bonding can survive. This is not only apparent with Kira and Leo but Sonia and Pavel as well. Even family bonds are destroyed. See Victor as an example.Reading this novel, one should be able to see the parallels between the communist approach to free speech and egalitarianism and today’s smothering political correctness and quest for equality. The chilling result of all this is the sacrifice of morals and values in the name of a greater good.Sonia says the following in the novel: “Science is in our own calloused hands. We have outgrown that old bourgeois prejudice about the objective impartiality of science. Science is not impartial. Science is a weapon of the class struggle.” Today we see this reflected in Environmentalism and the many scandals surrounding tampering of data used to advocate for global warming. A friend was said to me: “Does it matter whether we know global warming is true? We have to do something!” Truth and or evidence for a course of action is no longer necessary if the action is deemed noble in and of itself.Another example from Sonia: “Hearty proletarian greetings to all! And particularly to our comrade women. There’s no sight I like better than a new woman student, a woman emancipated from the old slavery of dishes and diapers.” The parallels to some aspects of modern day feminism should be readily apparent.In summary, those who disliked Rand’s characterizations and excessive monologues on philosophy in Atlas Shrugged should give this book a whirl. It is far more nuanced and in the vein of a traditional literary work of fiction. For those who enjoyed Atlas Shrugged, this book is well worth visiting to witness Rand’s first baby steps in attempting to understand and articulate her beliefs. The difference in style, expression and characterization is fascinating.