Skip to comments.Whittaker Chambers 1957 Review of Ayn Rand
Posted on 04/16/2011 10:49:59 AM PDT by stfassisi
Big Sister is Watching You BY Whittaker Chambers
Miss Ayn Rand wrote The Fountainhead. Despite a generally poor press, it is said to have sold some four hundred thousand copies. Thus, it became a wonder of the book trade of a kind that publishers dream about after taxes. So Atlas Shrugged had a first printing of one hundred thousand copies.
The news about this book seems to me to be that any ordinarily sensible head could possibly take it seriously, and that apparently, a good many do. Somebody has called it: "Excruciatingly awful." I find it a remarkably silly book. It is certainly a bumptious one. Its story is preposterous. It reports the final stages of a final conflict (locale: chiefly the United States, some indefinite years hence) between the harried ranks of free enterprise and the "looters." These are proponents of proscriptive taxes. Government ownership, Labor, etc. etc. The mischief here is that the author, dodging into fiction, nevertheless counts on your reading it as political reality. "This," she is saying in effect, "is how things really are. These are the real issues, the real sides. Only your blindness keeps you from seeing it, which, happily, I have come to rescue you from."
Since a great many of us dislike much that Miss Rand dislikes, quite as heartily as she does, many incline to take her at her word. It is the more persuasive, in some quarters, because the author deals wholly in the blackest blacks and the whitest whites. In this fiction everything, everybody, is either all good or all bad, without any of those intermediate shades which, in life, complicate reality and perplex the eye that seeks to probe it truly. This kind of simplifying pattern, of course, gives charm to most primitive story-telling. And, in fact, the somewhat ferro-concrete fairy tale the author pours here is, basically, the old one known as: The War between the Children of Light and the Children of Darkness. In modern dress, it is a class war. Both sides of it are caricatures.
The Children of Light are largely operatic caricatures. In so far as any of them suggests anything known to the business community, they resemble the occasional curmudgeon millionaire, tales about whose outrageously crude and shrewd eccentricities sometimes provide the lighter moments in Board rooms. Otherwise, the Children of Light are geniuses. One of them is named (the only smile you see will be your own): Francisco Domingo Carlos Andres Sebastian d'Antonio. This electrifying youth is the world's biggest copper tycoon. Another, no less electrifying, is named: Ragnar Danesjold. He becomes a twentieth-century pirate. All Miss Rand's chief heroes are also breathtakingly beautiful. So is her heroine (she is rather fetchingly vice-president in charge of management of a transcontinental railroad). So much radiant energy might seem to serve an eugenic purpose. For, in this story as in Mark Twain's, "all the knights marry the princess" though without benefit of clergy. Yet from the impromptu and surprisingly gymnastic matings of heroine and three of the heroes, no children it suddenly strikes you ever result. The possibility is never entertained. And indeed, the strenuously sterile world of Atlas Shrugged is scarcely a place for children. You speculate that, in life, children probably irk the author and may make her uneasy. How could it be otherwise when she admiringly names a banker character (by what seems to me a humorless master-stroke): Midas Mulligan? You may fool some adults, you can't fool little boys and girls with such stuff not for long. They may not know just what is out of line, but they stir uneasily.
Children of Darkness are caricatures, too; and they are really oozy. But at least they are caricatures of something identifiable. Their archetypes are Left Liberals, New Dealers, Welfare Statists, One Worlders, or, at any rate, such ogreish semblances of these as may stalk the nightmares of those who think little about people as people, but tend to think a great deal in labels and effigies. (And neither Right nor Left, be it noted in passing, has a monopoly of such dreamers, though the horrors in their nightmares wear radically different masks and labels.)
In Atlas Shrugged, all this debased inhuman riffraff is lumped as "looters." This is a fairly inspired epithet. It enables the author to skewer on one invective word everything and everybody that she fears and hates. This spares here the plaguy business of performing one service that her fiction might have performed. Namely: that of examining in human depth how so feeble a lot came to exist at all, let alone be powerful enough to be worth hating and fearing. Instead, she bundles them into one undifferentiated damnation.
"Looters" loot because they believe in Robin Hood, and have a lot of other people believing in him, too. Robin Hood is the author's image of absolute evil robbing the strong (and hence good) to give to the weak (and hence no good). All "looters" are base, envious, twisted, malignant minds, motivated wholly by greed for power, combined with the lust of the weak to tear down the strong, out of a deep-seated hatred of life and secret longing for destruction and death. There happens to be a tiny (repeat: tiny) seed of truth in this. The full clinical diagnosis can be read into the pages of Friedich Nietzsche. (Here I must break in with an aside. Miss Rand acknowledges a grudging debt to one, and only one, earlier philosopher: Aristotle. I submit that she is indebted, and much more heavily, to Nietzche. Just as her operatic businessmen are, in fact, Nietzschean supermen, so her ulcerous Leftists are Nietzsche's "last men," both deformed in a way to sicken the fastidious recluse of Sils Maria. And much else comes, consciously on not, from the same source.) Happily, in Atlas Shrugged (though not in life), all the children of Darkness are utterly incompetent.
So the Children of Light win handily by declaring a general strike of brains, of which they have a monopoly, letting the world go, literally, to smash. In the end, they troop out of their Rocky Mountain hideaway to repossess the ruins. It is then, in the book's last line, that a character traces in the air, "over the desolate earth," the Sign of the Dollar, in lieu of the Sign of the Cross, and in token that a suitably prostrate mankind is at last ready, for its sins, to be redeemed from the related evils of religion and social reform (the "mysticism of mind" and the "mysticism of muscle").
That Dollar Sign is not merely provocative, though we sense a sophomoric intent to raise the pious hair on susceptible heads. More importantly, it is meant to seal the fact that mankind is ready to submit abjectly to an elite of technocrats, and their accessories, in a New Order, enlightened and instructed by Miss Rand's ideas that the good life is one which "has resolved personal worth into exchange value," "has left no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous 'cash payment.'" The author is explicit, in fact deafening, about these prerequisites. Lest you should be in any doubt after 1168 pages, she assures you with a final stamp of the foot in a postscript: "and I mean it." But the words quoted above are those of Karl Marx. He, too, admired "naked self-interest" (in its time and place), and for much of the same reasons as Miss Rand: because, he believed, it cleared away the cobwebs of religion and led to prodigies of industrial and cognate accomplishment.
The overlap is not as incongruous as it looks. Atlas Shrugged can be called a novel only by devaluing the term. It is a massive tract for the times. Its story merely serves Miss Rand to get the customers inside the tent. And as a soapbox for delivering her Message. The Message is the thing. It is a sum, a forthright philosophic materialism. Upperclassmen might incline to sniff and say that the author has, with vast effort, contrived a simple materialist system, one, intellectually, at about the state of the oxcart, though without mastering the principle of the wheel. Like any consistent materialism, this one begins by rejecting God, religion, original sin, etc. etc. (This book's aggressive atheism and rather unbuttoned "higher morality," which chiefly outrage some readers, are, in fact, secondary ripples, and result inevitably from its underpinning premises.) Thus, Randian Man, like Marxian Man, is made the center of a godless world.
At that point, in any materialism, the main possibilities open up to Man. 1) His tragic fate becomes, without God, more tragic and much lonelier. In general, the tragedy deepens according to the degree of pessimism or stoicism with which he conducts his "hopeless encounter between human questioning and the silent universe." Or, 2) Man's fate ceases to be tragic at all. Tragedy is bypassed by the pursuit of happiness. Tragedy is henceforth pointless. Henceforth man's fate, without God, is up to him. And to him alone. His happiness, is strict materialist terms, lies with his own workaday hands and ingenious brain. His happiness becomes, in Miss Rand's words, "the moral purpose of his life." Here occurs a little rub whose effects are just as observable in a free enterprise system, which is in practice materialist (whatever else it claims or supposes itself to be), as they would be under an atheist Socialism, if one were ever to deliver that material abundance that all promise. The rub is that the pursuit of happiness, as an end in itself, tends automatically, and widely, to be replaced by the pursuit of pleasure with a consequent general softening of the fibers of will, intelligence on "man as a heroic being" "with productive achievement as his noblest activity." For, if man's "heroism" (some will prefer to say: "human dignity") no longer derives from God, or is not a function of that godless integrity which was a root of Nietzsche's anguish, then Man becomes merely the most consuming of animals, with glut as the condition of his happiness. And this, of course, suits the author's economics and the politics that must arise from them.
For politics, of course, arise, though the author of Atlas Shrugged stares stonily past them, as if this book were not what, in fact it is, essentially a political book. And here begins mischief. Systems of philosophic materialism, so long as they merely circle outside this world's atmosphere, matter little to most of us. The trouble is that they keep coming down to earth. It is when a system of materialist ideas presumes to give positive answers to real problems of our real life that mischief starts. In a age like ours, in which a highly complex technological society is everywhere in a high state of instability, such answers however philosophic, translate quickly into political realities. And in the degree to which problems of complexity and instability are most bewildering to masses of men, a temptation sets in to let some species of Big Brother solve and supervise them.
One Big Brother is of course, a socializing elite (as we know, several cut-rate brands are on the shelves). Miss Rand, as the enemy of any socializing force, calls in a Big Brother of her own contriving to do battle with the other. In the name of free enterprise, therefore, she plumps for a technocratic elite (I find no more inclusive word than technocratic to bracket the industrial-financial-engineering caste she seems to have in mind). When she calls "productive achievement" man's "noblest activity," she means, almost exclusively, technological achievement, supervised by such a managerial political bureau. She might object that she means much, much more; and we can freely entertain her objections. But in sum, that is just what she means. For that is what, in reality, it works out to. And in reality, too, by contrast, with fiction, this can only head into a dictatorship, however benign, living and acting beyond good and evil, a law unto itself (as Miss Rand believes it should be), and feeling any restraint on itself as, in practice, criminal, and, in morals, vicious as Miss Rand clearly feels it to be. Of course, Miss Rand nowhere calls for a dictatorship. I take her to be calling for an aristocracy of talents. We cannot labor here why, in the modern world, the pre-conditions for aristocracy, an organic growth, no longer exist, so that impulse toward aristocracy always emerges now in the form of dictatorship.
Nor has the author, apparently, brooded on the degree to which, in a wicked world, a materialism of the Right and a materialism of the Left, first surprisingly resemble, then in action tend to blend each with each, because, while differing at the top in avowed purposed, and possibly in conflict there, at bottom they are much the same thing. The embarrassing similarities between Hitler's National Socialism and Stalin's brand of Communism are familiar. For the world, as seen in materialist view from the Left. The question becomes chiefly: who is to run that world in whose interests, or perhaps, at best, who can run it more efficiently?
Something of this implication is fixed in the book's dictatorial tone, which is much its most striking feature. Out of a lifetime of reading, I can recall no other book in which a tone of overriding arrogance was so implacably sustained. Its shrillness is without reprieve. Its dogmatism is without appeal. In addition, the mind, which finds this one natural to it, shares other characteristics of its type. 1) It consistently mistakes raw force for strength, and the rawer the force, the more reverent the posture of the mind before it. 2) It supposes itself to be the bringer of a final revelation. Therefore, resistance to the Message cannot be tolerated because disagreement can never be merely honest, prudent or just humanly fallible. Dissent from revelation so final (because, the author would say, so reasonable) can only be willfully wicked. There are ways of dealing with such wickedness, and, in fact, right reason itself enjoins them. From almost any page of Atlas Shrugged, a voice can be heard, from painful necessity, commanding: " To the gas chambers go!" The same inflexibly self-righteous stance results, too (in the total absence of any saving humor), in odd extravagances of inflection and gesture that Dollar Sign, for example. At first, we try to tell ourselves that these are just lapses, that this mind has, somehow, mislaid the discriminating knack that most of us pray will warn us in time of the differences between what is effective and firm, and what is wildly grotesque and excessive. Soon we suspect something worse. We suspect that this mind finds, precisely in extravagance, some exalting merit; feels a surging release of power and passion precisely in smashing up the house. A tornado might feel this way, or Carrie Nation.
We struggle to be just. For we cannot help feel at least a sympathetic pain before the sheer labor, discipline and patient craftsmanship that went to making this mountain of words. But the words keep shouting us down. In the end that tone dominates. But it should be its own antidote, warning us that anything it shouts is best taken with the usual reservations with which we might sip a patent medicine. Some may like the flavor. In any case, the brew is probably without lasting ill effects. But it is not a cure for anything. Nor would we, ordinarily, place much confidence in the diagnosis of a doctor who supposes that the Hippocratic Oath is a kind of curse
A rather surprisingly negative review from Whittaker Chambers. Apparently the Marxist ideology that he once loved wasn’t completely washed out of his system.
Uncle Scrooge vs Bluto
Actually, he understood that materialism via Ayn Rand style is just as evil as Marxisim
Whittaker Chambers, William F. Buckley, Ronald Reagan, all had Christianity at the center of their worldview. Ayn Rand’s atheistic materialism would have been foreign to them, despite her anti-communism.
The one area where I had a problem with A.S. and Rand was the atheist perspective and condemnation of organized religion. However, when organized religion is not viewed as meaning Christian, but rather Muslim (as in radical) her position takes on an entirely different (and more legitimate?) perspective. And as Whitacre observes, Rand does see things as black and white, and if religion is taken to an extreme (as in radical fundamentalist Islam) her position would hold up.
Whittaker Chambers didn’t like absolutes and preferred relativism to justify the fact he was once a Communist spy.
Just because he flipped shouldn’t make him a darling of the right. Chambers is the flip side of the David Brock coin.
As for Chambers’ particular attack on Ayn Rand, find it interesting that he infers objectivism is similar to Nazi ideology. Loses credibility on that front alone without taking into account the rest.
There’s a simple reason why Chambers didn’t like Rand...blowhard relativist looters don’t produce much except hot air.
If Chambers were alive today, he would be pontificating about the evils of the Tea Party as part of the wine and brie Beltway faux conservative “ruling” class.
In contrast, you will find Rand’s legacy in the Tea Party movement.
What I had been fell from me like dirty rags. The rags that fell from me were not only Communism. What fell was the whole web of the materialist modern mindthe luminous shroud which it has spun about the spirit of man, paralyzing in the name of rationalism the instinct of his soul for God, denying in the name of knowledge the reality of the soul and its birthright in that mystery on which mere knowledge falters and shatters at every step. If I had rejected only Communism, I would have rejected only one political expression of the modern mind, the most logical because the most brutal in enforcing the myth of mans material perfectibility.
Yikes. Are you on the right forum here? Just kidding.
But I don't agree with you on that. Marxism is the purist evil and Ayn Rand was mostly right.
The main character's silioquy at his trial was the summation of the book, and probably makes a stand alone theme without the rest of the book.
Caveats: This was a book with an array of characters such that not one of the characters had a single redeeming feature.
The hero generally despised the human race. His idea about the proper way to feel and foster 'love' included, no, was in total, forceable rape.
The heroine obviously loved money above all else while she craved love by some definition. In the middle and the end she invited in, encouraged, then 'loved,' make that lusted the man who forceably raped her.
These two were the closest in the book to functional people. Everyone else was so utterly dysfunctional that it was as though Rand was racing herself to the bottom of the barrel. She wanted to see how depraved she could make her characters, hence, humanity.
I had no problem reading the book from start to finish. I would never be tempted to read it a second time.
The majority of the posters here are right, that it is materialism at the heart of Randism that makes it an evil proposition, no matter how much Randites swear at communism.
Can libertarianism be also Christian? Certainly we understand that the socialism of the early Christian communes, and the spirit of the Sermon on the Mount social message, all were about voluntary renunciation of the possessions, and voluntary charity; it is the tragedy of 20c that the line between voluntary charity and top-down egalitarianism was blurred. Surely statism is not preached anywhere in the Gospels (respect for God-fearing authority, cf Romans 13 is). Of course a Christian cannot possibly think that he owns himself -- God does. But leaving that aside, there is nothing un-Christian about loving personal freedom.
But this is where the rub lies. Libertarianism of every kind means primacy of a market over use of uninvited force. So far so good, so long as the market does not become the only force. That is because a market is by definition a machine, and people should not serve a machine, no matter how well built. Here's an example, from real life: a market tells a farmer to sell his land and become a hired worker. But a farmer is free even though poor. A hired worker is not equally free, he is in fact substantially unfree, no matter how big his salary is. So here the machine ate the free man and produced an unfree one. Indeed, it is the destruction of the Metaphysical Village by the Metaphysical City that gave us socialism.
(This thought belongs to the formidable Igor Shafarevitch, whose Socialist Phenomenon should be in every Freeper's browser; the though itself however, was in his interview in Russian and I have a difficulty locating it).
Evil is evil no matter where it comes from.
I doubt that Ayn Rand would have much respect for the typical Tea Party member. Ordinary people were of no value to her.
I’m always for high schoolers reading Rand. After that...
Great stuff on doers and looters, but her foundation - lacks foundation.
Thank you for pointing this out.
"These are proponents of proscriptive taxes. Government ownership, Labor, etc. etc. The mischief here is that the author, dodging into fiction, nevertheless counts on your reading it as political reality."
Exactly Whit! That could never happen.....
My opinion of Rand comes from only a general knowledge of her. From what I understand, Rand seems to oppose Marxism, but her opposition to it can only be superficial.
When the origin of morality is man, its violation and its destruction will have the same origin.
I don’t know what philosophical position Rand took regarding the U.S. Constitution, but it seems that any claim to agree with it would necessarily come from ignorance or dishonesty on her part.
Exactly how is my materialism, which I acquire in a free market environment without looting, mooching or taking at gunpoint, by the sweat of my own labor and thoughts as 'evil as Marxism'?
Please enlighten us.
I think one way to approach this question is to point out that the values you show in this question cannot be derived from pure materialism.
This was Rand's problem as well. Without some truth transcending materialism, the virtues, or any virtues, have no foundation.
Exactly. She’s a compelling figure, but ultimately a fatally flawed one.
Outstanding and very well stated!
People today have difficulty grasping this because modern liberalism and conservatism have both high-jacked and switched the real meaning of freedom to suit their agenda's
Perhaps you might not want to call it materialism and call it personal needs that you enjoy for starts.
We are talking apples and oranges when we think of Rand's materialism and things we gain that do not go beyond greed,dear friend
I assume you know the difference?
“I doubt that Ayn Rand would have much respect for the typical Tea Party member. Ordinary people were of no value to her.”
Rand disliked sheeple and looters.
I’d contend that Tea Party members are far from ordinary. Most are producers instead of looters. The small business owners among them have much in common with John Galt.
Would Rand have been part of the Tea Party? No. But that’s beside the point.
Just as conservatism outgrew Buckley and Goldwater, objectivism (and small “L” libertarianism) has moved beyond Ayn Rand and Harry Browne.
Bfl. I’ve always enjoyed Whittaker Chambers.
On the contrary, I’m very sure the elite Ms. Rand would look down her nose at the Tea Party commoners.
Call it what you wish but defend your statement that my quest for 'personal needs that I enjoy' (materialism) is as 'evil as marxism'.
and things we gain that do not go beyond greed,
Pleae provide your definition of 'greed'.
I understand your position as a good Christian- it would be hard to swallow the philosophy of an avowed atheist. But Rand proposed a rational basis for morality that at it’s core is not hugely different than many Christian beliefs. Not all and certainly not some very important ones but there is more commonality than you might expect.
But you shouldn’t project your perfectly reasonable differences with Rand into the realm of Marxism. Her life was dedicated to the defeat of the Marxist philosophy.
It’s just bad writing, regardless of the politics expressed.
This is the famous 1957 review of Atlas Shrugged by Whittaker Chambers.
And he got paid by the word...
False. The "core" of Christianity makes us responsible not just for our own morality but the morality of those who are supposed to love (ie: everyone). Not such a popular sentiment these days, but this was central to the worldview of most of the Founding Fathers. Rand is good science fiction to me, but our society is still mostly populated with people who are correctly guided by either their own religious convictions or the those that have been socialized into them. They are noticibly absent in the Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged.
Perhaps you need to educate yourself on what materialism is 1st,dear friend
“”but defend your statement that my quest for ‘personal needs that I enjoy’ is as ‘evil as marxism’””
I never said things you might enjoy are evil,materialism is evil once you understand what it is.
I wish you a Blessed evening!
Rand's heroes are selfish, barren fornicators. Like herself.
Chambers put it this way:
Yet from the impromptu and surprisingly gymnastic matings of heroine and three of the heroes, no children it suddenly strikes you ever result. The possibility is never entertained. And indeed, the strenuously sterile world of Atlas Shrugged is scarcely a place for children. You speculate that, in life, children probably irk the author and may make her uneasy.
They no doubt made her more than "uneasy": Rand's entire philosophy collapses when confronted with the reality of parenthood. We are, after all, and in direct contradiction of Rand, the means to our children's ends -- and morally obligated to be so.
What else, except "damned fraud," can you call a person whose supposedly rational philosophy can't account for the propagation of the species?
See post 33.
Rand was nothing more than an undercover Marxist by being anti- family.They both are non intellectual immoral self serving fools who are easily exposed by moral people
"What else, except "damned fraud," can you call a person whose supposedly rational philosophy can't account for the propagation of the species? "
Check and mate.
Thank you for this precise and penetrating comment. The human race simply cannot persist long enough to creat a "society" (necessarily a multi-generational enterprise) on a basis of godless self-centered materialism.
Whether of the so-called Left or the so-called Right.
I read Atlas Shrugged and Witness. Rand and Chambers are both great thinkers. Chambers was not only mistaken in this instance but he unnecessarily poisoned the well between Rand and conservative shakers of the time. Rand herself could not see past her bitterness over her treatment in National Review, even when William Buckley offered to make up. It was tragic all the way around.
That said, Atlas Shrugged endures. How is Witness doing? Who is playing the lead in the movie?
What an incredibly boring review. I just watched the recent documentary, “Ayn Rand & the Prophecy of Atlas Shrugged,” and it presents this article as the “most scathing review” the novel ever received in the months following its publication in 1957.
So I googled it, hoping to be humorously entertained by some stubborn, grumpy old geezer screaming insult after insult — line by line — but all I got was a boring mumbo-jumbo lecture with a worldview opposite of mine. The only valid point he makes is about the novel’s characters being too black and white (i.e., all-good or all-evil), but actually, Rand created them for dramatic effect.
Anyway, I want my 15 minutes back, so I can go spend it with my fellow atheistic, individualistic friends here in lovely capitalist China, where I’m happily building my life and living my values!
I recommend reading the following book, it will help you grasp many things
The Brothers Karamazov by Fyodor Dostoyevsky
Thanks for the recommendation. I might look at it a little when I have the time, although I can’t guarantee it will change my views.
Likewise, you (and everyone) can check out an article I wrote this past October. It covers the topic of abusive manipulation tactics, and how to be less susceptible to them.
Miss Rand acknowledges a grudging debt to one, and only one, earlier philosopher: Aristotle. I submit that she is indebted, and much more heavily, to Nietzche.
I had come to the conclusion that she never read Aristotle. She didn't exemplify any relationship to "the master of common sense."
With all things considered, in your life and in this world, you were meant to be unique, but not lonely; self-interested, but not self-centered; and were made to be an interdependent trader in a network of relationships, not a completely independent island in a vacuum.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.