Ian Rand’s communism

If you read, ‘we the living’, you start understanding how corrupt the communist party was in Russia and what lead to its downfall. Though the story is of a young girl Kira, who only aspires to live a life of freedom with her lover Leo and ends up fleeing Russia and dying in the process, the background of this story describes the atrocities of the communist party. If you read between the lines, you start understanding that it is not communism that is at fault. It is the communist party; the supposed ‘party’ of the laborers nourishes within itself authoritarianism. Bungalows and comforts for the party leaders, special reservations for supporters, you understand that the communist party which was formed to strip off the authority from the capitalists, succeeded in doing so, but only gave birth to other form of capitalists, the party leaders.
The spirit of the protagonist in ‘We the living’ aspires for freedom which is totally put off by the corruption ridden communist party. Though not said so openly in the book, you can understand that communism is not at fault but the authoritarianism that crept up into communist party.
When you read the fountainhead, you find that the author indeed is talking about ‘freedom’ even if she does not use the word. This is what I understand; I can only compare her ideals with the ‘freedom’, spoken of by so many(Peryiar, Gnani, Bharathiar, Gandhi). The protagonist, Howard Roark is a loner, recluse and upholds highest moral (his own not conforming to those of the society) ideals. He is an architect and can be nothing else, meaning architecture is what he eats, drinks and sleeps. He has few friends, those who understand his work and the rest consider him weird and think his designs are totally not upto their taste. You live along with Roark and experience his poverty, living in a world which ignores his talent, being left jobless by a society composed of people with no selfishness – to be precise ‘self esteem’.
All is well, until you see that Roark blows up a building he designed but was not built according to his designs. This is a community living built for the poor. I find this a bit twisted and gory plot. The 600 page story, finally ends up being a mixture a descriptions of various characters and surroundings and more of how not to be an ideal man and the injustice faced by an ideal man.
Rand is talking about ‘man-worship’. She is talking about the human race which made this world we live in possible. She is talking about the quest for the highest ideal in man. She is talking about how everyman is complete in himself and has to realize it. She is an atheist, talks about the authority owned by religion on ethics. She talks about how religions subordinate man to God. She talks about how she awes at human creations more than at nature.
Incidentally, perfectly coinciding with her views are the Marxian, Maoian, Engelian view of religion and self-esteem.
May be Marxism didn’t use the word, but any Tamizhian would know of ‘Suyamariyathai Iyakkam’ (Self-esteem movement) of Thanthai Periyar, an atheist, radical thinker, revolutionary and also a communist by principle. Like the crux of Hindu Philosophy this ‘self-esteem’ is also a very evasive concept. It is very hard to describe with words and often is in conflict with findings of psychology and neuroscience. Sometimes I feel it is the same as the philosophical ‘self realization’. Some people may relate it to ‘self-actualization’.
I seriously don’t understand why Rand insists that her ideal man is possible ‘only’ in a capitalistic society. In my view her idea of an ideal man is possible only in a society that talks about equality and not authoritarianism in any form, where ‘freedom’ is not confined to a democratic government, (its justice, laws, police, and ethics) and a capitalistic economy. Where ‘freedom’ does not mean being able to do what one wants, but means being able to be the man one wants to be, unshackled from authoritarianism of any kind, even his own.