Ayn Rand: The Russian Radical (2 page)

The three books in my “
Dialectics
and Liberty trilogy”—of which
Ayn Rand: The Russian Radical
is the second part—seek to reclaim dialectical method from its one-sided use in
Marxist
thought, in particular, by clarifying its basic nature and placing it in the service of a radical
libertarianism
.
⁵

The first book in my trilogy is
Marx, Hayek, and Utopia
, which I published in 1995 with the State University of New York Press (Sciabarra 1995b). It drew parallels between Karl Marx, the theoretician of communism, and
F. A. Hayek
, the Austrian “free market” economist, by highlighting their surprisingly convergent critiques of utopianism and their mutual appreciation of context in defining the meaning of political radicalism.

Ayn Rand: The Russian Radical
, the second book in the trilogy, details the approach of a bona fide dialectical thinker in the radical libertarian tradition, who advocated the analysis of social problems and social solutions across three distinctive, and mutually supportive, levels of generality—the personal, the cultural, and the structural (see especially “The Radical Rand,” part 3 of the current work).

The third book and final part of the trilogy,
Total Freedom: Toward a Dialectical Libertarianism
, was published in 2000 by the Pennsylvania State University Press (Sciabarra 2000). It offers a rereading of the
history
of dialectical thinking, a redefinition of dialectics as indispensable to any defense of human liberty and as a tool to critique those aspects of modern libertarianism that are decidedly undialectical and, hence, dangerously utopian in their implications.

That my trilogy places libertarian thinkers within a larger dialectical tradition has been resisted by some of my left-wing colleagues, who view
Marxism
as having a monopoly on dialectical analysis, and some of my right-wing colleagues, who are aghast to see anybody connect a libertarian politics to a method that they decry as “Marxist,” and hence anathema to the project for liberty.

Ironically, both the left-wing and right-wing folks who object to my characterization of a
dialectical
libertarian alternative commit what
Rand
would have called “the fallacy of the
frozen
abstraction
.” For Rand, this “consists of substituting some one particular concrete for the wider abstract class to which it belongs.”
⁶
Thus, the left-wing and right-wing critics both freeze and reduce the concept of dialectical method to the subcategory of one of
its major historical applications (i.e.,
Marxism
). They both exclude another significant subcategory from that concept, whether to protect the favored subcategory (as do some conservatives, libertarians, and Objectivists) or the concept itself (as do the leftists). Ultimately, they both characterize
dialectics
as essentially Marxist. It is as if any other variety of dialectics does not or cannot exist. In each case, the coupling of dialectics and libertarianism is denied. The left-wing dialecticians don’t want to besmirch “their” methodology by acknowledging its presence in libertarian thinking, while the right-wing proponents of liberty don’t want to sully their ideology with a “Marxist” methodology.
⁷

But as I have demonstrated in my trilogy, especially in
Total Freedom
, it is
Aristotle
,
not
Hegel or Marx, who is the “fountainhead” of a genuinely dialectical approach to social inquiry. Ultimately, my work bolsters Rand’s self-image as an
essentially
Aristotelian and radical thinker. In doing so, my work challenges our notion of what it means to be Aristotelian—and radical.

I am cognizant that my use of the word “dialectics” to describe the “art of
context
-keeping”—as a vital aspect of Rand’s approach to both analyzing problems and proposing highly original, often startling solutions—is controversial. My hypothesis—in this book and in the two additional essays that now apear as appendices I and II of this expanded second edition—that Rand learned this method from her Russian teachers has generated as much controversy. Rand named
N. O. Lossky
as her first philosophy professor. Questions of the potential
methodological
impact on Rand that Lossky and her other Russian teachers may have had, and the potential discrepancies between Rand’s own recollections with regard to Lossky and the historical record, were all first raised in
Russian Radical
. These issues, nearly twenty years after they were raised, have resulted in Rand’s prospective “authorized” biographer arguing that Rand’s recollections were mistaken. In my view, however, this turn in historical interpretation is itself deeply problematic. I discuss these issues in a new essay, which appears as
appendix III
, “
A Challenge to
Russian Radical
—and Ayn Rand.”

I am genuinely excited that the Pennsylvania State University Press has enabled me to practice what I dialectically preach: placing
Russian Radical
and its cousins in the larger context both of my research on
Rand and
of my Dialectics and Liberty trilogy enables me to present readers with a clearer sense of what I have hoped to accomplish.

Thanks to all those who have made this ongoing adventure possible.
⁸

Chris Matthew
Sciabarra

1 July 2013

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This book is the product of many years of research and dialogue. I owe a debt of gratitude to many individuals.

For their constructive comments on my earlier article, “Ayn Rand’s Critique of Ideology”: Walter Block, the late Roy Childs, Douglas Den Uyl, Howard Dickman, Antony Flew, Jeff Friedman, Robert Hessen, Robert Hollinger, Greg Johnson, Don Lavoie, Eric Mack, and Wallace Matson.

For aiding my historical research: N. O. Lossky’s sons Boris and Andrew, and grandson Nicholas; Brian Boyd; Helene Sikorski, sister of the late Vladimir Nabokov; Father Makarios Rigo; the late dean Father John Meyendorff and librarian Eleana Silk, of St. Vladimir’s Orthodox Theological Seminary; Bernice Rosenthal; James McClelland; and George Kline. Professors Kline and Rosenthal were also kind enough to share their meticulous comments on sections of this book. Special thanks to Robin Katz and Irina Kushnerik for their translations of letters and historical documents.

My acknowledgments also to the Ayn Rand Institute, Lectures on Objectivism, and Second Renaissance Books for giving me the opportunity to purchase and lease materials, including hundreds of hours of audio and video lectures by Ayn Rand and other Objectivists, and to Leonard Peikoff, Diane LeMont, and the Estate of Ayn Rand for timely correspondence on several issues of historical and legal significance to the current project.

For their financial and moral support: the Earhart Foundation, including David Kennedy and Antony Sullivan, and William O’Boyle and the Institute for Humane Studies, including Walter Grinder, Leonard Liggio, Jeremy Shearmur, and Chris Blundell.

For his conviction, perseverance, and belief in the importance of my work: Sandy Thatcher. For her assistance in the preparation of this book, Cherene Holland. For their painstaking copyediting and proofreading efforts: Andrew B. Lewis and Kerime Toksu. For their marketing efforts, Lisa Bayer, Alison Reeves, and Karen Walker. For the first edition jacket design, Steve Kress, and the second expanded edition, from re-conception to design to editing to production, the Penn State Press family: Patrick Alexander, Patty Mitchell, John P. Morris, Jennifer Norton, Robert Turchick, and Tony Sanfilippo.

For giving me the opportunity to interact with many scholars and students in an electronic forum: Svein Olav Nyberg’s Hegel study group; Paul Vixie’s “Objectivist” study group; and Jimmy Wales’s “Moderated Discussion of Objectivist Philosophy.”

Thanks also to David Kelley and the Institute for Objectivist Studies (now The Atlas Society) for sponsoring a 1993 colloquium on my book, which elicited helpful comments from Debra Cermele, Roger Donway, Elisa George, Laurence Gould, Karen Reedstrom, Joan Kennedy Taylor, Francisco Villalobos, and Michael Young. Thanks to Donald Heath and Jamie Dorrian for their assistance and delightful demeanor no matter how many times I interrupted them.

Thanks also to Ed Crane and David Boaz of the Cato Institute; Andrea Rich of Laissez-Faire Books; Ralph Volpicella and the Mil-Rite Printing staff; Angela Carannante, Lorraine DaTello, Nadine Goldstein, Michael Lipner, Ron Mangano, Mary Morse, and Kathy Sharp from New Dorp High School; the late James Bennett; Kathy Lendech and Turner Entertainment Company, and the folks at Robert’s One-Hour Photo; my New York University friends and colleagues, including Steve Faulkner, Farhad Kazemi, Kenneth King, Marilyn LaPorte, Richard Randall, Mario Rizzo, and Gisbert Flanz and Bertell Ollman, both of whom have greatly influenced my approach to political theory; Mary Toledo of the Reason Foundation; Barbara Branden, for her constructive comments and guidance; Nathaniel Branden for his insightful comments and for sharing
The Six Pillars of Self-Esteem
prior to its publication; Joe Cellantano; William Dale; John and Marsha Enright; Oz Garcia; Scott Gordon; Mike Hardy; Don Hauptman; Howard Kainz; Irfan Khawaja; Gema LaBoccetta; Robert McKenzie; E. Frederic Mirer; Gerard Power; David Ross; and Tim Starr.

For commenting on this manuscript in whole or in part: the late Bill Bradford, Robert L. Campbell, the late John Hospers, Roderick T. Long, Tibor Machan, Victor and Susan Niederhoffer, David Oyerly, Peter Saint-Andre, David Ramsay Steele, the late George Walsh, Charles Wieder, and several anonymous readers. An earlier draft of this book was reviewed by Allan Gotthelf. Though Professor Gotthelf strongly disagrees with my arguments concerning the sources and dialectical character of Ayn Rand’s thought, my final presentation benefited nonetheless from his helpful criticism.

I owe a very special debt of gratitude to seven people: Kathleen Rand, for her loyal support; Stephen Cox and Douglas Rasmussen, for their friendship and long-term support of, and critical commentary on, my work; Murray Franck, for his comments, indispensable legal advice, and friendship; and Roger E. Bissell, Michelle Marder Kamhi, and Louis Torres, for their friendship and encouragement of my efforts in countless ways.

Thanks also to so many others too numerous to mention, who helped me materially and spiritually; to my aunts, uncles, cousins, and friends, and also, to my immediate family, all of whom have been a source of profound personal support, especially my late mother, Ann; my late father, Sal; my late Uncle Sam; my sister, Elizabeth; my brother, Carl; my sister-in-law, Joanne; Pamela Bolen; Matthew Cappabianca; Mark Cwern; the late Michelle Ely; Annette Memon; Hiromi Shinya; Michael Southern; Elaine Thompson; Peter Vigliarolo; Richard C. Williams and Dante the cat; and my late dog Blondie, who, during some of my most difficult days, gave me firsthand evidence of the “Muttnik Principle” in action.

In acknowledging the above parties, I do not mean to suggest their implicit or explicit endorsement of any of the ideas herein expressed. What appears in this book is my own interpretation of Ayn Rand’s legacy and philosophy, for which I take full responsibility. I do not speak for a group or a movement, but only for myself.

INTRODUCTION

Ayn
Rand
is one of the most widely read philosophers of the twentieth century. Yet despite the sale of nearly thirty million copies of her works, and their translation into many languages (Landrum 1994, 302),
¹
there have been few book-length, scholarly examinations of her thought. This is hardly surprising since academics have often dismissed her “Objectivist” ideas as “pop” philosophy.
²
As a best-selling novelist, a controversial, flamboyant polemicist, and a woman in a male-dominated profession, Rand remained outside the academy throughout her life. Her works had inspired passionate responses that echo the uncompromising nature of her moral vision. In many cases, her audiences were either cultish in their devotion or savage in their attacks. The left was infuriated by her anticommunist, procapitalist politics, whereas the right was disgusted by her atheism and civil libertarianism.

Since her death in 1982, interest in her thought has not abated. Respondents to a joint
Library of Congress
–Book of the Month Club survey of “lifetime reading habits” indicated that
Atlas Shrugged
was second only to the
Bible
in its significant impact on their lives.
³
Rand’s
influence
on American political thought has been acknowledged by Martin
Anderson
, Reagan’s chief domestic and economic adviser; Hillary Rodham
Clinton
;
Alan Greenspan
, former chairman of the Federal Reserve; John Hospers, philosopher and one-time
Libertarian
Party presidential candidate; perennial GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul; Charles Murray, author of
Losing Ground;
Robert Nozick
, Harvard philosopher and National Book Award winner; and Clarence Thomas, associate justice of the Supreme Court. Most important, there has been a steady growth in Rand scholarship. In the past decade, a number of collections of her writings were published for the first time, as were several studies of her career and impact.
⁴
The number of reference guides and journals dedicated to the examination of Objectivist ideas continues to grow.
⁵
Discussions of her thought and excerpts from her essays appear regularly in journals and college textbooks.
⁶
In addition, several professional scholarly organizations have been founded to promote the serious study of Rand’s
philosophy
.
⁷
A new generation of thinkers schooled in the Objectiv-ist, classical liberal, and libertarian traditions has extended and refined the Randian legacy. They include Leonard Peikoff, heir to the Estate of Ayn Rand,
who continues to lecture and write on
Objectivism
; Nathaniel Branden, who despite his separation from Rand in 1968, continues to develop the interconnections between neo-Objectivist philosophy and psychology; David Kelley, who has presented a sophisticated realist theory of perception based largely on Rand’s epistemological contributions;
Douglas Den Uyl
and Douglas Rasmussen, who have combined Randian and Aristotelian insights in their own unique defense of a free society; and
Tibor Machan
, whose many books reflect a deep appreciation of Rand’s philosophy.