Key ideas: Written in 1946. “Now, why do Americans espouse the Kremlin’s cause in spite of books like Victor Kravchenko’s? Because it’s books like Kravchenko’s that make them do it.” (Ayn Rand)
To Burt MacBride, senior editor at Reader’s Digest
July 30, 1946
Dear Burt MacBride:
I am glad you liked Anthem, but I don’t agree with you when you say that it “cannot hope to influence many people.” It hopes to do so and will. Have you noticed what its big brother has done through the same method?
Now to your $64 question.
You write: “Answer me this one: Why in the name of all that’s holy do supposedly intelligent Americans espouse the Kremlin’s cause, when there’s such damning evidence of Communism’s completely vicious character as Kravchenko’s book?”
That’s a question right up my alley.
The answer is: because most people believe that Communism is a moral ideal. They do not call it Communism; they call it altruism. But the essence is the same; one is the logical consequence of the other.
Altruism preaches self-sacrifice; the idea that man must live for others and place others above self. Most people, including our conservatives, have now accepted this as their moral credo. But on such a basis a capitalistic free-enterprise society cannot continue to exist.
Now, why do Americans espouse the Kremlin’s cause in spite of books like Victor Kravchenko’s [I Chose Freedom: The Personal and Political Life of a Soviet Official]? Because it’s books like Kravchenko’s that make them do it. Kravchenko denounces Stalin—not Communism. Kravchenko still believes in Communism and still preaches it as a noble ideal. So does Barmine. So do all the current denouncers of Soviet Russia. That is why their books have no effect—or rather, the only effect they do have is to make more converts for Communism.
Joe Zilch is much more logical than these authors. Here’s what he tells himself while reading their books:
“If it’s moral to sacrifice yourself, why isn’t it moral to sacrifice others for an ideal? What if Stalin did slaughter million? It’s for the sake of humanity, of the poor, of the underdog—and everybody tells me that sacrifice is the first law of virtue. What if Stalin cheats and lies? It’s for the sake of the cause. What if the Communists have achieved nothing but misery so far? Their ideal is so noble that it’s not easy to achieve. It’s men’s selfishness that hampers them. Give them time—they’ll achieve it. What if they’ve sacrificed a whole nation of 170 million? It’s for the sake of the happiness of many more millions in the future generations. If it’s good to sacrifice one man for the sake of ten others, why is it bad to sacrifice 170 million men for the sake of ten times that number of others in the future? What if Commissars live in luxury at the expense of terrorized slave labor? It’s their reward for their efforts, since they’re working for an unselfish cause, while the rich in our own country enjoy luxuries just for their own private selfish sake.”
That’s what Joe Zilch is thinking. And on the premise of an altruistic morality—Joe Zilch is right.
Once men have accepted the idea of self-sacrifice as good, they have accepted the idea of sacrificing others, too. They have accepted the idea of man’s immolation as proper-just as they accepted it in the days of the ancient human sacrifices to Moloch. Then they are impervious to the spectacle or recital of any horrors. They read Kravchenko, they shrug and say: “So what? The noble cause is worth it.”
Facts per se are meaningless, unless we draw conclusions from them and learn something. A mere recital of facts is useless. What is Kravchenko’s book? A catalogue of facts about Soviet Russia. They are horrible facts—but the conclusion he draws from them and passes on to his reader is that Communism is good in principle. The reader will accept his facts, believe them to be true—and still remain a Communist sympathizer. The net result is only that the reader might dislike Soviet Russia, but will continue to advocate Communism for America, claiming that “our” brand of Communism will be different and better than the Russian brand; we’ll get it wholesale.
Besides, Americans are not shocked any longer by descriptions of a whole country in abject poverty. They all scramble for material prosperity here, but most of them do it guiltily, because they have been taught that a desire for wealth is immoral. So their struggle for material advantages ceases to be an honest endeavor and becomes a dirty racket. Notice the unconscionable greed of pressure groups for gain at public expense. This is always the result when men accept the idea that the honest, proper, capitalistic method of working for private profit is evil. Men are then still faced by the fact that they must make a living, that is, make money, but since it’s evil in any form, they feel that anything goes.
When man’s best virtues—ambition, energy, ingenuity, independence, and the enjoyment of their rewards—are declared to be sins, he has no choice but to turn to depravity.
The free-enterpriser works for what he gets. The modern American collectivist grabs what he can get away with. And the dirtier he becomes in his methods, the guiltier he feels; so he despises all wealth in his heart and thinks longingly of Communism, to ease his own conscience. He ceases to believe that material prosperity is good or desirable. Not prosperity, but self-sacrifice is noble—the altruists tell him; not enjoyment, but suffering. So he begins to despise the United States, precisely because it’s prosperous, and to admire Soviet Russia, precisely because it’s a land of filth, disease, misery, starvation—and sacrifice. If sacrifice is redemption, he reasons, then surely a country that has been brought down to such an unspeakable state and bears it, must be a virtuous country.
That is why true and factual books about the horrors of Soviet Russia are and will continue to be ineffectual. That is why they will not cure Americans of sympathy for the Kremlin, nor check the trend toward collectivism in America. Facts alone won’t do it. Only the proper philosophy derived from the facts, will. No, Joe Zilch is not stupid. He absorbs just exactly what he’s being taught. He understands his teachers well—too well. It’s his teachers who are committing a dreadful crime, and the responsibility for the present world tragedy is theirs, not his.