Alvin Toffler 1964 Playboy Interview IV

 
 

1964 Toffler Playboy Interview with Ayn Rand
*******************************************
Part IV

 
 

Playboy Interview: Ayn Rand www.playboy.com /articles/playboy-interview-ayn-rand
This interview originally ran in our March 1964 issue.

The interview between Alvin Toffler and Ayn Rand continues with the fourth and last segment
of their commentary where they discuss sacrifice, writing and literature, government and politics.

 
 

****************************************************

 
 
 
 
(Alvin Toffler)   Throughout your work, you argue that the way in which the contemporary world is organized, even in the capitalist countries, submerges the individual and stifles initiative. In Atlas Shrugged, John Galt leads a strike of the men of the mind—which results in the collapse of the collectivist society around them. Do you think the time has come for the artists, intellectuals and creative businessmen of today to withdraw their talents from society in this way?


(Ayn Rand)   No, not yet. But before I explain, I must correct one part of your question. What we have today is not a capitalist society, but a mixed economy—that is, a mixture of freedom and controls, which, by the presently dominant trend, is moving toward dictatorship. The action in Atlas Shrugged takes place at a time when society has reached the stage of dictatorship. When and if this happens, that will be the time to go on strike, but not until then.



(Lone Cypress Workshop)   Not only dictatorship, but we are back to the issues of black and white. Even in Atlas Shrugged, all of the people that Galt was able to convince to join the ‘strike’ could not have all been avowed and legitimate objectivists. It would have covered the whole gamut of perspectives from A to Z. Perhaps those he attracted with his narrative were intensely interested in his intent, but 100%? I don’t think so, but even that leaves a lot to be desired as to motivation and incentive. It would always be a matter of degree and interpretation, which leaves us mired in a reality of grey, with rarely any black or white available. This creates no controversy for me, but for Rand, it would be nice to understand how she deals with the ‘almost-on-board’, and the intensely interested, but not the ‘converted’. Isn’t that human nature?


(Alvin Toffler)   What do you mean by dictatorship? How would you define it?


(Ayn Rand)   A dictatorship is a country that does not recognize individual rights, whose government holds total, unlimited power over men.



(Lone Cypress Workshop)   That tells you what to do, and besides deflecting dissention, is not interested in what one might ‘wish’ to do.


(AT)   What is the dividing line, by your definition, between a mixed economy and a dictatorship?


(Ayn Rand)   A dictatorship has four characteristics: one-party rule, executions without trial for political offenses, expropriation or nationalization of private property, and censorship. Above all, this last. So long as men can speak and write freely, so long as there is no censorship, they still have a chance to reform their society or to put it on a better road. When censorship is imposed, that is the sign that men should go on strike intellectually, by which I mean, should not cooperate with the social system in any way whatever.



(LCW)   The primary concern being, that by the time the government becomes a bona fide dictatorship, is it not already too late to do anything about it? There is no vote (one-party rule), and many who have disagreed would have been executed by now. The loss of personal property (nationalization) removes the distinction of being a businessman from the table, and there is no one left to criticize or even record what is going on, and certainly not the right to disseminate anything that would be detrimental to the dictatorship itself. It would seem that the strike needs to happen well before all of this occurs. Even in Atlas Shrugged, with the oppressive control that was being wielded on businessmen and individuals alike, it had not reached the minimum levels that she depicts for the strike to begin. I find it somewhat contradictory.

As bad as it may have seemed at the time Atlas Shrugged was written, there was no single-party rule, although this seems to be the direction it is going today, fifty years into the future. There were no executions then or now, at least as far as I know, although the ability to cancel an individual and to literally destroy a career and a lifetime of work with little or no effort, and certainly with an absence of evidence against them, is now commonplace. Is it censorship only when imposed by a government, but what is the difference when the majority of media outlets are ‘voluntarily’ well ensconced in a self-contained bubble, whether under the sway of government or not? If not outright nationalization, the stifling regulation imposed by an illegitimate and oppressive government does seem to suggest a de facto scenario. I would say that it is a difference without a distinction.


(AT)   Short of such a strike, what do you believe ought to be done to bring about the societal changes you deem desirable?


(Ayn Rand)   It is ideas that determine social trends that create or destroy social systems. Therefore, the right ideas, the right philosophy, should be advocated and spread. The disasters of the modern world, including the destruction of capitalism, were caused by the altruist-collectivist philosophy. It is altruism that men should reject.



(LCW)   Even knowing this beforehand, how does one persuade a majority of the population to go against that which they seemingly have agreed to accept as appropriate? This refutation itself is in response to the overwhelming manipulation and intimidation exhibited by those forces in opposition to Rand and objectivism. I see no dramatic change in the point of view adopted by the population. Objectivism may be the answer, but without a significant following, it seems we can do nothing but wait for the paradigm to change on its own? Is this even possible? Altruism enjoys a powerful acceptance within the social environment. How can this be averted?


(AT)   And how would you define altruism?


(Ayn Rand)   It is a moral system which holds that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the sole justification of his existence, and that self-sacrifice is his highest moral duty, value and virtue. This is the moral base of collectivism, of all dictatorships. In order to seek freedom and capitalism, men need a nonmystical, nonaltruistic, rational code of ethics—a morality which holds that man is not a sacrificial animal, that he has the right to exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others, nor others to himself. In other words, what is desperately needed today is the ethics of Objectivism.



(LCW)   This very well may be the case, and she articulates the issue quite skillfully throughout the body of her work. But that is not nearly enough. How does one champion the ethics of objectivism when the established religions and collectivist movements already have removed civics, morality, ethics, and the very existence of right and wrong from the intellectual and philosophical educational paradigm?


(AT)   Then what you are saying is that to achieve these changes one must use essentially educational or propagandistic methods?


(Ayn Rand)   Yes, of course.



(LCW)   How does one do this when the entirety of the political power already controls education, and directs most of the propaganda that exists? Is this not wishful thinking? Is this practical or a legitimate expectation for the ordinary individual to hope to achieve? And is the concept of propaganda not indicative or at least suggestive of something devious and misleading in an attempt to sway opinion, much the same as indoctrination? She may think it an absolute necessity, but is it not also an absolute possibility that it will never happen? I am not sure that I agree with the whole concept. We must educate and persuade, but should it not be from a moral and ethical perspective, and should we devolve to the level of those we disagree with? There has to be a better way.

Aren’t the collectivist and liberal movements much more involved in education and propaganda venues and systems than those we might term objectivist? By their very nature, objectivists are independent and individual. Is this conducive to creating change? There is an anarchistic tendency within the independent and the individual, the objectivist. Is this attempt not akin to herding cats?


(AT)   What do you think of your antagonists' contention that the moral and political principles of Objectivism place you outside the mainstream of American thought?



(LCW)   I think that this is a concept difficult to refute. Of course they do. By any definition, objectivism is not a component, at least not right now, of mainstream America or even of the population itself. Perhaps it should be, and maybe even will be in time, but that is highly arguable and while objectivism may lend itself to initiating change, can it sustain it and bring it to the level where it can compete with an ideology that already controls the narrative, and ultimately, the resources, to make those changes? I would tend to think that probability is not in our favor.


(Ayn Rand)   I don’t acknowledge or recognize such a concept as a “mainstream of thought.” That might be appropriate to a dictatorship, to a collectivist society in which thought is controlled and in which there exists a collective mainstream—of slogans, not of thought. There is no such thing in America. There never was.



(LCW)   So how does one confront this ‘mainstream’ if objectivism does not lend itself to being mainstream in any real sense? Is this not a fundamental weakness in libertarianism, objectivism, and anarchism, where fully functional individuals, intellectually and philosophically, simply don’t ‘collectivize’ and come together for common causes ‘except’ in cases where reason and deep contemplation point them in the same direction? The sad fact is that this takes time, whereas the collectivist needs only emotionalism to rally the troops to their objectives. In the time it takes to mobilize a hundred objectivists, the collectivist can raise a force of thousands. Therefore, the end result seems to be inevitable and incontrovertible.


(Ayn Rand)   However, I have heard that expression used for the purpose of barring from public communication any innovator, any nonconformist, anyone who has anything original to offer. I am an innovator. This is a term of distinction, a term of honor, rather than something to hide or apologize for. Anyone who has new or valuable ideas to offer stands outside the intellectual status quo. But the status quo is not a stream, let alone a “mainstream.” It is a stagnant swamp. It is the innovators who carry mankind forward.



(LCW)   In a collectivist paradigm, would they not be the first to be ‘sacrificed’ to the greater good? Whether they wished it or not? Would the innovators not be anathema to the collectivist goals and therefore the greatest threat that would need removal? How does one confront and combat such a scenario?


(AT)   Do you believe that Objectivism as a philosophy will eventually sweep the world?



(LCW)   Why are you even asking such a question? I was quite impressed as this started with the relevance and focus of the questions asked, but find a real deterioration to find ourselves at this point. A philosopher does not think in terms of their philosophy ‘sweeping’ the world. That is left to politicians, opportunists, and ideologues. Philosophies are based on hard work and even harder thought to define and determine the concepts that hold value and substance for those individuals investigating the philosophy. The question is subjective and literally without any chance of a reasonable response.


(Ayn Rand)   Nobody can answer a question of that kind. Men have free will. There is no guarantee that they will choose to be rational, at any one time or in any one generation. Nor is it necessary for a philosophy to “sweep the world.” If you ask the question in a somewhat different form, if you say, do I think that Objectivism will be the philosophy of the future, I would say yes, but with this qualification: If men turn to reason, if they are not destroyed by dictatorship and precipitated into another Dark Ages, if men remain free long enough to have time to think, then Objectivism is the philosophy they will accept.



(LCW)   The one common denominator is the presence of ‘freedom’ which already is tenuous at best. Is there any alternative that allows objectivism to grasp ascendancy without the presence of freedom as a basic aspect of the paradigm? I would say absolutely not. Freedom will disappear long before objectivism does. It might be remembered for some time, but without freedom it will recede and dissolve before our very eyes.


(AT)   Why?


(Ayn Rand)   In any historical period when men were free, it has always been the most rational philosophy that won. It is from this perspective that I would say, yes, Objectivism will win. But there is no guarantee, no predetermined necessity about it.



(LCW)   My interpretation of this statement is that objectivism will win if there is a fair and even playing field. Then reason will win, but if there is coercion and oppression, manipulation and intimidation, then the chances are greatly reduced. Freedom is instrumental in the resolution, and without it, the whole idea of force will win by default. Those willing to use the absence of reason and morality to compete will always have the upper hand.

Does this mean objectivism is doomed to failure? It may seem that way at times, but one never knows. It is history that shows us violence and hatred are a formidable tandem. They rarely hold sway indefinitely, but while they do, the incidence of pain and suffering, death and destruction, are the norm until there is nothing left to scavenge. Then we wait to see what else may rise from the ashes of destruction, like the proverbial phoenix, and begin the process once again. It may well be inevitable that this will continue to be the norm, until it isn’t.

We can only hope, and work towards our goals until we are unable to continue. Somewhat fatalistic, but isn’t that the only thing that life has provided us since the beginning of man? It will probably remain so for quite some time.


(AT)   You are sharply critical of the world as you see it today, and your books offer radical proposals for changing not merely the shape of society, but the very way in which most men work, think and love. Are you optimistic about man’s future?



(LCW)   What a difficult question. Being an objectivist makes me optimistic for the future, even if not my own future. As an idealist, I see only the most beneficial conclusions as desirable and even possible, but as a realist, I see the incidence of negative influences to be the driving force of our species, even when they end up losing. So much hurt, so much pain, so much wasted time and effort, so many souls lost to what end? I just don’t know.

It is very difficult to be optimistic in the midst of so much chaos and evil. Resistance may be futile, but mankind seems to relish the idea of confrontation and challenge, and has, so far, been successful in the drive to improve and learn and grow. It would certainly be a nice conclusion to see the potential of man realized, and to see the diversity of many living and growing as a single entity. I think at that time, if it happens, man may actually go out and fill the universe with his knowledge and his intellect. It would be so cool if that paradigm was driven by the concepts contained in objectivism. I would be greatly surprised if it were collectivism instead.


(Ayn Rand)   Yes, I am optimistic. Collectivism, as an intellectual power and a moral ideal, is dead. But freedom and individualism, and their political expression, capitalism, have not yet been discovered. I think men will have time to discover them. It is significant that the dying collectivist philosophy of today has produced nothing but a cult of depravity, impotence and despair. Look at modern art and literature with their image of man as a helpless, mindless creature doomed to failure, frustration and destruction. This may be the collectivists' psychological confession, but it is not an image of man. If it were, we would never have risen from the cave. But we did. Look around you and look at history. You will see the achievements of man’s mind. You will see man’s unlimited potentiality for greatness, and the faculty that makes it possible. You will see that man is not a helpless monster by nature, but he becomes one when he discards that faculty: his mind.

And if you ask me, what is greatness? – I will answer, it is the capacity to live by the three fundamental values of John Galt: reason, purpose, and self-esteem.



(LCW)   I am not sure if truer words have ever been spoken.

To make the point one more time. These are not the words of someone who does not wish the best for every human being that exists. They are meant to give direction and inspiration towards something that can only benefit each and every one of us. Mutual agreement towards mutual benefit. The desire that everyone reaches some level of ability where they can enjoy some modicum of enjoyment and peace. Nowhere in objectivism is there the hatred of the poor or the simple, and no one can provide evidence to that end.

I have listened to people that are full of hate, all my life. They do not talk of anything but that hatred, it is all-consuming and obliterates everything else of value and substance in their lives. I see and hear none of this in the words of Ayn Rand or the philosophy of objectivism. Is she perfection? Of course not, not even close, and neither am I, and neither are you. But we strive to be so, even as we know that the probability approaches zero.

She is trying to understand, and she shares so much with the rest of us, and it is not intended for the rich to gain even more riches, but for each of us to achieve whatever greatness exists within us. Ironically, it is for each to determine and develop their own abilities and for each to receive whatever their need, dependent on those abilities, but there is nothing that demands that this need to alleviate the pain and suffering of others need come from other individuals, and certainly not through the use of force or oppression. It is up to the individuals themselves, and those other individuals around them who wish to help, based on their own determinations as to need and their ability to help, to the degree that the individual decides, based on their own, personal situation in this dance we call life. There can be, and should not be, any coercive measures involved in these decisions. It has to be based on the freedom to exercise their own free will, and to come to decisions based on voluntary agreement to cooperate and be a part of the solution. Anything else invalidates the action and the intent.

We need to stop making demands on those that simply have more than the rest of us and find a way to deserve and earn those things that we truly deserve. Rand, through objectivism, tells us to help others to the degree that we can, with what we believe we can spare, based on our own self-determinations, and no one else. No one else but only what we believe deeply, and morally, and ethically, with character and integrity to exhibit and illustrate the kind of people we are. Rand suggests these things, but those who vilify and condemn her, what do they do in comparison to Ayn Rand? What do they offer in the resolution of this issue? Why is there a need to coerce other people to replace one’s own obligation, responsibility, and culpability? No one is trying to stop anyone else from being charitable, compassionate, kind, or empathetic. Be the person that you wish to be. Be the best person that you can be. Go out and change the world. No one else can or will do it for you. No one should. Be a mentor, be an example that you can be proud of. Be an individual, be a human being. Be a good one.


 
 

****************************************************

 
 

(LCW)   This concludes our four-part conversation between Alvin Toffler and Ayn Rand (and myself) about objectivism and how it might affect us in our lives. I found it refreshing to be able to hear Rand, in her own words, define and explain her philosophy, and not a biased and ignorant interpretation from those that obviously disagree, but do not have the courage to refute and reasonably argue and reflect on all the information and insight that she has shared with us. I have studied virtually all of her work but was not aware of this interview, which happened when I was eleven years old, still years away from my first introduction to her fiction. The rest is history, a lifelong fascination and captivation of what I perceive to be one of the greatest minds I have ever explored. To each their own. I acknowledge her influence and thank her profusely for what she has brought to my own philosophical evolution.

Not Toffler specifically, he was reasonably fair and open-minded with most of his questions. My intent with this set of review essays was to give a more objective and unambiguous perspective on Rand herself, as well as her philosophy. I hope that this was interesting as well as instructive for those who have an interest in an 'uncoated' version of her reality.

Take the time to think about the concepts that she talked about. There is enough information that is available online and in bookstores as well as on YouTube, that can expand information and give a first-hand perspective, unfiltered, of her positions, illustrating her passion and her insight into the human condition, and just possibly, a way for anyone and everyone to gain some benefit from what is contained within her words.

My intent is to develop any number of essays to talk about the issues of objectivism in the future, from the fundamental concept of rational self-interest, her belief in objective perception, to such ideas as the individuals' place in society and what it means to live through 50 years as an objectivist myself.

I hope that those of you who visited to read were able to take away something of value and substance from the interaction. I certainly hope so. I find her an immensely fascinating personality. At times difficult and frustrating, but with an intensity of her own vision and its value. While we have disagreed with many things over the years, I acknowledge her influence on much of my deliberations, good or bad, and the conclusions gleaned from that relationship.

Thank you, Ayn. I truly and deeply appreciate it.


LCW