Alvin Toffler 1964 Playboy Interview I

 
 

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

 
 

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

Ayn Rand, an intense, angry young woman of 58, is among the most outspoken – and important– intellectual voices in America today. She is the author of what is perhaps the most fiercely damned and admired best seller of the decade: Atlas Shrugged, which has sold 1,200,000 copies since its publication six years ago, and has become one of the most talked-about novels in the country. Ayn Rand discussion clubs dot college campuses. Professors debate her ideas in their classrooms. More than 2,500 people in 30 cities from New York to Los Angeles attend courses given by the Nathaniel Branden Institute, in which they listen to live speakers and taped lectures expounding the principles set forth in the book.

Thousands more subscribe to The Objectivist Newsletter, a monthly publication in which Miss Rand and her associates comment on everything from economics to aesthetics. And sales of her previous best seller, The Fountainhead, have climbed to almost the 2,000,000 mark.

That any novel should set off such a chain reaction is unusual; that Atlas Shrugged has done so is astonishing. For the book, a panoramic novel about what happens when the “men of the mind” go on strike, is 1168 pages long. It is filled with lengthy, sometimes complex philosophical passages; and it is brimming with as many explosively unpopular ideas as Ayn Rand herself. Despite this success, the literary establishment considers her an outsider. Almost to a man, critics have either ignored or denounced the book. She is an exile among philosophers, too, although Atlas is as much a work of philosophy as it is a novel. Liberals glower at the very mention of her name; but conservatives, too, swallow hard when she begins to speak. For Ayn Rand, whether anyone likes it or not, is sui generis: indubitably, irrevocably, intransigently individual. She detests the drift of modern American society: She doesn’t like its politics, its economics, its attitudes toward sex, women, business, art or religion. In short, she declares, with unblinking immodesty, “I am challenging the cultural tradition of two-and-a-half-thousand years.” She means it.

A dark-haired, woman with penetrating brown eyes and a computer-quick mind, Ayn (rhymes with mine) Rand was born to the family of a small businessman in St. Petersburg, Russia, where she lived through the Soviet Revolution. She attended the University of Leningrad, loathing communism and its philosophy. In 1926 she managed to leave the U.S.S.R., stayed for a few months with distant relatives in Chicago, then moved on to Hollywood. She had always wanted to be a writer. Since her command of English was somewhat less than adequate for writing fiction, she found a job preparing outlines for silent movies, as she went about mastering her new language. Between bouts of unemployment, she worked as a movie extra, waitress, newspaper subscription salesgirl and studio wardrobe-department clerk.

Then, in 1936, she completed her first novel, We the Living —an attack on totalitarianism, set in Soviet Russia—which drew little notice. Two years later she finished Anthem, a short novel about a society in which the word “I” has been extirpated in favor of the collectivist “we.” It was not until five years and twelve publishers' rejections later that her first commercially successful book, The Fountainhead, appeared; the story of an architect’s battle for his own individuality, it became a national best seller, and was later made into a movie.

For nearly a decade after that, Miss Rand struggled to write Atlas Shrugged, which she views not merely as a novel, but as the crystallization of a philosophy aimed at nothing less than reversing the entire direction of change in America—turning society toward a stale of pure laissez-faire capitalism, even purer than that which existed during the 19th Century. But her philosophy—which she calls “Objectivism"— encompasses more than economics or politics: Primarily, it sets forth a new kind of ethics, which she defines as a morality of rational self-interest.

Today, Ayn Rand lives in a modest apartment in the East Thirties of Manhattan with her artist husband, Frank O'Connor. She is planning another novel and working on a long-range nonfiction project—a book on epistemology, the theory of knowledge. Though her progress on both projects is interrupted by a demanding schedule of speaking engagements around the country, most of her working hours, and her considerable energies, are spent in the small blue-green study where she does most of her writing—entirely in longhand.

In a series of intellectually electric conversations with Playboy’s interviewer, Alvin Toffler, Miss Rand spoke clearly and urgently about her work and her views. Answering question after question with a clipped, even delivery, her deep voice edged with a Russian accent, she paused only long enough between words to puff on cigarettes held in a blue-and-silver holder (a gift from admirers) engraved with her initials, the names of the three heroes of Atlas Shrugged, and a number of diminutive dollar signs. The dollar sign, in Atlas Shrugged, is the symbol of "free trade and, therefore, of a free mind.”
 
 

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

 

(Lone Cypress Workshop)   The Tofflers seem to be something of an enigma. Fairly radical communists at one point, socialist at another, progressives most of the time, but futurists, which can mean many things to many people. I expected something with much more bias, but I failed to see this materialize in the interview. Perhaps somewhat in the formation of some of the questions as the interview wore on, but I did not see that as detrimental or combative in the context of the interview. He allowed her to speak and discuss her positions without interruption or condescension. I thank him and appreciate anyone who can do that as an interviewer. Unlike so many, it is not the interviewer that is of importance, but the guest speaker.

My own commentary will accompany through the entirety of the interview. I am a self-proclaimed objectivist, but more so because the only other label I could accept would be an independent or an individual. I ask you, what could be more objectivist? I am in sync with Ayn Rand on so many issues and concepts and yet many more find me skeptical and discordant with her own perspectives. I would like to think that is the objective of the philosophy, for individuals to find their own way, and through contemplation and investigation, come to their own decisions, and ultimately their own conclusions. That is my fundamental interpretation of objectivism. Objectivism is not dogma, and it certainly cannot be considered a cult. For those so misinformed, I can only direct you to do your own research into cults, and you will find nothing that even suggests the ideology is anything similar.

This does not mean that individuals cannot create a fantasy around the philosophy, or live in a world that does not supply the minimum requirements for that individual, and they dream of something better, and make the mistake that objectivism is something that it is not. I have no advice for such a person, except to continue to research and explore to find understanding in the life around us.

Objectivism can give insight and direction, and it can suggest concepts to consider as we create and develop our own personal philosophies. Mine is quite in line with objectivism, and yet, can be at great odds on many issues. That is not a weakness of objectivism, but its greatest strength. I will give my support to her commentary when I feel it is appropriate, and will voice my skepticism for the same reasons.

Ayn Rand said at one time, that;

 

If you agree with some tenets of objectivism, but disagree with others, do not call yourself an objectivist;
give proper authorship credit for the parts you agree with – and then indulge in any flights of fancy you wish,
on your own. If you should ask why I take all these precautions, while other philosophers do not,
I shall answer; today – when modern philosophers reject the concepts of reason, existence, reality, logic,
proof, knowledge, integration, system, and regard philosophy as a verb, not a noun
(they are not studying or creating philosophy, that are ‘doing it’)
– mine is the only philosophy system that holds consistency as necessary virtue.

~ Ayn Rand ~

 
 

(LCW)   And I agree with her, but only to a certain point. We disagree on many points, and ironically, she, or at least her words and her philosophy of objectivism, gave me the suggestion and the expectation, that the ‘right’ way to interpret objectivism was that it was up to the individual to self-determine the difference between right and wrong, as well as the determination on why and when and how much to implement in our own lives through our own personal philosophy.

So, everything that I have come to determine is through such a suggestion. I felt free to disagree or agree on whatever possessed the most ‘reason’ and ‘logic’ based on whatever level of ability I might have achieved up to that point in time in my life. This certainly insinuates, to me at least, that there will be no ‘objective’ or ‘unanimous’ agreement between any two individuals in our lifetime. Therefore, no one could possibly agree with everything that was determined by Rand herself, which would infer that she has exactly ‘zero’ objectivists in her camp. Everyone will at some point disagree with something she says, which would negate the value or the relationship to that point.

Does this mean she is hubristic? Possibly so, and to some degree I would say we are all guilty of that at some point or other. But I do find it disturbing, after laying out the concept of self-determination so completely over such a wealth of philosophical ‘product’ it seems irrational to be rejecting me as a fellow objectivist when I have been firmly in her camp, with numerous diversions, for almost fifty years. If I cannot call myself an objectivist, then I am unsure who can do so.

In any case, I find the woman mesmerizing, fascinating, and compelling. What she has to say is consistent and comprehensive. She is possibly the greatest mind of my lifetime, and that is with all the shortcomings I will comment on shortly. And all this against the greatest odds. Anyone who cannot gain something from reading her work, whether fiction or non-fiction, needs to revisit and re-evaluate her work periodically. She has much to share, and most of it is poignant and insightful, and often verges on the profound. But hey, that is just my opinion, a single man with a lifetime of thought and contemplation about the intricacies of life behind him, and Ayn Rand was right there through most of it. I thank her profusely, and will always remember her fondly as my reluctant mentor.

Let us explore the interview between Alvin Toffler, and the person who brought us the concept of objectivism and rational self-interest.

 
 

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

 
 
(Alvin Toffler)   Miss Rand, your novels and essays, especially your controversial best seller, Atlas Shrugged, present a carefully engineered, internally consistent worldview. They are, in effect, the expression of an all-encompassing philosophical system. What do you seek to accomplish with this new philosophy?


(LCW)   I find the question legitimate and probing, but respectful and insightful. A good start, to say the least.


(Ayn Rand)   I seek to provide men – or those who care to think – with an integrated, consistent and rational view of life.


(LCW)   No imperatives here, just an honest summary of intent. Nothing controversial.


(AT)   What are the basic premises of Objectivism? Where does it begin?
 

(Ayn Rand)   It begins with the axiom that existence exists, which means that an objective reality exists independent of any perceiver or of the perceiver’s emotions, feelings, wishes, hopes or fears. Objectivism holds that reason is man’s only means of perceiving reality and his only guide to action. By reason, I mean the faculty, which identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses.


(LCW)   Some of her detractors use this to ridicule her work, calling it primitive, obvious and without value, and yet, many have tried to discern the reality of existence. It is not meant to demand a specific response, but only to, as they say, offer the obvious. Her point being that it is not what we would like it to be, or perhaps subjectively perceive it to be, but it is what it is, and that’s it. Simplistic, yes, but irrelevant, I would tend to say no. we must always present the obvious and the inarguable before delving into the complicated and the nuanced.

I think she slips just the slightest bit by saying reason identifies and integrates the data provided by man’s sense’s, because this does not connote objective perception, but what is integrated through our senses, which fundamentally are subjective, which conflicts with her perspective of an almost absolute objective reality. This is one instance where I have come to disagree with her. Fifty years of investigation has led me to believe that while objective perception is desired, it is much more difficult to determine than she had thought.


(AT)   In Atlas Shrugged your hero, John Galt, declares, “I swear – by my life and my love of it – that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.” How is this related to your basic principles?
 

(Ayn Rand)   Galt’s statement is a dramatized summation of the Objectivist ethics. Any system of ethics is based on and derived, implicitly or explicitly, from a metaphysics. The ethic derived from the metaphysical base of Objectivism holds that, since reason is man’s basic tool of survival, rationality is his highest virtue. To use his mind, to perceive reality and to act accordingly, is man’s moral imperative. The standard of value of the Objectivist ethics is: man’s life—man’s survival qua man—or that which the nature of a rational being requires for his proper survival. The Objectivist ethics, in essence, hold that man exists for his own sake, that the pursuit of his own happiness is his highest moral purpose, that he must not sacrifice himself to others, nor sacrifice others to himself. It is this last that Galt’s statement summarizes.


(LCW)   We should all take note that Galt’s statement is contained within a piece of fiction. An integral suggestion of her philosophy to be sure, but still, fiction. Dramatizations are a part and parcel of literature and fiction. One has to understand and recognize that this drama does not exist in the philosophy itself. It is explained in different terminology, although it is quite similar
.
Life is survival. First and foremost, we have to survive to live a life of value and substance. I see no conflict with others, although, for some reason, many find conflict with her position that man needs to take care of self before even considering the consideration of others, except with very specific exceptions.

I realize that her narrative sounds a bit coarse and maybe ruthless and cold, but it is only the most basic concept that simply has to be so. As soon as these basic conditions are achieved, the individual can begin to make decisions as to others, and there is no directive, no expectation, that other individuals will become disadvantaged by the objectivist behaviour, only that they will have to exist within a hierarchy where the individual is unique and of the utmost value, with all others deriving from that success and ability to share whatever is realized with others, but only to the extent that the original individual deems appropriate.

To sacrifice oneself to others pretty well ensures that there will be no ‘self’ left at all. To survive and exist at least allows for the possibility that the individual will be able to make a decision to help themselves and others in the future.


(AT)   What kind of morality derives from this, in terms of the individual’s behavior?
 

(Ayn Rand)   This is presented in detail in Atlas Shrugged.
 

(AT)   The heroine of Atlas Shrugged was, in your words, “completely incapable of experiencing a feeling of fundamental guilt.” Is any system of morality possible without guilt?
 

(Ayn Rand)   The important word in the statement you quoted is “fundamental.” Fundamental guilt does not mean the ability to judge one’s own actions and regret a wrong action, if one commits it. Fundamental guilt means that man is evil and guilty by nature.
 


(LCW)   I find her answer verges on the profound. To understand what is wrong with the world, to recognize the essence of the conflict with collectivism and objectivism, between liberalism and capitalism, and the fundamental ineptness and corruption of our political system, it is necessary to acknowledge and to comprehend this concept of guilt.

The Jewish community is amusingly accused of using guilt to control the family, while Christianity uses guilt, when they should be using philosophy, to do the same within communities. Collectivism uses guilt and intimidation to control the ‘greater good’ of the ‘many’, but always at the expense of the ‘few’.

Yes, we should all experience guilt when we make a mistake, when we take an action that we know is wrong, and usually hurts someone else in some small or large way. As an example of what objectivism is often accused of, rational self-interest, which is not selfish in the conventional sense, but is something that is inappropriate, when action demeans, diminishes, disadvantages those who struggle with life in general. Which is also not ‘rational’ self-interest. Guilt is regret, but if we act with ethical behaviour and strong basic moral imperatives, then there will be little or no need for guilt. In any case, this kind of self-incrimination is self-administered. It is the coercive guilt placed on the individual by other individuals or groups, who are neither authorized or competent to do so, that is something altogether different. This is what collectivism and religion often does, and why objectivism take such a strong stance against the behaviour.


(AT)   You mean original sin?
 

(Ayn Rand)   Exactly. It is the concept of original sin that my heroine, or I, or any Objectivist, is incapable of accepting or of ever experiencing emotionally. It is the concept of original sin that negates morality. If man is guilty by nature, he has no choice about it. If he has no choice, the issue does not belong in the field of morality.
 


(LCW)   Original sin is the epitome of this fundamental guilt. Guilt by proxy, guilt of the child for the actions of the father or some other relative, for whatever reason. Guilt of the totally innocent to control and direct and oppress the individual that is not culpable for any guilt whatsoever. Completely unacceptable. I reject the acceptance or recognition of guilt for the actions, real or fabricated of anyone else that I may be affiliated with, in any shape or form. No group or person, religion or ideology, can pass guilt onto me, and I can pass nothing of the kind onto them. We are all ultimately obliged to accept only the consequences of our own actions, and nothing else. This makes it difficult for those that cannot prosecute a reasonable argument against an individual, but finds it easier and more convenient to vilify a larger group which implicates the individual by their affiliation with said group, even if they were in disagreement with them, and refused to be a part of whatever transgressions is under discussion. Guilt by association is never a legitimate characterization.

For those that claim choice as one of their mantras, the concept of choice exists in many guises, and freedom demands that choice be available under any and all conditions. Without choice, you only have coercion and oppression, which is what Rand continues to try and explain without cease. The only choices are always between coercion and choice, and coercion is the absence of choice.


(Ayn Rand)   Morality pertains only to the sphere of man’s free will – only to those actions, which are open to his choice.


(LCW)   A bit more difficult to comprehend, but she says the same thing with her words. Morality concerns itself only with the sphere of man’s voluntary actions. Without free will, there can be no choice and therefore it cannot be voluntary. Culpability does not exist, since whatever is done is against what the individual wishes, and without voluntary consent.


(Ayn Rand)   To consider man guilty by nature is a contradiction in terms. My heroine would be capable of experiencing guilt about a specific action. Only, being a woman of high moral stature and self-esteem, she would see to it that she never earned any guilt by her actions. She would act in a totally moral manner and, therefore, would not accept an unearned guilt.
 

(AT)   In Atlas Shrugged, one of your leading characters is asked, “What’s the most depraved type of human being?” His reply is surprising: He doesn’t say a sadist or a murderer or a sex maniac or a dictator; he says, “The man without a purpose.” Yet most people seem to go through their lives without a clearly defined purpose. Do you regard them as depraved?
 

(Ayn Rand)   Yes, to a certain extent.
 

(AT)   Why?
 

(Ayn Rand)   Because that aspect of their character lies at the root of and causes all the evils, which you mentioned in your question. Sadism, dictatorship, any form of evil, is the consequence of a man’s evasion of reality. A consequence of his failure to think. The man without a purpose is a man who drifts at the mercy of random feelings or unidentified urges and is capable of any evil, because he is totally out of control of his own life.


(LCW)   I think that this lies at the root of much of what is misunderstood within objectivism. Many individuals think that the sadist, the dictator, all are thinking, even if they are doing something that is distasteful to others, when Rand is saying that they are not thinking, they are simply reacting on emotion and whim, which she often discusses in her work. If the purpose of their actions is death and destruction and tyranny, it is not a rational thought process and, therefore, is not actually thinking. Anyone can disagree if they so wish, but the relevance of their positions is in doubt, for the same reason. I would like to hear a defensive refutation for these destructive behaviours, but feel it would be insufficient and somewhat irrational in any case.


(Ayn Rand)   In order to be in control of your life, you have to have a purpose—a productive purpose.


(LCW)   The reality that many do not live their lives with a specific purpose, and therefore no productive purpose, and yet seem to live a legitimate life, is inarguable. Whether it is indeed a legitimate life is certainly arguable. How does reason impact an answer to such a question?


(AT)   Weren’t Hitler and Stalin, to name two tyrants, in control of their own lives, and didn’t they have a clear purpose?
 

(Ayn Rand)   Certainly not. Observe that both of them ended as literal psychotics. They were men who lacked self-esteem and, therefore, hated all of existence. Their psychology, in effect, is summarized in Atlas Shrugged by the character of James Taggart. The man who has no purpose, but has to act, acts to destroy others. That is not the same thing as a productive or creative purpose.


(LCW)   I would never make the comparison between James Taggart and Hitler or Stalin. They were capable of something greater than what they actually accomplished. With Taggart, I am not so sure. He was more incompetent and fearful than anything else. There was nothing productive or creative in relation to Taggart. A sad excuse for a human being, much less a tyrant. He had some power with his wealth, but had no real idea what to do with it. He lived for undeserved recognition for things his sister and his father accomplished. Hitler and Stalin wanted to be remembered for their own accomplishments. They believed themselves to be great men, exceptional human beings. They were shown to be less than that. To some degree they were successful in being remembered, but perhaps not as they expected.


(AT)   If a person organizes his life around a single, neatly defined purpose, isn’t he in danger of becoming extremely narrow in his horizons?
 

(Ayn Rand)   Quite the contrary. A central purpose serves to integrate all the other concerns of a man’s life. It establishes the hierarchy, the relative importance, of his values, it saves him from pointless inner conflicts, it permits him to enjoy life on a wide scale and to carry that enjoyment into any area open to his mind; whereas a man without a purpose is lost in chaos. He does not know what his values are. He does not know how to judge. He cannot tell what is or is not important to him, and, therefore, he drifts helplessly at the mercy of any chance stimulus or any whim of the moment. He can enjoy nothing. He spends his life searching for some value, which he will never find.


(LCW)   It sounded like it was a valid question, and yet Rand deftly refuted the assumption. I have always respected her concise and consistent perspectives. She was focused and knew what she believed and what she wanted to communicate. That does not mean she could not be mistaken on many points, but in this case, it is a comprehensive and legitimate point of view.

She envisions a man of values, and one who can relate one action to another, and to the purpose that is the whole. She views him as a heroic figure because he can do these things, and if she is misunderstood, it is because there are so few of these heroes. I think she lived in a reality where she thought they would be the norm in her life, but it will be a long time before they exist as the majority, and not only in works of fiction, but isn’t that what fiction has been about since the beginning of time, before even the advent of paper and books and printing? Always about good versus evil, with the good ultimately victorious and the evil vanquished? Or did she steal those fantasies from others as well?

She was trying to tell a story and to teach us a lesson if we were willing to listen. I was willing, and I began my life full of optimism that these kinds of people exist and will change the world. I tried to be one of these great men. I did not fail miserably, but it was always a struggle, and it didn’t end up like the vision I dreamt of. And yet, I see nothing at all that holds a candle to the light of objectivism and morality and ethics and integrity. Nothing. Certainly not collectivism in any of its forms. Not liberalism. In fact, I often ask for the alternatives, and I am accosted with a deafening silence from those detractors and the opposition to objectivism. Little squeals and squeeks from the socialists and the progressives and the communists, but nothing significant, not practical, not possible in any reality except perhaps in some other work of fiction, or better yet, fantasy and Utopian dreams. Capitalism and objectivism have proven their value and substance over the years, even with the perversions, and corruption, and wealth of opportunists and dictatorial players. But nothing worthwhile, nothing workable, nothing legitimate.
 
 

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

 
 
The interview continues with Part II which should appear shortly in the folder. Feel free to observe and comment. Legitimate and reasonable commentary will be appended to the essay in the future.

LCW