Property Disputes in Ayn Rand's We The Living

This critical analysis observes the difference between literal property disputes and figurative property issues in Ayn Rand's We The Living. This paper is not to be quoted in a formal setting.

“We The Living makes the issue of property rights vivid and vital as no other fiction does. It also shows the formation of a malign status system in a society in which everything is up for grabs, where connections are everything and talent is next to nothing.”

 

Ayn Rand’s We The Living uses the issue of property disputes in the most peculiar way. Whether the property disputes center around housing, food, or one’s love, Rand uses her own personal knowledge to recreate the oppression of Soviet Russia. The characters’ ideas of ownership are degraded to add an important element to the society; all claims to personal goods are temporary and the only thing to be valued is the connections one can make. The marriage of literal property loss, the ideas of a ‘bread lines’ and ‘meal cards’, and the overwhelming destruction of any pure form of love make this novel what it is.

            The most obvious connection between the commentary and the novel comes from its literal meaning. ‘Property rights’ become an issue when Kira and Leo lost their last room. They are not married, so they are entitled to two rooms, but their second room is given to another woman. “She handed to Kira a crumpled scrap of paper with a big official stamp. It was an order from the Gilotdel, giving Citizen Marina Lavrova the right to occupy the room known as the ‘drawing room’ in apartment Number 22” (178). Later in the chapter, Kira discovers that the woman obtained the room because of her connection to Kira’s cousin, Victor. In this society, citizens may not obtain a number of rooms based on salary, but by their government-determined need. This corrupt system proves itself when the homeless Marina acquires Leo and Kira’s room because Victor chooses to report them to the local government. Victor’s betrayal, which will become a recurring happenstance in the novel, is part of this ‘malign status system’ which destroys the characters’ human rights to own property.

Along with literal property loss, a few underlying themes encompass the issue of property rights. Kira’s Aunt Marussia and Vava Milovskaia are both prime examples of how the love of materials can lead to a metaphorical death to the corrupt society. Both characters oppose the society’s ‘shared property’ attitude. As a result from their love for paintings, beauty, and foreign vanities, both characters ‘die’ to themselves. They are perfect foils; they differ in age, status, spirit, but share the same idealism. Marussia loses her life, presumably because of her materialism, and Vava ultimately marries a Party member and moves into a small broom closet. These two characters grasp at the issue of property ownership and show the reader how destructive the love of vanity can be in the Proletariat.

Another prominent motif in We The Living dealing with property rights is the use of symbolism and minor themes at the mention of food and other basic goods. Bread lines serve as a time for the characters to think about the damaging effects of their society; Party cards are symbols of government connections; and sight imagery involving food always highlights the subjugation of talent to networking. Whether Leo, Kira, or Andrei face these issues, Rand casts a similar light on each situation.

Before he gets into the private business, Leo stands at a long bread line, “trembling; a few last convulsions in the depths of extinguished souls; eyes staring with a forlorn hopelessness, a dull horror, a crushed plea” (172). The tone of this passage is very ominous. When each character stands in lines, no matter what for, the mood conveyed to the reader is always reflective of the failures of the Proletariat. Leo cannot afford food so he must rely on government hand outs, a commodity that no one in this novel accepts with a smile. However, even if he had had a student card, a worker’s card, or a Party card, there would have been a similar attitude.

Kira, the student, and Andrei, the Party member, both undergo the same situation. Both statuses, however, are very unstable, up for grabs to whoever can prove the more Proletarian citizen. Kira is kicked out of the Institute, fired from her next job, and Andrei faces multiple purges from the party he loves more than life itself. Personal ownership and rights mean very little when the only thing that matters is who you know and not what you know.

During her escape from the malign society, the food final food imagery of the novel foreshadows her flight’s failure, “she broke a chunk off a stale loaf of bread . . . chewed it slowly, with effort, her jaws moving monotonously, like a machine” (478). When she tries to get the energy to leave, she must revert to eating the same government bread that was appropriated to her. Kira cannot be expected to be free from the USSR when she cannot even flee without eating the bread that they give to her. She does not even own the bread that fuels her escape.

The final and most heart retching element to the property issues in We The Living is the distortion of love in an attempt to live. The love for family, sexual companions, and the state is all contorted into this ball of confusion. By the end of the novel, the society’s influence in the character’s lives even takes away the ‘property rights’ over one’s own soul and love.

The first thread of this distortion is rather simple and the readers can sympathize for these characters. Kira must find a sanatorium for Leo so that he does not die of tuberculosis. She cannot use knowledge to earn money and pay for his treatment so, “it took many weeks of calls, letters, introductions, secretaries and assistants, but she got an appointment with one of Petograd’s most powerful officials” (232). It is simple, she loves Leo so she must give into the Proletariat and seek connections to get him to safety; with this action, she loses the ‘property rights’ to her own free will.

While some distortions of love and ambition can be harmless, Victor’s betrayal is anything but. After giving up his sister to gain better standing in the Party, an official praises Victor, “They are still few, those whose devotion to the State rises above all personal ties of blood and family” (354). The blood imagery highlights Victor’s vial actions. He is changed by the society in a terrible way, his need for connections leads him to forsaking his own sister. This sort of unforgivable betrayal gives the readers an understandable hatred, not just for Victor, but for the society that took away his human right to love his family.

Finally, the novel’s most tragic character, Andrei, loses his right to property, love, and happiness all because of his Party. He transforms because of Kira and by the end of the novel, he even lives in a lavish apartment. However, the society took away his right to his most valuable possession, his own heart. He realizes how corrupt the world is and sees how the society drove the woman he loves to use him for nothing more than his Party affiliation. Andrei takes his own life for no other reason than the fact that the malign society did not give any character the right to explore talent, love, and individuality.

Every aspect of loss in this novel can be tied to Rand’s imagery and symbolism that includes, but is not limited to, community ownership, an absence of human rights, and the connections that are necessary for a person to live. All of these overlapping literary devices are complied in the last description of Kira’s Uncle Vasili. He was a wealthy business man, but now,“he stood under a lamp post, hunched, the collar of his old coat raised to his red ears, an old scarf twisted around his neck, two leather straps slung over his shoulders, holding a tray of saccharine tubes” (476). Like every person in this novel, the once strong man lost his property and identity at the hands of the Proletariat. The society forced the characters to conform; the men and women of We The Living lose their right to own a home, buy food, and their right to love.

Author's Note

Any commentary that could help pinpoint my literary inadequacies is much appreciated.