Romanzo struggente, che narra la lotta dell’individuo contro il totalitarismo. Siamo nella Pietrogrado post rivoluzionaria, prima metà degli anni 20. La guerra civile si è conclusa a favore dei bolscevichi, impegnati nell’edificazione della repubblica dei soviet. La città respira miseria, i timidi tentativi di uscita dal comunismo di guerra con la NEP non portano ad un reale miglioramento della situazione economica. E’ florido solo il mercato nero, alimentato da speculatori senza scrupoli, condannati dall’ideologia ufficiale ma tollerati quando si tratta di fare affari. La maggioranza della popolazione vive di privazioni e stenti, un’altra parte della popolazione, decisamente minoritaria, cavalca l’onda della nuova situazione politica, integrandosi nello stato totalitario. Alla prima categoria di popolazione appartengono gli eredi di un mondo scomparso, quello borghese e aristocratico dell’impero zarista, di cui la famiglia Argunova è degna rappresentante. Una parte dei suoi membri a poco a poco si arrende, accettando di integrarsi zelantemente nel nuovo stato. Non Kira Argunova però, l’eroina indiscussa del romanzo, disposta a sacrificare tutto, compresa la sua dignità, per coltivare il sogno di un amore impossibile e di una fuga all’estero con Leo Kovalenskij, inviso al regime perché figlio di un alto ufficiale dell’esercito zarista e dell’armata bianca. Alla seconda categoria appartengono invece i membri della nuova classe dirigente dello stato bolscevico, cinici, meschini, che si riempiono la bocca di retorica rivoluzionaria ma capaci delle più efferate bassezze. Fa eccezione Andrej Taganov, eroe della rivoluzione e della guerra civile e membro della polizia politica, ma capace di gesti di reale nobiltà d’animo. Come quello di rinunciare alla donna amata (Kira) e sacrificare se stesso autocondannandosi al suicidio (politico e fisico) pur di dare a Kira una prospettiva per se stessa e per io suo amore (quello per Leo). Le pagine in cui Kira, dopo l’arresto di Leo, fa visita ad Andrej confessandogli i suoi reali sentimenti ed il modo in cui Andrej reagisce grondano di fervore e tenerezza, forse le pagine più belle del romanzo. Il finale, tragico ed eroico assieme, è indimenticabile.

Warning: minor spoilers are spread throughout this review. Read at your own risk.

I liked this book because of the unique setting and characters (a relatively poor woman living in communist Russia) but there were some factors (that I believe are common in most older books) that I have little desire to overlook. Some of them I quite enjoyed reading, but I will state them as plainly as I could so that you can decide for yourself whether or not you wish to read this book.

Little detail is given about the characters and their emotions. I had no idea whether the character was making the right decision. Moreover, in Kira's relationship, at times I had no clue which man she preferred (yet she did continue to see both, which I am perplexed about). Little description was given about the characters' appearances or beliefs (other than the beliefs of a few other supporting roles) and it was difficult to tell who Kira supported.

At other times, it seemed that random actions happened out of the blue, (such as that when they barged in to Leo's apartment).

As for the plot, it was. . . weak and practically nonexistent, but that isn't to say that it wasn't interesting. It was more of a biography of Kira's life.

The writing itself was very well done, in the times where there were things to describe and talk about. In about 95% of the book, it was the embodiment of the rule 'show not tell', meaning that everything was simply :this happened, that happened, Vasili is annoying, feminism is beginning to be a thing, etc.

I am aware that all that I've been saying about this book are pretty negative overall, but I actually quite enjoyed the unique setting and making my own opinion of the characters. If you are willing to overlook what I mentioned above, then this is a splendid book. If not, then this might not be for you.

“xxxx . . . I’ll tell them . . . over there . . . where I’m going . . . I’ll tell them about everything . . . it’s like an S.O.S. . . . And maybe . . . someone . . . somewhere . . . will understand. . . .”

If you ever want to acquire a keen appreciation for food, read any story about the USSR. History or fiction, doesn't matter. Mildewed millet and one loaf of bread a month is enough to break anyone!

We The Living is an illustration of the loneliness that seems the unavoidable consequence of any who possess an Objectivist viewpoint.

One passage in the book made me laugh in appreciation for how true it rang in my life. Kira says,

"Well, if I asked people whether they believed in life, they'd never understand what I meant. It's a bad question. It can mean so much that it really means nothing. So I ask them if they believe in God. And if they say they do--then I know they don't believe in life."

This is because no matter to whom you are speaking, no matter what religion they follow, God is always the highest conception of the highest possible. A believer in God has placed their highest conception above their own possibility, above their own life. Whatever such a person believes in, it isn't life.

"It's a rare gift," Kira says, "to feel reverence for your own life and to want the best, the greatest, the highest possible, here, now, for your very own. To imagine a heaven and then not to dream of it, but to demand it."

Just as celebrations are for those who have something to celebrate, life is for the living, not those who cherish the thoughts of their own death, and the after-life rewards which await them for their obedience.

Holy cow … this BOOK. the WRITING. My heart is in Ayn Rand’s dead hands once again

You could feel through her imagery just how devastating it was for the Russian people. How class and totalitarianism destroyed them. How they were completely stripped of their freedom to life and individualism.

Also … the DRAMA. It had me by the fooking throat. Love triangles and lies and mistresses and betrayal of all sorts.

This isn’t a spoiler but all I’m going to say is ….. ANDREI TAGANOV DESERVED BETTER THIS WHOLE BOOK
#teamandrei

This is the worst novel ever written by the worst writer and thinker of all time: Ayn Rand. Hateful, pointless ramblings of a bitter speedfreak. Read Animal Farm for a fictional allegorical account of the Russian Revolution or non-fiction books. Avoid this bile like the hateful puke it is.

Una buena novela sobre la vida cotidiana durante la fase NEP del desarrollo del totalitarismo en la URSS, años 1923 a 1925. Lo que me atrajo de la obra fue que estuviera escrita por Ayn Rand, una de las personas más influyentes en el desarrollo del liberalismo en el siglo XX, dentro de la rama libertaria, junto a Murray Rothbard, Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek o, en España, Jesús Huerta de Soto o últimamente, Juan Ramón Rallo.

Gran parte de lo que cuenta sobre la URSS en su primeros años es autobiográfico, así que saber la experiencia vital que padeció la pobre Rand en sus primeros años, hasta que logró escapar de aquel infierno, tiene su punto para los que nos gustó "La rebelión del Atlas". La novela relata un triángulo amoroso convencional y funciona más o menos bien hasta un final bastante bueno. Si no te interesa Ayn Rand ni su enfoque del liberalismo, te puede parecer excesivo 4 estrellas, entonces déjadlo en 3 estrellas...

Wow. To think this was written in 1936 when the US intelligensia was still enthralled with the prospect of utopian socialism and the global order is mind-boggling.

WOW...that's all that comes to mind! A book about life, death, love, struggle and hope when you have NOTHING to live for, to hope for...you just can't stop reading until the very last word and once you're done, you can't wrap your head around it. A must read so you can appreciate how lucky you are...

Mind blowing. Heartbreaking. Uncovers all effects when an impossible and irrational ideal is adapted by a country. The Communism.

I just finished this book. My soul has never been so pained by a novel. Very few books affect me like this one did. I cannot explain other than it was so beautifully horrific. I knew very little about Communism or what the USSR was like. It caused so much anger and frustration in me, but the pain comes from the truths that it enlightens about humanity. We are creatures of pain and suffering and joy and and triumph. And no matter what pain we are dealt...we still have the capacity within ourselves to find the beauty and will that makes us go on; life. This is the first Ayn Rand novel I have read. It is her first novel. I would highly recommend this. It is an inventment of your soul, so read this when you have the endurance to enjoy Ayn Rand's We The Living.

From Leonard Peikoff's Introduction to the book

“The basic cause of totalitarianism is two ideas: men’s rejection of reason in favor of faith, and of self-interest in favor of self-sacrifice. If this is a society’s philosophical consensus, it will not be long before an all-powerful Leader rises up to direct the faith and sacrifice that everyone has been extolling. His subjects cannot resist his takeover, neither by exercising their faculty of thought nor their passion for values, because these are the two priceless possessions they have given up. The end result is thought control, starvation, and mass slaughter.”

“Totalitarian states differ in every detail, but not in their nature and cause. And in regard to details, what difference do their differences make? What does it matter to the victims if the infallible leader claims messages from the supernatural or from an unperceivable dialectic? If he demands sacrifice for Corpus Christi or for the proletariat? If the people are made to raise their hands in prayer or their feet in goose steps? If the killer troops wear black gowns or red shirts? If those out of favor are ripped open by knives in Spain or left to freezing starvation in the gulags? States like these often pose as enemies of one another, but the pose is tactics, not truth.”

“We the Living is a novel about the results of the freedom-erasing ideas you yourself probably accept. That is why it is relevant to you today. It is relevant because it tells you how to distinguish the poison the West is now greedily ingesting from the nourishment we desperately need. It is relevant because it is not about an ever-receding past, but about an ever-approaching future.This book is not about your long-gone grandparents, but about your still-growing children.”

From Ayn Rand's Foreward to the book:

“We the Living is not a story about Soviet Russia in 1925. It is a story about Dictatorship, any dictatorship, anywhere, at any time, whether it be Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, or—which this novel might do its share in helping to prevent—a socialist America. What the rule of brute force does to men and how it destroys the best, will be the same in 1925, in 1955 or in 1975—whether the secret police is called G.P.U. or N.K.V.D., whether men eat millet or bread, whether they live in hovels or in housing projects, whether the rulers wear red shirts or brown ones, whether the head butcher kisses a Cambodian witch doctor or an American pianist.”

“I am still a little astonished, at times, that too many adult Americans do not understand the nature of the fight against Communism as clearly as I understood it at the age of twelve: they continue to believe that only Communist methods are evil, while Communist ideals are noble. All the victories of Communism since the year 1917 are due to that particular belief among the men who are still free.”

“Volumes can be and have been written about the issue of freedom versus dictatorship, but, in essence, it comes down to a single question: do you consider it moral to treat men as sacrificial animals and to rule them by physical force? If, as a citizen of the freest country in the world, you do not know what this would actually mean—We the Living will help you to know.”