Set in the early years following Russia’s Bolshevik Revolution, We the Living is a story of the individual against the state. Kira, an independent minded and ambitious teenager, arrives into Petrograd (St. Petersburg) with her family after several years of exile following the overthrow of the czars. Previously wealthy, the family arrives to discover their previous possessions...
more Set in the early years following Russia’s Bolshevik Revolution, We the Living is a story of the individual against the state. Kira, an independent minded and ambitious teenager, arrives into Petrograd (St. Petersburg) with her family after several years of exile following the overthrow of the czars. Previously wealthy, the family arrives to discover their previous possessions confiscated and redistributed by the state. They instead move in with family. Not communist themselves, life becomes a struggle, as each one refuses to join the Party ranks. The father’s several attempts at opening a store fail, as ‘speculators’ are carefully watched, and citizens cannot afford anything more than what their meager meal cards provide for them.
Determined to become an architect, Kira enrolls in a nearby university, and quickly becomes acquainted with two young men, Andrei and Leo. Andrei, a young communist member, is an intelligent young secret service officer who rises quickly through the ranks. The two bond despite their ideological differences; Kira admires Andrei for his convictions, even if she “loathe[s] [his] ideals.”
Even by this uncompromising definition, however, Andrei fell short of the Soviet ideal: one must not only agree with the Communist Party platform, one must do so for the right reasons. Andrei served the Soviet state not for the sake of the masses or in the interest of the greater good, but rather for his own benefit, or as he explains to Kira: “To bring millions up to where I am – for my sake.” Andrei did not mold himself to the Soviet masses; he sought to mold the masses to himself – to his expectations and desires.
Kira, for her part, wanted to study engineering and become an engineer. Although engineering was considered the most prized profession of the Soviet Republic, her desire to work in that field was not sufficient; she had also to want to do it for the glory of the Republic and the benefit of its citizens. In this regard, the U.S.S.R. sought total and absolute ownership of the individual. Wanting the same thing as the state was not sufficient; one had to want it for the right reasons. Soviet communism required the inculcation of communist virtues. One belonged to, was congruent with, and served the Soviet commune, but Kira was too independent to be ruled by the state. Her fight to preserve her own individuality caused her to flee the country, and ultimately cost her her life. To Kira, nothing was morally superior to the individual. People were ends in themselves, nothing was higher than the desire of an individual, and because each individual and his/her desires were sacred, to put someone else’s desires ahead of another’s – as the Soviet collective did – was morally repugnant. Such ideals were not welcome in Soviet Russia where the crushing burden of communism demanded more than party affiliation; it demanded one’s mind, and it demanded one’s time.
Every citizen was expected to stay abreast of current events to the point of memorizing arcane details about oil production figures, participating in political committees by giving speeches and writing papers, attending rallies, and was expected to put duty before all personal consideration, a consideration so large as to leave no room for private commitments. Soviet Russia’s control over the individual was total and absolute: passports, required of all citizens, were more than simple travel documents; it was a profile of the individual that dictated what citizens could do, where they could go, and what benefits they were entitled to. Under the weight of so great an oppressor, dissent chokes and withers, like a delicate flower denied its proper nourishment. We the Living offers a survey of all avenues for those who dissent and are unwilling to compromise.
Andrei, convinced by Kira of his misguided ideals, commits suicide. Leo commits emotional suicide, abandoning all thoughts for the morrow, living day to day, dollar to dollar – an abasement matched by no other character in the novel. Kira, unwilling to compromise and abandoned by Leo, flees abroad.
Although the context of the novel is 1920s Soviet Russia, this is not a novel about Russia, nor is it solely about Communism – it is a story of the individual versus the state. It is about the right to live one’s life as one sees fit. It is about fidelity to one’s own interests. This individualist morality is most on display in Kira, though it permeates and defines all three characters. Although the purpose of the novel is to explain and defend the moral supremacy of the individual, that message is undermined by its own protagonists.
Kira shows an utter disregard and indifference for the plight of her family at the beginning of the novel – she seems oblivious to the desperation of her family in lieu of food shortages; she remains unconcerned before her crying mother after forgetting to pick up her student food ration, saying only that she was not hungry. As the novel progresses, even as her family adapts to the reality of Soviet life and party participation, she becomes increasingly attune to the needs of her family, and in turn, more supportive. All the while, her lover Leo shows the exact opposite progression. Following their first encounter, Leo shows a level of devotion to Kira matched only by Kira’s devotion to him. Over the course of the novel, however, Leo becomes increasingly hopeless about the future. In direct correlation with this loss of spirit is his interest in another woman by the name of Antonina and his diminishing interest – and indeed, scornful disregard – for Kira. Despite his repeated abuses, Kira continues to serve and live for him. Wanting nothing more than money, and complete freedom from any and all restraints, even at the request of Kira, concerned solely for his own safety, Leo opens a business. He fritters away his fortune, demonstrating no thrift, and no concern or regard for the future. At the end, Leo decides to abandon Kira and leave for the Caucus region with Antonina, a decision made under the sole consideration of his new found poverty following the closing of his store and Antonina’s wealth. The selfishness demonstrated by Leo is appalling, as he manages to hurt she that has cared the most for him. It is this consideration that undermines the value of fidelity to self interest, the cornerstone of Ayn Rand’s Objectivist philosophy. Not caring about what happens to oneself is a far cry from not caring about the well-being of others. It is in that distinction that Leo, and ultimately the moral efficacy of the novel, fails.
hide
Yes (0) 
No (0) 
