Are We Witnessing the Reenactment of “We The Living?”

Ayn Rand’s book “We the Living” is not simply a novel—it is a philosophical statement, a warning, and a deeply personal testament to the struggle of the individual against the state.

Published in 1936, it depicts life in post-revolutionary Soviet Russia through the eyes of Kira Argounova, a young woman determined to live for herself in a world that demands submission.

Reading this book now, amid the shifting tides of American political life, I cannot help but see eerie parallels between the authoritarian impulses of the Soviet regime and the emerging tone of Donald Trump’s political movement.

Trump is no Lenin, and America is no Soviet Union, but the book’s themes—state overreach, suppression of dissent, blind loyalty to a political cause—echo disturbingly in today’s political climate.

Rand, a fierce champion of individual rights, would have found much to criticize in Trump’s rhetoric and actions. Yet, paradoxically, many of Trump’s most ardent supporters claim to be admirers of Rand’s philosophy.

What, then, would Rand and her defiant heroine Kira say to Trump if they were to meet him? And more crucially, what does We the Living teach us about resisting the creeping hand of authoritarianism in our time?

Authoritarianism, Then and Now

In We the Living, the Soviet state is an omnipresent force, dictating every aspect of life—what careers people pursue, where they live, what they think. The regime does not tolerate dissent, and those who do not conform are crushed.

The novel illustrates not only the physical oppression of totalitarianism but the psychological toll it takes on those who refuse to surrender their sense of self.

Trump’s America is far from Soviet Russia, but his rhetoric often exhibits the seeds of authoritarianism. His disdain for democratic institutions, his willingness to use government agencies for personal retribution, and his ability to incite mob loyalty over independent thought all mirror characteristics of regimes Rand condemned.

Consider his repeated assertions that he alone can “fix” the country, his efforts to discredit the press as “the enemy of the people,” and his demand for absolute loyalty from his allies. These are the building blocks of an authoritarian mindset.

The tragic irony is that many self-proclaimed Randians—those who preach Atlas Shrugged as their Bible—are among Trump’s biggest defenders. They claim to value individualism and free markets while supporting a leader who exhibits a cult of personality and the will to use state power to enforce his vision.

Rand, who despised political strongmen, would likely have recoiled at the contradiction.

Ayn Rand and Kira Argounova Meet Trump

Imagine, for a moment, Ayn Rand and Kira Argounova sitting across from Trump in a gilded conference room at Mar-a-Lago. Rand, with her sharp, uncompromising intellect, would likely eviscerate Trump for his lack of philosophical consistency.

She might remind him that individual rights are absolute and that no leader—no matter how “great” he believes himself to be—has the right to demand blind loyalty. She would reject his nationalistic populism and his use of state power to punish those he deems enemies.

Kira, on the other hand, might not even dignify Trump with a response. She had no use for political power in any form, nor did she believe in appeasing demagogues. Her struggle was deeply personal—her fight was for the right to exist on her own terms. If forced to speak, she might say something akin to:

“You Mr. Trump believe yourself to be a champion of the people, yet you demand their obedience. I do not need a leader, nor do I care for your vision of America. I live for myself, not for you.”

Trump, accustomed to adulation, would likely be baffled by such defiance. Like the Soviet officials in We the Living, he thrives on submission, on the idea that his movement is greater than the individual. And that is precisely what Rand’s novel warns against.

The Urgent Relevance of We the Living

If there is one lesson that We the Living offers in the face of rising authoritarianism, it is this — the individual must never be subsumed by the collective, nor sacrificed at the altar of any ideology. The moment we allow loyalty to a leader or a political movement to overshadow our own independent judgment, we risk losing what makes us free.

The novel serves as a stark reminder that authoritarianism does not arrive overnight. It creeps in through small compromises, through the normalization of strongman rhetoric, through the slow erosion of institutions that protect individual rights. It happens when people justify moral transgressions in the name of a “greater good” or allow fear to dictate their decisions.

Trump’s legacy—whether one views it as a triumph or a travesty—has undoubtedly challenged America’s democratic fabric. His insistence that he alone is the voice of the people mirrors the collectivist mentality Rand so vehemently opposed.

Just as Soviet citizens in We the Living surrendered their autonomy for the promise of a utopian society, many Americans today fall into the trap of seeking a singular political savior.

This is why We the Living is essential reading for our times. It does not provide easy answers, nor does it offer a blueprint for political action. Instead, it demands that we ask ourselves difficult questions:

How much are we willing to compromise in the name of political expediency? When does loyalty become submission? At what point does government become the enemy of the individual?

👇

While often overshadowed by Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead, Rand’s most prized works, in today’s climate We the Living might be the most important book she ever wrote.

It is not just about the Soviet Union—it is about any society that sacrifices individuals on the altar of a collective vision, whether that vision is communist, fascist, or populist.

Reading this novel now, I am reminded that authoritarianism is not just a historical event; it is a recurring threat that manifests in new forms throughout history. Whether from the left or the right, the impulse to control, to demand loyalty, and to suppress dissent remains constant.

Ayn Rand, if she were alive today, would likely remind us that the most dangerous thing we can do is surrender our minds to the will of another. Kira Argounova, were she real, would live her life in defiance of any leader who sought to own her.

And we, as thinking individuals, must decide — Do we follow the call of the power elite collective, or do we, like Kira, insist on living for ourselves?

---

Join us today as a paid member supporter. Or feel free to tip me some coffeehouse love here if you feel so inclined.

Your contributions are appreciated!

Every bit counts as I strive to deliver high quality feature articles into your inbox on a regular basis. Never any paywalls, just the opportunity to foster community, connection, and conversation one book at a time.