The Return of the Primitive: The Anti-Industrial Revolution

by Ayn Rand, Peter Schwartz (Introduction)

In the tumultuous late 60s and early 70s, a social movement known as the "New Left" emerged as a major cultural influence, especially on the youth of America. It was a movement that embraced "flower-power" and psychedelic "consciousness-expansion," that lionized Ho Chi Minh and Fidel Castro and launched the Black Panthers and the Theater of the Absurd.In Return Of The Primitive (originally published in 1971 as The New Left ), Ayn Rand , bestselling novelist and originator of the theory of Objectivism, identified the intellectual roots of this movement. She urged people to repudiate its mindless nihilism and to uphold, instead, a philosophy of reason, individualism, capitalism, and technological progress.Editor Peter Schwartz , in this new, expanded version of The New Left , has reorganized Rand's essays and added some of his own in order to underscore the continuing relevance of her analysis of that period. He examines such current ideologies as feminism, environmentalism and multiculturalism and argues that the same primitive, tribalist, "anti-industrial" mentality which animated the New Left a generation ago is shaping society today.

Genres: Philosophy, Politics, Nonfiction, History, Economics, Essays, Sociology

290 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1971

About the author

Polemical novels, such as The Fountainhead (1943), of primarily known Russian-American writer Ayn Rand, originally Alisa Rosenbaum, espouse the doctrines of objectivism and political libertarianism.

Fiction of this better author and philosopher developed a system that she named. Educated, she moved to the United States in 1926. After two early initially duds and two Broadway plays, Rand achieved fame. In 1957, she published Atlas Shrugged , her best-selling work.

Rand advocated reason and rejected faith and religion. She supported rational and ethical egoism as opposed to altruism. She condemned the immoral initiation of force and supported laissez-faire capitalism, which she defined as the system, based on recognizing individual rights, including private property. Often associated with the modern movement in the United States, Rand opposed and viewed anarchism. In art, she promoted romantic realism. She sharply criticized most philosophers and their traditions with few exceptions.

Books of Rand sold more than 37 million copies. From literary critics, her fiction received mixed reviews with more negative reviews for her later work. Afterward, she turned to nonfiction to promote her philosophy, published her own periodicals, and released several collections of essays until her death in 1982.

After her death, her ideas interested academics, but philosophers generally ignored or rejected her and argued that her approach and work lack methodological rigor. She influenced some right conservatives. The movement circulates her ideas to the public and in academic settings.

Reviews

[Beauregard Bottomley · Rating 1 out of 5]

The six scariest words in the English language are "Climate change is a Chinese hoax". The world view inherent in those six words and all of Donald's Trumps beliefs are within this book. There is no more thought within these essays than what a fifth grader would bring to the table. To Rand and Trump, all of the age of enlightenment must be rejected because they just can't stand relativism or nihilism or non immanent truth that doesn't come from the gut. A=A and everything that appears as phenomenon must be true. The sun just has to revolve around the earth because that what it looks like to them, and they know the universe must revolve around them with certainty.

The green house effect is totally dismissed within this book as part of the dirty hippie movement (what is it with her mentioning over 10 different times that the 'hippies' don't bathe?) stemming from environmentalism, feminism, and anything that gets in the way of real men, the Howard Roarks or the John Galts, who value themselves as individuals over everyone else who is not them. Mandeville's "Fable of the Bees" is more than just a fable it must be true, in their world view. So their doing us a favor by making the rich richer at the expense of equality.

Patriotism, the belief based on faith that ones ideas and or mores are superior because they are yours and others by definitions are inferior to yours, is a fool's ideology. One should always use ones logic, empiricism, analysis, experience, and reason for developing ones foundation for existence. Living a full life requires thinking to ones fullest. This book and Trump never allow for cracks within their absolutist positions and they take patriotism to its logical absurdity. They always will pick on others who don't fit their 'ideal' and hence the absurd "Chinese hoax" for Trump, and Rand gives that inspiration with her constant harping of ethnic differences adding no value to her super man race of Roarks and Galts. (I've got news for Rand bots and Trumpians, all such followers of each are the Peter Keatings. Mediocre fellows. Tell me again why Howard Roark blew up that project that Keating wasn't capable to create on his own?).

Freedom is an absolute within these essays. Who among us are not for 'freedom'? Sounds great on first blush. But, when one realizes that some of us are born with schizophrenia, autism, gay, transgendered, or other such way, we weren't given a choice. Within one of the essays they mocked someone who thought gay was not a choice, that is to say they took it as a given that people aren't born gay but they choose to be gay. It's as if they said that being 'straight' is a choice. At what age did they choose to be 'straight'.

Alternative facts are for losers. Climate change is a scientific fact. Nobody hates the good for the sake of the good as Rand says. Donald Trump and Rand just know their values are the right ones, the ideal, and they think there must be only one right way to see the world. To both, absolute capitalism is absolute freedom, the greatest of all good, and there is no real value beyond the individual because the good of the rich out weigh the good of the community, and nature is only important if it serves the rich over the poor. Go ahead and pollute and women, blacks, immigrants, and the rest of us should know their place and be grateful that they have freedom. Fairness is only for communist or socialist and if you want fairness move to a commie country you red loving pig!

I have no idea how somebody could have voted for someone who said "Climate change is a Chinese hoax", or how someone could embrace the incredibly shallow set of essays within this book. Our biggest gift as humans is to realize that we are in the world and that it is up to us to develop our own principals and not settle for mediocre philosophies that assume facts not in evidence based on nothing but fiat and fifth grade objectivization of the world and the self. Both Trump and Rand assume absolutes, know that their ethnocentric gut views rule supreme and that their brand of truth is all they really need to know.

[Dean · Rating 5 out of 5]

I read this, as The New Left, several years ago. On beginning to read it recently, I thought it might be dated, having been written nearly fifty years ago. It isn't. Aside from references to news and then current events that are now history, Rand's analysis applies luminously to today's culture, current events, academia, college students, politicians, media, pressure groups and leftist mobs.

[Mike · Rating 3 out of 5]

Rand has some solid critiques of post-modernism and the far-left, and her ideas are highly relevant, especially in today’s climate.
However, I found her style very dramatic and unbalanced. She’s quite comfortable attributing the most malice of intents to differing ideological groups, leaving no room for other interpretations.
Her final chapter on global warming was especially troublesome (Trump style proclamations), and doesn’t reflect well on her given the scientific consensus today.

[Roman Vilensky · Rating 4 out of 5]

Brilliant and deep. Probably the most important book you can read to understand the nature of knowledge, technology, nature.

[Nathan Titus · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was probably the Ayn Rand book that I agreed with the least. I know many environmentalists, and although a small number do want to send us all back to the stone age, most merely want to prevent the destruction of a planet that they love. As for myself, my prime motive is to save the human race. Ayn Rand even said: the dinosaurs died out long ago, and that did not end life on the planet. So the Earth First ecologists are fighting a pointless battle, but as for me, it is not the Earth that I wish to save but ourselves. The end of life on earth is less important (to me, and to any human) than the end of humanity. Global warming has been dismissed as a "scare tactic" but I've seen it in action; I've lived in Montana for less than 10 years, and I've seen ski slopes close from lack of snow. I've also seen coal train pour dust on cities and into rivers where I swim. Trying to stop this, as I have done, is not "sacrificing the human to the non human;" I want it stopped BECAUSE of its detrimental impact on humans. I, and many other environmentalists, wholeheartedly support clean technology, such as tesla coils, windmills, solar panel, and thorium rods. That doesn't sound like a cry of "back to the stone age" to me.
She also holds the stereotype of hunter gatherers as malnourished, disease ridden, prey to tigers. In fact from the research I've done, (and the far more extensive research done by someone I know), hunter gatherers were some of the healthiest, happiest, safest people in all of history.
My favorite essays were "the age of envy" and "Apollo and Dionysius." Classic, almost enough to bring the book up to 4 stars. As for "the companeros" if anyone but Rand had written it, it would have been same old, same old. no one has to tell ME how evil the school system is; I WAS THERE! kind of like talking a bout the evils of Nazi Germany to a concentration camp survivor. However, when it comes to condemnation, Rand takes the cake. Unfortunately, way to much of this book focused on condemning people who have genuine value standards for the crimes of a small minority who tag along, just for the thrill of bringing down the "powers that be." Come on, Rand, don't you see that clean technology is objectively better??

[Robert · Rating 5 out of 5]

Shockingly relevant to the culture turmoil of the 21st century, scary that most of the essays were written decades ago.

[K · Rating 4 out of 5]

Pretty shallow, uninformed, and I'd say even bigoted view on nationalism in chapter "The Balkanization of Europe". Apparently, to Ayn Rand, a common language, faith, history and heritage is not a valid enough reason for independence and self-determination. To her, nations of the Balkan are "tribes" with "unpronounceable names" which "never gave anything of value to the world", and their culture reduced to "if you've seen one funny little dance, you've seen them all".
When asked about Israel, she said how "America should give all the help possible to Israel". Why would Israel have a right to exist as an ethnostate and Croatians should have stuck in Yugoslavia, a post WWII
communist one party state, born in blood on (to this day not investigated and prosecuted) mass murders, genocide and expropriation, with Serbs as de facto overlords?
Might have something with her name being Alisa Zinovyevna Rosenbaum, and being of Russian-Jewish heritage, but who knows.

Also, referring to an argument in a chapter about environmentalism, I don't think having man made chemicals like the insecticide DDT residing in my body 8-14 years and up to 30 years in the soil is such a great thing.

Otherwise, a pretty based book, still very much relevant.

[Thomas · Rating 5 out of 5]

If you are even thinking about reading this book you will have some preconceived sentiment, either positive or negative, towards the author before opening the cover. I also presume that the majority's sentiment would be positive. I had mixed feelings about Ayn Rand before reading this book, and I have mixed feelings about her after reading this book. But one thing I know is that I am better off for having read the book. It challenges the way we (I at least) were (was) raised to view the world. The paradigm through which I had viewed the world before reading this book had resulted in me progressing to a point of stagnation and frustration. Disembodied worry floating through repetitive days of a life "of quiet desperation", with no foreseeable right way forward in a life where nothing is "knowable".

I do not wish to delve to deeply into this book, or my relative views, with this review, suffice to say...it should be required reading for everyone.

[Tanner · Rating 5 out of 5]

This has to be the most important, relevant, and thought provoking reads I've picked up this year. Being an already established Ayn Rand fan (having read Atlas Shrugged) I already knew the general idea and that her values would agree with my own. So there is a little prior bias going in. That being said, I've not read her essay writing before and I was surprised. The kinds of connections she makes between a single political topic and how it plays out in the world is very prophetic. She is very well thought out and articulate as well as passionate in her writing. The scenarios she presents, and how she relates them to primitive characteristics, are fascinating. The scary quality of he writing is that all the topics discussed are still around today. The book was published in the 1970's. The topics were: student rebellion (like the Mizzou campus protests), The american education system (from pre school through college), feminism, multiculturalism, environmentalism, and technology. While I don't quite think some of her beliefs would translate smoothly in practice, I definitely support her values and find her perception of the world to be a valid one. If you are a fan of Ayn Rand, this may interest you. Especially if you've never read her essays. Otherwise, someone with a potential interest might want to start with her fiction. If you aren't interested in learning about her view of the world or share no common values with her at all, probably skip it.

[Russ · Rating 4 out of 5]

Powerful book describing the New Left, the left that is different from the old progressives; they just are motivated to destroy values. I particularly enjoyed the essays "The Anti-Industrial Revolution" and "The Comprachicos."

[Nixon Sucuc · Rating 5 out of 5]

Enlightening.

[Volbet · Rating 1 out of 5]

The exercise of writing fiction is rather different from writing works of philosophy or politics. Something which Ayn Rand apparently wasn’t aware. When writing a work of fiction, all the author has to do is relate the writing to the fictional world itself, while a work of philosophy by necessity must write itself into a traditional of though, both historical and contemporary.
As was the case with The Virtue of Selfishness: A New Concept of Egoism, Return of the Primitive: The Anti-Industrial Revolution is one of the greatest examples of critique through nonengagement. Rand and her objectivist group have essentially drawn a small square around them and are refusing to entertain or ponder anything that originates from outside the square. If you’re not an objectivist, your argument on anything can be dismissed without further explanation. I guess that this approach for better or worse will create an insular ideological methodology, but unless you’ve bought into objectivism hook, line and sinker, it’s not going to be very convincing. Knowing that existentialism isn’t objectivism isn’t going to help you in your intellectual journey. If you’re already onboard with objectivism, you don’t need Rand to tell you that the works of Jean-Paul Sartre isn’t within the sphere of Rand and Co., but if you’re not convinced that everything can be reduced to pure logical syllogism, then you’re shit outta luck with this book.
Although, this approach is rather hypocritical as Rand spends quite a bit of time pointing out that whoever is outside of the objectivist square are all a product of parasitic group thinking.

The first thing you’ll notice in Return of the Primitive is just how relevant it is today. Usually, it would be a good thing for an author to create something that’s still prescient 50 years later, but in the case of Rand I would rather see it as a sign of how little political discourse has moved in half a decade. Both Rand and her collaborator, Peter Schwartz, really don’t like academia, environmentalists, feminists and DEI. Honestly, this entire book could be repackaged as a book written by a modern, Western populist and I would have been non the wiser. The culture war simply hasn’t moved an inch since the 1970’s.

I originally did intend to go through the book essay by essay and comment on whatever Rand or Schwarz thought was wrong with the world, but it ultimately just became me debunking the text rather than critiquing it. And I have too much respect for both myself and others to engage in that exercise in public. It’s preachy as hell, and damned be that I falter to the same bullshit as the book I’m reading.
Although, I guess that does underline one of the cleverer things about objectivism: all the faults of the conclusions drawn can be traced back to issues with methodology, which in the case of objectivism means that it’s a fundamental issue of epistemology. I can stand on my soapbox and yell about how Rand’s take on economics, Affirmative Action, science, etc. is wrong, but all the objectivist would have to do is show how I’m not using their methodology and as such my little speech can be dismissed without further engagement.
In a sense this is best shown whenever Rand or Schwartz feels the need to involve Immanuel Kant in their texts. One would think Kant had stolen Rand’s husband or pissed in her cereal, because there’s not a single opportunity where Kant can’t be taken down that Rand and Schwartz don’t take. And all of the times Kant is mentioned, it can be boiled down to Kant not following an objectivist epistemology and as such he’s wrong. At no point is Kant’s ideas engaged with directly or flaws in his work pointed out. All that is necessary is to show that Rand didn’t agree with Kant.

[Stephen · Rating 4 out of 5]

The Return of the Primitive collects Ayn Rand’s written responses to the eruption of the student movement in the late sixties, particularly as it meshed with the early environmental movement. Rand largely condemned the philosophical origins and political aims of these groups, regarding them as irrational, destructive, and ultimately regressive. Taken together, she suggests they constitute an ill-conceived rejection of industrialism, and a thuggish attack on those who dare defend rationality and human progress. The original collection was titled simply The New Left, but here Peter Schwartz supplements Rand’s contents and core critique with some of his own Rand-inspired writing on multiculturalism, feminism, and environmentalism, arguing that they all constitute a resurrection of tribalistic and enfeebling mystical thinking.

Perhaps ‘thinking’ is too strong word; Rand regarded the members of the student movement as moral and intellectual cripples, having been inwardly disfigured and held back by a generation of badly-conceived pedagogy and decaying universities, which promoted irrationality and subjectivism. The students were not rebelling against the establishment: they were its crowning glory, the perfect expression of its own feckless principles. Having thrown Reason into the dustbin, they had nothing but whims and tribal identities to fall back on, seeking meaning not in their ability to comprehend and master the world, but in political theater. The pinnacle of their resignation from rationalism and productive effort, she writes, was in the raging drug culture. Although a sharp advocate for individual rights, Rand had nothing but scorn for drug users, who in her view muddled the greatest asset humanity had in its possession: the ability to reason. How sad the addled masses at Woodstock looked floundering around in the mud, wholly dependent on outside help from the squares they mocked, while that same year the power of reason was fully on display as human feet stepped forth upon the Moon.

Beyond critiquing the student and nascent environmental movements directly, Rand also includes essays inspired by the era, like “The Age of Envy” or “Apollo and Dionysus” and they like no other in the collection allows her philosophy to take center stage, her focus on the Individual — on the promise and the responsibility of being an Individual. Rand and Schwartz contend that modern idealisms are regressive in that they promote tribalism and collectivism, declaring that a man or woman’s place within a group defines and determines them. Rand condemns racism as the lowest expression of collectivism, but her wrath is not discriminatory: she unloads on demands for affirmative action (choosing job & academic placement based on racial quotas) with the same cold fury she unleashed against the Klan. Both, she argues, reduce a man to a group and pretends to knowledge about individual persons based on impressions based on people who merely look or sound like him. In an age saturated with the hooting and growling of identity politics, Rand’s wholesale condemnation of this divisive and muddy thinking is a breath of fresh air.

The essays on environmentalism from both Rand and Schwartz don’t quite mesh with the treatment of the new left, though one can understand why they were grouped. Rand is driven by a vision of Man as the adventurer, the doer, the shaper of the world; she’s patently offended by the notion that we should subordinate human interests to the static preservation of nature’s present status quo. Life is progress, meaningful action, forward momentum, she writes — to merely accept the present is to begin to stagnate and die. If humanity didn’t see the Earth as clay its hands, fit to be manipulated and fired, we would only be less-hairy chimpanzees, dwelling in a perpetual neolithic mire. Rand ultimately sees no value in the Earth itself, except in that it can fuel humanity’s material and spiritual progress: she does make some allowances for environmental protections, connected to her argument (made elsewhere) that property is the foundation of individual rights, and that environmental problems are crimes only when they destroy the the value of others or their work.

The most difficult aspect of this book was understanding her critique of 1960s academia, since I’m not familiar enough with the mid-century zeitgeist to connect her then-temporary newsletter articles to events of the day. I was reminded of a similar argument made in Harvard and the Unabomber, that the academic culture helped poison Kaczynski’s mind against industrial society. I’m acutely aware that the environment of academia helps create the social world that follows it: causes that were fringe thinking in 2010, when I graduated, are now pushed as mainstream, and people are not only indulged in irrationality but expected to support it.

Rand is a fascinating author, one whose work garners more of my interest the more I encounter her. She’s a unique thinker; rejecting tradition and heaping abuse on the medieval era, but arguing for an integrated philosophy of life that hasn’t been seen since the Scholastics. She swears by Reason alone, but despises the idea that man is merely an animated bag of chemicals, and wrote a book yearning for the return of Romanticism. She is admiringly, breathtakingly consistent in her critiques and even without having experienced her in-person charisma, I can begin to understand why she had a slight cult following. She offered to an audience which prided itself on being archly rational the same thing that many in cultic movements yearn for: clarity and purpose. Her vision of human destiny is undeniably invigorating; reading her makes a fellow want to destroy cancer, build a skyscraper, and ascend Olympus to steal fire from the gods once more. Her conception of Individualism, moreover, is demanding: only the independent thinker counts in her book. Mere contrarians, rebels without causes, won’t do. Only fully-reasoned-out beliefs, defended with energy, and acted upon in furtherance of a goal, will. Although I frequently disagree with her on particulars (she believes man to be born as a blank slate, for instance, without instincts — this is wholly false) her strident support of the Individual against the mob is sorely needed in our own day.

[Skylar Burris · Rating 4 out of 5]

Rand is a polemical writer, but sometimes I enjoy a good polemic.

This collection of essays, an expanded edition of The New Left, was compiled by Ayn Rand's disciple Peter Schwartz, founding editor of The Intellectual Activist magazine. In addition to Rand's 12 essays, Schwartz has added three of his own to tackle modern issues from an Objectivist world-view: "Gender Tribalism," "The Philosophy of Privation," and "Multicultural Nihilism." These works approach the issues much as I suspect Ayn Rand would have done, and they are interesting additions to the book.

"Collectivism," writes Rand, "has lost the battle for men's minds; its advocates know it; their last chance consists of the fact that no one else knows it." The essays in this collection are part of Rand's effort to make it known. She assures us that "a social movement that began with the ponderous, brain-cracking, dialectical constructs of Hegel and Marx, and ends up with a horde of morally unwashed children, each stamping his foot and shrieking: 'I want it now!'--is through." (Unfortunately, I think she's wrong. It's far from through; it's just more subtle and less severe in its methods of oppression.)

Although I find Rand's Objectivist philosophy ultimately incorrect with regard to its self-centered atheistic message, her reasoning is often sound when it comes to her criticisms of the "new left." The struggle between the forces of individualism and collectivism (in Rand's view, between rationality and irrationality) is perhaps not quite the epic battle she depicts, but it is a serious contest, and if the individualists lose, that loss will have lasting negative effects on human freedom and economic progress.

Rand often appeals in youth, and I think she does because she offers some comfort in an academic environment where diversity of thinking is not much tolerated. Most individualist thinkers, says Rand, "endure their college years with the teeth-clenched determination of serving out a jail sentence. The psychological scars they acquire in the process are incalculable. But they struggle as best they can to preserve their capacity to think, sensing dimly that the essence of the torture is an assault on their minds." Though melodramatic and exaggerated, this statement holds a kernel of truth to which I can relate (though for me, it would apply more aptly to my high school years).

Two favorite quotes:

"The uncontested absurdities of today are the accepted slogans of tomorrow."

"...accusing private citizens of practicing 'censorship' (a concept applicable only to the government) [negates] their right to disagree."

[ziombel · Rating 5 out of 5]

The New Left: The Anti-Industrial Revolution is a collection of essays written by Ayn Rand and Peter Schwartz. In the articles the authors criticize anti-industrial attitudes that are anti-human and deny Reason and uman Dignity. In this work you can read about the activities of the New Left in the Seventies on the universities, criticism of the state education that does not teach people to think independently and a general critique of collectivism. Most of the criticism gets hippies and environmentalists, who openly put the lives of people below nature. The blame for the spread of these attitudes, is burden on modern philosophy (and Kantian philosophy), in which human mind is separated from the actual being. According to them, to stop these destructive trends, we should openly stand up for reason and the resulting benefits of civilization and individualism. I highly recommend this to anyone.

//polish
Powrót człowieka pierwotnego jest zbiorem esejów napisanych przez Ayn Rand i Petera Schwartza. W artykułach autorzy krytykują postawy antyprzemysłowe, które są antyludzkie i negują Rozum i Godność człowieka. W tym dziele można poczytać o działaniach Nowej Lewicy z lat 70 na uniwersytetach, krytykę państwowego systemu edukacji, który nie uczy ludzi myśleć samodzielnie oraz ogólną krytykę kolektywizmu. Najwięcej w tej krytyce dostaje się hipisom i ekologom, którzy otwarcie stawiają życie ludzi niżej niż naturę. Winą za rozprzestrzenianie się tych postaw autorzy obarczają współczesną filozofię(oraz filozofię kantowską), która według nich oddziela rozum od rzeczywistego bytu. Według nich aby zatrzymać te niszczycielskie trendy, należy otwarcie stanąć w obronie rozumu oraz wynikających z niego dobrodziejstw cywilizacji i indywidualizmu. Szczerze polecam każdemu.

[C.A. · Rating 3 out of 5]

Although speaking in a different time and in response to different circumstances, Ayn Rand's political and societal observations offer food for thought. Here are just a few quotes:

"The uncontested absurdities of today are the accepted slogans of tomorrow. They come to be accepted by degrees. By dent of constant pressure on one side and constant retreat on the other until one day they are declared to be the country’s official ideology."

"The end does not justify the means. No one’s rights can be secured by the violation of the rights of others."

"Ideas cannot be fought except by means of better ideas. The battle consists not of opposing but of exposing. Not of denouncing but of disproving. Not of evading but of boldly proclaiming a full, consistent, and radical alternative. This does not mean that rational students should enter debates with the rebels or attempt to convert them. One cannot argue with self-confessed irrationalists. The goal of an ideological battle is to enlighten the vast, helpless, bewildered majority in … the country at large, or rather the minds of those among the majority who are struggling to find answers. Or those who, having heard nothing but [the other side’s sophistries for years] have withdrawn in revulsion and given up. … The first step is to make one’s self heard."

"In the absence of intellectual content, the students resort to personal attacks. Practicing with impunity the old fallacy of ad hominem, substituting insults for arguments with hooligan rudeness and four-letter words accepted as part of their freedom of speech. Thus, malice is protected; ideas are not."

"The thing that permits men to utter public statements which, if believed, would cause people to run from them as from lepers is the fact that no one believes it. Most people have been conditioned to regard broad generalizations, abstract ideas, fundamental principles, and logical consequences as impotent, irrelevant, invalid or non-existent. “Oh, they don’t mean it,” is the general attitude. … Well, Hitler too, announced his abstract principles and goals in advance and evoked a similar reaction from the pragmatists of the time. The Soviets have openly preached world conquest for 5o years and have conquered 1/3rd of the globe’s population. Yet some people still do not believe that they mean it."

"The key feature that a radical core uses legitimate issues ambiguously in order to manipulate a large mass is identical [to the Communist fronts of the 1930s]."

"If and when the public opinion of a free country accepts a distinction between political and non-political criminals, it accepts the notion of political crimes. It supports the use of force in violation of rights and the historical process takes place in reverse. The country crosses the line into political despotism."

"Men who deny individual rights cannot claim, defend, or uphold any rights whatsoever."

"The inculcation of hatred for other tribes [or societal/political groups] is a necessary tool of tribal rulers who need scapegoats to blame for the misery of their own subjects. There is no tyranny worse than ethnic rule"

Many of Rand's observations in this book remain relevant today, as long as one looks at them from a larger perspective while separating them from her targets at the time of writing. That said, I could have done without Peter Schwartz's essays at the end. His outdated views on environmentalism (echoed by Rand), that it is an endless resource that exists to serves mankind's needs, left me with little to appreciate. His overly simplistic view of gender rights in the workplace ignore past evidence showing how many women continue to be over-looked and/or underpaid despite their performance (https://mitsloan.mit.edu/ideas-made-t... and https://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/a...). Overall, what value I received from Return of the Primitive came from some of Rand's thoughts on individual rights and the destructive mentality used by authoritarian groups and their leaders.

[Colin Hoad · Rating 4 out of 5]

I had only previously read Rand's "Atlas Shrugged", which while clearly philosophical in theme, is nevertheless a novel and quite different from formal academic writing. "The Return of the Primitive", by contrast is a collection of her essays, many taken from The Objectivist, written on the subject of the so-called 'New Left', a movement that began in the 1960s on college campuses in America and which subsequently spread well beyond those ivory towers. Rand is firmly against this movement and lays out her arguments why they are the true heirs of Kant, deformed in mind and in politics because they set emotion and feeling above reason and truth.

I found this book equal parts fascinating and depressing: Rand had identified something which - at the time - had not formally coalesced into a distinctive movement, but looking back on it now from the vantage point of the 21st century, it is clear that the seeds were sown for the current leftist malaise our society now finds itself in. Reason, facts and objective truth have been swept away in favour of how things make us feel, how offended we are by a given thing, and how in some of the worst respects, facts can be dismissed because they do not fit the narrative that the Left seeks to promote.

This book is perceptive and necessary. While I did not agree with everything Rand had to say on the topic, credit must surely be given for her diagnosis and her ability to read where things were heading. It is sad to realise that her prognosis was left unheeded by those who read her at the time.

[Chad Manske · Rating 5 out of 5]

Russian-born in 1905 and educated there until emigrating to the US in 1926, Rand originated the Objectivist philosophy best expressed in her fiction works of the Fountainhead (1943) and Atlas Shrugged (1957) for which she won numerous awards and acclaim. Thereafter, she focused promulgating her philosophy primarily through essays and an objectivist newsletter until her death in 1982. During the culturally free-spirited 1960s New Left movement, Rand sought to methodically and logically break down the weak arguments that became the foundation for the movement. Her crisp and economical prose was undeniably clear, and delivered in such a straightforward manner that a reader would be hard-pressed to counter her logic and writings. Without her background in Russia and it’s socialist/collectivist ideologies, we don’t get Rand’s contributions to literature and society. Her work lives on in this collection of essays—first published in 1971–and edited by Peter Schwartz, and added to with his own work on more modern day issues such as environmentalism, capitalism, feminism, racism, multiculturalism and others, using Rand’s philosophy and extending it to modern day. Rand’s work should be read by all who have polarized ideological leanings to either side, and it serves as a great historical account from one of the greatest philosophers of the 20th century.

[Jack · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is a collection of Rand’s essays from 1965 to 1975. It could have been written today.her essays cover racism, feminism, progressive education, environmentalism etc. Almost nothing has changed in 50 years. There’s still a leftist push toward collectivism, tribalism and destruction of the system(capitalism) that has lifted millions out of poverty and has brought levels of prosperity that were un imagined 200 years ago. She skewers the leftists more effectively than any of the pundits today (except for Sowell and Williams). Well worth reading. Peter Schwartz’s contributions to the book are also excellent.

[Ray · Rating 5 out of 5]

Ayn Rand was a genius and has been oddly ignored, for the most part, especially over the last two decades--while her philosophy is the most powerful combatant against the insidious and growing communism in America.

Everyone should be reading Ayn Rand. But just a word of advice: Rand is best taken in small doses. Her prose is brilliant, but can come off as preachy. Besides, it's more powerful in smaller doses. (Some essays herein can be repetitive if read straight through, also.)

[Jim · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is only the second book by Ayn Rand that I've read. The first was 'Atlas Shrugged'. My thoughts on this book? First, I'm amazed that a book written some 40 years ago speaks loudly and clearly to what is happening today. The madness of anti-industrial thinking is exposed on several fronts in the book. I'm inspired to dig into many more of Ayn Rand's writings.

[frank LaMarco · Rating 5 out of 5]

understanding today’s left

Un LikeOrwell’s 1984 and Huxleys’s Brave new world Who predict the future, Ayn Rands book explains what the left is doing to us in 2021. She explains how the philosophers have played with philosophy and fed the dribble to our youth for decades from Dewey to Marcusi to Obama and now Biden.

[Ben Torno · Rating 3 out of 5]

Rand’s writing style is pretty entertaining, but it comes across as very arrogant. She makes a lot of assertions about “reason” but there really isn’t much reasoning being done to justify them. A lot of quips and pithy quotes, but lacking in solid analysis.
Also, you can’t read two pages without Rand bringing up her weird deep seated hatred for Immanuel Kant.

[Richard Zierer · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very insightful; Rand predicted our current anti-intellectual environment nearly 50 years in advance. Many of her insights regarding the hippy movement are applicable to the current crop of diversity radicals and neo-fascists today.

[Ian Sénéchal · Rating 5 out of 5]

Troublant lire ce texte en sachant que ça été écrit il y a des décennies. Lire Rand hors de son contexte romancier permet encore plus de comprendre l'objectivisme qu'elle défend. Pas pour tous, mais belle lecture qui peut s'étirer sur quelques mois.

[Jim Dowdell · Rating 5 out of 5]

Ayn Rand explains the end of our free world better than the newspapers today. She does not lie to us. This book makes you want to read her fiction again – that has a happy ending. Our news today does not. My final thoughts as I closed the book: Abandon hope ye who enter here.

[Lauren · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great for understanding how society can be overthrown by violent protestors, teaching styles to avoid or improve to encourage children to use their individual knowledge, feminism's impact on women who are trying to advance professionally, and so many more great topics.

[Christopher Bailey · Rating 4 out of 5]

Blew my mind how prophetic this is to our own current social state.

[Ryan · Rating 3 out of 5]

Written decades ago, but strangely relevant today.

[Tom Nowak · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent insight into the New Left, egalitarianism, environmentalism, global balkanization.