Questions about motivation, The Fountainhead

[TexasTeacherMom 0]

Why didn't Wynand close the paper before the trial instead of acquiescing, when he was just going to turn around and close it later? I felt sure he would. It seemed like the only reason he held on was that Roark had told him not to give up? Why didn't he tell him, "Close your paper, it's the only way to squash the bugs and keep them from taking over."

Also, was anyone else suprised when he was aquitted? His defence speech was moving, but I still didn't see an aquittal coming. I def don't think that would happen in real life.

Also, is it just for him to be aquitted? I mean he did commit a crime and there were damages to the state in terms of monetary expenditures that had been made to construct the building that he destroyed, so I can't believe he didn't get sued afterward or something?

I know that the way the plot was constructed is meant to demonstrate Objectivism, but I am more looking at it from an "internal logic" perspective. If the people of New York are so sheepish in their hatred of Roark, how were they completely turned around by his speech? How did they even pay attention to it the whole time? I guess I was just expecting more of a real life scenario.

Any thoughts on these topics?

[RayK 0]

To begin I would state that The Fountainhead is a work of fiction. I would also recommend Ayn Rand's non-fiction works if you want to get a full understanding of why she writes. But, I will atttempt to give you a glimpse of her reasons as I cannot answer for her.

"Art is a re-creation of reality according to one's values. By "re-creation" I mean neither copying reality nor creation in a mystical sense. I don't mean going contrary to reality or indulging in fantasies. I mean (paraphrasing Aristotle) creating what coud be and ought to be. "What out to be" implies that the re-creation is according to the artist's values. "What could be" means that which is consistent with reality as opposed to fantasy." Ayn Rand

"My school of writing is romantic realism: "romantic" in that I present man as he ought to be: "realistic" in that I place men her and now on this earth, in terms applicable to every rational reader who shares these values and wants to apply them to himself. It is realistic in tha it's possible to man and applies to this earth; it's romantic in that it projects man and values as they ought to be, not as statistical averages." Ayn Rand

Finally, Ayn Rand did not write to "demonstrate Objectivism" as she was writing for herself primarily and I am glad she did so.

[TexasTeacherMom 0]

Thanks. Okay, I get that.

She wrote what she felt should happen in the end, but all along so much injustice was done to Roark. It seemed like she was saying the world will always be against the creative man and then in the end all of a sudden they let him off. That just seemed weird and unexpected. I like the idea that the ideal won, so to speak. I wish we had gotten to hear the jury deliberate or hear them all agreeing.

I do have some of Ms. Rand's nonfiction waiting in the queue. I am looking forward to reading her more directly philosophical writings.

The Fountainhead has been the most rewarding personal reading I've ever done. I have gained so much liberating insight about my need for the approval of others. I have come to realize that I am free to value or devalue the criticism and judgement of others depending on the basis they are using to judge. I am really looking at all of my actions and feelings from such a new perspective, now. Not really new, but as if an internal knowledge that I've always had has come to the surface and is dominating where I used to hush it up.

The thing that really troubles me is that I was able to get a degree in English literature, with a minor in philosophy and western civilization without ever reading any of Ayn Rand's work. I really do see my degree is a worthless piece of paper now. It has made me want to do something totally new that feels more real. I am studying mathematics now. I am going to see where it takes me. Perhaps I will teach math instead of language arts. It distresses me that my 9 and 10 year old students will probably never read Rand either and they will go on to get worthless pieces of paper. The few "educated" people in real life that I have talked to about these two novels have balked when I tried to discuss them. It seems they've been indoctrinated to the idea that Objectivism is some horrible elitist "nazi-like" cult. I can really see the influence of altruism in our educational system from elementary level on up to the univeristy. How can they hate her so much when all she does is claim for people their innate right to personal happiness. The fact that she is ignored by all of academia this way has made the whole system abhorrent to me.

I am also really scared about what the future holds for this country. I fear dark days ahead. I am so glad that I have found a handle on something so I won't get swallowed by the madness.

[B. Royce 0]

Why didn't Wynand close the paper before the trial instead of acquiescing, when he was just going to turn around and close it later? I felt sure he would. It seemed like the only reason he held on was that Roark had told him not to give up? Why didn't he tell him, "Close your paper, it's the only way to squash the bugs and keep them from taking over."

Also, was anyone else suprised when he was aquitted? His defence speech was moving, but I still didn't see an aquittal coming. I def don't think that would happen in real life.

Also, is it just for him to be aquitted? I mean he did commit a crime and there were damages to the state in terms of monetary expenditures that had been made to construct the building that he destroyed, so I can't believe he didn't get sued afterward or something?

I know that the way the plot was constructed is meant to demonstrate Objectivism, but I am more looking at it from an "internal logic" perspective. If the people of New York are so sheepish in their hatred of Roark, how were they completely turned around by his speech? How did they even pay attention to it the whole time? I guess I was just expecting more of a real life scenario.

Any thoughts on these topics?

Roark loved Wynand and wanted Wynand to fight for his values. He knew that he did not need Wynand in order to win.

No, I was not surprised that Roark was acquitted, given the quality of the jury, which represented the best Americans.

The plot was not constructed to demonstrate Objectivism, but individualism, specifically, the value of independence and the independent creator. Not all New Yorkers hated Roark. Obviously, those on the jury did not.

You say you were expecting a real life scenario? Does that mean loss and tragedy? I seriously suggest you think about this, and what it implies about your view of life.

[TexasTeacherMom 0]

Roark loved Wynand and wanted Wynand to fight for his values. He knew that he did not need Wynand in order to win.

No, I was not surprised that Roark was acquitted, given the quality of the jury, which represented the best Americans.

The plot was not constructed to demonstrate Objectivism, but individualism, specifically, the value of independence and the independent creator. Not all New Yorkers hated Roark. Obviously, those on the jury did not.

You say you were expecting a real life scenario? Does that mean loss and tragedy? I seriously suggest you think about this, and what it implies about your view of life.

But didn't they both see that The Banner was lost either way?

Good point about the Jury, I had forgotten that they were discussed. I should have realized there was a reason for that.

Also a good point that not all of New York hated Roark. I have had to keep reminding myslef, throughout the novel, that he was staying busy and getting work on his terms.

When I say real life, I guess I mean that there would be a fight. The jury would have deliberated and had to come to terms. In my view of life, pratically speaking, and in the novel, the people who value individual creativity are somewhat rare, and the lawyers in a court case are very selective in their choice of jurors, so ...

But I see what you mean about expecting loss and tragedy. It was a complete suprise to me that Roark triumphed because I tend to have a cynical view of people. What had happened to him up to that point had contributed to that cynicism.

[TexasTeacherMom 0]

Also there is that pesky little fact that he blew up a building.

It seems unlikely that he would not face any consequence, and to some extent, unjust.

I felt like he made a huge mistake in agreeing to design Cortlandt. I was screaming "Noooooooo" in my head while reading that part. When he gave over his design and trusted Peter, knowing who he is, to honor their agreement, well that was his mistake. It doesn't mean he owns the building and the materials used.

Maybe I'm too close to it because my husband is a contractor. He is always caught in the middle of these things. Sometimes an architect will miss something and the framers and contractors on site have to make decisions about things that should have been determined by the architect. Then if the architect is not around the builder will tell them to just decide the best way to handle it. It bothers him when this happens becasue he says the architect should either be on site, work out all the kinks ahead of time, or be accepting of the fact that there may end up being decisions made by someone else. I know the situation in the book is different, but... anyway.

[B. Royce 0]

Roark loved Wynand and wanted Wynand to fight for his values. He knew that he did not need Wynand in order to win.

No, I was not surprised that Roark was acquitted, given the quality of the jury, which represented the best Americans.

The plot was not constructed to demonstrate Objectivism, but individualism, specifically, the value of independence and the independent creator. Not all New Yorkers hated Roark. Obviously, those on the jury did not.

You say you were expecting a real life scenario? Does that mean loss and tragedy? I seriously suggest you think about this, and what it implies about your view of life.

But didn't they both see that The Banner was lost either way?

Good point about the Jury, I had forgotten that they were discussed. I should have realized there was a reason for that.

Also a good point that not all of New York hated Roark. I have had to keep reminding myslef, throughout the novel, that he was staying busy and getting work on his terms.

When I say real life, I guess I mean that there would be a fight. The jury would have deliberated and had to come to terms. In my view of life, pratically speaking, and in the novel, the people who value individual creativity are somewhat rare, and the lawyers in a court case are very selective in their choice of jurors, so ...

But I see what you mean about expecting loss and tragedy. It was a complete suprise to me that Roark triumphed because I tend to have a cynical view of people. What had happened to him up to that point had contributed to that cynicism.

Wynand did't see that the Banner was lost. He believed that he controlled public opinion.

Maybe the people who value independence are not as rare as you think. Or, like Wynand, they may hide the best which is in them, but when a sudden glorious chance comes along to express that value, they give it their best shot.

But sure, the whole conception of the novel IS rare. That's what makes it so wonderful. The characters and events are rare, but they _could_ happen, and such victories ARE possible in real life.

So, the moral is: don't expect loss except from losers, and base your view of "people" not on the grey majority, but on the golden minority.

[B. Royce 0]

Also there is that pesky little fact that he blew up a building.

It seems unlikely that he would not face any consequence, and to some extent, unjust.

I felt like he made a huge mistake in agreeing to design Cortlandt. I was screaming "Noooooooo" in my head while reading that part. When he gave over his design and trusted Peter, knowing who he is, to honor their agreement, well that was his mistake. It doesn't mean he owns the building and the materials used.

Maybe I'm too close to it because my husband is a contractor. He is always caught in the middle of these things. Sometimes an architect will miss something and the framers and contractors on site have to make decisions about things that should have been determined by the architect. Then if the architect is not around the builder will tell them to just decide the best way to handle it. It bothers him when this happens becasue he says the architect should either be on site, work out all the kinks ahead of time, or be accepting of the fact that there may end up being decisions made by someone else. I know the situation in the book is different, but... anyway.

The Fountainhead is not about legal justice; it is about something much higher---moral justice. It seems you have the two reversed.

[TexasTeacherMom 0]

Also there is that pesky little fact that he blew up a building.

It seems unlikely that he would not face any consequence, and to some extent, unjust.

I felt like he made a huge mistake in agreeing to design Cortlandt. I was screaming "Noooooooo" in my head while reading that part. When he gave over his design and trusted Peter, knowing who he is, to honor their agreement, well that was his mistake. It doesn't mean he owns the building and the materials used.

Maybe I'm too close to it because my husband is a contractor. He is always caught in the middle of these things. Sometimes an architect will miss something and the framers and contractors on site have to make decisions about things that should have been determined by the architect. Then if the architect is not around the builder will tell them to just decide the best way to handle it. It bothers him when this happens becasue he says the architect should either be on site, work out all the kinks ahead of time, or be accepting of the fact that there may end up being decisions made by someone else. I know the situation in the book is different, but... anyway.

The Fountainhead is not about legal justice; it is about something much higher---moral justice. It seems you have the two reversed.

No, I really think Roark was morally unjustified in blowing up Cortlandt. He should never have agreed to design it under another man's name. That was his misstep. He was wrong to blow it up when he had agreed to turn it over. The agreement he signed with Peter did not bind the builders to his terms.

[B. Royce 0]

Also there is that pesky little fact that he blew up a building.

It seems unlikely that he would not face any consequence, and to some extent, unjust.

I felt like he made a huge mistake in agreeing to design Cortlandt. I was screaming "Noooooooo" in my head while reading that part. When he gave over his design and trusted Peter, knowing who he is, to honor their agreement, well that was his mistake. It doesn't mean he owns the building and the materials used.

Maybe I'm too close to it because my husband is a contractor. He is always caught in the middle of these things. Sometimes an architect will miss something and the framers and contractors on site have to make decisions about things that should have been determined by the architect. Then if the architect is not around the builder will tell them to just decide the best way to handle it. It bothers him when this happens becasue he says the architect should either be on site, work out all the kinks ahead of time, or be accepting of the fact that there may end up being decisions made by someone else. I know the situation in the book is different, but... anyway.

The Fountainhead is not about legal justice; it is about something much higher---moral justice. It seems you have the two reversed.

No, I really think Roark was morally unjustified in blowing up Cortlandt. He should never have agreed to design it under another man's name. That was his misstep. He was wrong to blow it up when he had agreed to turn it over. The agreement he signed with Peter did not bind the builders to his terms.

In agreeing to design Cortlandt under Keating's name Roark was 1) selfishly attempting to build something practical and beautiful, and 2) giving Keating a last chance at a degree of integrity. When peter did not keep his part of the bargain, morally construction should have stopped and the building should never have been built. Roark, in blowing it up, was putting the raw materials back in their natural state and his action was morally just. He made no "misstep".

If you want to condemn one of the greatest heroes in world literature as guilty, I have nothing more to say.

[TexasTeacherMom 0]

I wouldn't say I condemn him.

I just feel like he violated his own principle of not working with others and for that he deserved to have Cortlandt built incorrectly. The materials that were used did not return to their natural state, they had been removed from their natural state and purchased by the builders. Then the builders, not knowing about Keatings agreement with Roark allowed changes to the original design. When the building blew up, they were a big trash heap that would have needed to be cleaned up, at a cost.

Now I think he redeemed himself when the other guy, can't remember the name, bought the site and paid for the cleanup and rebuilding. I don't think he's condemnable, and view him as a hero, but I do see this decision as a flaw in his actions, and I think that's the reason I saw his aquittal as unexpected.

I admit that I am taking a somewhat irreverent view of the work, but isn't that allowed, even with Ayn Rand? To like her writing doesn't mean you don't emerge from reading it with questions.

[Stussy88 0]

I wouldn't say I condemn him.

I just feel like he violated his own principle of not working with others and for that he deserved to have Cortlandt built incorrectly. The materials that were used did not return to their natural state, they had been removed from their natural state and purchased by the builders. Then the builders, not knowing about Keatings agreement with Roark allowed changes to the original design. When the building blew up, they were a big trash heap that would have needed to be cleaned up, at a cost.

Now I think he redeemed himself when the other guy, can't remember the name, bought the site and paid for the cleanup and rebuilding. I don't think he's condemnable, and view him as a hero, but I do see this decision as a flaw in his actions, and I think that's the reason I saw his aquittal as unexpected.

I admit that I am taking a somewhat irreverent view of the work, but isn't that allowed, even with Ayn Rand? To like her writing doesn't mean you don't emerge from reading it with questions.

Yes, I agree with you. Even though it would have killed the story, a well written contract that meant no violations from Roark's design was the way to go, not dynamite. Roark clearly failed in this aspect, but I put it down to literary licence

[piz 0]

I admit that I am taking a somewhat irreverent view of the work, but isn't that allowed, even with Ayn Rand?

Yes, absolutely. And it's not irreverent to question the work if your goal is greater understanding.

To like her writing doesn't mean you don't emerge from reading it with questions.

That is certainly true.

[AdamM 0]

To like her writing doesn't mean you don't emerge from reading it with questions.

I'd say if you don't have questions at first, you're either as brilliant as she was, or you weren't paying attention .

[AdamM 0]

The Fountainhead has been the most rewarding personal reading I've ever done. I have gained so much liberating insight about my need for the approval of others. I have come to realize that I am free to value or devalue the criticism and judgement of others depending on the basis they are using to judge. I am really looking at all of my actions and feelings from such a new perspective, now. Not really new, but as if an internal knowledge that I've always had has come to the surface and is dominating where I used to hush it up.

I had the exact same experience when I first read it. Wonderful, isn't it?

[bborg 0]

Yes, I agree with you. Even though it would have killed the story, a well written contract that meant no violations from Roark's design was the way to go, not dynamite. Roark clearly failed in this aspect, but I put it down to literary licence

I think the reason Roark made this decision was not Ayn Rand's literary license but the naivety of the character. Roark was not a philosopher, he was not Galt. He did not understand and did not care to waste time trying to understand Toohey's world. What he wanted to do was build, and he wanted to design Cortland badly. But he knew from experience that he wasn't going to be able to debate with a committee, let alone one influenced by Toohey, about the integrity of his work. He believed his only way to do the job was with the help of someone who did understand how such deals worked and could get it done in his place. I think had he known how naive that belief was, he would never have made the agreement with Keating to begin with.

Now as to the moral issue. While his expectation was naive, nevertheless Roark entered into a contract that was breached. No other architect could have achieved what he did with the Cortland design. It was the builders who needed him. And all he wanted was to have it built his way, he didn't even take payment! All of the benefits to be derived by the owners and the future tenants were made possible by Roark. None of that was possible without his mind. Yet they refused to honor that one condition, and so denied any right he had to the product of his work. And we're not talking about a society where he could have sued them for breach of contract, the case would have been thrown out immediately. In a rational society he would have had the choice to appeal to the government, but in a rational society he would never have needed Keating's help. His choice was to allow the theft of his work, or to claim his right to it the only way possible given the circumstances: by destroying it. Ayn Rand didn't have him do this just to make a more exciting story, but as an expression of the individual's right to his life and the products of his mind. She did it because she believed it was morally defensible and more than that, heroic.

[TexasTeacherMom 0]

Yes, I agree with you. Even though it would have killed the story, a well written contract that meant no violations from Roark's design was the way to go, not dynamite. Roark clearly failed in this aspect, but I put it down to literary licence

I think the reason Roark made this decision was not Ayn Rand's literary license but the naivety of the character. Roark was not a philosopher, he was not Galt. He did not understand and did not care to waste time trying to understand Toohey's world. What he wanted to do was build, and he wanted to design Cortland badly. But he knew from experience that he wasn't going to be able to debate with a committee, let alone one influenced by Toohey, about the integrity of his work. He believed his only way to do the job was with the help of someone who did understand how such deals worked and could get it done in his place. I think had he known how naive that belief was, he would never have made the agreement with Keating to begin with.

Now as to the moral issue. While his expectation was naive, nevertheless Roark entered into a contract that was breached. No other architect could have achieved what he did with the Cortland design. It was the builders who needed him. And all he wanted was to have it built his way, he didn't even take payment! All of the benefits to be derived by the owners and the future tenants were made possible by Roark. None of that was possible without his mind. Yet they refused to honor that one condition, and so denied any right he had to the product of his work. And we're not talking about a society where he could have sued them for breach of contract, the case would have been thrown out immediately. In a rational society he would have had the choice to appeal to the government, but in a rational society he would never have needed Keating's help. His choice was to allow the theft of his work, or to claim his right to it the only way possible given the circumstances: by destroying it. Ayn Rand didn't have him do this just to make a more exciting story, but as an expression of the individual's right to his life and the products of his mind. She did it because she believed it was morally defensible and more than that, heroic.

I do agree with you that naivete is a trait of Roark's. That does make sense as a reason for why he did it. It's part of his development and I kept forgetting, while reading that he was growing in understanding at the same time I was.

It's also very insightful that you point out that he is not Galt. I think reading them back to back made me confuse them at times. It's true that Galt was on to them the whole time, while Roark learned the hard way. Your explanation of the plot and characters makes sense to me.

As far as the heroism of blowing up the building, according to my own morality, I will have to think on that. I had a similar shocked reaction when Dagny killed the guard at project x. But this insight gives me something to work with. Thanks.

[bborg 0]

I think the reason Roark made this decision was not Ayn Rand's literary license but the naivety of the character. Roark was not a philosopher, he was not Galt. He did not understand and did not care to waste time trying to understand Toohey's world.

In the interests of clarity, I am not saying here that Roark was unphilosophical or a pragmatist. I just meant that his philosophy was implicit, and because he had a rational philosophy he was focused on life and achievement and had no interest in the Toohey's of the world ("but I don't think of you").

[RayK 0]

As far as the heroism of blowing up the building, according to my own morality, I will have to think on that. I had a similar shocked reaction when Dagny killed the guard at project x. But this insight gives me something to work with. Thanks.

Does not a person own that which comes from their intellect as much as they own that which they produce with their hands?

"every thing to which a man may attach a value and have a right; and which leaves to every one else the like advantage." James Madison

"The right to life is the source of all rights—and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave.

Bear in mind that the right to property is a right to action, like all the others: it is not the right to an object, but to the action and the consequences of producing or earning that object. It is not a guarantee that a man will earn any property, but only a guarantee that he will own it if he earns it. It is the right to gain, to keep, to use and to dispose of material values." Ayn Rand

"Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions....That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where the property which a man has in his personal safety and personla liberty, is violated by arbitrary seizures of one class of citizens fo the service of the rest." James Madison

So, did not Howard Roark own that which he was trading and did he not set the contractual agreements to which Peter Keating agreed? And was not the contractual agreement destroyed? Who you might ask is the immoral one and who is the moral for taking back that which was his by the only means possible?

[Betsy Speicher 0]

Also, is it just for him to be aquitted? I mean he did commit a crime and there were damages to the state in terms of monetary expenditures that had been made to construct the building that he destroyed, so I can't believe he didn't get sued afterward or something?

The trial was over whether or not he committed a crime and the property damage was a separate civil matter.

Roark argued that it was not a crime because he had destroyed his own property.

I agreed to design Cortlandt for the purpose of seeing it erected as I designed it and for no other reason. That was the price I set for my work. I was not paid.

If you do not pay for a car, it can be repossessed. Roark was not paid, so he "repossessed" Cortlandt.

[Betsy Speicher 0]

The thing that really troubles me is that I was able to get a degree in English literature, with a minor in philosophy and western civilization without ever reading any of Ayn Rand's work. I really do see my degree is a worthless piece of paper now. [...] It distresses me that my 9 and 10 year old students will probably never read Rand either and they will go on to get worthless pieces of paper.

Things are changing.

When my son was in high school (seven years ago!) he wanted to do his thesis on "Individualism in The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged." I was concerned and went to talk to his English teacher Miss Jones, a sweet-looking gal in her early twenties, to see if she minded. In fact, she was glad Matt was interested in Ayn Rand and was hoping he could convince his friends to choose the same books. Then she told me she had been a big fan of Ayn Rand ever since she entered the Fountainhead Essay Contest when she was in high school.

Since then, the Ayn Rand Institute has helped over a million high school students read Anthem and The Fountainhead with their Free Books to Teachers program (link). Each year, I earmark my A.R.I. contribution to make sure that Miss Jones and every other English teacher at Thousand Oaks High has a complete set of Ayn Rand books for their students.

[David T. McKee 0]

I agreed to design Cortlandt for the purpose of seeing it erected as I designed it and for no other reason. That was the price I set for my work. I was not paid.

If you do not pay for a car, it can be repossessed. Roark was not paid, so he "repossessed" Cortlandt.

I should like to repossess some of the taxes I have been force to pay - the representation of my effort and the use of my mind.

Sorry, just venting as I do my taxes...

[Capitalism Forever 0]

Roark argued that it was not a crime because he had destroyed his own property.

I agreed to design Cortlandt for the purpose of seeing it erected as I designed it and for no other reason. That was the price I set for my work. I was not paid.

If you do not pay for a car, it can be repossessed. Roark was not paid, so he "repossessed" Cortlandt.

I think the design of the building was his intellectual property, but the materials used for its construction were not; they were government property. Since the contract that had been breached was between Roark and Keating and the government was an "innocent third party," I think technically he could have been held guilty for destroying government property. The fact that you are repossessing a defaulter's car which he keeps in his employer's parking garage does not mean you are free to break into the garage. Of course, the fact that the government obtained the funds for the building by force from, among other people, Roark, means that, on a moral level, he was "repossessing" the entire building.

BTW, it is not at all unusual for Miss Rand's heroes to be technically legally guilty of some crime. As a little contest: How many stories in "The Early Ayn Rand" can you count where this is the case?

[ewv 0]

I think the design of the building was his intellectual property, but the materials used for its construction were not; they were government property. Since the contract that had been breached was between Roark and Keating and the government was an "innocent third party," I think technically he could have been held guilty for destroying government property. The fact that you are repossessing a defaulter's car which he keeps in his employer's parking garage does not mean you are free to break into the garage. Of course, the fact that the government obtained the funds for the building by force from, among other people, Roark, means that, on a moral level, he was "repossessing" the entire building.

BTW, it is not at all unusual for Miss Rand's heroes to be technically legally guilty of some crime. As a little contest: How many stories in "The Early Ayn Rand" can you count where this is the case?

There are so many non-objective laws that everyone is "technically guilty" of something all the time while everything the government does is "legal". Ayn Rand used the common sense of juries invoking jury nullification as a fictional device in her plots to support her heroes in defiance of legalized injustice -- why go along with the government's premises and ruin the theme of a good novel?

[Betsy Speicher 0]

Some of the posts on thus thread have been split off into a new topic "Is America a Socialist Country?" (link)