Why Howard Roark’s life and message makes him the son-in-law of communism

  • 5

Why Howard Roark’s life and message makes him the son-in-law of communism:

After Karl Marx and Lenin, when world felt the void of Communist heroes, a  reincarnated soul in a ripe orange hair emerged to save the world , he was called Howard Roark, he fought against oppression, championed the cause of the poor, denounced religious dogma and empty ritualism, and sought to inspire a righteous attitude in society.

The life and message of Howard Roark reveals that he imbibed, taught and fought for these principles vehemently. In fact, an objective analysis of the ‘The Fountainhead’ too would reveal that Howard Roark was a better communist than Karl Marx. One could go so far as to describe him as the faithful torchbearer of communism!  

Krishna and Radha, who will be reincarnated as
Howard Roark and Dominique 

Howard Roark and Dominique Francon - True Communists

Howard Roark worked in a granite quarry – which itself is enough to say that he was very supportive of the poor and had concerns about their state of living as he himself experienced it. Howard Roark was banned from the college because of his background. A daily waged labor himself, he worked for the empowerment of his people. Later, he destroyed his own building, as it was a symbol of oppression, thereby liberating the entire society from the tyranny of the upper class.

Throughout his life, Howard Roark cared for the poor and the weak. In ‘The Fountainhead’, he could have sided with the powerful Ellsworth Monkton Toohey or Guy Francon but he took the side of himself (which means he took the side of the Poor, as he was poor himself). He worked as an ambassador for the poor with his buildings, which cried for the equality and justice in every brick.

The story of Henry Cameron, the poor architect, is a well-known episode from Howard Roark’s life. Often people think architects were oppressors, when in fact architects have always been very poor. One never hears instances or stories of rich architects in pulp fiction or in any form of literature. But Howard Roark’s love and compassion was such that he honoured him, cutting across the class barriers laid by the oppressors in the field of Architecture.

Howard Roark also rebelled against dogmatic religious practices of those days. Even today it is well known that the sane people of architectural society stopped the bhoomi puja they were doing to buildings, shifting over,to caring and honouring the knowledge of the self. He also promoted individual thinking, where everyone has freedom to think and apply it.

 Finally, after a detailed exposition of all aspects of life, knowledge and duty, he says, “What you feel in the presence of a thing you admire is just one word–’Yes.’ The affirmation, the acceptance, the sign of admittance. And that ’Yes’ is more than an answer to one thing, it’s a kind of ’Amen’ to life, to the earth that holds this thing, to the thought that created it, to yourself for being able to see it. But the ability to say ’Yes’ or ’No’ is the essence of all ownership. It’s your ownership of your own ego. Your soul, if you wish. Your soul has a single basic function–the act of valuing. ’Yes’ or ’No,’ ’I wish’ or ’I do not wish.’ You can’t say ’Yes’ without saying ’I.’ There’s no affirmation without the one who affirms. In this sense, everything to which you grant your love is yours.” This is really a revolutionary thing. Karl Marx also has said drop the religion, "Religion is the opium of the masses." But beyond religion is the quest for truth. Where does a man go further? There Howard Roark leads the beautiful Dominique Francon, misled Peter Keating and the dynamic Gail Wynand, leads the people into that spiritual realm of experience, which is seriously lacking in communism today.

By principle

I wonder why the communists have not yet owned Howard Roark. Many times in the ‘The Fountainhead’, Howard Roark says, “A man who works for others without payment is a slave! I do not believe that slavery is noble. Not in any form, nor for any purpose, whatsoever!” This is the basic principle of communism – against slavery and for equality. He says “I don’t make comparisons. I never think of myself in relation to anyone else. I just refuse to measure myself as part of anything.” This is a metaphorical translation for his views against oppression.

To see everyone as equal is a matter of the heart, and the heart can be made to blossom only through individuals. And uplifting the spirit is what individualism is. So you cannot be a true communist if you don't have that spark of individualism in your heart.

I might write the following posts in future:
  • Lord Krishna is the first James Bond.
  • Christianity, the modern Hinduism: As the etymology of the names ‘Krishna’ and ‘Christ’ lead to the same source.
  • Communist Party of India (Marxist) and its love for Hinduism: Brinda Karat’s 1kg red bindi is the symbolic gesture to it.
  • Is Left Liberalism the neo Hinduism? : Bakha Dutt’s Hindi and Bindi.
  • Tolerance of Islam and Mughal Empire in Hindustan: Here I take back you to the days of Yoga – Vajrasana.

5 comments:

  1. Your satire is getting wonderfully caustic! Loved reading this! Cheers! :)

    ReplyDelete
  2. waiting for future articles (u hav already given the trailer)... :)

    Good One.

    ReplyDelete
  3. first things first,
    1.his college never banned him,its d other way around,he left it as its sprading mediocrity and not in d hell bcoz he was poor.
    2.'poor',he has different idea for poor,keating is poor,guy francon is poor,his professor at stanton is poor .
    3.it's not love for poor,he took the quarry job,its his hate twards mediocre society .
    4.only thing he loves more dan himself is his work and nly thing he respcts is d ability to do work,dats how he chose his frnds.
    5. he dosnt care for poor n dats his way of giving respect.
    nevr read ur column more dan d first para,i think u misread it. no offense.

    ReplyDelete
  4. first things first,
    1.his college never banned him,its d other way around,he left it as its sprading mediocrity and not in d hell bcoz he was poor.
    2.'poor',he has different idea for poor,keating is poor,guy francon is poor,his professor at stanton is poor .
    3.it's not love for poor,he took the quarry job,its his hate twards mediocre society .
    4.only thing he loves more dan himself is his work and nly thing he respcts is d ability to do work,dats how he chose his frnds.
    5. he dosnt care for poor n dats his way of giving respect.
    nevr read ur column more dan d first para,i think u misread it. no offense.

    ReplyDelete
  5. @ Phani Sharath

    I agree with all the points which you made. This is parody post on this article "Krishna, the first Communist" http://srisriravishankar.org/content/krishna-first-communist

    ReplyDelete