"My sense is that this completely fails as a tool to understanding twenty-somethings in the US and Europe between 1965 and 1980. As sociology it is ahistorical and desituated lifecourse social psychology. There is no such thing as an "age" absent its historical and spatial context. I've known as many communitarian twenty-somethings of various populist, anarchist and socialist stripes as I've known libertarian ones, though of course the vast majority I've known are go-along-to-get-along types who alternately pursue what they think they want to do after which time they play by the rules of the game."
and Woj writes:
"In their adolescence, these people (mainly of
> middle class background) are inculcated with feelings of self-importance
> through the middle-class socialization and education that emphasizes
> individualism, personal achievement, leadership etc."
Woj's account wasn't completely ahistorical, because the mission presented to the young post 65 lacked certain features that had traditionally been there before: the importance of society and community; the notion that individual achievement was only the circumstantial crowning of a larger drive; and the desirability of equality and democracy in an age where the franchise had indeed become universal. In fact, there is a growing elitist, meritocratic, hyper-individualistic movement starting in the early seventies and Rand's ravings were tailor made for times which insisted that there wasn't enough to go around, that democracy lowered or destroyed cultural values, and that any notion of social obligation was nothing other than the tyrannical rule of the weak over the strong. Moreover, the relentless deskilling of all blue-collar work made it "obvious" that the creators and leaders were the only ones who knew anything. In fact, if you look at Rand's heroes, they're all Stakhanovite, skilled workmen: Dagny Taggart can build railroads with her bare hands, Howard Roark literally breaks the rocks that builds the buildings he designs, etc., Dominque Francon is a journalist....they work their way from the bottom up even if they start rich and inherit the stairs they're climbing. (She did grow up during the Russian revolution and did pick up some interesting notions that she married to her idea of a heroic elite.)
For all the talk of the lone creator, all of Rand's novels are really about the distinction between an elite and a hoi polloi, and the elite is quite communistic in its way. They just play at competition, they enjoy free love, and they are generous with one another. In fact Atlas Shrugged paints a pretty good picture of communism for the rich and capitalism for the poor.
No wonder her "philosophy" touched a nerve. This is why it's worth a few hours to actually read one of her books and, as I mentioned before, The Fountainhead is probably the most representative of her cosmology.
Joanna