But it's also about power. All these men have power and seek more of it.
That I agree with. I have a question though.
In AS, power = money and money = power. Aren't these two terms interchangeable? There are many human elements lacking in Rands writing and this probably affects my ability to understand her point.
If we accept that money is power, the only difference between this group of looters and a similar group of capitalists is that one group is seeking wealth/power by producing while the other is seeking wealth/power by destroying. A basic element of AS.
Kinnan therefore is a capitalist accepting looting as his only viable option. The 'capitalist without conscience'.
In the book they are somewhat interchangeable.
Jim Taggart and Orren Boyle may speak disparingly of profit, but they have no problem sucking up government money and putting their profits in d'Anconia Copper if it suits their purposes.
However, Wesley Mouch has power but no money that we know of. Power is a pursuit in and of itself. Eugene Lawson was so uninterested in profit that he had his bank shot out from under him, but he has power and intends to use and keep it.
There is a difference between a genuine idealogue and a corrupt capitalist.
If we accept that money is power, the only difference between this group of looters and a similar group of capitalists is that one group is seeking wealth/power by producing while the other is seeking wealth/power by destroying.
The difference is in Francisco's Money Speech from a few chapters back. The capitalists are producing value. Money is the representation of that value. The looters such as Kinnan are trying to grab the money thinking that they will grab the value with it. But they cannot grab that value because they do not trade in values.
The power that the producers gain through their money is a by-product of their production, not the goal of it. Look at the composer... can't remember his name... who produces value in his music.