Osip Mandelstam’s “The Morning of Acmeism” (1913) is a brief yet ambitious manifesto attempting to articulate the aesthetic principles of one of the most distinctive poetic movements of early-twentieth-century Russia. Acmeism—its name derived from the Greek akmē, meaning the highest point, prime, or moment of full flowering—unfortunately remains largely unfamiliar to Western readers, even to those interested in literature. But anyone concerned with the nature of language, with the role of form in art, or with the possibility of a reality-oriented aesthetics will find value in this movement.

Mandelstam’s work does not present a systematic argument; rather, it offers a series of compressed reflections on the nature of poetry, the role of words within poetry, and the relationship between artistic form and reality. Its brevity is deceptive: Within a few pages, Mandelstam sketches a theory that is at once beautiful and implicitly philosophic.

The meaning and value of Acmeism cannot be deeply understood apart from its historical context. Russia, as Russian-born philosopher Ayn Rand once characterized it, was “the ugliest and, incidentally, most mystical country on earth.”1 Recent events have led many to agree with her. Although Russia occasionally shared certain cultural and political developments with Western Europe, it never experienced either a renaissance or a full enlightenment. Despite intermittent attempts by individual Russian rulers to “open a window to Europe,” the country remained largely untouched by the intellectual revolutions that shaped the modern West.2 It was an autocratic and deeply mystical society.

However, several significant people in the history of art were born in this environment. This is not because oppression produces creativity—it does not. Control, censorship, and prohibition restrain people’s creative potential, but some resist. And in that resistance, many cultivate and embody certain qualities—clarity, conviction, the desire to create—that enable them to oppose the dominant forces of their time.

Russian culture, particularly from the late eighteenth century onward, developed in constant tension with the culture of Western Europe. Without that influence, the intellectual culture of eighteenth- and nineteenth-century Russia could not have emerged in the form it did. The Russian intelligentsia did not arise in isolation; it arose through engagement with ideas that already had been forged elsewhere.

Within this framework, some Russian thinkers and artists gradually came to recognize the backwardness of their own culture—and to define themselves in opposition to it. But opposition alone is not enough. One cannot fight effectively against something without knowing what one is fighting for. A vague sense of alternative possibilities may suffice to initiate resistance; a clear and positive vision is far rarer—and necessary for lasting change.

It is in this tension between Russian culture and its Western influences that the Silver Age of Russian culture was born. This period, beginning in the final decades of the nineteenth century and ending in the aftermath of the Bolshevik Revolution, was marked by an extraordinary flourishing of artistic activity, particularly in poetry. Its dominant literary movement was Symbolism.3

Originating in France in the second half of the nineteenth century and formally articulated in Jean Moréas’s 1886 “Symbolist Manifesto,” Symbolism was said to be grounded in a specific premise: The world we perceive with our senses is not self-sufficient but points beyond itself to a realm of “primordial Ideas.” The task of poetry, therefore, is not to name but to suggest; not to define but to evoke the hidden correspondences that link sensory appearances to a deeper realm of meaning.4

In Russia, Symbolism developed somewhat later, in the 1890s. Initially an adaptation of the French model, it soon acquired a more explicitly philosophic dimension. Russian Symbolism transformed the poetic gesture of suggestion into a metaphysical project: Poetry became a means not merely of indicating ideas but of accessing a supposed higher, nonmaterial realm. Figures such as Valery Bryusov, Konstantin Balmont, Alexander Blok, and Andrei Bely exemplify this development.5

But not all artists of Russia’s Silver Age accepted this direction.

Acmeism emerged in Russia between 1910 and 1912 as a conscious break with Symbolism and its fundamental way of viewing the world. Its institutional center was the “Guild of Poets,” founded in St. Petersburg by Nikolai Gumilev and Sergei Gorodetsky. The movement’s theoretical articulation came in 1912–1913, most notably in Mandelstam’s “The Morning of Acmeism” and Gumilev’s “The Heritage of Symbolism and Acmeism.”

Against the Symbolist tendency to dissolve the poetic word into vague suggestion, Acmeism affirmed clarity, concreteness, and form. Words, for the Acmeists, must have a definite meaning grounded in reality; they must not evaporate into an endless chain of subjective associations. This theoretical advance enabled Acemists to produce a body of poetry marked by precision, balance, and a profound respect for language.

Because poetry cannot be translated from one language to another without loss—its sound, rhythm, and internal structure are inseparable from its meaning—it is difficult to convey the full aesthetic achievement of the Acmeists in another language. What can be examined, however, are the principles that made that achievement possible.

These principles, despite their strength, did not secure the movement a lasting cultural position in Russia. There were two reasons for this. The first was political: The Soviet regime did not merely oppose the spirit of Acmeism; it destroyed its representatives. The second was philosophic: Acmeism, for all its insights, rested on unresolved contradictions.

The Acmeists themselves did not consider their relationship to Symbolism purely antagonistic. Gumilev explicitly wrote that a new movement must inherit the achievements of its predecessor.6 And on the level of technique, Acmeism owes much to Symbolism. But at the level of fundamentals, the break is decisive. Symbolism, both in France and in Russia, was grounded in a fundamentally mystical view of reality. Acmeism, by contrast, moved toward a realist orientation.

This is most evident in Mandelstam’s manifesto “The Morning of Acmeism.” He begins by insisting that the value of a work lies not in the artist’s worldview but in the work itself. The worldview is a means, not an end. This anticipates a crucial principle: The value of art lies in the work itself—or, stated negatively, art is not the means to any didactic end. Mandelstam continues: “To exist is the highest pride of the artist. He desires no other paradise than being. . . . The modest outward appearance of a work of art often deceives us as to the monstrously condensed reality it contains.”7

This idea of a “condensed reality,” which Mandelstam does not develop or clarify, seems within the context of his writing to refer to the artist’s selective re-creation of reality through his art—its concretization.8 In addition to art “condensing” reality by concretizing it, the word itself is likewise “condensed” in poetry, because, for Mandelstam, it is not a mere vehicle of meaning.

In ordinary speech, a word functions as a sign conveying thought; from this arises the habit of treating its logical meaning as its “content,” whereas sound, rhythm, and structure are considered secondary. Mandelstam rejects this division in poetry. In Acmeism, the poetic word is not a detachable container of content but an integral form. Meaning—or, as Mandelstam calls it, logos—stands on an equal footing with sound and rhythm. The mature poetic word is neither a transparent carrier of meaning nor an empty play of sounds but a stable, “vertical” form in which meaning, sound, and structure become inseparable. It is this unity to which the poet must aspire in his craft.9 As Gumilev wrote:

While valuing the Symbolists for having revealed to us the importance of the symbol in art, we do not agree to sacrifice other modes of poetic effect to it and seek their full coordination. . . . It is more difficult to be an Acmeist than a Symbolist, just as it is more difficult to build a cathedral than a tower.10

Mandelstam develops this architectural metaphor into one of the central images of Acmeism:

Acmeism is for those who, possessed by the spirit of building, do not faintheartedly renounce their own weight, but gladly accept it in order to awaken and use the architecturally dormant forces within it. . . . What madman would agree to build if he did not believe in the reality of the material whose resistance he must overcome? In the hands of the architect, a cobblestone turns into substance, and he was not born to build for whom the sound of the chisel breaking stone is not a metaphysical proof.11

The poet works not with arbitrary signs but with real material—the word in its wholeness. Here one finds an idea close to a principle originally captured by Francis Bacon: Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. Likewise, to achieve aesthetic zenith in poetry, one must accept the word as material in all its specificity and submit to its nature.

Mandelstam continues:

The Symbolists were poor homebodies; they loved travel, but they felt ill at ease in the cage of their own organism and in that world-cage which Kant built with the help of his categories. . . . What would you say of an ungrateful guest who lives at his host’s expense, makes use of his hospitality, yet inwardly despises him and thinks only of how to outwit him? . . . That is why the architect must be a good homebody, whereas the Symbolists were poor builders.12

His attitude toward “that world-cage which Kant built” is not entirely clear. Both Kant and the Symbolists despised the hospitable host—reality—wishing to “outwit” it by calling it merely “phenomenal” and holding that some other, “noumenal” reality lay beyond it. But Mandelstam’s complaint, it seems, amounted merely to this: that the Symbolists were not content with describing the phenomenal world but hopelessly strove to pass beyond its limits. Be that as it may, Mandelstam argues that the architect, with whom he compares the Acmeist poet, must love reality and the material it provides for creation and must respect their identity in his work. This is brilliantly right.

The following passage is, in essence, the most beautiful expression of the positive side of Acmeism—of what is distinctly Acmeist in it rather than merely inherited from Symbolism:

A=A: What a beautiful poetic theme. Symbolism languished, grew bored with the law of identity; Acmeism makes it its slogan and offers it in place of the dubious a realibus ad realiora [from the real to the more real]. The capacity for wonder is the poet’s chief virtue. But how can one fail to marvel at the most fruitful of laws—the law of identity? Whoever is filled with reverent wonder before this law is undoubtedly a poet. Thus, by recognizing the sovereignty of the law of identity, poetry receives all that exists into lifelong feudal possession, without conditions or limitations. Logic is the kingdom of surprise. To think logically means to be in continual astonishment. We have come to love the music of proof. Logical connection is for us not a little song about a siskin, but a symphony with organ and singing, so difficult and inspired that the conductor must strain all his powers to keep the performers obedient. To prove, and to prove to the end: to take anything in art on faith is unworthy of the artist—easy and dull.

We do not fly; we rise only to those towers that we ourselves can build.13

Here everything speaks for itself, and the only comment I can offer is: yes.

At its highest point, Mandelstam’s manifesto affirms a view of poetry grounded in reality, clarity, and the integrity of the word. He even identified Gothic architecture as the material analog of this ideal, describing the Middle Ages as marked by a “noble mixture of rationality and mysticism.” Yet this formulation reveals a tension. The same thinker who celebrated the law of identity and the “music of proof” did not fully abandon the language of mysticism and so could not fully escape its consequences. The realist impulse of Acmeism is genuine—but not consistently sustained.

This inconsistency points to the first reason that the movement failed to establish itself as a durable cultural force: a lack of philosophic integration. The Acmeists moved beyond Symbolism but didn’t do so decisively. The realist metaphysics implicit in Mandelstam’s essay was never fully articulated or defended.

This limitation becomes clearer in Nikolai Gumilev’s “The Heritage of Symbolism and Acmeism,” wherein he writes:

Russian Symbolism directed its main forces toward the realm of the unknown. . . . And it has the right to ask the movement that comes to replace it . . . what relation it bears to the unknowable. The first thing Acmeism can answer under such interrogation is that the unknowable . . . cannot be known. The second is that all attempts in that direction are unchaste. All the beauty, all the sacred significance of the stars lies in the fact that they are infinitely distant from the earth and will not come closer through any successes of aviation. . . .

To remember always the unknowable, but not to insult one’s thought of it with more or less probable guesses—such is the principle of Acmeism. . . . Of course . . . the beautiful lady Theology will remain on her throne, but the Acmeists do not wish either to lower her to the level of literature or to raise literature into her diamond-cold realm.14

Gumilev rejected the Symbolists’ attempts to penetrate the unknown—but not the notion of the unknowable itself. His argument rested on restraint, not on rejection. The “infinitely distant stars” he invoked have, in fact, come closer—through the achievements of human reason. The unknowable should be rejected not because it cannot be known but because it does not exist. In a universe governed by the law of identity, there is, in principle, nothing unknowable. By failing to fully embrace this implication, the Acmeists never escaped what Mandelstam himself called “that world-cage which Kant built.”15

The second reason Acmeism failed to establish itself as a durable cultural force was political. After the Bolshevik Revolution, the communist regime subordinated literature to ideological goals, culminating in the doctrine of socialist realism. A movement committed to the autonomy of form and the integrity of language could not survive under such conditions. Its representatives paid with their lives: Gumilev was executed, his wife and fellow Acmeist Anna Akhmatova was silenced and persecuted, and Osip Mandelstam died in a labor camp. Acmeism was not merely eclipsed—it was destroyed.

And yet, its legacy endures. The Acmeists knew what they opposed, and they grasped—if only partially—what they sought: poetry of clarity, form, and fidelity to reality. Their failure was not one of intention but of integration. For that reason, their work remains both a genuine achievement and an unfinished project.

I would like to close with a poem by Mandelstam—a poet who marveled at the law of identity and believed, despite everything, in the future of his country and of world culture:

Let the names of flowery cities
Caress the ear with fleeting glory —
It is not Rome the city that’s immortal,
But man’s presence in the universe.

Kings try to get man in their power,
Priests find excuses for their wars,
And yet without him hearths and altars
Like wretched rubble are beneath contempt.16

Recently, I walked along the platform at “Hogsmeade station,” the idyllic arrival point for wizarding students riding to school on the Hogwarts Express.

This wasn’t one of the theme park re-creations of Hogsmeade station but the actual station used in the Harry Potter movies. Named Goathland, it’s a stop on the picturesque North Yorkshire Moors Railway with stone buildings and a red steel footbridge that nestle harmoniously among the rolling hills. The only reason it exists today in such well-preserved condition is that it, and hundreds like it, have been painstakingly rebuilt and restored by volunteer railway enthusiasts. These volunteers have turned thousands of miles of abandoned rails across the world into thriving tourist attractions that celebrate industry, technology, and innovation; teach visitors and staff about subjects as diverse as history, economics, and mechanical engineering; and keep alive the sights, sounds, and skills of a bygone age.

The heritage railway industry began with a few young men who shared a love for a quirky little railway they had discovered while stationed in a remote part of Wales during World War II. The line was called the Talyllyn Railway, and it ran from the edge of the Irish Sea up into the Welsh mountains. Because of the rough terrain, it had “narrow-gauge” track, half the width of the “standard-gauge” tracks common in Britain and much of the world. This lent it a toy-town feel with half-size trains, stations, and equipment. By the time the young men discovered it, the line was owned by Sir Henry Haydn Jones, who had bought it in 1910. Forty years later, the line was limping on, funded out of Sir Jones’s pocket and used only by a handful of village dwellers. By the time he passed away in 1950, the line had deteriorating track, one ailing steam engine, and a couple of rickety coaches.1

By then, most of Britain’s railways had been forcibly nationalized by the government to form British Railways (BR), but the Talyllyn had been omitted deliberately, and nobody was likely to save the struggling operation. Seeing the writing on the wall, these men—author Tom Rolt, radio shop owner Bill Trinder, and historian Jim Russell—formed a committee to acquire the line and run it as a tourist attraction. Rolt, who subsequently wrote a number of books on railways (including a history of the Talyllyn and a biography of engineer Isambard Kingdom Brunel), described the experience of riding the line at this time: “This Talyllyn train made a curious and unrhythmical clattering noise, while it proceeded with a strange undulating swaying motion as though the coaches were a string of towed boats surmounting a succession of small waves.”2

Rolt had a passion for transport and industry, especially in its more curious and esoteric forms, and was active in preserving canals and classic sports cars. He was fascinated to discover a small independent operation that still used 19th-century locomotives and coaches, barely clinging to survival through the efforts of one man and a small band of elderly staff. The state of the line was driven home to him during his first attempt to ride it, when he arrived at the station to find a handwritten sign at the entrance: “NO TRAIN TODAY.” He decided instead to walk the line, observing not only the decaying vintage coaches that seemed to be holding up the shed they were stored in, but also spectacular scenery surrounding the line as it wound, bridged, and tunneled its way along the river up into the mountains.3

Sir Jones’s widow, who had kept the line running through the end of the 1950 operating season, donated it to the band of volunteers in 1951. Rolt recalls, “In 1950, the novel idea of forming a voluntary society to run a public railway was considered crack-brained.”4 But they were determined and began laying new track by hand, servicing the vehicles, and publicizing the line through public meetings and letters to influential people. After a long winter of preparation, they operated their first train in 1951, and the Talyllyn became the world’s first heritage railway.

The train promptly derailed on the return journey, and the passengers had to walk back the rest of the way. The early years were beset with similar pitfalls as the volunteers wrestled with worn-out equipment and infrastructure. Once, a locomotive ran out of water part way along the line, and the crew had to run across fields to a nearby farm to replenish it.5 Although these were difficult years, the volunteers enjoyed the challenge and were proud of their work, as Rolt later recounted: “Despite our pride in what has been achieved [since], some of us cannot help feeling a twinge of nostalgic regret as we recall the pioneering days when the train service was maintained by a guess and by God.”6

As the 1950s continued, other narrow-gauge railways were closing due to rising car ownership, and the Talyllyn’s owners negotiated to acquire some of their equipment, including two locomotives. A volunteer constructed another locomotive from scratch. Throughout these turbulent years, the volunteers pressed on, driven by a desire to keep the line they loved operational, restore it to its former glory, and create a working monument to Wales’s distinctive narrow-gauge railways.

Not only did the new equipment relieve their maintenance woes, but it also provided capacity for the line’s growing patronage—it carried 15,000 people in 1951, already far more than it typically had carried before, and that number grew to more than 78,000 by 1965. Despite its growth, the volunteers were keen to preserve its unique character and independent spirit. Rolt saw this, in part, as a way of standing up to the widespread nationalization and standardization of British transport and industry at the time:

False quantitative standards of equality and uniformity imposed in the name of democracy; the false equation of mere size with efficiency which assumes that the larger the organization the better it must be; these things run counter to the grain of human nature and lead to damnation and the dark night of the spirit. Our trains must all be of one colour now (except on the Talyllyn) and are to be hauled by “standard” locomotives of questionable merit. . . . Like the current at the switch or the water from the tap [our trains and our buses] have become “public services” ruled by “them”—unknown officials who might dwell upon a different planet, so top-heavy is the hierarchy of officialdom and so remote from the local communities which it ostensibly exists to serve. It is against this imposed and world-levelling order that the creative individual is bound to fight, not only for standards of truth and of beauty, but for his own survival.7

Rolt and his fellow volunteers were such creative individuals, expressing themselves by preserving and rebuilding a railway that embodied the rustic charm they wanted to continue enjoying in a changing world. Although often strenuous and demanding, their work was satisfying because they loved the railway and found rebuilding it deeply fulfilling. The same motivations have driven untold thousands of volunteers at the Talyllyn and other heritage railways since.

With the railway’s growing profile came more volunteers, including the Reverend Wilbert Awdry, whose experiences working at the Talyllyn inspired him to write his Thomas the Tank Engine books, which sparked a passion for railways (and industry and transportation more generally) in generations of children who followed.8 Awdry later remarked, “I volunteered to help preserve a little railway, and found myself helping to preserve a great deal more—a way of life.”9

Meanwhile, the Talyllyn developed its facilities, creating a museum at the coastal end of the line about the history of narrow-gauge railways and slate mining in Wales. The Talyllyn’s growth, combined with the increasing closure of railways across Britain, inspired enthusiasts up and down the country. Another organization saved the nearby Ffestiniog Railway (another narrow-gauge line) in 1954, and some began to wonder whether the same feat could be achieved with a full-size main-line railway.

That same decade, a legal battle was being fought over the 1955 closure of BR’s East Grinstead to Lewes route, which kept it open until 1958.10 By that time, the movement to save the line—now branded by the press as the Bluebell Railway—had grown substantially. Four students proposed founding a preservation society, and BR station manager Bernard Holden was so interested that he retired from his post and chaired a meeting to form it in 1959.11 Holden loved the romance and awe of steam traction—the sight and sound of these powerful machines that seemed almost alive in their purposeful puffing and chugging—which was fast disappearing by this time. He focused the society on preserving and restoring steam locomotives, giving it the motto “Floreat Vapour” to signify that, unlike the increasingly standardized and nationalized BR, this would be a railway where enthusiasts and the general public could continue to enjoy watching and riding behind a wide diversity of steam locomotives in full working order.12

The group managed to raise enough money to lease a six-mile section and acquire two locomotives and coaches. It began operating in 1960 from Sheffield Park to “Bluebell Halt,” a hastily built wooden platform south of Horsted Keynes.

The line drew fifteen thousand passengers in its first year—enough to cover the lease and operating costs.13 Over the following years, the Bluebell Railway grew into one of the region’s leading tourist destinations, attracting two hundred thousand passengers annually by the early 1990s.14 The society extended the line north in the 1980s and again in 2013. This created a long, scenic route connecting the main-line railway from London with the popular country house and landscaped gardens at Sheffield Park. The last extension required removing 3.4 million cubic feet of landfill at a cost of £3.5 million—a testament to how far the railway had come from the early days in the 1960s.15 Holden remained actively involved in the railway’s operations into his nineties and its president until his death in 2014.16

The Bluebell Railway proved that a group of volunteers could operate a full-size railway. Before long, dozens of other preservation societies sprang up across Britain. Today, more than two hundred volunteer-operated heritage railways across the country form an industry that generates more than £600 million ($800 million) per year.17 The volunteers have also preserved and restored beautiful works of architecture and engineering, such as the Severn Valley Railway’s Victoria Bridge and the Llangollen Railway’s idyllic riverside station at Berwyn.

Some heritage railways focus heavily on preserving and operating steam locomotives and telling the story of railway history throughout the steam age, from early pioneers such as George Stephenson and Brunel through the world wars to the decline of the 1950s and 1960s. These railways keep alive the evocative sights, sounds, and smells of steam railways—and the pastoral sense of life they embody—for nostalgic grandparents and excited children alike. Moreover, they teach visitors and volunteers about the broader historical and economic context and about the physical principles of steam traction, many of which are applicable in other fields such as power generation, plumbing, and firefighting. Meanwhile, other railways focus more on diesel traction, teaching the principles of internal combustion engines and the history of rail travel in the 1960s and 1970s. Many also include museums with working demonstrations of signaling, telegraph, and timekeeping systems. Through all these elements, they not only tell new generations about principles of physics, electricity, logistics, and business, but also provide working practical demonstrations of those principles.

Most of these railways carry far more passengers as tourist attractions than they ever did as transport services. Accordingly, many of them have had to compromise the accuracy of their station restorations by building larger buildings and longer platforms. The success of heritage railways in Britain also inspired similar movements around Europe, America, Australia, and across the world.

Heritage railways are far more than tourist attractions. They are educational resources, informing new generations about history, economics, business, and more. They teach traditional trades such as metallurgy and woodwork, still much in demand but all too often lost from Western countries due to regulations and inflation.18 They serve as training grounds for railway engineers, emergency responders, and even prisoners in rehabilitation. And they provide beautifully preserved, aesthetically and historically accurate locations for filming movies and TV shows from Harry Potter to James Bond, from Downton Abbey to Doctor Who, from Mission Impossible to The Chronicles of Narnia.19 None of this would exist today if not for the dedication, vision, and audacity of the volunteers who, unprepared to let the lines they loved wither away, decided that they could buy and run their own railways.

New York: Knopf, 2025
226 pp., $31

It’s clear from The Great Contradiction: The Tragic Side of the American Founding that Joseph Ellis is bothered by the scorn recently heaped upon the American founding fathers by writers such as those affiliated with The New York Times’s “1619 Project.” The Pulitzer Prize-winning historian opens his new book with a conde…

Read more

Massachusetts Senator Charles Sumner was that rarest of political creatures: a deeply principled man who nevertheless rose to the highest levels of government power. Best remembered today as one of slavery’s most vocal enemies, he was also a leading scholar of international law whose achievements included overseeing the annexation of Alaska.

Despite his …

Read more

Independently published
369 pp, $28

The twentieth century’s most destructive ideology is now the least understood. Across Europe, America, and parts of the Global South, support for socialism and communism is making a comeback. A striking number of young people in the West now view these systems favorably, often attributing their past failures to poor imp…

Read more

In most 18th-century European countries, if you were born a commoner, you’d quickly realize how limited your freedom was. Russian Empress Catherine II made this explicit in her framing for her law-code committee in 1767, writing, “What is the true End of Monarchy? Not to deprive People of their natural Liberty; but to correct their Actions, in order to …

Read more

On June 4, 1942, the Japanese and American navies met in fierce combat near Midway Atoll. The fighting lasted for five days, and it ended with a resounding American victory. In total, approximately three thousand Japanese sailors and airmen were killed. The U.S. pilots were able to destroy four Japanese aircraft carriers, obliterating the bulk of the fearsome Japanese navy and turning the tide of the war in the Pacific theater.¹ For the next three years, Japan desperately tried to reassemble its once-vast navy. During that time, the Japanese produced six new aircraft carriers. In the same time frame, the United States produced seventeen.2

In fact, American mills, plants, and factories had been pumping out much-needed military materiel and equipment at an unprecedented rate. Over the course of the war, U.S. corporations produced 650,000 jeeps, 297,000 aircraft, 86,000 tanks, and 27 aircraft carriers.3

Subscribe now

America’s wartime industrialization was rapid. The country’s efficient, coordinated production of military equipment during WWII was driven by a conscious effort by policy makers in Washington, prominent industrialists, and men and women from all over the country who flocked to work in factories to contribute to the war effort. Children’s toy companies began to produce compasses, nail companies made rifle cartridge clips, and automobile companies transitioned into airplane production.4

One prominent industrialist at the time was Henry J. Kaiser, now known as “the father of modern shipbuilding.”5 Kaiser—along with many others—helped turn the United States into a formidable power that would ultimately defeat its enemies and restore peace in many parts of the world.

The Life of Henry J. Kaiser

Heinrich Kaiser was born in Sprout Brook, New York, on May 9, 1882. His father, Frank Kaiser, had been a shoemaker in Germany before immigrating to the United States in 1872. Once in America, Frank was taken in by the Yops family, German immigrants, and he soon fell in love with Mary Yops. The couple married in 1873. Nine years later, Mary gave birth to her fourth child (and her first son), Heinrich Kaiser. Many years later, he would change his first name add a middle name, and become Henry John Kaiser.6

Kaiser’s parents instilled the values of hard work and perseverance early on. His father worked as a tradesman, and the family struggled to stay afloat financially. In 1889, the Kaisers moved from Sprout Brook to Whitesboro, a more prosperous New York town. Despite the family’s increased economic opportunities, Kaiser had to leave school at age thirteen to help support his family. His first job was in a dry-goods store; he later left to work in photography studios. Kaiser rose through the ranks, quickly becoming a traveling camera salesman. Eventually, he was able to purchase his own photography store. His business expanded; within four years, he owned five stores.7

Kaiser gave up his photography business when his future father-in-law demanded that Kaiser increase his income before getting married. He moved westward from city to city and job to job, building his commercial skills and developing expertise in trade and business. Kaiser worked mainly in construction-related industries; after moving to Spokane, Washington, he worked as a salesman at a hardware store before becoming a civil engineering project manager.8 His specialties were sales, construction, and large-scale engineering projects. Kaiser was known for working harder than any of his coworkers and for staying in the office for extremely long hours; reportedly, he regularly worked twelve to fifteen hours a day. Later in his career, he worked as many as twenty.9

In 1914, the company Kaiser was working for went bankrupt in the middle of a road construction project. Kaiser took over the project himself, and the Henry J. Kaiser Company was born.10

As a result of Kaiser’s clever business strategies and excellent risk management, his new company grew quickly. Most of its contracts were with government clients, and Kaiser knew that he would have to establish a good reputation to win more commissions. Government contracts involved a fixed-price agreement, so whether Kaiser earned a profit or lost money was largely dependent on his company’s ability to complete projects quickly, affordably, and effectively.11

Kaiser also had a knack for finding able, productive men to join his companies. Because his business ventures were covering an increasingly wide expanse of the continent, he needed many people he could trust to do their jobs properly. He built a “team of construction foremen and engineers who would be part of his closest circle of leadership for decades”; and over time, he and his team developed an outstanding reputation.12

After years of building infrastructure all over the Pacific Northwest, Kaiser eventually decided to settle his company’s headquarters in Oakland, California. In 1931, the Henry J. Kaiser Company, as a part of a six-company consortium, won the bid to build what is now known as the Hoover Dam. The project was a Herculean undertaking, but the dam was finished two years ahead of schedule. By then, Kaiser had established himself as one of America’s leading industrialists.13

Kaiser’s business acumen extended to multiple realms. For example, he established a corporate health-care system (which still exists under the name Kaiser Permanente). Kaiser had noticed that his employees were missing work due to inadequate health care, and he realized that it would be in his interest to offer better medical care to his workers. With the aid of physician Dr. Sidney Garfield, Kaiser created a private hospital network for his employees, who paid a fixed monthly rate for any health care they required.14 Through this system, Kaiser was able to align his business incentives with the needs of his workers to create a safer workplace.

In the early 1940s, Kaiser turned his attention to helping America prepare for its impending entry into the war. According to the Naval History and Heritage Command, Kaiser was “considered by many to be the most influential civilian to help America win the war.”15 His extensive business ventures before and during the conflict—ranging from electricity that his dams generated to the concrete that his mills manufactured—helped produce the physical materials needed to achieve victory. His most significant contribution to the war effort, however, was the massive number of “Liberty ships” his company built at breakneck speed.

The Liberty ship was a “standard design cargo ship” that could transport thousands of jeeps or hundreds of tanks. In 1941, the U.S. Maritime Commission allocated significant resources to building ships to expand naval capabilities. The first Liberty ships were produced just a few months before the Japanese attack at Pearl Harbor, which would spur the official U.S. entry into the war. These first ships took almost two hundred days to build. Kaiser was later able to shorten the production time to just fourteen days.16

One method that Kaiser’s shipyard factories employed to maximize efficiency was building sections of a ship separately and then piecing them together at the end of the process. These ship sections, instead of being riveted together, were welded, which took far less time and expertise.17 Now, because each ship section was built separately, each worker only had to learn how to build his section rather than the entire building process.18 This system took advantage of the principle of division of labor, which increases economic output by enabling each worker to focus on perfecting a specialized task. In total, Kaiser’s shipyards produced more than 1,490 ships, amounting to “27 percent of all ships ordered by the U.S. Maritime Commission” during the war.19

Kaiser’s industrial efficiency was characterized by speed and an eagerness to mobilize. It was no easy task to convert America’s peacetime economy into an efficient wartime machine, but Kaiser was able to integrate his supply chain systems to optimize production of various military equipment and supplies. For example, when his shipyards began to use steel faster than they could get it, Kaiser set up a new steel mill.20 He was also incredibly creative. Noticing that it took a lot of time to train new workers to “tightrope” walk along narrow steel beams, Kaiser hired ballet dancers to do the job instead.21

Kaiser’s efforts during WWII did not go unrecognized. The nation adored him, and the American public even christened him the “miracle man.”22 Newspapers and magazines all over the country published articles about him, and President Roosevelt even considered naming Kaiser as his running mate in the 1944 presidential election.23

Kaiser’s Legacy

Kaiser’s early entrepreneurship and his subsequent contributions to the war effort are a testament to his commitment to productivity. He deserves to be remembered as a hero who came to America’s—and the free world’s—rescue in a time of great need. His enterprising spirit, knowledge of business, and ability to overcome tremendous challenges helped save countless lives.

Of course, many other men and women of ability greatly helped the American cause during WWII, such as William “Big Bill” Knudsen, the head of President Roosevelt’s National Defense Advisory Commission; and Charles E. Wilson, the president of General Motors and executive vice chairman of the War Production Board.24

Thanks to men such as Kaiser and their extraordinary industrial capabilities, the United States was able to outproduce its enemies so effectively. Kaiser’s legacy is a lasting testament to the power of ingenuity, determination, and industry. WWII was won not only on battlefields and oceans across the globe but also in the factories, shipyards, and assembly lines across America and other Allied countries. By harnessing the full potential of industry, men such as Kaiser demonstrated that rationality, productiveness, and inventiveness shape the course of history.

This article appears in the Summer 2025 issue of The Objective Standard.

Before the Industrial Revolution, human life was bleak. Men, women, and children had to do grueling manual labor all day to produce basic necessities. Aside from a privileged few, nobody had the time or energy to indulge in hobbies or produce other values. Most people were essentially confined to their hometowns, and the long-distance trade of goods was…

Read more

New York: Avid Reader Press, 2024
570 pp. $35 (hardcover)

None of the millions of people who witnessed the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster on January 28, 1986, will ever forget the wave of shock and grief that swept over the United States, and the world, on that day. When the shuttle exploded a little more than a minute into its flight—killing seven ast…

Read more

Virtue to discharge all the duties of life; and Fortitude, to bear whatever destiny awaits me. —John Quincy Adams

The long, eventful life of John Quincy Adams (1767–1848), which began on the eve of the American Revolution and ended on the eve of the Civil War, is a testament to ambition, fortitude, integrity, moral courage, and patriotism. Although he is…

Read more

Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2024

295 pp. paperback, $20

John Swanson Jacobs was born into slavery in North Carolina in 1815 or 1817. Exactly when is unclear, because slaves’ birth dates rarely were recorded with precision. But we do know that he was the younger brother of Harriet Jacobs, who in 1861 published Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl

Read more

London: Picador, 2023

892 pp. $29.77 (paperback)

After Germany’s defeat in May 1945, leaders of the victorious Allies convened a trial in Nuremberg to prosecute Nazi leaders for war crimes and crimes against humanity. That trial lasted eleven months, and although prosecutors blundered in some ways—most infamously, bungling Hermann Göring’s cross-examinati…

Read more

Washington, D.C.: Cato Institute, 2022
404 pp. $19.95 (paperback)

In 1943, the world was at war, and the barbaric regimes of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan occupied much of Europe and Asia. America, the “sleeping giant,” had awakened to thrust its industrial might against those regimes. Yet, on American soil, leading thinkers had embraced versions of the…

Read more

I recently spoke with Chelsea Follett, managing editor of HumanProgress.org and policy analyst at Cato Institute’s Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity, about her new book, Centers of Progress: 40 Cities That Changed the World. Here is our discussion, edited for clarity and brevity.

Thomas Walker-Werth: What led you to write a book about cities, and …

Read more

History is replete with famous inventors. Usually, they are known for their most successful inventions—Alexander Graham Bell for the telephone, Johannes Gutenberg for the printing press, and so on. Not so, however, for Robert P. McCulloch, inventor of the handheld chainsaw. An engineer by training, McCulloch dabbled in a wide range of industries through…

Read more

New York: Random House, 2022

676 pages, $40 hardback

When Abraham Lincoln died in a bricklayer’s house across from Ford’s Theater on April 15, 1865, the weeping secretary of war, Edwin Stanton, said . . . something. Nobody knows exactly what. The most common version of the story holds that Stanton said, “Now he belongs to the ages.” But some thought his w…

Read more

Charlottesville, VA: TPC Books, 2022

124 pp. $14.95 (paperback)

Every thinking man who does honest work in his own field is our ally and is helping to move civilization forward (28).

“Who sets the tone of a culture?,” asked Ayn Rand. “A small handful of men: the philosophers.” Philosophers provide answers to fundamental questions about the nature of the wo…

Read more

Yale University Press, 2022

348 pp. $20 (paperback)

Thomas Jefferson was an insatiable writer, composing tens of thousands of letters, as well as pamphlets and essays, about everything from Plato’s influence on Christianity to the economics of whaling. But he published only one full-length book in his lifetime: Notes on the State of Virginia, which first …

Read more

Editor’s note: This is a lightly edited version of a speech delivered at TOS-Con 2022, which was adapted from Timothy Sandefur’s forthcoming book, Freedom’s Furies: How Isabel Paterson, Rose Wilder Lane, and Ayn Rand Found Liberty in an Age of Darkness (Cato Institute, November). The article contains spoilers of Ayn Rand’s novels The Fountainhead and At…

Read more

On September 11, 2001, at 10:03 a.m., United Flight 93 ended in a fiery crash in Shanksville, Pennsylvania.1 Passengers had just stopped hijackers likely aiming to destroy the U.S. Capitol building in Washington, D.C.2

Earlier that day, three other teams of jihadists had flown similar suicide missions. Two planes collapsed the Twin Towers of the World Trad…

Read more