"I'll tell you, then," he said with heat, "I imagine the

mainspring of all our actions is, after all, self-interest.  Now

in the local institutions I, as a nobleman, see nothing that

could conduce to my prosperity, and the roads are not better and

could not be better; my horses carry me well enough over bad

ones.  Doctors and dispensaries are no use to me.  An arbitrator

of disputes is no use to me.  I never appeal to him, and never

shall appeal to him.  The schools are no good to me, but

positively harmful, as I told you.  For me the district

institutions simply mean the liability to pay fourpence halfpenny

for every three acres, to drive into the town, sleep with bugs,

and listen to all sorts of idiocy and loathsomeness, and
self-interest offers me no inducement."
 
He then went on to claim that emancipation of the serfs was consistent with his self-interest. I see nothing here that contradict the Objectivist sense of "self-interest".
 
As to the novel itself, Tolstoy showed a deep penetration in human nature and human relations which I enjoy greatly. I put this novel as the top one or two books that I've ever read. If Levin was his alter ego, then I must say that I like him tremendously even if he turned to religion in the end, because he was honest, realistic, enlightened, and yes, very benevolent. And, though this is a very minor point, I also share exactly the same exasperation as him over men's stupidity. 
 
And he is the guy who wrote "War and Peace" and "Anna Karenina", who was also able to love and enjoy great domestic felicity.  I don't really care what else he was or was not.

(Edited by Hong Zhang on 5/08, 4:39pm)