Repairman

A man from deserts afar
wrote this as he gazed to the stars:
"There is no greater love
than that which comes from god above.
Pray the Lord your soul to keep
do not thine understanding seek."
A boy from Georgia read that book
but never took a deeper look.
If God's love was real inside this boy,
Then why did it seem to steal his joy?
He could not feel this god above.
He did not know the truth of love.
Was lost as those around him said,
"You'll find your heaven in the end."
For years he searched, blind and sad.
Was love in this world not to be had?
A woman from tundra afar
wrote this as she gazed to the stars:
"There is no greater love
than what a man for himself does.
Pull pride and reason off the shelf
and let your guidance be yourself."
The lost boy, then a man become
Knew that his search was now done.
He felt the love inside his soul;
for his own sake, he was made whole.
For the first time since his birth,
he could have heaven here on earth.
No waiting on a realm unseen,
when this world can fulfill man's dreams.
There is no greater love than this:
to live life here in selfish bliss.

I did my bit for perspective and sanity, and I have nothing material to add.
As for this terrorist, I prefer Roark's answer to Toohey:  "But I don't think of you."  Evil is not important, not unless it happens to significantly affect my life, and neither this scum nor his brothers-in-murder are likely to affect my life even a little.  Unless, of course, public hysteria about terrorism is used as an excuse to tighten up the American police state.  But whose fault would that be?
All of which is a long-winded way of saying, "I'm outta here".  I need to return my attention to where it belongs, on ways of making a better future.

It think its normal to be much more alert to risks that are caused by the malicious intent of others. Drunk drivers probably kill many more people each year than terrorist drivers do, but the difference is culpable-negligence vs. malafide intent. And, I wouldn't be surprised if bad drivers kill even more than drunk ones. Even in that type of negligence, I suspect that negligence caused by acts of omission cause less anger than those caused by positive acts of commission. Does it make sense to use this range: acts of nature that we have not being able to predict on one extreme, and malafide human actors at the other extreme? Does it make sense for some purposes, but not for others?

So far, this is the strongest and most simplified argument for NOT proselytizing Objectivism to anyone other than your children. Why bother trying to change the minds of those unwilling to embrace the fundamentals of Objectivism. Why bother probing the minds of people who likely would not be good company. The connection between fun and popularity needs little explanation. But satisfaction does not come from being popular; satisfaction comes from being successful. One can easily attract all the friends one needs after one has achieved success, and it's entirely possible that one, two, or more of your friends will activate their minds enough to reconsidering their views. They might even become Objectivists. But if they don't, there's no reason they couldn't remain one's friends, as long as one wishes them to be.
If one is striving for success, I have found that it is of little benefit to strive for fun or popularity, when one's time could be better spent reaching one's next goal.
The greatest impediment to Objectivism's popularity is the atheist component. From personal experience, sharing Objectivism with people who plan to retire for eternity with their good buddy, Jesus, is a bad idea. I don't expect such people to be receptive to reason, nor would I expect them to have much in common with me. And while I realize that this is not at all an either-or-proposition, I'd rather be right than popular. No one proselytized to me. I had to discover the works of Ayn Rand after many years almost entirely at random. While I suppose it's better late than never, I am hopeful, that is, I am still able to rise to a higher level of personal success. I am hopeful that one day a franchise of secular private elementary schools may make The Fountainhead part of its required literary studies. I am hopeful that just such an effective learning environment could discover new ways to make philosophy fun, and thereby more popular. Maybe someone will invent a popular video game that promotes reality-based morality. I will leave that task to much younger innovators. Persuasion can yield results, but early indoctrination would work much better. Just look at the results early indoctrination as had for the government and parochial schools.
 

Try this on for fun
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KIs9xM7Sac8
 

A philosophy of Objectivism that distorts itself and compromises its principles for the sake of wider acceptance is not what I want.  Have children and raise them rationally, that is one method that can help gain some additional practitioners without compromising.

At the onset of the 2016 primary season, I would not have believed it possible for Donald Trump to win the nomination. How wrong I was!
There are two rhetorical questions to consider when forming an opinion about Trump: 1) Is Trump the most qualified individual for holding the office he now holds?; 2) What has happened to the nation that made his success in politics possible?
Is Trump qualified? He meets all of the legal requirements. The legitimacy of his election remains a legal matter to be settled. Was he unlawfully assisted by Russian confederates, or not? I think he stands a good chance of surviving this problem. As others have noted, he gives the appearance of a petulant anti-intellectual bully. If anyone can offer up proof that Trump's threats have actually caused a chilling effect on the press, or direct harm to any American individual or corporation, I'd be willing to look at the evidence. But as far as I can see, he has stayed within the limits of the law in carrying out his agenda. The big question is, just what is Trump's agenda? Is he actually seeking to establish needed reforms, possibly raising his persona to one of a great American historical leader, in his words, "Make America Great Again?" If that is the case, he needs to more clearly define what is the standard of "American Greatness."
Is his objective to further enrich himself, and his special friends? Donald Trump is a schemer; there is method to his madness. At this point, Trump has already shown that he never had any principled plan for the economy, but only a plan to seize more control of the economy. His support for minimum wage and trade protection may prove to be smart political moves aimed at assuaging the fears of those in lower wage jobs. More likely, if his policies pass, they will result in greater opportunities to the largest companies, while the smaller competitors struggle even harder, or fold. Many of the Trump supporters I've talked to were totally unaware of the billions of dollars which he had at the start of his enterprises, his abuse of eminent domain, and the allegations of his cheating workers out of their wages. On all of this, I believe Donald Trump's only principle is: WINNING! (with an arm pump.)
Were there more qualified candidates? Perhaps. But there is an overwhelming number of Americans who hate anyone who has any association with DC policy-making. Many of these people never vote, and for that very reason. But in 2016, many of them did get out the vote, because they approved of Trump's language, incoherent as it may be. And he could get away with saying these things because he has held no previous office, inside or outside of DC. I believe this was one of the qualifications his blue-collar supporters find most appealing. In a similar way, Barak Obama appealed to many who never voted before, merely because his complexion more closely matches their demographic.
This leads to the second rhetorical question: What has happened to the United States, the nation that once led the world in the pursuit of individual liberty and industrial innovation? How could so many voters support a leader who makes no apologies, who openly brags of aspiring to become a strong-man dictator? (I suppose the short answer might be that fewer wished to see a strong-woman dictator. If identity-politics was the only controlling force, 50 percent of the voters would have turned out for Hillary Clinton.) To fully answer this important question, I would encourage you to read, Ominous Parallels, by Leonard Peikoff. I'm reading it for the second time. While the US economy has a long way to go before it hits the depth of Germany's in the 1920s, the breakdown of politics is quickly taking the shape of that of the Weimar Republic. While I do not agree with those who claim that Donald Trump is a Nazi, not even a racist, I would contend that his election is proof that a significant number of Americans would favor a dictatorship, provided that that dictatorship enabled them to oppress those of the opposite ideological and/or racial camp.  Doctor Peikoff wrote this book 35 years ago, and it has never been so relevant as in our present times. I believe we are on the road to tribalism. I can live with being wrong, but I hope I'm dead before that ever happens.
I hold onto the hope that the checks and balances of the US Constitution will prevent this from happening. If not, I believe Ayn Rand would say: "Brother, you asked for it."

I wasn't aware that they were..
 I read one of Harris' anti-religion books (The End of Faith?  I've forgotten the title) in which he declared that only actions that benefit others can be moral. I have no use for avowed altruists, so I haven't bothered to look at anything of his since.
 

SN, that's two different ways of breaking down the demographics. I would like to think that the private/public factor would be within an acceptable tolerance range/zone of being "the same" regardless of the geographical location, i.e., 50 states, private/public 20%/80% ranging to, say, 30%/70%, vs., finding the range going from 1%99% to 99%/1% covering 50 equidistance spreads in increments of ~2%, across the continent. (Number spreads picked solely to help contrast different findings in such a speculation.)
This is predicated on a premise that the private sector is generally comprised of parochial and, mostly likely, a Montessori approach, while homeschooling is most likely some sort of mix between these.
Given Aquinas' attempt to integrate Catholicism with Aristotle is a fact of the past—the ability to integrate religion with Objectivism is bound to result in a null set (augmenting SL's point, or so I am inclined to think.)

There's a meta aspect to this White Supremacist vs. BLM argument, which one sees repeatedly in similar fights across time and geography: Protestant vs. Catholic in Ireland, Hindu vs. Muslim along the Indo-Pakistan border, and many other such conflicts. The aspect is this: the more extreme elements are a small minority around which there is a larger set of people who identify with them to some extent. 
If one considers the larger group, people on both sides have different ideas, but would likely move closer toward each other's position if they would talk, would probably be willing to talk, and would likely be able to find a workable solution even while disagreeing. However, the extremes are the loudest voices, and this keeps the (larger) group around them polarized, rather than listening and attempting to understand the situation rationally. 
Often, there will be some specific issue that the larger groups disagree on: it could be confederacy statues in this case, it could be cows and pigs in another case, it could be religious affirmative action in another. The more extreme elements will take an all-or-nothing position, and that's the loudest position. If members of the larger group around them say anything else, they're branded as traitors to the cause.
On top of this, the extreme elements on both sides will try to provoke physical violations: perhaps using police to enforce what they want, perhaps using private thugs, or perhaps using violence against members of the "enemy" group. This is further polarizing. Once the battle reaches a certain point where people think dialog isn't going to get them anywhere -- because the opposition will use violence in response -- then they do the "rational thing" by cheering on when their own side uses violence.
From one perspective, white supremacists almost do not exist; from another, millions of white supremacists are out there. If we're speaking of people who want to get rid of blacks, they're a tiny minority. If we threw them all in jail, we'd still have disproportionately more black folk in jails. However, if we expand the definition to include people who think there's probably something biological/genetic about black people that makes them inferior, we now have a slightly bigger set. If we expand this further to include people who think there's probably something cultural about many black people that makes them inferior (in effect, even if not inevitably), then we have a pretty big set: many millions across all states.
Similarly, the set of people who think these statues should stay up is far larger than the racist hard-core. If nobody addresses their views and their arguments with words, it is no surprise they will give a secret, guilty thumbs up to the thugs enforcing their wishes with force. It is also no surprise that they will point to the thugs on the other side as their primary argument. 

"Perhaps a massive cyberattack can essentially shut down all of NK.  Or an endorsement of China to use those."
I literally laughed out loud when I read this.  NK has nothing to be attacked that way except their hacking and crime bureau which may have been involved in some bank robberies.
Or persuade Chinese officials to adopt an alliance with NK so that Un at least will cool it on the threats.  
China are already providing protection to NK via threats to the US if we act, thats how we got here.
Maybe even simply say "we've got food if you stop!" rather than say "we'll take away your food until you stop".
Comply with extortion?  Yeah fuck that, that is both the status quo and an act of war in itself.  Thats what was going on when Bill Clinton gave NK 2 nuclear reactors and food in exchange for peace.  Clinton was an idiot.  You don't want to be like an idiot do you?
 

I find Objectivism to be right -- and convincing and persuasive. Actually, it is hard for me to see any true divide between these things. But I also know that some people are bound to be reached in different ways: some through direct argumentation (often most peoples' psychological defenses are found here) and some through other means. An example of this is art, and Rand wrote her novels before she wrote her non-fiction. I think her novels generally reach more people than do her non-fiction arguments, though I can't say much more about that, or what the resultant difference might be.
That said, I would not hide any aspect of Objectivism from view, or prevaricate, because what does one "win" if one finds converts under false pretenses? If one seeks to spread Objectivism (and I think this is a value of great merit, generally), then surely it should be in a way consistent with the philosophy we mean to spread. We must proselytize with integrity and honesty.
With respect to some of the specific issues raised here, in actual conversations with non-Objectivists, I typically try to stress that my main objection to "forced charity" is not the "charity" part. Indeed, ARI runs on contributions and donates books to schools, gratis; there is no inherent conflict between charitable giving and Objectivism, and should people find it in their self-interest to contribute voluntarily to some pool for a program like Medicare, then they should consider themselves fully empowered to do so. Also, with forced contributions cut across the board, it is likely that many people would find themselves with greater resources with which they can pick and choose their causes -- how they would like to invest their time, money and energy -- whether the self, the family, or the community.
I do not expect, in any event, that a program like Medicare would disappear without forced contributions. I cannot predict such possible futures, and I do not know what they would look like to any great degree, but if people value such programs (and clearly they do), then if they were free to run and maintain and fund them, I would expect that they would continue to do so. Charity on the whole may even be stronger and more robust in an "Objectivist society"; or at least, I can report that as an Objectivist, I believe myself to be a more generous, giving human being than when I was a liberal. The difference in the main is that when I act now, it is not out of any sense of obligation or guilt, but because I am selfishly committed to making the world the way I want it to be.

No.  First, I want to know the truth about reality, i.e. to hold the correct philosophy.  Secondarily, I would want others to also know the truth about reality and hold the correct philosophy (it would make life better for me).  Merely having "an impact" of any kind as such has no value... it is only the particular kind of impact that might result which matters.  If everyone already knew the truth and had the correct philosophy I would not be pining and wishing to have an impact on someone.
You imply by your OP and other posts that either A) the philosophy is incorrect/erroneous, or that B ) the philosophy is correct but people are inherently flawed and cannot accept it.
You then admonish us to action of one sort or another, which make little sense. 
An individual surely must seek out the truth and on the evidence he/she should accept a correct philosophy and reject a false one, and insofar as possible and when it is in his self interest to do so, to teach what he knows to others, thereby increasing their potential spiritual and economic value to him.
If A) is the case, then only by evidence and reason can a person be shown that A) is the case.
If B ) is the case, then a person who knows the truth can either try to convince others, or simply refrain from doing so.  Since you seem to indicate that people just don't accept it, you imply it is futile to attempt to convince others. 
I see you are already trying to show why A) is the case (in other threads).  If you are implying the philosophy is wrong, I take it you are proceeding in the attempt to show that. 
If B ) is the case, then logic would dictate from your premises, that since it is futile, one should not try to convince others.  Which is odd, because at the same time you state we should "want" to convince others.  All I can think is that maybe B ) is that case, but not all people are impervious to the truth (after all there are people who have heard the evidence and accepted the philosophy) and hence attempting to convince others, although difficult, is not futile.
The point of your OP and your ensuing argument, if there is one, is elusive.  Please be more succinct if you would like a direct answer.
 
 

And yet, you expend a great deal your creative energy (and time) making a pointless argument. Obviously, you hold metaphysical convictions that conflict with Objectivism. Ayn Rand did not contradict herself. If you watch the Tom Snyder interview to the end, she uses a religious reference in closing: "God bless America." Immediately prior to that statement, she clarifies her use of the term, God, as meaning: all that is good. Clearly, she did not always express herself literally, although she seems to be very conscientious of her choice of words. There is no "perhaps" in regard to Ayn Rand's convictions.
As a person of independent thought, you may interpret information, perceptions, sensations, or the random fulfillment of wishes any way you so desire, but that does not make your interpretations matters of fact. Selling a house or making a financial contract may very well be creative, but it is not art. Not by Objectivist definition. You could say that there is an art to installing PVC piping, or landing an airplane, or folding your laundry. You could say that there is an art to picking pockets, or picking up a one-night-stand date, or stacking a deck of cards. The creative process is certainly applied to all of these examples. Some require human intuition. But it's not art. And you can say that it is, just as you could say: A is non-A. But merely saying so doesn't make it a matter of fact. So, in response to your statement: "you do not perceive creating and reality the same way I do," you are certainly correct. Objectivists require facts and evidence to support their interpretations. The distinction between your perception of reality, from the Objectivist understanding of reality, is defined as: the Primacy of Consciousness, versus, the Primacy of Existence. If you have any further interest in the works of Ayn Rand, you may do your own research. But it seems to me that that would be as much a waste of your time, as you have stated that you believe in a multitude of "existences" and that all metaphysical interpretations are mere speculation. Score one for Immanuel Kant.

And yet, you expend a great deal your creative energy (and time) making a pointless argument. Obviously, you hold metaphysical convictions that conflict with Objectivism. Ayn Rand did not contradict herself. If you watch the Tom Snyder interview to the end, she uses a religious reference in closing: "God bless America." Immediately prior to that statement, she clarifies her use of the term, God, as meaning: all that is good. Clearly, she did not always express herself literally, although she seems to be very conscientious of her choice of words. There is no "perhaps" in regard to Ayn Rand's convictions.
As a person of independent thought, you may interpret information, perceptions, sensations, or the random fulfillment of wishes any way you so desire, but that does not make your interpretations matters of fact. Selling a house or making a financial contract may very well be creative, but it is not art. Not by Objectivist definition. You could say that there is an art to installing PVC piping, or landing an airplane, or folding your laundry. You could say that there is an art to picking pockets, or picking up a one-night-stand date, or stacking a deck of cards. The creative process is certainly applied to all of these examples. Some require human intuition. But it's not art. And you can say that it is, just as you could say: A is non-A. But merely saying so doesn't make it a matter of fact. So, in response to your statement: "you do not perceive creating and reality the same way I do," you are certainly correct. Objectivists require facts and evidence to support their interpretations. The distinction between your perception of reality, from the Objectivist understanding of reality, is defined as: the Primacy of Consciousness, versus, the Primacy of Existence. If you have any further interest in the works of Ayn Rand, you may do your own research. But it seems to me that that would be as much a waste of your time, as you have stated that you believe in a multitude of "existences" and that all metaphysical interpretations are mere speculation. Score one for Immanuel Kant.

I think a typical Objectivist probably does not have a deep understanding of Kant or Hume. However, I think a typical Objectivist will have a better understanding of Kant and Hume than the general population, and that someone who is an Objectivist is much more likely than the general population to have seriously studied those authors.

There's a great deal of truth to this. Being born into a dictatorship poses a bit of conundrum for everyone under its influence, from the highest to the lowest. Generally, dictatorships lack the institutions of justice and liberty of which we in Western nations take for granted. Corruption is often the norm, institutionalized from the highest to the lowest. Vendettas are common. Machiavellian politics would likely result in usurpers overthrowing any leader appearing weak and sympathetic to liberal reforms. Stability is the primary objective for any nation with a history of violent factional or tribal conflict.
What to do if one were an enlightened man born to rule such a nation? If it were me, I would do everything possible to secure my own preservation. A loyal ally among the security forces, one willing to accept the ideological changes, would be absolutely necessary. And it wouldn't hurt to have a backup plan for living in exile.
2. As an sort of philosopher-king, I would need to do a great deal of philosophizing in the language of both the higher and lower economic classes. Routine public addresses would be more effective than one three hour long "I am John Galt" speech, public addresses that relate to conditions specific to the nation. I would also need to allow the freedom for public rebuttal.
3. I would begin with a drastic reform of stripping the oligarchs of their monopolistic powers to privatization. I would need to know just how backward this hypothetical nation is in order to know how to proceed. Perhaps the nation has industrial capability, maybe better than any other nation. If so, it would be easier to liberalize institutions. If it were a nation of primitive savages, the process of allowing market forces to "do their magic" would be hindered by the fact that there would be very little wealth to take to market. Privatization brings enemies from all levels. Many Brits from the coal miners union have never forgiven Margret Thatcher.
4. The most difficult task of transitioning from absolute rule to rule of law is to institutionalize reason, purpose, and self-esteem. It would take generations of educational reform to reverse the effects of a church or state monopolized school system, and it would be made clear that that school system would not be public forever. On this point, there will be the old and unreconstructed who will always tell their children and grandchildren how much better it was under the old regime. I wouldn't expect my "revolution" to be successful beyond my life, but if my works and words survive me in the memories of others, it could be the genesis of something to come. I might be "air-brushed" out of my nation's history books, but I would die satisfied knowing I tried.

Not at all!
The Watson quote goes to show the thinking that dominated much of the Left in the 20th Century and their assumptions about human nature that lies at the heart of social engineering, centralized planning, etc.

Laika,
This information, for all of its grim implications, has a bright side: On an average, Americas are averse to any serious study of history or philosophy, as the surveys suggest. This puts us at risk of failing to recognize dangerous policies and ideologies. The focus of most Americans is looking forward, that is, they are interested in the applications of new technologies, and learning how new technologies might improve their lives. I'm not so alarmed by the fact that so many people choose to ignore the lessons of history, not so much as I used to be. I am somewhat concerned about the rise of the Religious-Right and the trend toward tribalism in American politics. What alarms me is the increased interest of young people inspired by current political celebrities, (presidents) and seek to "save the world" through their altruistic efforts. As ill-equipped as they may be for the task, it would require only a small number of pro-capitalist, libertarian, or, hopefully, Objectivist advocates to challenge the Alt-Right and "Bernie Sanders Bouncers." Of course, it would help immensely for this small number of rebels to be members of the same youthful demographic category. In her book, For the New Intellectual, Ayn Rand professed the need for the philosophical businessmen. Such a heroic celebrity could change the popular perception of capitalism. The logic of economic liberty and private ownership are not all that difficult to appreciate. However, it always sounds better to promise "free-lunch." I hope the present-day display of naivete toward absurd ideas (and absurd presidential candidates) is not permanent. And mostly, I hope more young people crack open a history book an their Kindle devises.

Is it up to the teachers unions? Unions may be influential among the workers, and hold sway with some producers. Ultimately it is the consumer that chooses the product to purchase in a free market. Montessori and homeschooling options have been trending up.
Politically, making these options more difficult pits ~1.5 million union teacher votes to ~1.5 million children's parents votes at this time (per estimations from a few google searches.)

To add on to this ...
She was a fiction writer, a writer of such scenes as 
Kira getting shot by Soviet border guards as she tries to flee that country "Howard Roark laughed" Hank Rearden holding the lifeless body of the young man only referred to the "Wet Nurse" Eddie Willers getting stranded on a broken down train in a desert We would have never heard of Ayn Rand or read her nonfiction if not she had not first been able to make powerful emotional fiction first.  She came up with her ideas known as Objectivism for the sake of her fiction.  One type of persuasion can lead to others. 

As someone who has actually taken the time to read Marx, Engles, Lenin and several Soviet philosophers, I can say that Laika has been very consistent in presenting their case.  Within that context, everything he has posted is "true".  He's also demonstrated a far greater depth of intellectual curiosity and honesty than many others who routinely participate on this forum.

As ironic as it may sound, perhaps the best approach with the "ordinary" Marxist (usually found on a University Campus) is a libertarian one. Think of a discussion as a mutually beneficial exchange of ideas in which you say one thing and they say the other. There will be differences of opinion, but that is not necessarily threatening and being open to exploring those differences can be rewarding. The thing to remember is that you cannot "pressure" Marxists or "coerce" them into giving up their beliefs by hysterics or appeals to ethical absolutes. that wouldn't work with anyone, and trying it with a marxist serves as evidence of how little respect you have for them as people trying to reason there way through the world. the truth is not enough- they desperately want people's respect because being "dedicated" to the cause is an attempt to have self-worth. 
The crucial thing is to NOT make a big deal out of it because Marxism, as a totalitarian ideology, is identical with the self. So an attack on Marxism is received as an attack on the Marxist's sense of self worth. If the goal is to "convert" a marxist over, be prepared to be flexible and do what works- not what we may instintively feel is "right" like telling them to go and live in North Korea (or whatever). you have to slowly encourage a separation between Marxism as an idea, and that "marxists" sense of self by showing they are in conflict. That's more to do with the person and what they want and thinking that Marxism is a means of achieving what they want.
the trouble is the degree to which the "selfish" reasons to be a Marxist are rationalised and covered up by "altruistic" ideology. getting a Marxist to be specific about what they want, to try to become informed on specific subjects rather than sticking to  vague "general principles" can plant the seeds of clear thinking. rather than saying "that can't work" go for "how would that work?" and you'll quickly see how much they actually know (often its very little). Only a handful of Marxists will have developed a really complete understanding of what they'd actually do if they got power- the rest of them are being used by empty promises of a "better world".
Marxism is primarily (but by no means exclusively) an emotional response to people's suffering and the longing that human beings may enjoy a "humane" condition. It is built around a sense of grievance, victim hood and identification with "victims". It is only when you grasp that behind the mask of militancy lies a deep sense of vulnerability, of feeling at the mercy of market forces out of control, of being afraid of losing in the "anarchy" of competition, of not having "individuality" without property, or "oppressed" by a exploiting ruling class, that the humanity of marxists becomes clear. something had to go badly wrong for them to end up this way and they are often grappling with legitimate personal problems that they themselves feel they cannot change or control. So they look for a magic bullet to "change the world" and solve it for them.  at its core- its selfish in wanting to not be overwhelmed or over-powered. 
Sadly, Marxists have chosen to respond to this vulnerability with a semi-conscious efforts to control their environment and surroundings through "planning" and ultimately, this means controlling people themselves (and being controlled). Often it can be more subtle in terms of adhering to a philosophical system that claim to explain, predict (and therefore control) everything as a "science". If you make a Marxist feel threatened- they will lose it and that will be the end of the discussion. all that vulnerability is a recipe for hatred, greed, lust and every other temptation known to man and its once you start to get the dissonance between the "ideal" and the "personal" that things really start to change. just like anyone else, they have things that set them off and limits to what they will discuss. you have to make them realise that if they had power- they would abuse it for their own selfish ends. it has to become personal and not just an abstract happening somewhere else to someone else in the world. That takes something "special" because the healthy part of the personality has to care about what would actually happen. its is a real turning point in a person's life and it can't be forced. From the outside, you can't help them- but you can help them help themselves. 
The trick is to respect them as people, recognise the vulnerability but suggest that they are being used and that the desire for control will not make them free or even safe from the things they are afraid of. This doesn't have to be big or dramatic but a steady "dripping tap" of doubts and insights that shows that- as emotionally invested as they are, as much as they want it to work and be true- they have let other use their vulnerability to become victims of a totalitarian ideology and system, and would readily betray their own ideals if they were even given the power because of how vulnerable they are. they have to create and find their own sense of value by becoming individuals.

Based on your posts in the past, I don't think you and I differ too much wrt history.  I do think that the history of early Christianity and the formation of the Christian Church(s) is far too complex (and too unknown) to sum up as done in the above.
The point I made about Calvin's Geneva and Thomas More's Utopia is to agree with you that there have been strains of Socialism in Christianity - but that it is different from Marx's.  And I wouldn't just reduce either of them to a desire for "self-sacrifice".  That's really ALL that I meant by it being a "lazy" term.
Engles has a work called Socialism:  Utopian and Scientific which is interesting.

Leaving out the reference to "early" Christianity, Calvin's Geneva did resemble what was to become Christian Socialism.  A quote from a wonderful book, The Western Intellectual Tradition that I think you would love based on your interest in history:
The regime Calvin imposed on Geneva was in many ways similar to that in More's Utopia. (p. 94)
Both Luther and Calvin opposed not only the new art but the developing science of their time as well.  In many ways, they were more fiercely antiscientific in their attitude than was the Church of Rome, and it has often been pointed out that Galileo, although he was badly treated by the Inquisition  in Rome, would have suffered more severely if he had been unfortunate enough to live in the Geneva of Calvin's regime.  Later, the twists and turns of history were to make the Puritans staunch supporters of the new science; but none of this was intended by Calvin's doctrine and discipline. (p. 95)
Predestination was a problem from day-one in both Lutheranism and Calvinism and did get modified pretty quickly.
Regarding "self-sacrifice" and the role it plays in Christianity, I think it's a fairly lazy term that can mean pretty much what anyone wants it to mean.  Much of the early Church was formed along the lines of Neoplatonism.  The line of demarcation between when early Christians "quit" following Greek philosophy and became "Christians" is not so sharp - and in fact, Christian theologically never really did exist independent of it.