Laika

One does not have to visualize/imagine a healthcare system that is fairly free-market. Many countries -- e.g. India -- have systems like that. And,  "OMG! Surely I don't want Indian healthcare" misses the crucial point. Indian healthcare -- or even Bangladeshi, if you like -- is bad for the same reason everything is lesser there: average wealth. Given that average wealth, the system -- mostly private -- works very well. If Indians had 6 times their per capita income (becoming similar to Britain) it is easy to see their healthcare could be the envy of the world because of its structure.

(The U.S. may be worse than U.K. in some ways because almost all of healthcare is government directed in some way, but has a structure of being private.)

Privatizing a government agency isn't an answer, as I think it'd create worse problems by nature of a mandated relationship of state and government. The transition would itself be decided by the government, with government assets, to some favored company of the state. I would rather a system where there is private control at all levels. Even if a person cannot afford care, in principle, non-profit organizations can help. I know, charitable giving is not itself a solution to all ills, but if there is no other way to get care, you ought to show that you're worth helping.
The main idea is that voluntary action is the best means for health care to work. An economist knows the details. Since it is part of our nature to make our own decisions, and to reason out what we do, a system using that as a standard will be the best type of society. In general, this is true, better quality of life and even medicine. Medical treatments get cheaper, as people find it necessary to demonstrate and share an incredible value. Yes, profit is in there, but even on an investor level, getting a return at all requires others getting that value. If a company purposely raises the price so only rich people afford it, so fewer units need to be sold, that may easily create motvation to create alternatives.
Part of the issue isn't care per se. It will be things like questionable IP practices and laws, the FDA (or other regulators), and insurance companies that are resistant to providing long-term care so their service sucks. We'd need a model or method to make something like MRI scans cheaper. Too bad most people only answer that with a public system.
 

Hang on, tovarisch. You just placed Ayn Rand on equal epistemological footing with Joseph Stalin on Objectivism Online.
What sort of response are you looking for here? Are you asking us to disprove your ridiculous assertion by demonstrating some sort of familiarity with whatever supernatural theories you won't even specify, so that we don't lose you to "the other side"?
You sound like you're already there, tovarisch.
 
Try me. 

Agreed, it is at least some information. As you were asking, here is what I'd alter:
Familiarity with past leaders needs to have people of similar historical stature, and time period. How does Mao compare to Nixon? To Khrushev? To Jimmy Stewart, to have non-political examples of the 60s? It's a survey, so sticking to leaders between 1940 and 1990 is probably best. Some big names.
The questions about Stalin causing death is hard to measure. Do we mean people he sent to the gulag and executed? Do some people count soldiers being sent to war as a death -caused- by a leader? Millions of people died from starvation and other issues during Stalin's regime, but it's not the same as Stalin killing them or the regime killing them indirectly at best. So the survey results about which regime killed the most is not so helpful. It is better to phrase it like "Do you think Communism led to most of the deaths in the USSR during Stalin's leadership?" This captures more about how people -attribute- the deaths, not just "how many died".  
The questions on how the American economic system is too mixed to be useful. As far as economics, I'd say the system works against me on average. The survey takes this as vaguely anti-capitalist. A better question would be if a person thinks Communism would be superior.
And is Communism a problem? I find it low on my list of political problems. That question is not helpful. Problem compared to what? It's not really a pressing issue. White nationalism is the problem that I see. Rather, I'd ask some question about the future of Communism. Do people see it as dying out? Or do respondents mean to say Communism is not a problem because it's good?
Anecdotally, there is an uptick in Communism as far as I've seen, but this survey only seems to confirm an uptick vaguely speaking.

This question seems good at first, but it is actually simple and straightforward to answer. If a person wants to reason through the world, and even uses logic well, it may seem that a good argument would persuade them. But this only works with like-minded thinkers. A Marxist simply does not reason the way you are I do, thanks to their materialist foundation. Furthermore, it isn't surprising if a Marxist grew into it on emotional grounds, so their whole foundation may rest on how they felt about capitalism. To alter that foundation, you need to engage their emotions enough so that they question their core beliefs. This is non-rational persuasion, not far from how psychology counselors work.
A Marxist has a false sense of self-esteem is the point. You can offer a little respect to such a mindset depending on their personal contradictions and their interest to resolve contradictions. All you know is that a dedicated Marxist probably wants real self-esteem. Like a religious person, their dedication is a hole they want to fill.
It's not a big deal as far as persuasion is concerned, the big deal is what the Marxist plans to do or their personal issues. If you want to persuade someone, you want them on your side. If you want them on your side, helping them out of their personal suffering is probably the most important step.
A lot of the time, yes.
This is a misreading of Laika making it clear how Marxism can tear you apart between self and Marxism.
Basically, a lot of Laika's quotation marks are ironic uses of words.
 
 

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.

No, not in conflict at all; just the opposite. In her 25-page essay, "The Objectivist Ethic", Rand lists 3 "cardinal values"To Rand, a "value" is "that which one acts to gain and/or keep". The three are: Reason, Purpose and Self-Esteem. AT the highest level of abstraction, these are thing Rand says we should each strive for. 
 
She also lists three corresponding virtues ("the act by which one gains and/or keeps [a value]"). These are: Rationality, Productiveness and Pride.

What is ridiculous about that premise?
What did Laika say that isn't true? (Explain please, not just quotes that aren't arguments or description of errors)
Would you list some non-rational means of persuasion?
I'm hoping that might help you make a more persuasive explanation of your ideas.
For what it's worth, I like Laika's posts for showing the psychology of a self-professed Marxist. That's different than any of us who have studied Marxism, yet didn't dive into the way a Marxist feels about the world.

Such witty repartee!
Look Plasmatic, the only purpose of a philosophical forum is to engage those with whom one disagrees.  Forums don't just exist to mirror one's own unanalyzed ignorance, prejudices, and opinions.
Laika has clearly come here because he is questioning Marxism.  He is precisely the type of person that Objectivists should hope to come to this site.
A significant part of my professional career has been spent teaching interns.  I enjoy trying to communicate knowledge.  If someone doesn't agree with me I don't just castigate them as "people who hold evil beliefs."
If Objectivism is to have any influence in the wider reaches of society, then it will need to engage that society.
Not everyone has the temperament to do that.

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.

Imagine the following scenario.
 
You are employed by the world's first asteroid mining company. Since it is the first, it has no competitors and won't for at least another twenty years. In addition to that, once you are out in the asteroid belt, you cannot return to Earth in any way except by paying the company a small fee.
Now when you sign up, the pay is very good, working conditions are safe and awesome, and you have a good time. However, at some point, the company introduces a new policy. In order to boost falling morale among management, they allow managers to give arbitrary and degrading orders to the people working under them.
For instance, some managers make employees strip off their clothes, defecate, and then smear themselves with their own feces before they can pick up their pay-check.
And to keep people from leaving they also keep raising the price for the trip back to Earth to the point that nobody can afford to leave. That is, unless you offer your body to the person in charge of transportation. He does not accept money, but he will take both men and women.
(I could go on with disgusting kafkaesque scenarios like this, but let's just get to the point)
----------------
According to Objectivist ethics, has the company committed any sort of wrong against its employees in the above scenarios? As far as I can see, they have not, since they have used neither force nor fraud in their activities here.
However, it is undeniable that this type of scenario is a nightmare and not only would I not to live it but I also would not want anyone else to live it either. It is a human created horror and this seems to be enough to require that people's right to dignity be respected.

yeah, that's more or less what I'm wondering. Marxists and Libertarians agree largely on the problems of the current society of arbitrary government and corporate power but disagree on the causes and the solutions. So I'm trying to think outside my own box and see how some of the issues that really bother me appear from the other end of the political spectrum (and whether that analysis is better or has insights I might have missed). 
I think the error of the labour theory of value is in postulating a sort of "pure" conception of utility that exists independently of the market as a means of evaluating a resources value. its going to be something I will need to look at. 
I got a copy of Capitalism: The unknown ideal yesterday (and reached chapter 5 this morning). its refreshingly bold and will make my head spin for a while. its pretty clear just how big the gulf between left and right ways of thinking on these questions are so I will just have to keep going. The section on anti-trust laws more than likely answers my question by arguing that economic and political power are not equivalent because political power rests on force/violence whereas economic power does not. the "bigness" of a company is a sign of its success and the result of accumulated voluntary transactions. I've not heard anyone put it in those terms before and couldn't really argue against it. 
I guess the issue is who decides that the reason why someone buys something is "stupid" to begin with, as that implies coercion in undermining a person's autonomy. I was more worried about how something like Television can be used to by-pass the rational side of the brain and appeal directly to the emotional part. whether its used for political or commercial reasons, that struck me as very corrosive to free thought. In Randian terms, its an appeal to the subjectivist value of what is "good" as a property of the mind and of emotions. That could be coercive in that what feels good becomes the norm of human behaviour by taking away from the human part and making us more into animals to be herded into Black Friday sales. I guess I'm horrified by how de-humanising it is for people to become a single unthinking collective mass in the name of shopping. In terms of its motivations, its a small step from that to Nuremberg Rallies if you change the symbolism. mobs are pretty scary whatever reason they form. 

yeah, that's more or less what I'm wondering. Marxists and Libertarians agree largely on the problems of the current society of arbitrary government and corporate power but disagree on the causes and the solutions. So I'm trying to think outside my own box and see how some of the issues that really bother me appear from the other end of the political spectrum (and whether that analysis is better or has insights I might have missed). 
I think the error of the labour theory of value is in postulating a sort of "pure" conception of utility that exists independently of the market as a means of evaluating a resources value. its going to be something I will need to look at. 
I got a copy of Capitalism: The unknown ideal yesterday (and reached chapter 5 this morning). its refreshingly bold and will make my head spin for a while. its pretty clear just how big the gulf between left and right ways of thinking on these questions are so I will just have to keep going. The section on anti-trust laws more than likely answers my question by arguing that economic and political power are not equivalent because political power rests on force/violence whereas economic power does not. the "bigness" of a company is a sign of its success and the result of accumulated voluntary transactions. I've not heard anyone put it in those terms before and couldn't really argue against it. 
I guess the issue is who decides that the reason why someone buys something is "stupid" to begin with, as that implies coercion in undermining a person's autonomy. I was more worried about how something like Television can be used to by-pass the rational side of the brain and appeal directly to the emotional part. whether its used for political or commercial reasons, that struck me as very corrosive to free thought. In Randian terms, its an appeal to the subjectivist value of what is "good" as a property of the mind and of emotions. That could be coercive in that what feels good becomes the norm of human behaviour by taking away from the human part and making us more into animals to be herded into Black Friday sales. I guess I'm horrified by how de-humanising it is for people to become a single unthinking collective mass in the name of shopping. In terms of its motivations, its a small step from that to Nuremberg Rallies if you change the symbolism. mobs are pretty scary whatever reason they form. 

Laika:
Your decision to purchase and actually read a work by Rand herself is an impressive display of your intent to learn for yourself and make up your own mind about her philosophy. You are to be commended for it and with that kind of approach nothing will stop you from finding all the answers you need.

I'm not who you were addressing but I want to comment anyway. There's no such thing as "common property" and humanity or some collective doesn't "own" the earth. 
All property should be privately owned. We should only exploit the earth to better our own lives not the lives of future generations, etc. Also the earth has no intrinsic value, it only has value to the humans who exploit it. Animals, fungi, whatever, cannot value but man can. It's human individuals first, not plants, animals, the whole planet, etc.
The earth's climate continually changes over time; it is not static. There has been Snowball Earths, there has been time where the earth was much warmer than the present. It shifts as a function of time for many reason. It always has and always will.
Even *if* humans were causing the earth to warm (which is far away from scientifically verified despite what the leftist media continually says otherwise) ... who cares? Why can volcanoes and cows spew huge amounts of greenhouse gasses but man can't? The case would be something like, "Well, those are "natural" emissions." But why do they not consider man to be "natural"? Why is it the the environmental socialist sheep consider man to be unnatural and not allowed to disturb the environment, but if the same thing and/or usually worst things happen over time "naturally" then that's okay. 
These people that spew that man is not allowed to disturb or change the environment are anti-man and anti-life. And the goal of almost all environmentalists is to expand governments and to control industries etc.

As far as the politics, it doesn't really matter how catastrophic climate change is, forced policies would not be justified. Not that it should or needs to be ignored for the sake of rights, but that respecting rights enables the best possibilities to combat any issue.
I am not on the "catastrophic" global climate change side, but I do think it's an issue worth addressing. It's good to be able to manipulate the climate in a controlled way, so I say the answer is more of that. There is no moral duty to "our future kids" or an obligation to the Earth, though. The reason I support climate engineering is the same reason I support GMOs or autonomous cars. Whatever issues there are in the world at all, new technology and creative thought does wonders - and improves life in the now.

I don't agree there, I think it's better to build people up than try to tear them down.
How about praising them for their success. I've done this several times, and it have worked extremely well for me. If you're not envious, but instead praise them for what they've done, it can be the start of a friendship and even a business relationship.
If you want success for yourself, you want to surround yourself with people who are smarter and more successful.

"Even when it proclaims itself to be atheist, the socialism of Marx, of Trotsky, of Ernst Bloch, is directly rooted in messianic eschatology. Nothing is more religious, nothing is closer to the ecstatic rage for justice in the prophets, than the socialist vision of the destruction of the bourgeois Gomorrah and the creation of a new, clean city for man."   -  George Steiner
Giving up religion is hard, but keep at it if you ever hope to be sane again.

Welcome to the board. I hope you benefit from your time here.
As a lazy answer, I don't think it can be questioned that Rand's experiences in Russia/the USSR had enormous influence on her, just as I expect that any individual is enormously influenced by the circumstances of their upbringing. But to the extent that Objectivism is "atheistic" and "materialistic," I think it would be a mistake to try to find the reason(s) for that in the fact that Rand hailed from a particular country (if that is the proposed project); Rand typically gives incredibly thought-out and painstakingly argued reasons for her positions on sundry topics, and those reasons -- right or wrong -- stand without respect to the origin of author (or reader).
That said, I'm certain that Rand's early experiences and education emphasized certain readings or access to specific intellectual strains of thought, or etc., and perhaps that's what you're after, to trace the intellectual history of her ideas. Rand herself chiefly acknowledged Aristotle, though I have heard that she was influenced by Nietzsche early on...
But come to that, others here are Rand scholars who can offer much more insight into this question than I.
I'm not certain what you mean by "Socialist Objectivism," but let me try to speak to "altruism." Yes, Objectivists use "altruism" in a rather narrow, specific way, which is the idea that actions are considered moral to the extent that they benefit others (in contrast to selfish actions, which benefit the self).
Rand on "altruism": "Altruism declares that any action taken for the benefit of others is good, and any action taken for one’s own benefit is evil."
Rand on "selfishness": "[T]he exact meaning and dictionary definition of the word 'selfishness' is: concern with one’s own interests. [...] The Objectivist ethics holds that the actor must always be the beneficiary of his action and that man must act for his own rational self-interest. [...] Since selfishness is 'concern with one’s own interests,' the Objectivist ethics uses that concept in its exact and purest sense."
This is what Rand (and knowledgeable Objectivists) mean when using those terms. There are yet many actions (which we could roundly describe as "kind" or "benevolent" or even "charitable") which society would sometimes consider "altruistic" that are not contrary to Rand's selfishness -- but are, in fact, quite selfish.
Rand writes, for instance, "Do not hide behind such superficialities as whether you should or should not give a dime to a beggar. That is not the issue. The issue is whether you do or do not have the right to exist without giving him that dime."
And this is just so. (If you take away from this that an Objectivist could morally give a dime to a beggar, in a given context, I would say that you are correct.) Some people try to point out the supposed hypocrisy of Objectivists by noting, for instance, that the Ayn Rand Institute is "non-profit" (and donates books to schools!), or that one of the Atlas Shrugged movies used Kickstarter as a partial source of funding, or etc. Those people do not understand what Objectivists believe, though this does not appear to give them any pause in their invective.
So, good on you for trying!
Climate change is a matter for scientists, and while philosophy sets the ground rules for scientific thought, Objectivism qua philosophy does not have a position on whether the climate is changing, or what the cause is, or etc. Accordingly, you will find diverse opinions among Objectivists on those sorts of questions.
Personally, I'm not sufficiently educated about climate change to hold forth on it to any great extent, though I am impressed (and distressed) by the seeming scientific consensus. I know there are skeptical challenges to various models, and use of data, and etc., but again, I'm not sufficiently educated on these topics to be able to say much more.
I take it for granted that catastrophic climate change is a real possibility for planet Earth, whether man-made or not, because obviously the climate has changed in the past (in ways I would regard as "catastrophic" for human life, if repeated), and I expect it could again. If technological innovation has the potential to help mankind combat such catastrophic outcomes, should they threaten -- and I would suppose that such innovation is our best hope, speaking generally -- then I would want man to be unfettered to think and work and pursue those innovations. This "unfettering" refers to political "liberty," which is what Objectivists mean when referring to "capitalism," which thus primarily refers to a political system and not economics, as such.
This said, there are specific scenarios related to the environment which I believe would justify "interventions in the marketplace," by which I mean regulatory laws (or criminal laws, or civil lawsuits). If we were to determine that polluting the ocean (which is a common resource; or at least, I don't know of any proposal to privatize it yet) to whatever extent is bound to exterminate the world's algae, let's say, and thus choke off all of our oxygen, or what-have-you, then yes, we cannot be allowed to pollute the ocean like that (though such a discussion would be heavily nuanced and context-dependent). If this makes me a heretic in the eyes of other Objectivists, so be it, but my policy is to keep breathing.
Edited to add: As to the question of whether climate change (real or imagined) could lead to totalitarianism, well yeah. But the power hungry have never wanted for reasons to impose their wills on others, and totalitarianism has seemed to exist in every age. If climate change could spark a resurgence in totalitarianism (and it certainly seems to me to have that potential), the path will have been paved by centuries of philosophical thought which have argued for self-sacrifice (in the interests of the state, or God, or the race, or etc.) and against the rights and happiness of individual human beings.
There is no Objectivist dictum like "free markets lead to free societies," so far as I am aware, and I would redirect you to what I've said above, which is that Objectivism is primarily concerned with a moral political system (which we find in protecting individual rights, which we call "liberty"/capitalism) and not economic outcomes, as such. (Though many Objectivists may appeal to various economists who have argued that such liberty does generally result in prosperity, and etc.)
That said, a "free market" is not simply an absence of state authority... and in fact, a "free market" is not possible without some state authority to protect people in the use of their individual rights, whether in producing goods, trading them, or consuming them. The market is not "free" (and not truly a "market"), for instance, if you can steal from me with impunity. That's not an example of a free society, either, and such lawlessness is not what Objectivists regard as either moral or desirable.
I never would have described myself as Marxist-Communist, or an anarchist, but I was certainly a liberal in my youth. The experiences that led me to shift are probably too numerous to mention, but as a quick reduction I'll say that I read a number of influential books (including Rand, but not exclusively written by her), and I've spent many years applying ideas, testing them out in my own life, reviewing the results, studying history and my own past, and etc.
It is a complex process.
Throughout my intellectual development (which began when I was a liberal, and many years before discovering Objectivism), and despite the pride of place I now give to "happiness" and "self-esteem," I was led onward in the main by a passion for discovering the truth of things.
I watched Wall Street when I was young, and I cannot tell you what impression it made on me (because I do not remember). I imagine that the stereotypical "businessman world-beater" aesthetic did not do much for me at the time, as, quite frankly, it does not do much for me now.