I've only read one of Ayn Rand's books, and honestly I can't recall all the details, as I was quite young at the time. I do know, numerous staunch pro-capitalist and fierce anti-socialist/communist refer to her philosophy.

On the other hand, socialists and communists hate her, for obvious reasons.

So, I will probably have a different view, I believe one, when you look at Rand and any in that time period you have to take into consideration, Especially in Russia, the make-up of the Tsarist regime/economy then, as it was in many ways very different from what was taking place in Europe/America. While there was exploitation [and brutal in Russia due to Serfdom], and imperialism, there wasn't the reformist movements on the scale that there was in Europe, not in the way that the socialists and Christian socialists were working in both Europe and some in America. [and in addition the reformist movements even within the capitalists range]

So, when she's speaking of pro-free trade, I believe she was referring to the rise of the middle class in Russia and that she was against the collectivization and forced Statism of the Bolsheviks, she had the belief, that many do, that if there was free trade and hands off, that eventually the market would work things out for itself,

that due to the supply/demand principle, eventually the profiteers would have to move way due to the rise in the middle class/change in society, etc. In other words, the belief that as society progresses, people become more apt and more able to move up, etc. In ways that is true, when you compare that to like, societies that are stuck in Medieval times or what I would term feudalist,

the Problem is however, is that while on paper it looks promising, in reality there is that Power imbalance, particularly who owns the resources and capital. The belief, somewhat similar to libertarian beliefs [or right wing anarchists] is that when gov interferes and regulates the rich/or capital, the rich are forced to cut jobs, pay, etc., and that if gov would just stay out of the way the People, the consumer would demand and would not trade their labor unless they were paid fair,

that fair exchange, again, in theory. The problem however, again, with that power, is that those with the power, don't care if the ones working for them Demand anything, because there is enough individuals who are in dire need for work to sustain and live that the workers who demand, can easily be replaced,

not only that, one thing the Ayn Rand supporters often tend to NOT want to look at, is that while they are opposed to gov interference or regulations on Capital or how businesses are run/how they hire, treat workers, etc.,

they are in no way, against Government paying police forces to keep workers in their place, a.k.a., beating down strikes, even murdering workers who revolt.

Where it gets interesting, at least I think, is that, what transpired in the Soviet Union [both in Bolsheviks and especially in Stalinism, though in varying degrees] is that, similar interventions worked the same exact way, as would the capitalists,

workers striked and demanded decent working conditions, the State was called in, accused them of being class enemies or enemies of the state, and off to the gulag they went. IF they showed up late, more than three times, off to the gulag they went,

so, there is some Problems there too, meaning, it doesn't line up with theory/promise and there was still slavery and bread lines. So, on that note, Ayn had a point, and one that I feel those who are opposed to capitalism but who do not have complete blinders to dogma on, should pay attention to so that WE DON'T MAKE THOSE SAME MISTAKES AGAIN.

Again, however, we must understand, there are other variables that go into explaining Why applied communism went the way it did in those states and in current ones, for one, the status of Russia at the time, competing with the West and they were very behind, they were not an industrialized nation [Stalin, horrid as he was, did in fact, modernize Russia in not just fast time but enough that it probably had a lot to do with why they were able to defeat Hitler later, If, they were agarian, (sic), can't spell today, I doubt seriously if Russia could have held the forces back...political necessity, its still debated]

also the background of the social makeup in Russia, even before Bolshevism, there were collective ideas, that did transfer over into both Lenin's and Stalin's theory, I can't recall the name of the collective communities/farming movements but I can look it up. Some of those reform movements came out of those and many of those who followed more of that socialism/or collective [it was more voluntary] were opposed to both Bolshevism and Tsarism,

then of course, there was the nihilist influences that were very, very strong in Russia. For good reason however, same as in Germany [years later], when you look at the horrid conditions that people were forced in, Even in America, we don't have the caste system that they had then, the system under the Tsar was extremely authoritarian and people who worked as Serfs [even after the few reforms] who were due to the nature of work illiterate, most of them, were literally slaves, and IF they did not produce what the land owners wanted, often times, their children were tortured,

That kind of horrid treatment. Very medievalist in many ways, in thinking, also very nationalistic. So that whole craftsman/middle class rise in Russia, was fairly new In comparison, to like Europe, so there was still some hope, among the middle class, that over time they could I'm sure, they thought progress like Europe and America [though different economies and different governments/political and social make ups].

My point is, I think the far left judges Rand a little harshly, which, sure, understandable when you know the conditions the majority of people lived in, what I think is very concerning however,

is those conditions, didn't change That much after collectivization and in fact, were somewhat horrid, and that I know after years of research and knowing people who in fact are Russian and lived in Russia. The ones who benefited from the changes were the State and Politburo [those who weren't purged that is, and that depended on the mood of gov], after Stalin passed I do know there was some changes, but then, by that time Soviets became a very militarized state, dependent upon militarization. Even then, there was poverty,

and starvation, Russia is a huge nation though, the largest, and its not like, the West where there is accessible farm land and resources and good climate, etc., year round, so all those things one has to take into consideration plus the impact of WWII and the Cold War/and the resources it took, to feed expansionism.

The reason, that so many opposed collectivization in Soviet, under Stalin [no matter How many here in West would like to soften the blow or glamorize it] was the not only horrid way it was done but I'm not afraid to say it, the stupid way it was done. Not only were Cossacks and farmers butchered, peasants too, for wanting to store food and not starve,

but too, those who Had the skills to farm, were done away with...this was to feed those in the cities, so the theory/justification goes, never mind that there was a mass famine that killed thousands literally [under Stalin]. That was to fuel industrialization, to pull Russia out by force, from the ancient serfdom that was still existing and pulling her into modern day age, to ward off the threat of the Imperial west as well [that was a very real fear and yes, possibility]. So, the Reality, then opposed to the theory on paper, was brutal and extremely harsh, and millions died in the process,

and not just rich, masses of the poor. Whether it would have been different if Lenin would have lived, hard to say, Trotsky wrote against many policies of collectivization by Stalin though he did support the theories of collectivization and redistribution, as did Lenin. On the other side,

with reform, you have like Lenin/and et al say, those who, will reform to a point, until things are calmed down and pacified but the process of exploitation are still there and sure enough eventually, especially when power exchanges hands, as it does, those reforms don't last.

Maybe, an alternative to both, is looking at the similarities of both, because I find, after years of thinking hard that both communism and corporatist capitalism in fact have far more in common, than what many realize. Either way,

if poor, you're standing in a bread line and if not in a gulag most likely winding up in prison for economic crimes...and in both cases, its the State, that is in control of both resources and economy and ironically, where is the true free market? And it has a lot to do I think with who owns land,

so, point being, I think its good to look at the criticisms on both sides and see where things go wrong, odd to say that, sure,

but I think, its time we did. Because looking at both and history has enough evidence, there is enough suffering and misery in both and both have serious, serious flaws and both, produce an extreme imbalance of power, and in neither set up, do the People,

have ownership, of squat.

Solidarity,

Modotti