"...that values which promote innovation, productivity and genius are superior..."

I don't disagree with the importance of such values, however I don't see any argument put forth that capitalism is the only, or even the best, means of promoting these values. (Note: haven't read the book or seen the movie)

"A social system which rewards people for creating their own wealth, rather than enjoying the wealth of others..."

I think the notion of creating wealth is important; many businessmen simply create wealth with the same way a bandit creates wealth by robbing someone. It's important to balance the freedom to create wealth with the assurance that those creating it are the ones who benefit.

"The reverse is in fact the case: values provide the intellectual and moral basis for the social and economic systems which exist."

I'd argue that values and systems coexist and are codependent on one another; forcing a system upon people who do not hold the values will result in unrest and resistance against the system. However, if a system is forced for long enough then the values of the people will begin to change.

"...accusing its proponents of being "market fundamentalists", among other silly labels."

"Market fundamentalists" are called such because they push the fundamental market ideology without thought for the underlying values. They push the "free market" as a be all and end all, only possible solution to every economic situation despite strong evidence that it will not work.

"Atlas Shrugged" is, on an aesthetic level, a turgid attempt at literature which only retains popularity because of the cult that supports it. Ayn Rand has a freshman's knowledge of Aristotlean philosophy and Objectivism can offer no answers for matters of significant consideration - it is the Harlequin romance of philosophy - and Rand herself is L. Ron Hubbard in drag.

And what does it support these days? Why, collective responsibility and punishment of individuals for the actions of their State leaders. Oh, the irony!

"The Objectivist Death Cult"
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/raimondo1.html

Col - re Lenin's views on the State - I would guess the quote you're using comes from 'The State and Revolution' - which is perhaps Lenin's most radical work. For Marx, the goal was to destroy the state - but before this could happen, the means of production had first to be developed, and the repressive apparatus of state taken from the ruling class.

In 'State and Revolution', Lenin was trying to outflank his rivals to his Left - and in doing so demanding impossible. Specialists from the middle class, bourgeois managers, small farmers - all had a legitimate role to play... It is a shame, also, that Stalin collectivised agriculture, supressing the market, and causing great misery.

Communists still hold that this is possible - the 'smash' the state - but while I borrow from Marxist ideas, I find the ideal of communism utopian at the best.

Communists want an egalitarian stateless utopia where people spontaneously and collectively share work and the spoils of work to ensure the implementation of the philosopy "from each according to their means, to each according to their needs."

While I broadly agree with this philosophy; I am a liberal who believes there is an essential role for the state in mediating conflict and fostering pluralism, free speech, free association, free assembly etc.

One consequence of this is that you are free to condmen anything I write as 'piffling dribble' - without engaging in any way with the substance of what I say. Anyway: By failing to engage with my ideas, and by resorting to that kind of language, you only condemn yourself.
It is my guess, anyway, that you barely came to grips with my article at all; just bringing out the 'socialist bogey'/ 'straw man' - because, after all, it's far easier to do that, isn't it?

Tristan Ewings “It is my guess, anyway, that you barely came to grips with my article at all; just bringing out the 'socialist bogey'/ 'straw man' - because, after all, it's far easier to do that, isn't it?”

Oh how wrong..

I saw right through it.

The bland, soulless pseudo-rationalism of the uninventive and unimaginative, who steeps himself in the writings of failed economic philosophers and tyrants.

Although it continues to fail, repeatedly, “entryism” remains a source of evil in the world,
It finds its acolytes and recruits in the ranks of the intellectually immature and emotionally unbalanced, who seek to prove that “collectivism” works, despite the catastrophic failures which are heaped at the feet of Marx, Lenin, Stalin and other collective despots like Mao Tse Tung and Pol Pot, right up to that incompetent brinkman Kim Jong-il.

Libertarian Capitalism is about every person endeavouring to become the best they can, from which all will benefit more than we would if fettered by a repressive socialist alternative.

Socialism is the cowards, the dullards and the weaklings path. Everyone held in check, no one allowed to succeed because it might make others look like failures.

Just as Lenin produced some wonder quotations which revealed the cynical and corrupt soul of communism (which evolves from socialism), so too the words of libertarians produce far superior aspirations and expectations of what individuals can achieve when, freed from the shackles of the state and free to walk their own chosen path

Words like

“We want a society where people are free to make choices, to make mistakes, to be generous and compassionate. This is what we mean by a moral society; not a society where the state is responsible for everything, and no one is responsible for the state.”
Margaret Thatcher.

Enjoy, I know I do.

So, will an unreadably turgid book (and irrelevant Cold War relic) be made into an equally tedious film? I doubt it. No working film-maker or Hollywood studio would allow themselves to produce anything quite that bad.

As is often the case the book will be compromised and sanitised so that it fits the entertainment formula - only in this case the changes will constitute an improvement.

Ayn Rand's view of the world was shaped by her families' experience of living in Stalinist Russia. One of the Soviet Union's greatest acts of oppression was denying their people the right to emigrate . One of their lesser crimes was letting Ayn Rand out of the country

The debate between “pure capitalism” and communism is an anachronism. Neither exists and as one of the previous posts pointed out, the Scandinavian economies prove that no one really needs them. The Chinese situation as it currently stands makes a mockery of both ideologies.

Ideology, is a bit like religion. Nobody really needs that either and an ideology that has the pursuit of personal gain as its central theme represents nothing more than a pathetic attempt at raising small-minded avarice to the level of high philosophy.

- Mr Smith

Mr Smith that was a wonderful post; from your satirical comments about the quality of Hollywood studios, to the comments about the crimes of the Soviet's, to the comments of the Scandanavians and the Chinese. Well done sir!