Ayn Rand is a philosopher who talks very directly on how productive action at work (or anywhere) are the morally good.
Productive values are values that let you sustain your life in it's biological requirements and it's requirements for happiness. (E.g. working as a programmer helps satisfy your need for food/shelter/medicine and also allows you to satisfy your passion for a life worth living in programming ). Ayn Rand shows that the requirements to man's life are objective [external to conscious desire]. There is no subjectivity in your bodies needs for energy (via need for food), there is no subjectivity in the use of reason to accomplish values, and that there is no subjectivity in the requirements for how you reach happiness by the use of your individual judgement to fulfill your life.
Productive actions come in many concretes, but all individuals are unified in that they are actions that satisfy the objective requirements of how individual maximally live.
If productivity were truly subjective, anything could keep us alive and happy. But you cannot eat off playing video games [at least not if you aren't a twitch star ;)], and you cannot find happiness by doing a career you hate.
What is it "to live"? Even more of a mystery is what is it to "maximally live"? You are reducing all of life to a single dimension that you haven't even defined. There may be an objective minimum amount of calories that are necessary to stay alive/awake but I don't think that raw survival is super relevant here; what value is there in intaking a single one beyond that? The things that make us happy at one point in our lives aren't necessarily always going to make us happy, in fact our ideas of what it is to be happy can easily fluctuate throughout our lives, and definitely do fluctuate from person to person. There's very little in this world that is as cut and dry as you seem to imply.
No honest philosophy claims to supplant the special sciences, only serve as a foundation, nor will it tell you exactly what you must do to apply those principles to your life. If rigid dogma is what you expect or seek, I suggest investigating religion instead.
I really don't think I am, I'm trying to tell you that you keep referencing subjective values as if they can be assessed objectively. An example from the comment above is the following subjective value implied as an objective value: a long life is a better life than a not long life. I know it may sound preposterous but for every scenario we could imagine there is always a way to look at an action as a good thing or a bad thing depending on your perspective, even chugging rat poison. Perhaps the results of my death from poisoning is that someone else is able to survive due to the whatever circumstances surround the scenario; in this case I may be balancing the value of my own continued existence against that of someone else's and you want to tell me you there's a framework that is somehow going to guide me into making an objectively correct choice about who lives and dies?
> Objectivism deductively and inductively proves that certain actions are an objective good for the soul as a condition of being human
I disagree with this wholeheartedly.
I have seen zero proof of this and I really don't think it can be proved because the objective universe does not track goodness in any way, it is a concept defined entirely within our minds and does not have an objective physical reference we can test or compare against.
It's a shame that there's such a negative knee-jerk reflex to the mention of her name.
At some point, when everybody who reads your books uses them to justify toxic behavior, negative knee-jerk responses become the proper societal equivalent of an immune response.
If a bad actor wants a scapegoat, they will find one.
No, Ayn Rand and Karl Marx are not remotely comparable.
Not until you can point to dozens of countries that tried to put Rand's principles into action, and show how they failed. Can you?
Saying "true communism has never been tried" is to ignore what happened each time. "We'll do better next time" doesn't persuade unless you have a detailed understanding of how someone like Stalin or Pol Pot comes to power, and some plan more detailed than "we won't do it that way."
John Oliver's segment on Ayn Rand (Last Week Tonight, I forget the name of the segment but it was something to the effect of "Why Is This Still A Thing") did an excellent job summarizing the popular case against her, in all of its disingenuousness: without making an effort to view her statements through the lens of the terms she's defined, it sounds bad compared to vulgar neoliberal sensibilities, and because she herself as a human was less than perfect. It, like every mass media analysis of her or her works I've seen, comes from and is marketed towards a pre-established understanding the Objectivism is wrong.
Also, I'd love to see a source on "everyone who reads" Ayn Rand (or Marx, for that matter, or any author of any written work ever) being toxic sociopaths -- it stands to reason that you'd see her closest adherents, like Onkhar Ghate, Harry Binswanger, Yaron Brook, or Leonard Peikoff being known for acting upon bad ideas if that was all that was in their intellectual orbit, not cherrypicked cases of someone claiming to have read Rand before making questionable or unethical decisions.