I'm reading Das Kapital, not a pamphlet. Try to lend other people a little more intellectual credit than
that.
With regards to Ayn Rand, in a similar spirit, I'm not talking about her crappy fiction work (which is similar in purpose to the Communist Manifesto), but rather her more deliberate and directly philosophical tracts.
Interestingly, as a result, I can only assume you committed the mistake you thought I did, judging the philosopher on the basis of their secondary output rather than the core subject matter.
I don't adhere to objectivism and I think they're fucking cultists, but I do know their philosophy well and the basis for it bears a lot of resemblance to how Marxism is grounded and justified philosophically speaking. Marxism is somewhat more empirical but not by much.
My perspective on the similarity of the bases of each may be colored by the fact that I come from a strongly skeptical and deconstructionist background.
In general, I'm willing to entertain a priori suggestions for the sake of exploring an interesting thought. An example would be that I'm willing to suspend disbelief long enough to discuss the subject of "desert" with a philosopher who isn't a nihilist if it leads to interesting conversation.
What I am not willing to do is suspend disbelief long enough to swallow an overarching socio-political theory on how the whole world should be run regardless of social context (Marxism and Objectivism) based on some ridiculous presumptions about truth and human nature.