I'm not afraid of the term socialism. First of all, there never has been a purely socialist society but there have been socialist leanings in our democracy,
Social Security and the post office as an example.

Socialism was intended to be a political system that cares for human needs
and democratic unity. It was perverted in the former Soviet Union and other places in the world. The US could use more socialism in its governance. It doesn't have to be a complete socialism but the role of government needs to be helpful for its citizens, particularly when it comes to health insurance, and parity for the opportunities for all economic levels.

As Thom Hartmann says, we don't need the government making our shirts or clothes but unions are important so that we don't have 23 "right to work for less"
states.

Ayn Rand is a true reactionary. She grew up in a dictatorship in the USSR and emigrated to America where she formulated her reactionary ideas. Her ideas
are half-baked and inconsistent, wanting complete autonomy while in her later years drawing Social Security benefits. Her romanticism of the entrepreneur
who claws his/her way to the top doesn't take into account the role of corporate managed CEO's who are not the rugged individualists that she lauds. They are corporation men/women who are part of a corporate decision-making system and even if they are making robber's wages today, they still must answer to others.

Perhaps if she wanted to applaud someone who was true to her warped idea of success, she could champion the late Jimmy Hoffa, a rugged individualist.

Or even Karl Marx, a rugged individualistic economist.