The tragic irony is that you don't even know who you are quoting. Ayn Rand said it well:
I don't know who I'm quoting? Would you please enlighten me as to who made the quoted statement then?
"Faith, as such, is extremely detrimental to human life: it is the negation of reason."
"every period of history dominated by mysticism, was a period of statism, of dictatorship, of tyranny."
I'm well aware of Rand's views on religion, but why I can't appreciate her critique of socialism because of this, I'm not sure I understand. George Riesman is an Atheist, and yet I still use and quote his work on economics and socialism extensively.
Wait, it gets better: Leonard Peikoff, whose work you also quoted, although he shares your anti-communistic views and doesn't know the difference between communism and socialism either, said:
"You are probably wondering here: "What about Communism? Isn't it a logical, scientific, atheistic philosophy, and yet doesn't it lead straight to totalitarianism?" The short answer to this is: Communism is not an expression of logic or science, but the exact opposite. Despite all its anti-religious posturings, Communism is nothing but a modern derivative of religion: it agrees with the essence of religion on every key issue, then merely gives that essence a new outward veneer or cover-up.
"
This is something I and other conservative intellectuals have been saying for decades. Joshua Muravchik recently wrote a book on the subject called
Heaven on Earth: the Rise and Fall of Socialism. Socialism was "the God that failed" etc. Socialism is a secular religion, much as is environmentalism, another popular leftist alternative to serious, traditional religious commitment. Welcome to the club.
And here we have the ominous parallels. Notice how the things they object to in both religion and totalitarianism is the suppression of logic, reason, and individuality. It's pretty sad when your own sources turn against you, isn't it, Coggs? On a side note, although Peikoff hates liberals just like you, he hates conservatives even more and recommends voting only for Democrats and staying as far away as possible from Republicans who you seem to have a soft spot for. Why? Because Republicans tend to be religious.
And here's the rub. Some religions do suppress logic, reason, and individuality (like fundamentalist Islam, socialism, environmentalism, and forms of Protestant fundamentalism etc.) Other religions patently do not, and any claim that they do belies a propound ignorance of both the history of religion (including Islam), and just exactly what reason and logic are and can be expected to accomplish. Political ideology suppresses reason, logic, and individuality to a degree not seen in any but the most extreme examples of religions fanaticism, and does so, unlike fanatic religious commitment, without the consent of the those within its purview. One can leave a church one does not like. One could only get out of East Berlin by braving machine gun fire.
And here's another: no Mormons, Evangelical Protestants, conservative Catholics, or Christian Fundamentalists are blowing people up with suicide bombs, plotting the extinction of the Jews in Israel, flying aircraft into buildings, and saying the heads of journalists on Youtube. Indeed, most Muslims are not doing this. It is a form of Islam,
political Islam, which, like socialism, fascism, and Nazism, is a totalitarian ideology driven by hate and lust for supreme power; by unfettered human hubris, and that's the problem. Rand is wrong and always was; the great world religions are a barrier to human depravity, not a incitement to it. It is only when religion becomes fused with the state (and when the state is, like most states until the birth of American from English liberalism, is one unlimited and unaccountable in its exercise of power), that religion becomes the engine of destruction so feared by secularist libertarians and leftists alike.
Peikoff sells Marxism short too, however, in the sense that socialism is a child of the Enlightenment, just as is classical liberalism. Leftism was a reaction to the Enlightenment, however, especially to its economic and political implications, but firmly rooted in its tradition of rationalism and positivism. This is why the early socialists called their system scientific socialism; they believed strongly that it was a derivation of the rationalist tradition.
Case closed. Now would be a good time to retreat with your tail between your legs and stop derailing the thread with your political rants. Bye-bye.
You haven't as yet made a case to close. Now, respond to Mr. Hitler please.