...The embarrassing similarities between Hitler's National Socialism and Stalin's brand of Communism...
The blind pig snuffles up an acorn.
Similar because they are the same.
Ayn's description is perfectly apt.
Whether Communists, Fascists, Progressives or whatever, they are all socialist looters, and their useful idiots, moochers.
Your comment "shows someone who hasn't read," or at least, has not understood, Chambers's review. He gave reasons for his assertions, and his reasons are believable because they are based on history. We've seen his assertions concerning the trend toward dictatorship borne out in practice all throughout history.
And, specifically to Ms. Rand, we can simply look at her personal history to see that she was not particularly different in that regard. Consider her famous tendency to "excommunicate" those disciples who dared to disagree, for example; or the personality cult from which the dissidents were excommunicated; or her egregious "objectively justified" infidelity to her husband.
Chambers, a former Communist, used that old canard of the Reds; anything we don't like must be Fascist.
I must admit to being very impressed at your use of an ad hominem attack based on Chambers's alleged ad hominem attack.
As it happens, Chambers very publicly recanted his former Communist views; however, he made a point of never forgetting them -- and in the case of Ms. Rand, he clearly recognized the same sorts of totalitarian impulses to which he'd been a party in the Party.
As for myself, I used to think Ayn Rand's philosophy was pretty swell, until I tried to follow her advice and use reason to prove it. In so doing, I discovered that Ayn Rand was a fraud: her philosophy is "objective" if and only if you accept her axioms -- even when the real world suggests that they are incorrect. And when you make an honest attempt to do the same, I think you'll come to the same conclusion.
Whittaker Chambers is a truely heroic figure unlike, say, Hank Reardon, a work of fiction.