I'll grant this.
Rand's statement of virtues is unambiguous... "My morality, the morality of reason, is contained in a single axiom: existence exists - and in a single choice: to live. The rest proceeds from these. To live, man must hold three things as the supreme and ruling values of his life: Reason - Purpose - Self-esteem. Reason, as his only tool of knowledge - Purpose, as his choice of happiness which that tool must proceed to achieve - Self-esteem as his inviolate certainty that his mind is competent to think and his person is worthy of happiness, which means: is worthy of living. These three values imply and require all of man's virtues, and all his virtues pertain to the relation of existence and consciousness: rationality, independence, integrity, honesty, justice, productiveness, pride."
This philosophy seems arbitrary. She doesn't really explain why "To live, man must hold three things as the supreme and ruling values of his life: Reason - Purpose - Self-esteem". She just states it as a matter of fact, when it's really just her own opinion, its what would make HER happy. This philosophy appears to be perfectly compatible with Marxism. If it is equal distribution of wealth that one fancies, this will be the PURPOSE that makes this person happy.
I think you've misunderstood Rand. An equal distribution of wealth would require violating the property rights of productive people, something that Rand definitely opposed. She explained her philosophy in great detail in her non-fiction writings.
Ayn Rand and Objectivism.