Actually, though, Ayn Rand would NEVER use the phrase "struggle of survival." The 19th century so-called defenders of capitalism actually did it a great disservice, by associating freedom with some sort of animal-like Darwinian struggle for existence.
The human method of survival is totally different from the animals'. Animals don't produce, they merely grab what's available. That's a struggle in which the more one has, the less there is for others.
But HUMANS survive by thinking, and reshaping nature to suit their own ends. This CREATES NEW WEALTH that never existed before. Did Thomas Edison's success HARM others? or BENEFIT them? In "Atlas Shrugged" there's a passage in which Dagny Taggart gazes at rust streaks on the side of a canyon, and thinks that's all they were to the Indians: rust streaks. Whereas under capitalism, entrepreneurs like herself and Hank Rearden turn those rust streaks into steel, into rails and bridges, and into a transcontinental transportation system that benefits everyone.
By contrast, Marxism is irretrievably flawed at the root: it views the human mind as impotent, as a passive thing to be shaped by deterministic forces. Therefore, to a Marxist, human thought, planning and entrepreneurship are UNREAL. Marxists like Obama view employers merely as exploiters and predators, not as the creators of NEW WEALTH they really are.
Under laizzez-faire capitalism, Ayn Rand argued, one man's success benefits EVERYONE. It's only under statist gangster regimes (like Lenin's, Hitler's or Obama's) that others are a threat to you--because the tyrannical government steals from some to give to privileged favorites of the regime.