Rating: 
Summary: The philosophy of sociopathy.
Review: I truly hope that this book is widely read by the general public. I say this in the sense that I wish Mein Kamph would have been more widely read. If people would have been more familiar with the author's ideas it would have averted horrible tragedy, and outright evil, in the world. As Ayn Rand is the author most quoted by "libertarians", "free-traders", and advocates of "hands off" capitalism this also applies. Her philosophy of Objectivism is the philosophy of sociopathy, of the ego freed from the restraints of social conscience. All that is important is gratification of the ego. There is no room for community, no room for humanity, no room for God- the individual ego is God. To the objectivist, "altruism", lending a hand or doing good for it's own sake, is a dirty word. I have heard a leading spokesman for Rand's philosophy denounce Hitler primariy because he was too "altruistic." Make of that what you will. In our own time, the proponets of unrestrained corporate power, and of the dismantling of elected government, love Rand. They tell you that only governments can "initiate force." This is the Big Lie- there is no moral difference between shooting a man and starving him to death through economic control of resources- or controlling people through the threat of it. Rand and her objectivists are usually very adept at formal argument and logic. However, their basic premises are so absolutely inhumane that their arguments are mere castles in the air. Castles empty of humanity and God, but filled with evil.
I sometimes wonder what sort of childhood abuse in her native Russia could have warped Rand so seriously. It is obvious that her philosophy is an extreme over reaction to communist collectivism- in the same way that Satanism is an extreme overreaction to Christian fundamentalism.
Rating: 
Summary: Rand's versus the Austrians
Review: The importance of this book stems almost entirely from its status as the first polemical defense of a "pure" form of laissez-faire since Spencer's "Man Versus the State." Advocates of this singular ideology are nearly universal in its praise, and some of the essays in the book (particularly Rand's "Roots of War") are regarded by laissez-faire enthusiasts as timeless classics. Those who are not sympathetic with laissez-faire will have an entirely different opinion of the book's worth, but that's always the case with partisan political tracts: they appeal only to those who already agree with the views propagated therein. If you agree with Rand's political ideals, this book will seem like manna from heaven. If you don't, you will regard it as jejune rubbish. That is the trouble with ideological political writing: it nearly always amounts to little more than preaching to the choir.As a propagandist, Rand had at least one thing going for her that separated her from pack: she had a "vision" of things, an ability to see political and social phenomenon in a larger than life frame of reference and to describe and project that vision in incisive and compelling terms. And while there is much in this vision that deserves scientific criticism, one aspect of it really ought to be better appreciated. I have in mind Rand's contention that it is a creative minority that is decisive to the success of the free market, rather than the "consumer sovereignty" preached by the Austrians. Mark Skousen has challenged Rand's vision of capitalism from the Austrian point of view. But Rand's vision, at least on this issue, comes closer to the facts. It is regrettable that Rand chose to integrate this largely correct vision with an over-romanticized view of business. Her contention that everything "bad" ever associated with capitalism is either not really bad or is caused by government interference in the market is simply not supported by the historical evidence, if for no other reason that business and politics have always been inextricably connected and that it is a veritable law of society for it to be this way.
Rating: 
Summary: A Good Primer, a Strong Writer
Review: Rand is easily my favorite 20th century thinker. However, as time has passed, I've grown slowly disattached from her theories, called Objectivism. Re-reading her works, such as Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, has the effect of focusing one's thinking, removing some of the unnecessary complications that have piled up since one last picked up one of Rand's books. This is not to say everything in Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal is true, or that it is even well said. Rand was a good non-fiction writer, but by no means the best essayist of the twentieth century. If you're looking for non-fiction rhetorical style, look elsewhere. She writes clearly, and the writers strongly, cutting out most of the graft and unnecessary details, with the benefit of presenting a philosophy with simple principles, easily understood by the most casual reader. Still, the brilliance of Rand best shines through in her fiction. Read The Fountainhead or Atlas Shrugged to get a sense of why people, instead of simply respecting her, are devoted to her. If you're new to Rand, I recommend reading her non-fiction first, and to read Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal first among the non-fiction. If you like it or dislike it, you'll be ready to move on to Rand's fiction with a better ability to question the themes she argues in her works.
Rating: 
Summary: Rebuttal
Review: See Dr. John Robbins' Without a Prayer: Ayn Rand and the Close of Her System for a scholarly rebuttal to Objectivism.
Rating: 
Summary: People still have yet to discover capitalism...
Review: When Ayn Rand wrote this book Capitalism was completely out of "fashion" because people had yet to discover what capitalism is. Today, capitalism is in "fashion"--yet, unfortunately people still don't fully grasp what it is, what it stands for, and what it requires to exist. Quoting Miss Rand: "No politico-economic system in history has ever proved its value so eloquently or has benefited mankind so greatly as capitalism -- and none has ever been attacked so savagely, viciously, and blindly. The flood of misinformation, misrepresentation, distortion, and outright falsehood about capitalism is such that the young people of today have no idea (and virtually no way of discovering any idea) of its actual nature. "...[I]t is capitalism's alleged champions who are responsible for the fact that capitalism is being destroyed without a hearing, without a trial, without any public knowledge of its principles, its nature, its history, or its moral meaning. It is being destroyed in the manner of a nightmare lynching -- as if a blind, despair-crazed mob were burning a straw man, not knowing that the grotesquely deformed bundle of straw is hiding the living body of the ideal. "The method of capitalism's destruction rests on never letting the world discover what it is being destroyed -- on never allowing it to be identified within the hearing of the young. "The purpose of this book is to identify it. [It] is addressed to the young -- in years or in spirit -- who are not afraid to know and are not ready to give up." "What they have to discover, what all the efforts of capitalism's enemies are frantically aimed at hiding, is the fact that capitalism is not merely the "practical", but the only moral system in history." Wow! Can this woman write or what!
Rating:
Summary: Solid and In-Depth Study
Review: This series of essays goes to great depth in studying the foundations of capitalism and its relationship to human freedom. There are also wonderful essays about politics of the 50's and 60's and their relationship to freedom. Some issues, however, are explored almost exclusively from a moral perspective, and only incidently address economic issues. The biggest problem is that the writing style is very harsh, which gets old after a while. Still this is a very good book for exploring capitalism and freedom.
Rating:
Summary: The Moral Defense of Capitalism
Review: While it's hardly arguable that capitalism is an economic system capable of generating immense wealth, not many people have tried defending capitalism from a moral viewpoint. That is exactly why they have not succeeded in showing that capitalism actually is the only system that protects the rights of man as well as allowing him to rise as high as he wishes and his abilities allow him. And then there is "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal" - a collection of essays on many different subjects, all defending capitalism not only because it's a wealth-generating system, but first and foremost because it is moral. There are even a few essays written by Alan Greenspan before he - seemingly - rejected his ideals and became head of the Federal Reserve. A great book, and a constant source of inspiration.
Rating:
Summary: A Moral Justification
Review: Books on capitalism abound. So, why should you read this one? Simply put, because you will find in these pages (and nowhere else) a moral justification for capitalism--the only one it has ever had and the one without which it is presently perishing.
Rating:
Summary: Capitalism *is* in many ways an ideal...
Review: ...but this book does a terrible job of expressing it. This compilation of essays, including contributions by young (read: pre-Fed) Alan Greenspan, supposedly extols the virtues of capitalism. Unfortunately, this ain't what Capitalism is about. I am a very strong believer that democracy, coupled with capitalism and a free market economy, is the most stable platform yet devised for economic growth and equitable distribution of wealth. Francis Fukiyama's well known book The End of History and the Last Man is repetitive and verbose, but it does a good job of developing this idea. Capitalism works. Unfortunately, in this book Rand takes positive, solid concepts like free markets and trade and takes them to a lunatic fringe extreme that turns them into nutty anti-government caricatures. The most disturbing, perhaps, are the essays written forty years ago by Alan Greenspan, who is now chairman of the Federal Reserve' arguably the most powerful man in the United States of America. In an article entitled 'The Assault on Integrity' he argues (correctly) that reputation is an important competitive advantage for corporations, and that they will act responsibly in order to protect this competitive advantage. He then takes this simple concept and extends it to the unsupportable conclusion that regulation by government entities in *any* fashion is unnecessary. Oh what a difference a few decades makes; as the chairman of the U.S. Federal Reserve Greenspan has now grown up to be the most powerful regulator in the world. We also know, of course, that the views which he espoused in the Integrity essay are pure nonsense. Left to their own devices for-profit corporations will often choose short term gains even if by doing so they take the risk of damaging their long term reputation. Corporate management reports to the shareholder, and the shareholder is focused on quarter-to-quarter performance. If a drug company can release a new product, or an oil giant can initiate a new project, they'll do so if they think it will boost the stock price. If the product turns out to be faulty, or an oil spill results ' well they'll cross that bridge when they come to it. The situation becomes even more problematic when you consider the fact that the shareholders - the true owners of any corporation - don't actually run the business. Day to day operations are entrusted to a cadre of professional managers. Greenspan's thesis states that any entity will do "the right thing" because of a natural desire to maintain their reputation, but this theory obviously falls apart when the owners aren't truly calling the shots. Obviously Ken Lay (Enron) and Dennis Kozlowski (Tyco) weren't worried too much about running their respective companies' reputations into the ground; they were too busy enriching themselves at society's expense. Even Jack Welch, GE's highly regarded CEO and Wall Street's icon of managerial responsibility, has suffered some unflattering attention as of late. Yes, society needs to establish some rules, and make these guys follow them. Okay, okay: hindsight is 20/20 and yes it is easy to debunk old theories as wrong based on new information. Greenspan did not have a crystal ball forty years ago, and to his credit he's changed his tune. Indeed we could all stand to learn a thing or two from Alan; old theories need to be reevaluated, and when events prove them wrong they need to be discarded. Capitalism and free trade are both concepts that are positive for society. Unfortunately, this book is awful - full of outdated and incorrect ideas. If you want a book which gives a rational treatment of the many virtues of capitalism, Rand is an author to avoid. I can only hope that if/when Greenspan looks back at these essays that he contributed back in the early sixties that he gets a shudder of embarrassment. Ayn Rand has a fiercely loyal following and I know that this review won't make me any new friends, but capitalism and free markets are good concepts that get a bad treatment in this book. Bad economics. Bad science. Bad philosophy. Rand's devout might enjoy it, but readers simply looking for a balanced treatment of capitalism will want to skip this one.
Rating:
Summary: An unknown ideal?
Review: Some people say that Christianity hasn't really been given a chance yet. After 2,000 years of it, I think this claim is unfair. The same with capitalism. Rand idealizes it without an ounce of compassion for its robber-baron tendencies, let alone the slightest historical awareness that wherever unrestrained capitalism operates, people starve. The idea, or rather justification, is that islands of selfishness will balance each other out economically. Sure. Aside from the minor matter of monopolization and globalization, two examples of the very wealthy realizing that working together makes for still more wealth, when did compacts of distrust ever improve anything, let alone our relationships with one another? To blame the liberals and existentialists and socialists and Kantians for capitalism's limitations is a bit like blaming Mister Rogers for the fact that dangerous toys get taken off the market before they can turn a profit. We need to be appraised of the wonders of capitalism about as much as the "virtue of selfishness." All of us see it operating every day, and usually to the complete disadvantage of the populations of people it marginalizes in the name of progress, good boundaries, and philosophical enlightenment.
| 
