Rating: 
Summary: Not for the emotional...
Review: A word of warning! Those who value emotion over reason should proceed with caution while reading this book. Guilt and envy will surely raise their ugly heads for those unwilling to admit and accept that they exist off the efforts of others.
Rating: 
Summary: A must for political moderates and socialists.........
Review: Ayn Rand's political and economic philosophies are not much different than the libertarian's platform. Although at times Rand seems to be repitive, she is still able to convey the importance of a free market economy, and the dangers of government interference. The book is definitely worth a read for those who adhere to a mixed or socialist economy philosophy. However, as a graduate of economics, I must complain about the utter lack of empiricism in the book and some misinterpretations of the Sherman Antitrust laws.
Rating: 
Summary: A right-wing fantasy masquerading as a radical indictment
Review: Answer this question: If Rand endorses capitalism as an equal opportunity reward system for innovators & industrialists, then someone explain inheritance to me. Great grandchildren of William R. Hearst are given a greater economic opportunity than the grandchildren of a mechanic, enabled by the STATE (the same state she blames for all problems) Rand never acknowledges this and her whole theory subsequently crumbles. Rand is popular with adolescents desperate to reconcile their confusion about self-interest and duties and "Libertarian" apologists looking for a theory to justify domination and exploitation. I find it fitting that a woman who praises capitalism as the "unknown (unkown to whom?) ideal" also goes to great lengths to explore rape fantasies in The Fountainhead. Read Noam Chomsky or George Orwell, please.
Rating:
Summary: The first book to provide a MORAL basis for capitalism.
Review: The essence of this short book is to show that capitalism is the only social system consonant with man's nature as a rational being. Rand validates capitalism by showing that it is good in practice BECAUSE it is good in theory, i.e., the moral is the practical.
Rating:
Summary: An eye-opening study of capitalist economics.
Review: Perhaps one of the most powerful defenses of capitalism yet written, this book explodes most criticism of it. In a series of well-written essays (including some by now-Fed chairman Alan Greenspan) it is demonstrated that almost all of capitalism's flaws are actually the result of statist manipulations. My primary reason for rating it only as an "8" is that some of the cultural references have become a bit obscure over the past thirty years. I would strongly recommend this book to anyone.
Rating:
Summary: A Utopian Ideal?
Review: I first read "Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal" as a high-school sophomore in 1969, a couple years after its initial publication. Back in the '60s, it was controversial simply to argue that capitalism was more economically efficient than socialism; to claim, as Rand did, that capitalism was morally superior to socialism was revolutionary. Times have changed. Nowadays it would require an invincible ignorance to believe that socialism can compete economically with capitalism. And to believe that socialism is morally superior to capitalism, now that everyone knows the truth about actually existing socialism in the former Soviet Union, would be morally depraved. Intellectually, the battle is over. Capitalism has won; socialism has lost. Capitalism is no longer an "unknown" ideal. Our new historical situation makes it possible to look more clearly at Ayn Rand's political writings. Rand was unquestionably right about the moral and economic superiority of capitalism. But was she also right about the political, cultural, and historical conditions required to create and preserve a free, capitalistic social order? Rand consistently argued that the motive force of history was ideas. Ultimately, it was intellectuals who control the course of human events. For example, in the second essay in this book, "The Roots of War," Rand declares: "Just as the destruction of capitalism and the rise of the totalitarian state were not caused by business or labor or any economic interest, but by the dominant statist ideology of the intellectuals -- so the resurgence of the doctrines of military conquest and armed crusades for political 'ideals' were the product of the same intellectuals' belief that 'the good' is to be achieved by force." In the same essay, she explains that it was not economic interest but rather collectivist intellectuals who pushed America into involvement in both World Wars. (True to her principles, Rand opposed the military draft and the American involvement in Vietnam.) However, Rand and her followers, by focusing on the contribution collectivists have made to militarism have tended to neglect the other side of the coin, the contribution militarism, war, and imperialism have made to advancing the power of government. As Randolph Bourne said, "War is the health of the state." War provides an unparalleled opportunity for government to increase taxes, expand its control over the economy, suppress civil liberties, and pump up popular faith in the state. While intellectuals facilitated the destruction of Constitutional government in America during the twentieth century, the primary proximate cause of the growth of Big Government was the two World Wars and the Cold War. Rand failed to convey this lesson to her followers, most of whom have supported the current American imperial adventure in the Mideast. What then of Rand's basic analysis of the nature and purpose of government, laid out in two appendices, "Man's Rights" and "The Nature of Government"? Rand defines "government" as "an institution that holds the exclusive power to _enforce_ certain rules of social conduct in a given geographical area." Note that government is defined abstractly as "an institution," even though any actual government must consist of particular, concrete human beings. A couple pages later, Rand declares, "A government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of physical force under objective control." Really? Given the historical record of war, militarism, imperialism, rape, pillaging, slavery, taxation, and mass murder in which governments have routinely engaged, is there any "institution" that is _less_ credible as a means of placing "objective control" over "physical force" than government? It would make as much sense to define the Mafia or street gangs as "the means of placing the retaliatory use of physical force under objective control"! Even the officials of a minimal government, endowed only with a monopoly over legislative, judicial, and peacekeeping functions, as Rand advocated, have already, by virtue of that very monopoly, been given powers not possessed by their fellow citizens. Rand argues for a written constitution "as a means of limiting and restricting the power of government." But of course, it is government officials who will interpret the provisions of the constitution, and they will have both the power and every incentive to use their power so as to evade any restrictions embodied in the constitution. This is not idle speculation. Precisely this experiment was carried out in 1787 in Philadelphia. Two hundred years later, we know the result -- a massively rapacious, militaristic, and imperialistic government which imperils the civil liberties of the American people, buries us in taxes, and claims the right to invade and dominate any other country anywhere in the world. If Madison, Franklin, Washington et al. could not make Rand's program work, it is fair to dismiss her program of limited constitutional government as a Utopian fantasy. A better definition than Rand's would be "a government is a bunch of guys that have managed to get themselves in a position where they can get away with things (bombing, taxation, etc.) that most people could never get away with." That accurately describes pretty much all governments in the real world (and subsumes Rand's definition of government as a privileged monopoly over legislative, judicial, and peacekeeping functions as a special case -- since most ordinary people could not get away with seizing such a monopoly). Of course, any society does need some minimal consensus on how to deal with and generally avoid violent conflict. All human societies do in fact have various means for maintaining the peace, most of which have nothing to do with government. Ask yourself: how many times have you peacefully settled a serious disagreement with a friend, relative, or neighbor without involving the government at all? It is not in the nature of government to be successfully limited. Government has never existed to serve the governed. If we want a free, prosperous, and peaceful society, government must go. For more realistic, less Utopian views on government, I recommend Murray Rothbard's "The Ethics of Liberty," H. Hoppe's "Democracy: The God That Failed," and A. John Simmons' "On the Edge of Anarchy."
Rating:
Summary: The "Editorial" on this work is wrong
Review: This is probably some of Rands best writing and might be considered her "manifesto". I like her writing style and I think some people take her the wrong way. I don't think, like the editor says, Rand "protesteth" too much. I think the problem the editor is trying to identify is not capitalism, but monopolistic capitalism.
In this field of philosophy you have Russian born Jew Ayn Rand, and self-loathing Jew Noam Chomsky. I'm Mr. In-Between and I can see the merits of the ideas of both. Rand was smarter and more articulate, I think. It's just sociological philosophy and ideas and stuff-it's not policy. Don't get wrapped around the axle with this stuff.
Rating:
Summary: A Utopian Ideal?
Review: I first read "Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal" as a high-school sophomore in 1969, a couple years after its initial publication. Back in the '60s, it was controversial simply to argue that capitalism was more economically efficient than socialism; to claim, as Rand did, that capitalism was morally superior to socialism was revolutionary. Times have changed. Nowadays it would require an invincible ignorance to believe that socialism can compete economically with capitalism. And to believe that socialism is morally superior to capitalism, now that everyone knows the truth about actually existing socialism in the former Soviet Union, would be morally depraved. Intellectually, the battle is over. Capitalism has won; socialism has lost. Capitalism is no longer an "unknown" ideal. Our new historical situation makes it possible to look more clearly at Ayn Rand's political writings. Rand was unquestionably right about the moral and economic superiority of capitalism. But was she also right about the political, cultural, and historical conditions required to create and preserve a free, capitalistic social order? Rand consistently argued that the motive force of history was ideas. Ultimately, it was intellectuals who control the course of human events. For example, in the second essay in this book, "The Roots of War," Rand declares: "Just as the destruction of capitalism and the rise of the totalitarian state were not caused by business or labor or any economic interest, but by the dominant statist ideology of the intellectuals -- so the resurgence of the doctrines of military conquest and armed crusades for political 'ideals' were the product of the same intellectuals' belief that 'the good' is to be achieved by force." In the same essay, she explains that it was not economic interest but rather collectivist intellectuals who pushed America into involvement in both World Wars. (True to her principles, Rand opposed the military draft and the American involvement in Vietnam.) However, Rand and her followers, by focusing on the contribution collectivists have made to militarism have tended to neglect the other side of the coin, the contribution militarism, war, and imperialism have made to advancing the power of government. As Randolph Bourne said, "War is the health of the state." War provides an unparalleled opportunity for government to increase taxes, expand its control over the economy, suppress civil liberties, and pump up popular faith in the state. While intellectuals facilitated the destruction of Constitutional government in America during the twentieth century, the primary proximate cause of the growth of Big Government was the two World Wars and the Cold War. Rand failed to convey this lesson to her followers, most of whom have supported the current American imperial adventure in the Mideast. What then of Rand's basic analysis of the nature and purpose of government, laid out in two appendices, "Man's Rights" and "The Nature of Government"? Rand defines "government" as "an institution that holds the exclusive power to _enforce_ certain rules of social conduct in a given geographical area." Note that government is defined abstractly as "an institution," even though any actual government must consist of particular, concrete human beings. A couple pages later, Rand declares, "A government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of physical force under objective control." Really? Given the historical record of war, militarism, imperialism, rape, pillaging, slavery, taxation, and mass murder in which governments have routinely engaged, is there any "institution" that is _less_ credible as a means of placing "objective control" over "physical force" than government? It would make as much sense to define the Mafia or street gangs as "the means of placing the retaliatory use of physical force under objective control"! Even the officials of a minimal government, endowed only with a monopoly over legislative, judicial, and peacekeeping functions, as Rand advocated, have already, by virtue of that very monopoly, been given powers not possessed by their fellow citizens. Rand argues for a written constitution "as a means of limiting and restricting the power of government." But of course, it is government officials who will interpret the provisions of the constitution, and they will have both the power and every incentive to use their power so as to evade any restrictions embodied in the constitution. This is not idle speculation. Precisely this experiment was carried out in 1787 in Philadelphia. Two hundred years later, we know the result -- a massively rapacious, militaristic, and imperialistic government which imperils the civil liberties of the American people, buries us in taxes, and claims the right to invade and dominate any other country anywhere in the world. If Madison, Franklin, Washington et al. could not make Rand's program work, it is fair to dismiss her program of limited constitutional government as a Utopian fantasy. A better definition than Rand's would be "a government is a bunch of guys that have managed to get themselves in a position where they can get away with things (bombing, taxation, etc.) that most people could never get away with." That accurately describes pretty much all governments in the real world (and subsumes Rand's definition of government as a privileged monopoly over legislative, judicial, and peacekeeping functions as a special case -- since most ordinary people could not get away with seizing such a monopoly). Of course, any society does need some minimal consensus on how to deal with and generally avoid violent conflict. All human societies do in fact have various means for maintaining the peace, most of which have nothing to do with government. Ask yourself: how many times have you peacefully settled a serious disagreement with a friend, relative, or neighbor without involving the government at all? It is not in the nature of government to be successfully limited. Government has never existed to serve the governed. If we want a free, prosperous, and peaceful society, government must go. For more realistic, less Utopian views on government, I recommend Murray Rothbard's "The Ethics of Liberty," H. Hoppe's "Democracy: The God That Failed," and A. John Simmons' "On the Edge of Anarchy."
Rating:
Summary: Outstanding
Review: A friend of mine gave me a copy of Rand's "The Anti-Industrial Revolution." I devoured it in a day, and from then on I was hooked. This was GREAT STUFF! It made sense like nothing I'd ever read before. Next came Atlas Shrugged, then the Fountainhead. Then I moved on to Anthem and The Virtue of Selfishness. At this point, I started to annoy friends and realtives, who always lost arguments with me when I retorted with an objectivist bromide. For example, someone would complain about how technology was ruining the world, and I'd then explain how it was actually saving the world. One friend said to me that I starting talking like a sound byte instead of a human being. When I finally worked my way to Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal, I began to realize something. The world is not a world of Howard Roarks (Human Super Beings) and Elsworth Tooheys (No Good Looters). Though Objectivism is brilliant, (as was its author) I doubt that people can live this way %100 of the time. You really can't undestand what I mean unless you read a large chunk of Rand's philosophy. Capitalism is a great book because its more "grounded," if that makes any sense. But if you've read all of the "big ones" (Atlas Shrugged and the Fountainhead), then this book will seem all too familiar. It's really not her best, or even close, IMHO. But for die hard fans, well . . . .
Rating:
Summary: Not a reasonable philosophy
Review: I do not think that an entirely free market is positive for the world or my own country (America). I think it makes corporations stronger and the government weaker. I feel that though the thought of having an overly strong governmental influence over the economy be scarey (like I'm sure communism under Stalin must have been horrible) but I don't see how giving that same power to your local HALLIBURTON is any less dangerous.
| 
