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: Excellent Source of Information
Review: After taking an Intro to Business class in college and having learned only about communism and socialism and that capitalism was the root to all evil, I started to question a lot of things. If the US is founded on capitalism, does that mean that the US is the root of all evil? Of course the answer is no! If you're interested in learning some of the facts about what capitalism is and should be, this is the book you want to pick up. This book should be required reading in college business, law, and all government classes. Ayn Rand covers all aspects of capitalism in a very organized, logical way. This book is very easy to understand and is clearly and concisely written. It is a must have if you want to pick up anything about capitalism.
Rating: 
Summary: An interesting defense of laissez-faire free-markets...
Review: Ayn Rand offers a sound moral defense of the laissez-faire capitalism, but with moral reasoning rather than theoretical or statistical reasoning. Rand makes her case that the spontaneous natural economic order of free-markets is the only social system conducive to individual liberty and the natural rights. She shreds economic myths and fallacies with her sharp wit and reason. Rand also offers a scathing, yet logical critique of an interventionist state in the economy. Rand pokes reason in the face of her collectivist critics. Collectivist pursuit of economic and social equality has left hundreds of millions dead at hands of totalitarians in the past century. It's no wonder they loathe her every word. Some of her ideas stemming from her concepts of the "virtue of selfishness" and "rationale selfishness" are thought-provoking rebuttals to radical egalitarianism, but on the same token, her critique of "altruism" is rather shallow. The essays by younger Alan Greenspan in the 1960's alone are worth the price of admission. He offered a defense of sound money... yes a pure gold standard and other essays on anti-trust and consumer protectionism. Yet today, he is Fed Chief and head of the central bank, a statist institution which personifies an interventionist socialist state. Has he grown naïve about economics with age? Or has he just sold out for power? You be the judge! Beyond this book, I cannot tolerate much if any of Rand's objectivist philosophy, particularly the atheism, materialism and relativism, which isn't overt in this book. Rand's philosophy holds to a materialism on par with Marx and in her zeal against collectivism, she espouses an individualism larger than life. (I guess I give it 3.5/5.0.)
Rating: 
Summary: Interesting Defense of Capitalism
Review: Ayn Rand was unique among Capitalism's defenders. Instead of defending Capitalism on economic grounds (its ability to increase the standard of living of the masses, for example) she defended it on moral grounds. Man is a rational animal who is rightly concerned with his self-interest. Capitalism is the system of government necessitated by the nature of man. CAPITALISM: THE UNKNOWN IDEAL is a collection of essays mostly by Rand (but with some by Alan Greenspan, Nathaniel Branden & Robert Hessen) which were originally published in the 1960's. Rand's essays share the virtues and shortcomings of most of her work. The writing is clear and exciting, but some of the argumentation is overblown. Her standard approach is to take a doctrine that she doesn't believe in (religion, for example), caricature it, and then draw all sorts of inferences about what a person must believe to hold such a doctrine. So her recreation of what Christianity or Conservatism is has little to with what most of its advocates believe. Although Rand's philosophy and her defense of Capitalism is problematic, there is a good deal of interesting social commentary in this book. I particularly like "Extremism, or the Art of Smearing."Another excellent is essay is "The New Fascism: Rule by Consensus." There is also a lot of dubious reasoning, which stems from the fact that Rand wasn't particularly well read in the areas she felt obliged to pontificate on. For example, she says that the era of peace from 1815 to 1914 was the result of Capitalism. A.J.P. Taylor (a socialist and not a religious believer from what I can tell), stated that it was the fruit of Christianity. She says that the founding fathers of the US wanted to create a totally new system of government, but the Declaration of Independence indicate that they sought conserve the existing system from English encroachments. Or, she states that businessman are the "persecuted minority" when in fact they benefit more than anyone from subsidies and various protectionist legislation. For defenses of Capitalism based on different approaches, the interested reader should consult the works of Murray Rothbard and Ludwig von Mises.
Rating:
Summary: Should Morals and Philosophy Guide Our Society and Economy?
Review: Being a collection of essays written in the 1960s by Objectivist, novelist and non-academic philosopher Ayn Rand and certain of her like-minded associates (including Alan Greenspan, prior to his arrival at the Fed), this book reads in part as a reasoned exposition of the moral and philosophical foundations of an ideal capitalist society based on individual rights and freedom, and in part as an emotionally charged, pejorative criticism of modern society for being misguided, amoral and a-philosophical. Ever wonder what's behind the truly remarkable economic success of the U.S. over the past two centuries? Ms. Rand explains that the U.S. began as the "first moral society in history," uniquely founded on a Constitution that explicitly places limitations on government while guaranteeing the rights of private individuals. According to her thinking, inherent in man's nature (metaphysics) is his faculty of reasoning (epistemology). Only through having the freedom (politics) to reason, judge, choose and act can man exercise his individual rights (ethics), including his economic rights to acquire property and trade it freely with others. The purpose of government (police, armed services and court system) in laissez faire capitalism is reduced to that of protector of individual rights. As the authors' analysis goes, it is no surprise that the individual rights and freedom on which capitalism is based vaulted the U.S. economy ahead of all others in the world during the 19th and 20th centuries. However, as advocates of pure laissez faire capitalism instead of today's mixed economy (i.e., laissez faire capitalism mixed with government controls), the authors find themselves at odds with virtually everyone else--liberals, conservatives, altruists, collectivists, academic philosophers, pragmatists, logical positivists, the press, Berkeley activists, the Federal Reserve (note the irony of Greenspan as longstanding Fed Chairman), and the Pope. The authors even chide the business community for compromising capitalism by supporting antitrust legislation, the Sherman Act, in 1890. The authors' ideal society is an as-yet-unrealized world with no antitrust laws, no government intervention in the capital markets, neither tariffs nor subsidies, no compulsory education for children, no minimum wage laws, no inheritance tax, privatization of communication airwaves, no building codes, no FDA, no SEC, etc. Could such a world with moral law placed above society ("No society is better than its philosophical foundation") reasonably lead, as the authors insist, to a higher standard of living, more prosperity and more fulfilling lives for all of us? If so, they've got quite a tantalizing proposition, at least in theory. . . .
Rating:
Summary: Awesome
Review: Call me a free market maniac but this book is simply awesome.
Rating:
Summary: Outstanding
Review: Having been a fan of Ayn Rand since reading Atlas Shrugged, I eagerly dove into this volume. In a word---OUTSTANDING. If you need a reason to validate the importance of capitalism, it's play in creating FREEDOM and what the real root of all evil (it's not capitalism), then read Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal. It may not only change your thinking, but also change your life.
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.
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: 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."
| 
