Rating: 
Summary: Probably Rand's best book
Review: In an earlier review that scrolled off the page long ago, I suggested that this was Rand's best book because (a) she stuck largely to political theory and (b) had enough sense to get help with the hard parts. You can click to the next page if you want to read the rest of the review.Here I'll add that it's an important book for another reason: between the lines, it makes a tremendous concession to non-Objectivist ethics. In the opening essay, on p. 24 of the current paperback edition, Rand acknowledges that there is such a thing as "socially objective value" -- her term for what Mises would have called _subjective_ value -- and says it is this kind of value that the free market serves. In the course of discussing this sort of value, Rand concedes (with her teeth gritted) that the values appropriate for what she called "man _qua_ man_" (and here defines as "man at his best") just aren't appropriate for everybody. If this insight were followed up consistently, the whole Objectivist ethic would need to be revised from the ground up. Keep that in mind if you go on to read _The Virtue of Selfishness_.
Rating:
Summary: A must read for any thinking person.
Review: I first read Rand's "The Virtue of Selfishness" in a political philosophy class in college. The book made an impression on me unlike any other book I had read before and a few years after I graduated I decided to reread it. I then read "Philosophy, who needs it" and "Capitalism, the unknown ideal." This set of books is an absolute must read for any thinking person. Be warned, however; if socialism or religion is so deeply ingrained in your mind that nothing can wash it away, you most likely will find yourself giving the book a one star, like many of the reviewers did on this site. If you live in the USA, read these books (especially "Capitalism, the unknown ideal") to find out why you live in the only country ever founded on moral principles. If you live in a socialist (or worst, a Communist) country, read the books to get a better insight of your own government. Finally, as an European who grew up in Europe and came to the USA in his teenage years, I must say that, although I have always sensed and known the huge difference between the European and American mentality, it's Rand who describes it so very eloquently in the last chapter of "Philosophy, who needs it".
Rating: 
Summary: Pseudo-economics
Review: I'm delighted that what's left of Ayn Rand's teaching is slowly rotting away as people in general becomes more educated. No, and I mean no real economist takes her propagandistic writings seriously anymore, except as "lightly read pulp sci-fi" for confused teenagers. In her book, Capitalism, there is no empirics to support her views. The theoretical reasoning reveals a shocking ignorance of real economic theory. Basically this is a worthless piece of junk!
Rating:
Summary: One of the best introductions to capitalism ever.
Review: There are a million books defended the morality of socialismbut Rand is virtually alone in defending capitalism as a moral system(rather than just as an economic system). Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal is thus critically important and a must read for any serious student of political economy.
Rating:
Summary: Capitalism Justified
Review: If you want an economic analysis of Capitalism in the concrete, and why it is the best means of nuturing production and prosperity this book isn't for you. I will refer you to von Mises and others of the Austrian School for that. What is in Rand's work is a study of the morality, philosophy, and justification for Capitalism. This work even includes 3 essays by Alan Greenspan, apparantly before he became a parasitic bureacrat for the ill-concieved Fed (morally and economically). The book is split between Defining and chronicling Capitalism's roots and meaning, and between observations of the perversion and destruction of Capitalism circa mid '60's. If you like Rand You will like this. If you like Capitalism but want moral justification for it you need this. If you don't like either don't waste your money and don't post mock reviews.
Rating: 
Summary: Huh???
Review: Somebody says that only "second-handers" think spelling counts. Implicit in our logic, says this somebody, is the view that if we could just spell everything correctly, we'd be able to handle anything and everything that came our way. We obviously neglect the "conceptual" level of consciousness. Has this reviewer actually _read_ any Ayn Rand? On Rand's view of concept-formation, all of our concepts are built up from perception. Somebody who's too stupid to _perceive_ hasn't exactly gotten off to a great start. It's this reviewer himself (or herself?) who is actually using bad logic. Correct spelling may be a necessary condition, but not a sufficient one, for clear thinking. We supporters of Good Spelling Habits don't confuse necessary and sufficient conditions: your mental life may not be completely in order even if you're a good speller, but it's undoubtedly a shambles if you can't even spell the title and central key word of a book you _just read_. By the way, this isn't a great book but it's not bad. (Among other things, Rand was a _fine_ speller.) So I give it two stars.
Rating:
Summary: What a load of nonsense.
Review: To hear some 'Objectivists' tell it, anyone who thinks this book is not the world's finest defence of 'capatilism' (and who thinks bad spelling indicates a failure to attend to *details* which portends ill for one's ability to evaluate 'philosophy' critically) must be some sort of evil 'second-hander' who has not risen beyond the 'perceptive level' (may I assume that is the same as the 'perceptual level'?). Readers of this work should note that both its author and its defenders engage in the same technique: attacking the motives and 'psycho-epistemologies' of those who have anything negative to say about either 'capatilism' or the book itself. Ayn Rand was so clearly not a 'philosopher' that I hesitate to use that word in the same sentence as her name. She was an anti-philosopher, a propagandist, a cult leader, a demagogue, a self-appointed Messiah of 'Capatilism', an ill-educated and ill-read megalomaniac who knew little economics and even less philosophy. There were, and are, much more able defenders of 'capatilism' than she - and the hard fact is that people who misspell 'capitalism' are thereby indicating unfamiliarity with them (and thus insufficient competence in the field to review this book adequately). Neither their reviews nor those of the 'psychologisers' are to be trusted.
Rating:
Summary: speling is'nt impotent
Review: thaks to that other reveiwer who said speling is'nt impotent, capatilism is the gratest sistem ever weather or not we spel it write. but he said second-handers was gonna be the tittle of the fountainhead, he is rong it was gonna be second hand lives. anyway we sure do got to form concepts, i think thats way more impotent then lerning to spel write. capatilism is teriffic and if you do'nt like this book you are a SECOND HANDED.
Rating:
Summary: I think that Rand would have liked the idea of "capatilism"
Review: In her earlier works, such as The Fountainhead, Rand wrote of a certain type of person, or personality type, which she named "second-handers." In fact, "second-handers was, for a while, to be the very title of her book "The Fountainhead." Although you will not find much on the subject of second-handers within the covers of Capitalism: the unknown ideal, you will, if you are an "objectively" minded individual, find plenty in the form of CONCEPTS in whatever you read. Rand distinguishes between the objectively minded individual and the second-handers by distinguishing between their respective cognitive approaches to their perceptions: The second-handers are concrete-bound; they exist in a perceptual world; they perceive images, shapes and sounds, they feel what others have decided is good or bad, right or wrong and they follow along never forming an OBJECTIVE opinion of their own, hence the name second-handers. They make much of perceptions (such as the spelling or misspelling of a word) without ever going beyond, that is: integrating their perceptions in to a concept and using in an attempt at problem solving. They are stuck at the perceptual level. Indeed, to them a misspelling of a word is a Great Big Deal: that is as far as their journey takes them; The conceptual meaning of a word isn't important to a second-hander, only the perceptual part matters, for that is the EXTENT of their understanding, Why, if you don't have that spelling correct, you must not know what you are doing! Implicit in the second-hander's "logic" is that if you could only spell everything correctly, keep all of your perceptual aspects in line, why you would, armed with such accomplishments, be able to surmount any and every problem that could come your way! As Rand makes clear in all of her writings, including Capatilism: the unknown ideal, (sic) the key to man reaching his goal, that is his individual happiness or individuality, is using his mind, in a very logical manner in solving the problems which befront him in his pursuit. The only way such obstacles, as one perceives in one's daily life, can be surmounted, is through CONCEPT FORMATION: the integration of one's perceptions in to a concept: a tool useful, to the reality of one's problems to serve as a means to a solution. This can be anything from a simple cause and effect relationship all the way to high level abstract mathematical reasoning. In any case it involves going beyond the obvious, beyond the immediately perceptive. It involves NOT being stuck at the perceptive level.
Rating:
Summary: Capatilism: The Unknown Word
Review: What in the world is 'capatilism'? And on what grounds are we to trust a favourable review written by someone who misspells this crucial word every time it appears? If one wishes to learn about capitalism, this is not the book to read. The positive reviews suggest to my own mind that the reviewers have simply not read any other pro-capitalism works. That hypothesis would at least explain the constant misspelling of the very word itself.
| 
