What do you think?
Rate this book
Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal
The foundations of capitalism are being battered by a flood of altruism, which is the cause of the modern world's collapse. This is the view of Ayn Rand, a view so radically opposed to prevailing attitudes that it constitutes a major philosophic revolution. In this series of essays, she presents her stand on the persecution of big business, the causes of war, the default of conservatism, and the evils of altruism. Here is a challenging new look at modern society by one of the most provocative intellectuals on the American scene.
This edition includes two articles by Ayn Rand that did not appear in the hardcover edition: “The Wreckage of the Consensus,” which presents the Objectivists’ views on Vietnam and the draft; and “Requiem for Man,” an answer to the Papal encyclical Progresso Populorum.
This edition includes two articles by Ayn Rand that did not appear in the hardcover edition: “The Wreckage of the Consensus,” which presents the Objectivists’ views on Vietnam and the draft; and “Requiem for Man,” an answer to the Papal encyclical Progresso Populorum.
340 pages, Mass Market Paperback
First published January 1, 1946
About the author
Ayn Rand
494 books10.7k followersPolemical novels, such as
The Fountainhead
(1943), of primarily known Russian-American writer Ayn Rand, originally Alisa Rosenbaum, espouse the doctrines of objectivism and political libertarianism.
Fiction of this better author and philosopher developed a system that she named. Educated, she moved to the United States in 1926. After two early initially duds and two Broadway plays, Rand achieved fame. In 1957, she published Atlas Shrugged , her best-selling work.
Rand advocated reason and rejected faith and religion. She supported rational and ethical egoism as opposed to altruism. She condemned the immoral initiation of force and supported laissez-faire capitalism, which she defined as the system, based on recognizing individual rights, including private property. Often associated with the modern movement in the United States, Rand opposed and viewed anarchism. In art, she promoted romantic realism. She sharply criticized most philosophers and their traditions with few exceptions.
Books of Rand sold more than 37 million copies. From literary critics, her fiction received mixed reviews with more negative reviews for her later work. Afterward, she turned to nonfiction to promote her philosophy, published her own periodicals, and released several collections of essays until her death in 1982.
After her death, her ideas interested academics, but philosophers generally ignored or rejected her and argued that her approach and work lack methodological rigor. She influenced some right conservatives. The movement circulates her ideas to the public and in academic settings.
Fiction of this better author and philosopher developed a system that she named. Educated, she moved to the United States in 1926. After two early initially duds and two Broadway plays, Rand achieved fame. In 1957, she published Atlas Shrugged , her best-selling work.
Rand advocated reason and rejected faith and religion. She supported rational and ethical egoism as opposed to altruism. She condemned the immoral initiation of force and supported laissez-faire capitalism, which she defined as the system, based on recognizing individual rights, including private property. Often associated with the modern movement in the United States, Rand opposed and viewed anarchism. In art, she promoted romantic realism. She sharply criticized most philosophers and their traditions with few exceptions.
Books of Rand sold more than 37 million copies. From literary critics, her fiction received mixed reviews with more negative reviews for her later work. Afterward, she turned to nonfiction to promote her philosophy, published her own periodicals, and released several collections of essays until her death in 1982.
After her death, her ideas interested academics, but philosophers generally ignored or rejected her and argued that her approach and work lack methodological rigor. She influenced some right conservatives. The movement circulates her ideas to the public and in academic settings.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 236 reviews
July 13, 2011
Do I hate the "philosophical" works of Ayn Rand because I disagree with her, or because they're atrociously written? Both.
Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal is below book review. It demands a an even more vulgar form of critique: a list of failures.
- Every sentence that contains the word welfare also contains the word Fascist.
- She posits that the most oppressed people in the United States are not women, African-Americans, gays, but-wait for it-rich businessmen (emphasis on "men"). At last a voice for the underclass! As corporate Fascists buy public policy, I'm sure there are many may agree with Rand that we need an "ACLU for businessmen," but I remain unconvinced. At least "radical capitalist" (read: capitalist crazy) Murray Rothbard somewhat understood the evils of big business, and condemned Rand for her rabid worship of robber barons.
- Saying the U. S. is already too Socialist is like saying a fetus is too old.
- That Alan Greenspan contributes an "essay" to this volume is a humorous enough set-up; his theory that laws protecting the consumer (eg: Pure Food and Drug Act) decrease freedom delivers the comedic goods.
- That the book reads like a dual advertisement for The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. The ever charitable Ayn Rand Institute has kindly included a coupon one can send to Leonard Peikoff for a few dozen more copies of those august novels.
- The essay stating that the "free" (read: social-Darwinist) market make a monopoly impossible. States, with their anti-trust laws, are the magical source of all monopolies.
- That the cover art depicts a factory off of Captain Planet's most wanted list. Is this the "ideal" she speaks of?
- Her surreal, free-form attack on the Berkley anti-war movement; this passage must be read to be believed, although it can never be fully understood.
- Her ghastly prose style.
And remember: these are just some of the highlights of this masterpiece. Gentle reader, many more gems await.
Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal is below book review. It demands a an even more vulgar form of critique: a list of failures.
- Every sentence that contains the word welfare also contains the word Fascist.
- She posits that the most oppressed people in the United States are not women, African-Americans, gays, but-wait for it-rich businessmen (emphasis on "men"). At last a voice for the underclass! As corporate Fascists buy public policy, I'm sure there are many may agree with Rand that we need an "ACLU for businessmen," but I remain unconvinced. At least "radical capitalist" (read: capitalist crazy) Murray Rothbard somewhat understood the evils of big business, and condemned Rand for her rabid worship of robber barons.
- Saying the U. S. is already too Socialist is like saying a fetus is too old.
- That Alan Greenspan contributes an "essay" to this volume is a humorous enough set-up; his theory that laws protecting the consumer (eg: Pure Food and Drug Act) decrease freedom delivers the comedic goods.
- That the book reads like a dual advertisement for The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. The ever charitable Ayn Rand Institute has kindly included a coupon one can send to Leonard Peikoff for a few dozen more copies of those august novels.
- The essay stating that the "free" (read: social-Darwinist) market make a monopoly impossible. States, with their anti-trust laws, are the magical source of all monopolies.
- That the cover art depicts a factory off of Captain Planet's most wanted list. Is this the "ideal" she speaks of?
- Her surreal, free-form attack on the Berkley anti-war movement; this passage must be read to be believed, although it can never be fully understood.
- Her ghastly prose style.
And remember: these are just some of the highlights of this masterpiece. Gentle reader, many more gems await.
October 1, 2015
Do I admire the philosophical works of Ayn Rand because I agree with her, or because they're precisely written? Both.
Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal is above book review. It demands a higher level of evaluations: a list of absolutes.
- Every sentence that contains the word welfare also contains the word Fascists - so true.
- She posits that the most oppressed people in the United States are not women, blacks, gays, but entrepreneurs. The sad truth lies in the fact, that US are but one example of such disastrous attitude. She understands that using word "men" is not gender oriented, but linguistic shorthand for "human". For human (individual) interest is dthe driver for both individual satisfaction and civilization's development.
- Saying the U. S. is already too Socialist is perhaps surprising for those that do not understand the prerequisites for freedom, but not for free man (and women, to be politically correct, sorry.
- That Alan Greenspan contributes an "essay" to this volume is ilustrous enough set-up; his theory that laws protecting the consumer (eg: Pure Food and Drug Act) decrease freedom delivers deep but simple nsights into laws gowerning exchange of goods.
- That the book reads like a dual advertisement for The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. The ever charitable Ayn Rand Institute has kindly included a coupon one can send to Leonard Peikoff for a few dozen more copies of those august novels. All this proves that she was ahead of time regarding marketing.
- The essay stating that the "free" (read: liberal) market make a monopoly impossible. States, with their anti-trust laws, are the magical source of all monopolies with their mixes economy fallacy.
- That the cover art depicts a factory off of Captain Planet's most wanted list. Is this the ideal she speaks of?
- Her surreal, free-form attack on the Berkley anti-war movement; this passage must be read to be believed, although it can never be fully understood by those that tied to prejudices.
- Her precise, yet rich prose style. She wants to be Aristotle in objectivity, but overpasses him, who had no privilege to live in capitalism.
And remember: these are just some of the highlights of this masterpiece. Gentle reader, many more gems await.
Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal is above book review. It demands a higher level of evaluations: a list of absolutes.
- Every sentence that contains the word welfare also contains the word Fascists - so true.
- She posits that the most oppressed people in the United States are not women, blacks, gays, but entrepreneurs. The sad truth lies in the fact, that US are but one example of such disastrous attitude. She understands that using word "men" is not gender oriented, but linguistic shorthand for "human". For human (individual) interest is dthe driver for both individual satisfaction and civilization's development.
- Saying the U. S. is already too Socialist is perhaps surprising for those that do not understand the prerequisites for freedom, but not for free man (and women, to be politically correct, sorry.
- That Alan Greenspan contributes an "essay" to this volume is ilustrous enough set-up; his theory that laws protecting the consumer (eg: Pure Food and Drug Act) decrease freedom delivers deep but simple nsights into laws gowerning exchange of goods.
- That the book reads like a dual advertisement for The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. The ever charitable Ayn Rand Institute has kindly included a coupon one can send to Leonard Peikoff for a few dozen more copies of those august novels. All this proves that she was ahead of time regarding marketing.
- The essay stating that the "free" (read: liberal) market make a monopoly impossible. States, with their anti-trust laws, are the magical source of all monopolies with their mixes economy fallacy.
- That the cover art depicts a factory off of Captain Planet's most wanted list. Is this the ideal she speaks of?
- Her surreal, free-form attack on the Berkley anti-war movement; this passage must be read to be believed, although it can never be fully understood by those that tied to prejudices.
- Her precise, yet rich prose style. She wants to be Aristotle in objectivity, but overpasses him, who had no privilege to live in capitalism.
And remember: these are just some of the highlights of this masterpiece. Gentle reader, many more gems await.
March 23, 2009
This is the cherry that tops the Ayn Rand sundae I've been consuming for the past 2 1/2 years. Capitalism really is an unknown ideal, and it's a shame that it was never given an honest chance to fully manifest. What we have now is nowhere near capitalism- we're on a downward slippery slope to socialism...which I'm dreading more with each passing law. She had it right all along. I find it amazing that someone could be so dead-on in predicting what the future would be like if we had kept going in the direction towards collectivism (which we have). She was Orwellian in her foresight about the political/social/economic/moral future of this country and the world.
September 21, 2008
Funny to read a young Alan Greenspan's arguments for eliminating the federal reserve and returning to the gold standard.
March 29, 2009
2024-05-31 Very surprised that Goodreads does not have a review by me of this book yet, since it is one of my very favorites.
All the essays are highly worthwhile.
All the authors very insightful.
This book has the classic article by Alan Greenspan on Gold, which for much of his career at the Fed. he tried to ignore on the PR level as well as on the implementation of the basic understanding level, but worked very hard to tie the price of the dollar to gold at on a short-term "practical" level. If that is confusing, read the article, then contact me, and I will be happy to explain more thoroughly.
One of my favorite and oft cited/recommended chapters/articles is by Robert Hessen on the condition of women and children under the industrial revolution. It is crucial history to understand. Too few people appreciate the "conditions shifting" nature of critiques of capitalism/industrial revolution/etc. especially by socialists, Marxists, welfare-statists, or coercive collectivists in general.
This book is vastly less known and less read than Rand's more famous fiction: Atlas Shrugged, The Fountainhead and of course the novella Anthem, but I believe this book could be even more important, in that it carefully explains why so many pernicious myths about capitalism are wrong, lays out the facts of the matter, and shows how capitalism is vastly more moral and efficacious in providing for human needs.
All the essays are highly worthwhile.
All the authors very insightful.
This book has the classic article by Alan Greenspan on Gold, which for much of his career at the Fed. he tried to ignore on the PR level as well as on the implementation of the basic understanding level, but worked very hard to tie the price of the dollar to gold at on a short-term "practical" level. If that is confusing, read the article, then contact me, and I will be happy to explain more thoroughly.
One of my favorite and oft cited/recommended chapters/articles is by Robert Hessen on the condition of women and children under the industrial revolution. It is crucial history to understand. Too few people appreciate the "conditions shifting" nature of critiques of capitalism/industrial revolution/etc. especially by socialists, Marxists, welfare-statists, or coercive collectivists in general.
This book is vastly less known and less read than Rand's more famous fiction: Atlas Shrugged, The Fountainhead and of course the novella Anthem, but I believe this book could be even more important, in that it carefully explains why so many pernicious myths about capitalism are wrong, lays out the facts of the matter, and shows how capitalism is vastly more moral and efficacious in providing for human needs.
October 14, 2017
I did not give this 3 stars because I agree with most of it or even half of it. I gave it 3 stars because I do think she did a good job of conveying her ideas, and the essays made me think about my views and examine whether they were based on faulty assumptions. Also, I found this book much easier and more entertaining than other Rand books I've read.
Here are just a few issues I had with Rand's ideas. She seems to willfully ignore basic economic concepts such as the tragedy of the commons. ToC is basically the worst world-wide threat right now. Global climate change invalidates so many of her arguments right off the bat. She ignores how money can generate more money without any innovation or hard work. Modern research in the irrationality of man also disproves many of her arguments. Her arguments against anti-trust laws can be effortlessly dismissed by anyone who has previously paid for cable or an internet connection. I think she terribly discounts the good that labor unions have done for working people. Now that labor unions have lost power in many industries I think we've all felt some of the negative effects both in the economy, politics, and in loss of our leisure time, though we may not all associate it with that cause. And OMG did she honestly try to make an argument in favor of child labor? That's when you know that unfettered capitalism has really jumped the shark. As an aside, her attack on altruism is diametrically opposed to both Christianity and the current science of happiness.
There were also interesting parts that challenged me to think - and occasionally I even agree with some things. For example, I agree that many government subsidies are a horror. I have long had an intense dislike of the corn subsidy and its terrible results for both our economy and health. Nor am I a fan of train subsidies. Clearly, the price point for trains should be in between buses and airplanes? Yet trains often cost the same or more as a flight. I am also interested in Rand's argument about unemployment being related to government interference in the market. That seems plausible when government interference in immigration is considered, but I don't know enough about the research and numbers - and a fully mobile world labor market doesn't seem likely anytime soon. She appears to be mostly right about the hypocrisy of both political parties with regards to religion and reason.
Rand makes the argument that it's not true that too much of a good thing is always bad, and that's correct that it's not ALWAYS true. But it is sometimes true. (Even excessive water consumption can kill you.) I don't think she succeeded in proving that unfettered capitalism is better than capitalism with regulation.
Here are just a few issues I had with Rand's ideas. She seems to willfully ignore basic economic concepts such as the tragedy of the commons. ToC is basically the worst world-wide threat right now. Global climate change invalidates so many of her arguments right off the bat. She ignores how money can generate more money without any innovation or hard work. Modern research in the irrationality of man also disproves many of her arguments. Her arguments against anti-trust laws can be effortlessly dismissed by anyone who has previously paid for cable or an internet connection. I think she terribly discounts the good that labor unions have done for working people. Now that labor unions have lost power in many industries I think we've all felt some of the negative effects both in the economy, politics, and in loss of our leisure time, though we may not all associate it with that cause. And OMG did she honestly try to make an argument in favor of child labor? That's when you know that unfettered capitalism has really jumped the shark. As an aside, her attack on altruism is diametrically opposed to both Christianity and the current science of happiness.
There were also interesting parts that challenged me to think - and occasionally I even agree with some things. For example, I agree that many government subsidies are a horror. I have long had an intense dislike of the corn subsidy and its terrible results for both our economy and health. Nor am I a fan of train subsidies. Clearly, the price point for trains should be in between buses and airplanes? Yet trains often cost the same or more as a flight. I am also interested in Rand's argument about unemployment being related to government interference in the market. That seems plausible when government interference in immigration is considered, but I don't know enough about the research and numbers - and a fully mobile world labor market doesn't seem likely anytime soon. She appears to be mostly right about the hypocrisy of both political parties with regards to religion and reason.
Rand makes the argument that it's not true that too much of a good thing is always bad, and that's correct that it's not ALWAYS true. But it is sometimes true. (Even excessive water consumption can kill you.) I don't think she succeeded in proving that unfettered capitalism is better than capitalism with regulation.
December 4, 2015
Ayn Rand #1 for me. I chose this book instead of Atlas Shrugged or The Fountainhead, because this is a subject that I'm vaguely aware of. Rand attacks every economic system other than capitalism. This is by no means an economics treatise. She acknowledges the need for a free-market(no intervention from Govt), why businessmen are the scapegoats for any market failure.
Capitalism is the only economic system which protects the individual rights. The period 1814-1914 is the only century marked in history to have no major wars, astonishing, curiously this is also the only complete capitalistic era. Capitalism is the only system in which the nation prospers through production. It creates competition in the market, which ensures best production techniques and prices. The American Dream was made possible and European Brain-Drain was due to capitalism.
This book is very much readable.
I vote for Laissez-Faire markets, in my country, India, which is a mixed economy.
Capitalism is the only economic system which protects the individual rights. The period 1814-1914 is the only century marked in history to have no major wars, astonishing, curiously this is also the only complete capitalistic era. Capitalism is the only system in which the nation prospers through production. It creates competition in the market, which ensures best production techniques and prices. The American Dream was made possible and European Brain-Drain was due to capitalism.
This book is very much readable.
I vote for Laissez-Faire markets, in my country, India, which is a mixed economy.
November 27, 2012
Most infuriating, I was going to give it two stars, but the consistency and occasional flashes of brilliance forced me to recant and admit it: the book, despite (and because of) its author's frightful dogmatism, succeeds in driving home an ideological agenda masterfully.
I still think Virtue of Selfishness is the superior book (mostly because that one is shorter and less of a rant), but Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal is a worthy follow-up.
Now, I think all libertarians should steer clear of Rand's mad dogmatism, single-mindedness, circular argumentation, amateur epistemology and intellectual inflexibility.
Her lack of curiosity and her congenital inability to fathom differing viewpoints is truly astounding. It's as if she never read a book or an article she didn't fail to denounce as altruistic-communistic-mysticist propaganda written by a moral idiot - except her OWN books, of course, which she, even here, quotes amply and and cross-references authoritatively.
Libertarians should dislike her ivory tower pronouncements and her scarily successful attempt at constructing, out of thin air, a fantastical philosophical system, bordering on science fiction, turned into a religious cult (which, alas, made her the Moses of the Right, the Lenin of the Wall Street). They should, moreover, abhor her fanatic hatred of leftists, poor people, democracy, civic virtues and hippies. But they should also admire her madness. She was truly one of a kind.
Oh I only wish I never meet another Randian.
I still think Virtue of Selfishness is the superior book (mostly because that one is shorter and less of a rant), but Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal is a worthy follow-up.
Now, I think all libertarians should steer clear of Rand's mad dogmatism, single-mindedness, circular argumentation, amateur epistemology and intellectual inflexibility.
Her lack of curiosity and her congenital inability to fathom differing viewpoints is truly astounding. It's as if she never read a book or an article she didn't fail to denounce as altruistic-communistic-mysticist propaganda written by a moral idiot - except her OWN books, of course, which she, even here, quotes amply and and cross-references authoritatively.
Libertarians should dislike her ivory tower pronouncements and her scarily successful attempt at constructing, out of thin air, a fantastical philosophical system, bordering on science fiction, turned into a religious cult (which, alas, made her the Moses of the Right, the Lenin of the Wall Street). They should, moreover, abhor her fanatic hatred of leftists, poor people, democracy, civic virtues and hippies. But they should also admire her madness. She was truly one of a kind.
Oh I only wish I never meet another Randian.
February 6, 2010
What a book! If the Obama administration would read and heed-- Wow, would we ever have an awesome revival of financial abundance and most importantly, FREEDOM, in our country! Ms. Rand is absolutely brilliant.
I was especially cheering her on with her ideas of privatizing education. The government has no business being in the business or regulation of education.
I didn't agree with everything she said, and I cringed at some of her descriptions of "savages". Nor do I agree with her that capitalism is the *only* political system that could EVER work. But I do agree that socialism, the path that America is unfortunately on, is a path that we want to get off, PRONTO!
I also don't think that altruism is a bad thing, by any means. But certainly, filling your own cup first and then giving to others out of the overflow is wise. And I do believe that what's best for you is what's best for everyone around you. Giving willingly from your own overflowing cup is a wonderful thing...however, giving because the government is making you give isn't giving at all. It's not only bad for the "giver" (in quotes because you're certainly not a willing giver if you're being forced to give...at that point you're a victim!) but also bad for society as a whole.
I was especially cheering her on with her ideas of privatizing education. The government has no business being in the business or regulation of education.
I didn't agree with everything she said, and I cringed at some of her descriptions of "savages". Nor do I agree with her that capitalism is the *only* political system that could EVER work. But I do agree that socialism, the path that America is unfortunately on, is a path that we want to get off, PRONTO!
I also don't think that altruism is a bad thing, by any means. But certainly, filling your own cup first and then giving to others out of the overflow is wise. And I do believe that what's best for you is what's best for everyone around you. Giving willingly from your own overflowing cup is a wonderful thing...however, giving because the government is making you give isn't giving at all. It's not only bad for the "giver" (in quotes because you're certainly not a willing giver if you're being forced to give...at that point you're a victim!) but also bad for society as a whole.
January 14, 2013
When is this nonsense going to die its long overdue death? This books is a collection of misrepresentations, misunderstandings, straw man arguments, opinions, and conjecture. Some of her musings were never anything more than that, some were proven wrong by science or course of history, but bottom line, when you largely quote your own works of fiction as "proof" for your "theories", you're bound to be wrong at least some of the time. This book is wrong most of the time.
January 3, 2008
This book is a collection of essays on capitalism. While the book was published in 1986, some essays in the book were written as far back as the 60s. As a compendium of essays can do, without carefully selecting included content, some of the essays seem to stray from the main emphasis of the whole. This seemed to be the case especially in the essay about the Berkely demonstrations. While issues of capitalism were addressed, it didn't have the strong economics emphasis that most of the book had.
Reading this book was an interesting experience, because I really do agree with lots of the Free-Market principles that Rand euphorically proclaims. Rand's main theme of this book is that an absolutely free market is the most fair system, that this system is resistant to failures, such as depressions, and that this system will provide the best outcomes for all. I do agree that, if all members of the society act ethically - no cheating or dishonesty in business (this will NOT happen), then an absolutely free market would produce a "fair" outcome for all members of a society. Of course this "fair" outcome would be the dream for social darwinists that believe that the bright and ambitious should succeed and the dim and lazy should fail. I don't disagree that in some sense this may be "fair", although it is never fair for the child of a failing parent. The child can't fail just for being born to people who've chosen not to make the most of the capitalist system. A "fair" outcome can only result if we all start off on a level playing field. We are wrong if we think that all Americans have the same opportunities. Ask the Native Americans or the African Americans if we all start out with equal opportunities. We are also wrong if we think that we can enslave a race or opress and demean groups of people and expect them to function at the same level as soon as we say we are sorry and that on second thought, maybe it is okay if you learn to read.
One of the things that I most love about America is that America is, or should be, a land of opportunity where any member of society can make something of him/herself by hard work and dedication. I don't think that it is the responsibility of the well-off of society to provide luxuries for those who don't apply themselves, but I do believe that we should provide the infrastructure and programs, such as a good robust education, health care, libraries, and food for the hungry, so that ANY young person can feel that they actually can make it out of their low position in life and that they may be free to dream of a future that they actually have the resources and hope to obtain. Am I my brother's keeper? You bet.
Not only would providing hope and opportunity for all make me feel good personally, but it would have uncounted benefits, such as decreased crime. Will we always win with people we help? No, unfortunately, but perhaps after generations of trying we will pull people from a legacy of failure and implant hope in thier souls. Even if we don't succeed in all our efforts, we all succeed personally/spiritually when we help others.
Reading this book was an interesting experience, because I really do agree with lots of the Free-Market principles that Rand euphorically proclaims. Rand's main theme of this book is that an absolutely free market is the most fair system, that this system is resistant to failures, such as depressions, and that this system will provide the best outcomes for all. I do agree that, if all members of the society act ethically - no cheating or dishonesty in business (this will NOT happen), then an absolutely free market would produce a "fair" outcome for all members of a society. Of course this "fair" outcome would be the dream for social darwinists that believe that the bright and ambitious should succeed and the dim and lazy should fail. I don't disagree that in some sense this may be "fair", although it is never fair for the child of a failing parent. The child can't fail just for being born to people who've chosen not to make the most of the capitalist system. A "fair" outcome can only result if we all start off on a level playing field. We are wrong if we think that all Americans have the same opportunities. Ask the Native Americans or the African Americans if we all start out with equal opportunities. We are also wrong if we think that we can enslave a race or opress and demean groups of people and expect them to function at the same level as soon as we say we are sorry and that on second thought, maybe it is okay if you learn to read.
One of the things that I most love about America is that America is, or should be, a land of opportunity where any member of society can make something of him/herself by hard work and dedication. I don't think that it is the responsibility of the well-off of society to provide luxuries for those who don't apply themselves, but I do believe that we should provide the infrastructure and programs, such as a good robust education, health care, libraries, and food for the hungry, so that ANY young person can feel that they actually can make it out of their low position in life and that they may be free to dream of a future that they actually have the resources and hope to obtain. Am I my brother's keeper? You bet.
Not only would providing hope and opportunity for all make me feel good personally, but it would have uncounted benefits, such as decreased crime. Will we always win with people we help? No, unfortunately, but perhaps after generations of trying we will pull people from a legacy of failure and implant hope in thier souls. Even if we don't succeed in all our efforts, we all succeed personally/spiritually when we help others.
April 6, 2026
Ayn Rand’s “Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal” is less a conventional economics text than a polemical manifesto for laissez‑faire capitalism as a moral ideal. Framed as a nonfiction “footnote” to “Atlas Shrugged,” the book assembles essays by Rand and close associates (notably Nathaniel Branden, Alan Greenspan, and Robert Hessen), all pressing a single claim: capitalism is the only social system fully consonant with man’s nature as a rational, rights‑bearing individual. The collection’s most distinctive move is to shift the defense of capitalism from utilitarian grounds (efficiency, growth) to ethics. Rand argues that historical defenders ceded the moral high ground to altruism, accepting the premise that the individual exists to serve “society,” and then pleading that capitalism somehow best serves that same goal. In her view, this is a self‑defeating strategy; the real justification lies in an egoistic ethics that treats each person’s life and productive ambition as an end in itself. Structurally, the book moves from theory and history—essays like “What Is Capitalism?” and “The Nature of Government”—into more topical applications on antitrust, the mixed economy, and 1960s campus politics. Some chapters, such as the discussion of the “property status of airwaves” and of patents and copyrights, remain surprisingly prescient in clarifying how an individual‑rights framework might extend to new forms of property. Others, grounded in the context of Vietnam‑era protest and Great Society programs, feel dated but revealing: they show Rand’s deep hostility to any welfare‑statist compromise, which she reads as the thin end of an essentially collectivist wedge. Intellectually, the book’s greatest strength is its ruthless consistency. Rand’s insistence on the “separation of state and economics” as parallel to church–state separation forces readers to confront how ad hoc most modern defenses of the mixed economy really are. Yet that same absolutism is also a weakness: empirical complications—monopoly power, externalities, public goods—are often dismissed as products of prior intervention rather than analytically engaged. Even critics who reject Rand’s metaphysics or ethics will find the volume valuable as a clear, uncompromising articulation of the strongest possible case for pure laissez‑faire—and as a reminder that capitalism’s most radical defender saw it first and foremost as an unknown moral ideal, not merely an efficient one.
May 18, 2017
This book is a series of essays by Ayn Rand and others, including former Chairman of the Federal Reserve Alan Greenspan. They were written mostly from 1962 to 1967.
Reading these in 2017 is interesting in that it illustrates that the arguments and issues (and even the names!) have not changed in the intervening 50 years. You will read about students at the University of California Berkeley using violence in the name of free speech to suppress speech with which they disagree and California Governor Brown's response to that violence. Elsewhere in the book you can examine wealth redistribution, socialism, the welfare state and what Governor Romney has to say about it. This could have been written today and, indeed, the issues are as important as they were then.
Ayn Rand makes the moral case for capitalism versus "statism" or "collectivism" which inlcudes communism and socialism. Her discussions about the role and nature of government is what stands out the most to me because it gets to the very fundamental philosophy of the U.S. constitution and why it is structured the way it is. There are some points with which I disagree but on the whole I come down strongly on the side of capitalism and individual freedom.
If this is the only book that you were to read on capitalism it might not be that persuasive so I would strongly recommend supplementing this with other books such as Milton and Rose Friedman's "Free to Choose," Thomas Sowell's "A Conflict of Visions" and "Basic Economics," Friedrich Hayek's "The Road to Serfdom," "The Federalist Papers" and at least a good summary of Adam Smith's "The Wealth of Nations."
Reading these in 2017 is interesting in that it illustrates that the arguments and issues (and even the names!) have not changed in the intervening 50 years. You will read about students at the University of California Berkeley using violence in the name of free speech to suppress speech with which they disagree and California Governor Brown's response to that violence. Elsewhere in the book you can examine wealth redistribution, socialism, the welfare state and what Governor Romney has to say about it. This could have been written today and, indeed, the issues are as important as they were then.
Ayn Rand makes the moral case for capitalism versus "statism" or "collectivism" which inlcudes communism and socialism. Her discussions about the role and nature of government is what stands out the most to me because it gets to the very fundamental philosophy of the U.S. constitution and why it is structured the way it is. There are some points with which I disagree but on the whole I come down strongly on the side of capitalism and individual freedom.
If this is the only book that you were to read on capitalism it might not be that persuasive so I would strongly recommend supplementing this with other books such as Milton and Rose Friedman's "Free to Choose," Thomas Sowell's "A Conflict of Visions" and "Basic Economics," Friedrich Hayek's "The Road to Serfdom," "The Federalist Papers" and at least a good summary of Adam Smith's "The Wealth of Nations."
September 27, 2013
Ayn Rand was once asked if she could present the essence of her philosophy while standing on one foot. She answered: Metaphysics: Objective Reality; Epistemology: Reason; Ethics: Self-interest; Politics: Capitalism. I first encountered Ayn Rand through her works of fiction as a young woman barely out of my teens. Back then I was already an atheist, one with a great belief in science and reason. There was nothing in her "metaphysics" or "epistemology" that I found the least bit surprising or controversial--indeed in essentials I already agreed with her. Her ethics and her politics were a different story. I remember reading Atlas Shrugged and thinking "you crazy bitch." But she did touch off a revolution in my thinking, changing me from a liberal to a libertarian.
Do I agree with everything within these pages? Well, let's say there is still much of it where I have doubts, and where I feel uneasy about her prescriptions. Her views are radical--and she knew it and was unapologetic about it. But at least at the time I picked this book up, I had literally never encountered her arguments. When I read it was (barely) pre-blogosphere, before the rise of talk radio or FOX News. What I knew of history and public policy from my New York City public education made Franklin Roosevelt, Jack Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson the heroes of our times. I had never heard a dissenting voice from that. I don't know that I--or readers new to this book--would find this such a fresh perspective now. But I did--and it really made me think and go read more.
Do I agree with everything within these pages? Well, let's say there is still much of it where I have doubts, and where I feel uneasy about her prescriptions. Her views are radical--and she knew it and was unapologetic about it. But at least at the time I picked this book up, I had literally never encountered her arguments. When I read it was (barely) pre-blogosphere, before the rise of talk radio or FOX News. What I knew of history and public policy from my New York City public education made Franklin Roosevelt, Jack Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson the heroes of our times. I had never heard a dissenting voice from that. I don't know that I--or readers new to this book--would find this such a fresh perspective now. But I did--and it really made me think and go read more.
August 17, 2009
- In 1967 I began undergraduate studies in the College of Letters and Science at the University of Wisconsin. Within a year I had chosen Economics as my major and embarked on a path to fulfill the requirements of that degree. Shortly before, I had discovered the works of Ayn Rand and this volume, which was first published in 1966, joined with volumes of Hayek, Friedman and Mises as part of my auxiliary reading in the economics of capitalism. I say auxiliary because, except in the history of economics course, none of these authors were on the syllabuses of the Economics Department at UW-Madison.
- For students of economics, both young and old, the most valuable feature of the book is the Recommended Bibliography. While less than two pages long, it contains the best of the classic works needed for a foundation in understanding economics. The essays included in the book range from philosophy to history and commentary on current (circa 1960s) policies. The good thing about economic principles is that they do not change with the political currents and are not based on the whims of individuals, but are grounded in objective reality. That is what gives Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal its' continuing value for all who desire to understand the nature of capitalism.
- For students of economics, both young and old, the most valuable feature of the book is the Recommended Bibliography. While less than two pages long, it contains the best of the classic works needed for a foundation in understanding economics. The essays included in the book range from philosophy to history and commentary on current (circa 1960s) policies. The good thing about economic principles is that they do not change with the political currents and are not based on the whims of individuals, but are grounded in objective reality. That is what gives Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal its' continuing value for all who desire to understand the nature of capitalism.
May 6, 2017
The only novel by Ayn Rand I've read is Atlas Shrugged, which, quite frankly, I thought was atrocious. I was interested in the ideas Rand presents in it, but it just doesn't work as a novel, in my opinion. Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, which Ayn Rand says in the introduction "is a nonfiction footnote to Atlas Shrugged," is far more palatable, since it's just a collection of essays instead of a collection of essays under the guise of fiction.
I can't say I agree with everything written by Rand and the other contributors (for example, I think it's possible to acknowledge both the importance of the early 20th century "captains of industry" and that they often failed to provide safe working conditions for their employees), but I found most of these essays to be uplifting.
I can't say I agree with everything written by Rand and the other contributors (for example, I think it's possible to acknowledge both the importance of the early 20th century "captains of industry" and that they often failed to provide safe working conditions for their employees), but I found most of these essays to be uplifting.
May 12, 2011
I finally finished CAPITALISM: THE UNKNOWN IDEAL by Ayn Rand. I'd been struggling with it, because she writes with a precision and intensity on which my lazy reading style has difficulty focusing. Regardless, she nails it. I'll have to write a book about it sometime. I recommend it.
The first 3 chapters are particularly cogent on individual rights and economic freedom. From Chp. 1:
"Is man a sovereign individual who owns his person, his mind, his life, his work and its products—or is he the property of the tribe (the state, the society, the collective) that may dispose of him in any way it pleases, that may dictate his convictions, prescribe the course of his life, control his work and expropriate his products? Does man have the right to exist for his own sake—or is he born in bondage, as an indentured servant who must keep buying his life by serving the tribe but can never acquire it free and clear?"
THAT is the question, isn't it? And her answer:
"Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned."
CUI - 22. The Cashing-In: The Student "Rebellion", about the 1960's student occupation of Berkeley and the Free Speech Movement is compelling in its applicability to the current occupation of the Wisconsin State House by protesting public workers.
Says Ayn:
"But there is no justification, in a civilized society, for the kind of mass civil disobedience that involves the violation of the rights of others—regardless of whether the demonstrators' goal is good or evil. The end does not justify the means. No one's rights can be secured by the violation of the rights of others. Mass disobedience is an assault on the concept of rights: it is a mob's defiance of legality as such.
The forcible occupation of another man's property or the obstruction of a public thoroughfare is so blatant a violation of rights that an attempt to justify it becomes an abrogation of morality. An individual has no right to do a "sit-in" in the home or office of a person he disagrees with—and he does not acquire such a right by joining a gang. Rights are not a matter of numbers—and there can be no such thing, in law or in morality, as actions forbidden to an individual, but permitted to a mob."
The first 3 chapters are particularly cogent on individual rights and economic freedom. From Chp. 1:
"Is man a sovereign individual who owns his person, his mind, his life, his work and its products—or is he the property of the tribe (the state, the society, the collective) that may dispose of him in any way it pleases, that may dictate his convictions, prescribe the course of his life, control his work and expropriate his products? Does man have the right to exist for his own sake—or is he born in bondage, as an indentured servant who must keep buying his life by serving the tribe but can never acquire it free and clear?"
THAT is the question, isn't it? And her answer:
"Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned."
CUI - 22. The Cashing-In: The Student "Rebellion", about the 1960's student occupation of Berkeley and the Free Speech Movement is compelling in its applicability to the current occupation of the Wisconsin State House by protesting public workers.
Says Ayn:
"But there is no justification, in a civilized society, for the kind of mass civil disobedience that involves the violation of the rights of others—regardless of whether the demonstrators' goal is good or evil. The end does not justify the means. No one's rights can be secured by the violation of the rights of others. Mass disobedience is an assault on the concept of rights: it is a mob's defiance of legality as such.
The forcible occupation of another man's property or the obstruction of a public thoroughfare is so blatant a violation of rights that an attempt to justify it becomes an abrogation of morality. An individual has no right to do a "sit-in" in the home or office of a person he disagrees with—and he does not acquire such a right by joining a gang. Rights are not a matter of numbers—and there can be no such thing, in law or in morality, as actions forbidden to an individual, but permitted to a mob."
November 7, 2015
Although I'm not an 'objectivist', I did love this book. Rand does a great job of giving her philosophy in a compelling way, lots of examples and logical argumentation. I don't agree with her dismissing of faith, but her disagreement is with those using their faith to make illogical arguments concerning economics. I had to agree with her points. Too many jump on the socialism bandwagon that assuming that human nature is 'good' which is the only way for the idealistic view of socialism could ever work. But socialism always has a gun pointed at the head of its citizens, whether totalitarian or democratic. The citizen is always forced to give away their wealth, whether they are rich or poor or middle-class. And it always descends into the state using force. Capitalism always gets the blame, but it is really the only solution. Socialism is a fool's solution.
December 18, 2012
One of the best books I've ever read on capitalism, period. Easy to read, powerfully written, and unexpectedly profound, Rand covers everything from the introduction of statism into the American economy to crony capitalism to common myths about free markets and the inevitable results of bad philosophy on daily life. Absolutely worth sharing -- will make you wary of commies and leftists in general.
October 19, 2009
Read it! Read it! Read it! If you want to know why capitalism works read this book! This should be a must read for any public official or anybody who intends to venture into an intellectual debate about the virtues of the various economic systems. This book was the first purely economic book I ever read and started my leg-tingling love affair with studying the free market.
October 28, 2008
Psychobabble.
April 6, 2016
Throughly misunderstands human nature and capitalism or perhaps understands it perfectly to have had so many people read this and receive her "philosophy" so well.
May 28, 2024
A COLLECTION OF ESSAYS DEFENDING CAPITALISM ON A “MORAL” BASIS
Ayn Rand wrote in the Introduction to this 1966 book, “This book is not a treatise on economics. It is a collection of essays on the MORAL aspects of capitalism… our primary interest is no politics or economics as such, but ‘man’s nature and man’s relationship to existence’----and that we advocate capitalism because it is the only system geared to the life of a rational being… 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 method of capitalism’s destruction rests on never letting the world discover WHAT it is that 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… This book is addressed to the young---in years or in spirit----who are not afraid to know and are not ready to give up.” [She also added in a November 1970 note, “Nathaniel Branden is no longer associated with me, with my philosophy of with ‘The Objectivist.’”]
In the first essay, she observes, “In order to sustain its life, every living species has to follow a certain course of action required by its nature. The action required to sustain human life is primarily intellectual: everything man needs has to be discovered by his mind and produced by his effort. Production is the application of reason to the problem of survival. If some men do not choose to think, they can survive only by imitating and repeating a routine of work discovered by others… Regardless of what choice is made, in this issue… the fact remains that reason is man’s means of survival and that men prosper or fail, survive or perish in proportion to the degree of their rationality.” (Pg. 17)
She says, “Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned… In a capitalist society, no man or group may INITIATE the use of physical force against others. The only function of government… is the task of protecting man’s rights, i.e., the task of protecting him from physical force… It is the basic, metaphysical fact of man’s nature—the connection between his survival and his use of reason---that capitalism recognizes and protects. In a capitalism society, all human relationships are VOLUNTARY. Men are free to cooperate or not… as their own individual judgments, convictions, and interests dictate.” (Pg. 19)
She points out, “When the ‘common good’ of a society is regarded as something apart from and superior to the individual good of its members, it means that the good of SOME men takes precedence over the good of others, with those others consigned to the status of sacrificial animals.” (Pg. 21) She continues, “The OBJECTIVE theory holds that the good is … an EVALUATION of the facts of reality by man’s consciousness according to a rational standard of value… Of all the social systems in mankind’s history, capitalism is the only system based on an objective theory of values.” (Pg. 22)
She asserts, “unilateral pacificism is merely an invitation to aggression. Just as an individual has the right of self-defense, so has a free country if attacked. But this does not give its government the right to draft men into military service---which is the most blatantly statist violation of a man’s right to his own life… a volunteer army is the most efficient army… A free country has never lacked volunteers when attacked by a foreign aggressor.” (Pg. 40) Later, she adds, “Not many men would volunteer for such wars as Korea and Vietnam. Without the power to draft, the makers of our foreign policy would not be able to embark on adventures of this kind. This is one of the best practical reasons for the abolition of the draft.” (Pg. 228)
She acknowledges, “A system of pure, unregulated laissez-faire capitalism has never yet existed anywhere. What did exist were only so-called mixed economies, which means: a mixture, in varying degrees, of freedom and controls, of voluntary choice and government coercion, of capitalism and statism.” (Pg. 48) She asserts, “All the evils, abuses, and iniquities, popularly ascribed to businessmen and to capitalism, were not caused by an unregulated economy or by a free market, but by government intervention into the economy.” (Pg. 48)
She contends, “Trusts came into existence because they were the most efficient units in those industries which, being relatively new, were too small to support more than one large company… The observable tendency of an industry’s dominant companies eventually to lose part of their share of the market, is not caused by antitrust legislation, but by the fact that it is difficult to prevent new forms from entering the field when the demand for a certain product increases.” (Pg. 66)
Branden notes, “Capitalism, by its nature, entails a constant process of motion, of growth, of progress; no one has a VESTED RIGHT to a position if others can do better than he can. When people denounce the free market as ‘cruel,’ the face they are decrying is that the market is ruled by a single moral principle: JUSTICE. And that is the root of their hatred for capitalism.” (Pg. 76)
She states of compulsory education, “The answer to this question becomes evident if one makes the question more concrete…. ‘Should the government be permitted to remove children forcibly from their homes, with or without the parents’ consent, and subject the children to educational training and procedures of which the parents may or may not approve?... the answer is clearly: NO. There are no moral grounds whatever for the claim that education is the prerogative of the State… The doctrine that education should be controlled by the State is consistent with the Nazi or communist theory of government.” (Pg. 89)
She suggests “The disgracefully low level of education in America today is the predictable result of a State-controlled school system… More and more people are entering college---and fewer and fewer people are emerging properly educated. Our educational system is like a vast bureaucracy… in which the trend is toward a policy of considering everything about a teacher’s qualifications… except his teaching ability… The solution is to bring the field of education into the marketplace.” (Pg. 90)
Of the student rebellion movement in the ‘60s, she comments, “no rights of any kind can be exercised without property rights. It is only on the basis of property rights that the sphere and application of individual rights can be defined in any given social situation. Without property rights, there is no way to solve or to avoid a hopeless chaos of clashing views, interests, demands, desires, and whims. There was no way for the Berkeley administration to answer the rebels except by evoking property rights.” (Pg. 259)
For anyone interested in the Objectivist perspective on political and economic issues, this book will be ‘must reading.”
Ayn Rand wrote in the Introduction to this 1966 book, “This book is not a treatise on economics. It is a collection of essays on the MORAL aspects of capitalism… our primary interest is no politics or economics as such, but ‘man’s nature and man’s relationship to existence’----and that we advocate capitalism because it is the only system geared to the life of a rational being… 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 method of capitalism’s destruction rests on never letting the world discover WHAT it is that 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… This book is addressed to the young---in years or in spirit----who are not afraid to know and are not ready to give up.” [She also added in a November 1970 note, “Nathaniel Branden is no longer associated with me, with my philosophy of with ‘The Objectivist.’”]
In the first essay, she observes, “In order to sustain its life, every living species has to follow a certain course of action required by its nature. The action required to sustain human life is primarily intellectual: everything man needs has to be discovered by his mind and produced by his effort. Production is the application of reason to the problem of survival. If some men do not choose to think, they can survive only by imitating and repeating a routine of work discovered by others… Regardless of what choice is made, in this issue… the fact remains that reason is man’s means of survival and that men prosper or fail, survive or perish in proportion to the degree of their rationality.” (Pg. 17)
She says, “Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned… In a capitalist society, no man or group may INITIATE the use of physical force against others. The only function of government… is the task of protecting man’s rights, i.e., the task of protecting him from physical force… It is the basic, metaphysical fact of man’s nature—the connection between his survival and his use of reason---that capitalism recognizes and protects. In a capitalism society, all human relationships are VOLUNTARY. Men are free to cooperate or not… as their own individual judgments, convictions, and interests dictate.” (Pg. 19)
She points out, “When the ‘common good’ of a society is regarded as something apart from and superior to the individual good of its members, it means that the good of SOME men takes precedence over the good of others, with those others consigned to the status of sacrificial animals.” (Pg. 21) She continues, “The OBJECTIVE theory holds that the good is … an EVALUATION of the facts of reality by man’s consciousness according to a rational standard of value… Of all the social systems in mankind’s history, capitalism is the only system based on an objective theory of values.” (Pg. 22)
She asserts, “unilateral pacificism is merely an invitation to aggression. Just as an individual has the right of self-defense, so has a free country if attacked. But this does not give its government the right to draft men into military service---which is the most blatantly statist violation of a man’s right to his own life… a volunteer army is the most efficient army… A free country has never lacked volunteers when attacked by a foreign aggressor.” (Pg. 40) Later, she adds, “Not many men would volunteer for such wars as Korea and Vietnam. Without the power to draft, the makers of our foreign policy would not be able to embark on adventures of this kind. This is one of the best practical reasons for the abolition of the draft.” (Pg. 228)
She acknowledges, “A system of pure, unregulated laissez-faire capitalism has never yet existed anywhere. What did exist were only so-called mixed economies, which means: a mixture, in varying degrees, of freedom and controls, of voluntary choice and government coercion, of capitalism and statism.” (Pg. 48) She asserts, “All the evils, abuses, and iniquities, popularly ascribed to businessmen and to capitalism, were not caused by an unregulated economy or by a free market, but by government intervention into the economy.” (Pg. 48)
She contends, “Trusts came into existence because they were the most efficient units in those industries which, being relatively new, were too small to support more than one large company… The observable tendency of an industry’s dominant companies eventually to lose part of their share of the market, is not caused by antitrust legislation, but by the fact that it is difficult to prevent new forms from entering the field when the demand for a certain product increases.” (Pg. 66)
Branden notes, “Capitalism, by its nature, entails a constant process of motion, of growth, of progress; no one has a VESTED RIGHT to a position if others can do better than he can. When people denounce the free market as ‘cruel,’ the face they are decrying is that the market is ruled by a single moral principle: JUSTICE. And that is the root of their hatred for capitalism.” (Pg. 76)
She states of compulsory education, “The answer to this question becomes evident if one makes the question more concrete…. ‘Should the government be permitted to remove children forcibly from their homes, with or without the parents’ consent, and subject the children to educational training and procedures of which the parents may or may not approve?... the answer is clearly: NO. There are no moral grounds whatever for the claim that education is the prerogative of the State… The doctrine that education should be controlled by the State is consistent with the Nazi or communist theory of government.” (Pg. 89)
She suggests “The disgracefully low level of education in America today is the predictable result of a State-controlled school system… More and more people are entering college---and fewer and fewer people are emerging properly educated. Our educational system is like a vast bureaucracy… in which the trend is toward a policy of considering everything about a teacher’s qualifications… except his teaching ability… The solution is to bring the field of education into the marketplace.” (Pg. 90)
Of the student rebellion movement in the ‘60s, she comments, “no rights of any kind can be exercised without property rights. It is only on the basis of property rights that the sphere and application of individual rights can be defined in any given social situation. Without property rights, there is no way to solve or to avoid a hopeless chaos of clashing views, interests, demands, desires, and whims. There was no way for the Berkeley administration to answer the rebels except by evoking property rights.” (Pg. 259)
For anyone interested in the Objectivist perspective on political and economic issues, this book will be ‘must reading.”
March 16, 2012
I had just finished reading Adam Smith's "The Wealth of Nations" when I picked this up. I said in my review of Smith's "The Wealth of Nations", that it was the best economics book I had ever read, as it was simple, cogent, and articulate. But now having read Rand's "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal" I feel I might have to take that back.
Rand's book is very easy to understand, just as Smith's was. But Rand's view on capitalism differs in some ways from Smith's. While Rand preached a complete laissez-faire capitalism, Smith preached only "free-trade" capitalism. Rand wanted no laws, rules, regulations hindering the free market, while Smith seemed to want a few; not too many, though.
Rand stated in this book throughout, that the reason why Capitalism is "Unknown" and never really fully was, is because it has lacked a philosophical/moral reasoning and justification for it. Rand believed that you cannot rely on the economic arguments for capitalism, as that is not sufficient. The real justification lies in the philosophical realm and that no one was presenting it properly to the masses. She says that (circa 1960's) Conservatives were worse than the liberals, as they had every opportunity to defend capitalism to the fullest extent, but never did. They just allowed the liberals to run all over their presentation, and they constantly backed down in fear.
There are many other articles in this book written by Nathaniel Branden, Alan Greenspan, and Robert Hessen- all of which are very good, and go well with the overall narrative/idea. This book answered a lot of the questions that I had, and which are still being debated and talked about today, i.e., monopolies, big business, corporations, small businesses, anti trust, child labor, unions, minimum wage, gold standard et. al. It is very comprehensive I must say; but it is also easily understandable and well presented. Rand and her ideas like to K.I.S.S.
I read "The Virtue of Selfishness" before this, and it fits very nicely into the moral and philosophical framework of "Capitalism", you must know those justifications before you can begin to understand her reasoning on anything else. I am now going to read Rand's "Philosophy: Who Needs It?"
Rand's book is very easy to understand, just as Smith's was. But Rand's view on capitalism differs in some ways from Smith's. While Rand preached a complete laissez-faire capitalism, Smith preached only "free-trade" capitalism. Rand wanted no laws, rules, regulations hindering the free market, while Smith seemed to want a few; not too many, though.
Rand stated in this book throughout, that the reason why Capitalism is "Unknown" and never really fully was, is because it has lacked a philosophical/moral reasoning and justification for it. Rand believed that you cannot rely on the economic arguments for capitalism, as that is not sufficient. The real justification lies in the philosophical realm and that no one was presenting it properly to the masses. She says that (circa 1960's) Conservatives were worse than the liberals, as they had every opportunity to defend capitalism to the fullest extent, but never did. They just allowed the liberals to run all over their presentation, and they constantly backed down in fear.
There are many other articles in this book written by Nathaniel Branden, Alan Greenspan, and Robert Hessen- all of which are very good, and go well with the overall narrative/idea. This book answered a lot of the questions that I had, and which are still being debated and talked about today, i.e., monopolies, big business, corporations, small businesses, anti trust, child labor, unions, minimum wage, gold standard et. al. It is very comprehensive I must say; but it is also easily understandable and well presented. Rand and her ideas like to K.I.S.S.
I read "The Virtue of Selfishness" before this, and it fits very nicely into the moral and philosophical framework of "Capitalism", you must know those justifications before you can begin to understand her reasoning on anything else. I am now going to read Rand's "Philosophy: Who Needs It?"
August 9, 2013
My copy of this book is so highlighted and written in that it is almost an entirely different book! One of the great defenses of TRUE capitalism, not the watered down version we have today, which politicians would like us to THINK is a free market.
Read it and you will see what I am talking about. Even if you HATE capitalism and think that the world is being run by giant, evil corporations and the only way to keep them in line is to have the government pull the reigns in, you should STILL read this book.
Read it and you will see what I am talking about. Even if you HATE capitalism and think that the world is being run by giant, evil corporations and the only way to keep them in line is to have the government pull the reigns in, you should STILL read this book.
October 10, 2021
"CAPITALISM IS A SOCIAL SYSTEM BASED ON THE RECOGNTION OF INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, INCLUDING PROPERTY RIGHTS, IN WHICH ALL PROPERTY IS PRIVATELY OWNED".
"Man has to work and produce in order tu support his life. He has tu support his life by his own effort and by the guidance of his own mind. If he cannot dispose of the product of his effort, he cannot dispose of his effort; if he cannot dispose of his effort, he cannot dispose of his life".
WITHOUT PROPERTY RIGHTS, NO OTHER RIGHTS CAN BE PRACTICED!!!!
VIVA LA LIBERTAD CARAJO!!!!!!!!!!
"Man has to work and produce in order tu support his life. He has tu support his life by his own effort and by the guidance of his own mind. If he cannot dispose of the product of his effort, he cannot dispose of his effort; if he cannot dispose of his effort, he cannot dispose of his life".
WITHOUT PROPERTY RIGHTS, NO OTHER RIGHTS CAN BE PRACTICED!!!!
VIVA LA LIBERTAD CARAJO!!!!!!!!!!
December 31, 2009
Cogent essays defending capitalism, free markets, and non-aggression morally, ethically, philosophically, and practically. If you're not an objectivist, why not (no fallacies please)? Why do you think initiation of force is necessary or justified?
May 9, 2022
"Capitalism: The Unknown ideal" is a book that expands your mind and clarifies many common misunderstandings regarding capitalism. Ayn Rand speaks about the separation of state and economy and explains that man can survive only in an environment that protects knowledge and trade.
December 17, 2014
Libër që në Shqipëri mund të jetë lexuar nga fare pak njerëz...
April 14, 2026
Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal does not praise capitalism just for creating wealth, efficiency, or rising living standards, though it does all three. Rand’s claim is that capitalism is the only social system consistent with reason, individual rights, and the ban on initiated force. As a moral defense of freedom it is one of the clearest and most uncompromising books ever written. Generally when I read Ayn Rand I feel my mind getting better and better, like new aspects of reality are opened and clear.
Another test of my AI notes review:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1c...
Another test of my AI notes review:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1c...
Displaying 1 - 30 of 236 reviews