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.

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.

Capitalism, by Ayn Rand, is a collection of 26 essays that discuss more than what the title would lead you to believe. Most articles were written by Rand, while a few were penned by others including a much younger Alan Greenspan. Rand opens the book with a chapter called "What is Capitalism." Greenspan writes on antitrust law and gold. Economics is rarely exciting, but the authors manage to make in interesting.

One editorial review posted on the Amazon.com page for Capitalism states that the book is, "An interesting relic of the past," and goes on to call it an "outlandish piece of propaganda," but this is actually a classic example of "Extremism or the Art of Smearing" as explained in Chapter 17. While the liberals at Amazon.com and the Library Journal might consider Rand an outlandish relic of the past, her books logically explains the philosophy and principles upon which our economic system rests. Because we have drifted away from our founding ideals and the government schools no longer teach United States history well, or economics at all, capitalism has become the forgotten ideal and younger generations must seek out their heritage in the books of Ayn Rand and others. That is why these books continue to sell well.

Rand was no friend of Judeo-Christian values, but she strongly believed in many values that most Americans once shared, limited government, laissez-faire economics and property rights. If you want a better understanding why these principles made America great you should read this and her other works.

- 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.

Interesting viewpoints but a lot of diatribes and polemics against "statism", the incessant quoting of her own books is also a bit self-indulgent.

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.

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.

"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!!!!!!!!!!

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.

Psychobabble.

Ayn Rand is proponent of natural rights classical liberalism, she names it "objectivism" because she liked being unique, arguing that capitalism and free markets are the only economic systems compatible with men's natural rights that derive not from God or from state but from man's nature. The last two articles on natural rights and on the proper role of government are exceptional. If you liked the book read also Nozick's Anarchy State and Utopia.

Heti teoksen alkupuheessa kirjailija Ayn Rand haluaa tehdä selväksi, ettei tässä teoksessa ole kyse taloustieteellisestä (numeerisesta) kapitalismin tutkimuksesta, vaan kyse on kapitalismin moraalisesta puolesta. Kirja sisältää myös muutaman artikkelin vierailevilta kirjoittajilta kuten Alan Greenspanilta, joka tuli myöhemmin tunnetuksi Yhdysvaltain keskuspankin puheenjohtajana.

Kysymyksenasettelu kirjassa on seuraava: Miksi kapitalismi on moraalista (eli hyvää), että sitä pitää tavoitella? Miksi ei-kapitalistiset talousjärjestelmät ovat moraalittomia (eli pahaa) ja niitä ei pidä tavoitella? Nämä ovat filosofian piiriin kuuluvia kysymyksiä, joihin taloustiede ei vastaa. Jos siis odotat tilastotieteellistä esitystä kapitalismin paremmuudesta, tämä kirja ei ole sellainen. Tämä kirja auttaa ymmärtämään, miksi tilastot, lait tai "asiantuntijoiden" mielipiteet eivät ole riittäviä moraalisia perusteita kapitalismille. Tilasto voidaan kumota tilastolla, laki voidaan kumota lailla ja asiantuntijan mielipide kumoutuu toisen "asiantuntijan" mielipiteellä. Päinvastoin; kapitalismin moraalisuus perustuu vain ja ainoastaan järkeen ja rationaaliseen päättelyketjuun. Rationaalinen ihminen elää itseään varten, ei uhraa itseään toisen vuoksi, eikä vaadi toista ihmistä uhrautumaan itsensä vuoksi. Jos ihmiseltä riistetään oikeus järkeen, jäljellä on orjan rooli toisten mielihalujen palvelemiseksi.

Teoksessa tuodaan esille, kuinka monet nykyajan markkinatalouden kannattajista eivät ole sisäistäneet kapitalismin moraalista puolta, minkä vuoksi heiltä puuttuvat tarvittavat argumentit kapitalismin puolustamiseen. Juuri tästä syystä seuraa, että monet "markkinatalousihmiset" pyytelevät anteeksi kapitalismin niin sanottuja haittapuolia ja tinkivät mielipiteistään miellyttääkseen kollektivisteja. Randin keskeinen teesi on se, että kapitalismi ei tarvitse apologetiikkaa, koska moraalista järjestelmää ei tarvitse pyytää anteeksi. Rationaalisesta sosiaalisesta järjestelmästä pitää olla pikemminkin ylpeä. Anteeksipyytelyn taakka on sillä osapuolella, joka haluaa riistää ihmiseltä yksilönvapaudet ja oikeuden käyttää järkeä.

Kirjassa kritiikki kohdistuu muun muassa fiat-rahaan, työehtojen saneluun, yritystukiin ynnä muihin valtion harjoittamiin keinoihin rajoittaa vapaata kauppaa. Kaikki nämä pohjaavat ajatukseen "yleisestä edusta", jonka määritelmästä päättävät poliitikot (mistä he saavat sen mystisen tiedon?). Tämä on kollektivismia. Talouspoliittinen keskitien kulkeminen tarkoittaa, että ihminen voisi olla yhtäaikaisesti vapaa (kapitalismi) ja ei-vapaa (sosialismi), mutta se on metafyysinen ristiriita. A =/= A ei ole mahdollista. Kollektivistiset ideologiat perustuvat siihen, että tämä ristiriita ei ole ongelma, koska enemmistö/profeetta/kuningas/komissio on sitä mieltä, että se ei ole.

Esimerkki markkinoiden sääntelyyn liittyvästä ristiriidasta: Jos myyt tuotetta liian kalliilla, sinua syytetään markkina-aseman hyväksikäytöstä ja kiskuroinnista. Jos myyt tuotetta liian halvalla, sinua syytetään markkinoiden tuhoamisesta ja hintojen polkemisesta. Jos myyt tuotteen samalla hinnalla kuin muut, sinua syytetään kartellista. Teet mitä hyvänsä; saatat olla rikollinen. Kun yksilöt eivät saa itse päättää oman työnsä hintaa, luisutaan kollektivismin tielle.

Politiikka (ml. talousjärjestelmä) on yksi filosofian päähaaroista (muita ovat metafysiikka, epistemologia, etiikka ja estetiikka). Tämä kirja auttaa ymmärtämään, kuinka kaikki filosofian haarat ovat toisistaan erottamattomia komponentteja. Jos muuttaa yhden filosofian haaran arvoja, arvot muuttuvat myös muissa. Tällöin myös ideologian lopputulos muuttuu tosielämässä. Sen seurauksena voi olla ihmiskunnan vauraus ja vapaus (individualismi); tai se voi olla diktatuuri ja taantumus (kollektivismi). Historiassa nämä kaikki on nähty. Sadat miljoonat kollektivismin nimissä tapetut ihmiset ovat todiste siitä, että filosofialla on merkitystä.

Tämä lähes 400-sivuinen kirja on kirjotettu hyvin perinpohjaisesti, suorastaan intohimoisesti. Jokainen lause ja premissi on avattu yksityiskohtaisesti auki, jotta asiaan perehtymätönkin lukija voi ymmärtää koko päättelyketjun: Miksi asia on näin? Mistä tämä oletus on peräisin? Mistä tiedetään, että asia X on totta? Ayn Rand ei totisesti tahtonut jättää mitään arvailujen varaan. Argumentaatiota tuetaan lukuisilla historiallisilla esimerkeillä, kuinka valtion sekaantuminen ("apu") talouteen on ollut tosiasiallinen syy katastrofeihin (monopolit, lamat, riskisijoittaminen, jne), mutta syy on perusteettomasti vieritetty kapitalismin niskoille.

Kirjan herättelevä otsikko - "tuntematon ideaali" - on perusteltu. Valistusajan seurauksena tunnustettiin valtion ja kirkon ero, koska uskonto katsottiin yksilön omaksi asiaksi, ja siksi uskonnonvapaus löytyy nykyään monien valtioiden perustuslaeista. Vielä on kuitenkin tekemättä valtion ja talouden ero, koska ihmisen oikeutta omiin rahoihinsa (omaisuudensuoja) ei pidetä perusoikeutena, vaan poliitikkojen hyväntahtoisuutena.

Tämän teoksen pitäisi olla peruslukemistoa lukiolaisille ja sitä iäkkäämmille, koska kapitalismin moraalisuus on väännetty tässä niin rautalangasta, ellei jopa ratapalkista.

Arvosana: 5/5