Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal (1986) - Plot & Excerpts
Would I call it a good read (get it?Goodreads?). No...but had you given it to me with the express purpose to enlighten me into the political controversies of the 1960's onward. Not occluding our last political debate here in 2012 with its United States presidential election, I'd say Rand might well be a soothsayer. More likely though, a lot of stupid people read her work and in very dark terms, "put into production, politically speaking". And oh boy did a philosophy manufacture! I remember one interesting quote speaking about a railroad manufacturer she defended where Rand quotes from the book, The Story of American Railroads, "In short, by 1870, to pick an arbitrary date, railroads had become, as only too many orators of the day pointed out, a law unto themselves. They had bought United States senators and congressman, just as they bought rails and locomotives-with cash. They owned whole legislatures, and often the state courts...To call the roads of 1870 corrupt is none too strong a term." What followed I actually laughed out loud as Rand followed to explain quote, "It is the railroads that he blames and calls 'corrupt.' Yet what could the railroads do, except to try to 'own whole legislatures,' if these legislatures held the power of life or death over them? What could the railroads do, except resort to bribery, if they wished to exist at all?" Don't get me wrong Rand, I'll just accept your premise, that the glory of a railroad entrepreneur manufacturer and his "...single-handed, for the development of the entire American Northwest, was the Great Northern build by J. J. Hill without any federal Help whatever" would be snuffed out leaving "death" to occur at the hands of government. Is a lot like saying, I'll leave Tax Loop holes open to those corporations clever enough to use them, because without them good businesses couldn't exploit them. CAPITALISM HO! That businesses wouldn't lobby government officials for economic advantage against competitors that might otherwise cause the collapse of their businesses? What could they do, except resort to bribery. And through this competition more and more complex tax codes would have to be written. Business law and legal justice within a free market, CAPITALISM HO!! And that if government wasn't around this possibility would evaporate. Insofar as yes, this particular instant would be gone from government, not capitalism itself. As rand would seem to imply, what was capitalism to do? Might it not just do the same with particularly powerful entities, say other industrious men like themselves? I wouldn't say it was all bad, "I shall remind you that 'rights' are a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man's freedom of action in a social context, that they are derived from man's nature as a rational being and represent a necessary condition of his particular mode of survival. I shall remind you also that the right to life is the source of all rights, including the right to property." John Locke couldn't have said it better...Or did he?There is a debate to be had here, Egalitarianism and Libertarianism. Socialism and Capitalism. Reminded me when I feed bread to the baby koi fish. I would sometimes give too big of a bread piece and the koi would try to gobble the whole piece. One of the koi would grab it and would swim away to savor his big meal to come. But the koi couldn't swallow it and kept dropping it from its mouth. So it tried and tried to swallow it but couldn't, and just kept watching it sink only to pick it back up. Another saw the act and sought its own meal. The koi with the piece of bread had latched onto the bread piece and swam all around trying to keep the meal to itself, perhaps either saving it from being taken or wanting the whole meal to himself I cannot say. It slowed and weakened from the swim, enough that the other koi could catch up. The other koi fish came and took a bite of the piece of bread on one of the sides and ripped the bite in two. small enough that both digested the meal and went on there way within the small pond. But of course my feeding those particular Koi the advantage was just the luck of where I happen to be throwing. They were all the same to me. But I could pretend that the koi with a full meal in its belly returned to the group of koi and wondered why they weren't more industrious like he was? That they were just weak minded herds to be negotiated with while his belly was still too full from the previous meal. And those unlucky to not have a meal that day could be negotiated with the best and to the full meal koi belly, most psychologically advantageous to "requests". If Rand has much to say here, its nothing she said precisely. Unless it was her vitriol. She said that really well.
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."
What do You think about Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal (1986)?
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.
—Ellis
I am no economist to comment on the feasibility of Ayn Rand's ideal world. But, I only wish every written work in all of literature is so convincingly written. This is the second of her books I read, after the Virtue of Selfishness. It makes one think whether some of the highly lauded modern social democratic processes are actually so evolved and advanced as they are credited for. The Chapters: Patents and Copyrights, The New Fascism and the Wreckage of the Consensus had me thinking a lot about moral "rights" and "wrongs." Over time, I wish I acquire the ability to write as piercingly as Ayn Rand could. Anyone interested in current social and political developments must read this book to understand how morally Ayn Rand assessed the issues of her time. A must-read book.....
—Thanigai Adhavan
This book by novelist and philosopher Ayn Rand, (author of "Atlas Shrugged" and "The Fountainhead") is a treatise on the politico-economic branch of her philosophy of Objectivism. The arguments put forth provide the moral backing that capitalism has always lacked, and without which it is doomed to destruction.The essays included cover a wide range of topics: from the necessity of an economy based on a gold standard, to the reason why a free nation cannot benefit from the initiation of a war, to the injustice of anti-trust laws, to the critical importance of patent and copyright laws, and to the futile defenses of capitalism offered by conservatives. The clarity of Rand’s writing style simplifies the science of economics so that anyone willing to think can become a staunch defender of capitalism. Rand’s unique perspective upholds businessmen as moral giants, and provides all the intellectual ammunition necessary for these men to finally be recognized as the heroes that they are.
—Christopher
