What Is Capitalism

by Ayn Rand

We sell Rare, out-of-print, uncommon, & used BOOKS, PRINTS, MAPS, DOCUMENTS, AND EPHEMERA. We do not sell ebooks, print on demand, or other reproduced materials. Each item you see here is individually described and imaged. We welcome further inquiries.

Genres: Philosophy, Politics

Audio Cassette

First published January 1, 1967

About the author

Polemical 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.

Reviews

[k10 · Rating 3 out of 5]

Well, this is definitely an interesting read. Whenever I read Ayn Rand I find myself having an unreasonably argumentative internal discourse. And this essay was no exception. I probably need to reread the first half of the essay again, but the first time around it felt somewhat convoluted. Anyways.

One of my main issues (and perhaps I am not understanding her correctly) is that while a criteria for the "good" is laid out (the criteria is the Objective Thoery - defined as: good is an aspect of reality in relation to man. Good must be discovered as opposed to invented), the very parameters of what is "good" are never substantively discussed except for within the context of the free market. To me this makes the good seem like it exists purely in economic and material sense rather than in a moral sense. Considering what a large role morality (and in turn, natural rights) play in her argument, I find a discussion of the moral ends of economic activity lacking. She alludes to the pursuit of happiness once and freedom many times, so perhaps these are the cues am looking for.

In that case, it seems like freedom, which in turn leads to progress both technologically and intellectually, is the goal of economics rather than some type of end defined by morality in any normative sense. In this case, she must be saying the Objective Theory is used to judge these things (intellectual and tehcnological progress) as "good."But once again, this confuses, for by what criteria do we determine how a thing is in relation to man if we do not beforehand set forth a standard by which to judge the relationship? One proposed answer is that we might use our rationality to discover and determine the good in each individual instance. But the problem still remains: rationality demands the "invention" of definitons and standards in order to make sense of reality. This holds true if we insert Rand's view of rationality, the ideal form of which is a faultless type of mechanism by which all men would eventually reach the same conclusion should it function as it ought to.

The distinction between the "discovery" of good vs. the "invention" of good seems to break down when it comes down to the determination that either good exists in the same way similarly for all men, or it does not. The partiiculars of good may be discoverable, but the principles defining what makes a thing good (what is kind, what is just, what is loving) are, if you will, invented, if by invention we mean these are standards which always hold true (imperatives, and in this sense, deonotological). Their appearance of course may vary, and in any given situation it is the particular form of good that is "discoverable."

But back to idea of progress. Ultimately I wonder just how one weighs the positivite against the negative effects of technological and intellectual advances on the nature of man, for surely both outcomes are present. And if it is to the end of happiness that we ought to be moving towards, it does not necessairly follow that technological and intellectual progress lead to this. I do find the argument that freedom, especially freedom from physical threat and intellectual freedom, are key to happiness, if such a thing is even possible. And while it is arguable that happiness may be found in any given set of circumstances, whether freedom is present or not, it is absurd to say that government and economic systems have no determination on the likelihood or probablity of people's ability to attain happiness (otherwise revolutions would not exist nor would the great tragedy wrought by an oppressive government be so feared and studied).

The question then becomes, is it possible for freedom to exist within some other method of economy besides capitalism? And if so, what are do these economies look like and to what degree to the happiness of its people differ from those members of a capitalist society?

I would also argue that while freedom is intrinsic to the birth of capitalistic success, in time freedom is diminshed in large part by laws enacted to protect men and reign in the 'successes' of capitalistic endeavors (for instance, the unbridled behavior of corporate entities or disregard for any effect a particular discovery might have on the earth and environment). But despite the inevitable reduction of freedom within capitalist society,the argument remains that intellectual and physical freedom are two of the most essential "rights" of man (as these rights are equated with one's ability to attain happiness). This is an exceptionally powerful argument, appealling not only logically and intellectual, but instinctively and emotionally. But pehaps these instincts are merely a conditioned response resulting from the bias of our age which espouses the importance of freedom. Whereas the result and impact of such freedom, for better or for worse, has in the long-term and on the large-scale yet to be weighed.

Overall, I agree with some of Rands's points regarding the importance of freedom, but fundamentally I don't think the capitalism she presents actually reflects the way capitalism exists in reality. In particular statements like, "no man may attempt to achieve the good of some at the price of the immolation of others" are, in my experience, untrue. Yes, capitalism is fundamentally based on mutually beneficial transactions, but it is often the case that a transaction can be made in which the exchange of values is grossly incommensurate. And while this might not be equivalent to "immolation," it could still mean a loss so great as to be destructuve for one of the parties.

I also would have enjoyed reading a beefier discussion of the definitons of collectivism or "tribal" economics (seemed over simplified to me). And while I do not really think a fair discussion is given to these terms, I forget this essay is titled "What is Capitalism?".

Despite my personal qualms with this essay, I found it an invigorating read (really!) and it gave me some new things to think about as well as old things to rethink.

Yay!

[Vaibhav Mishra · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting read, though I find myself in slight disagreement with the ideas of author.