Whose definition of capitalism? Mine, Merlin's, his blog's? What did you mean when you said that Rand was 'befuddled' by Hayek? That makes no sense. Those who know Rand and have command of their senses would not come up with that description. And the title "Capitalism the Unknown Ideal" stands quite well on it's own.
In an operative sense, socialism indicates that the ultimate arbiter of what can be called 'private property' in all societies has always been the society itself. In other words, what we know in human history is that what's deemed 'private' is a social decision.
Given that the quasi-religion called 'socialism' is really just an intellectual fraud acting as a front for taking property from others, that is an almost honest statement. The elites holding sway in a socialist country decide what will be private since they don't recognize individual rights... actually any rights, only permissions.
You didn't need to say "In an operative sense" or "the ultimate arbiter of what can be called private property" or "in human history" or "what's deemed 'private'" - you could have just said, "Socialists decide what people get to keep." Same thing with communists, Nazis, petty dictators and so forth. It is the totalitarian way.
All of the attempts to make collective decisions automatically moral are such a shallow mechanism, like the three wolves who sat down with a lamb and held a vote to see what's was for lunch.
...our experience as social democrats indicates that the institution of private property has to be constantly monitored against the tendency of creating monopolies
What's with the "our" - very few people at this forum are 'social democrats.' Nor do many people here buy into the false narrative of monopolies that socialists and progressives and populists use to attack capitalism.
Private property is far more than something we use here and there to gain favorable results. It is the base of a moral principle that permits us to live together in a society where we can interact as we choose instead of an environment based upon interactions involving the initiation of force. For example, if you don't own your body, and if that moral right isn't implemented as law, then you are fair game to anyone who wanted to knock you out and take your kidneys to sell. Or are your kidneys only private property because that has been the social decision? And when you think about that, can you really maintain this subjective, relativist position of rights? Rights are objective and not social whims. The choice of a society and of its leaders is will they observe rights... or will they pretend they don't exist?
It's somewhat of a joke, than, that Rand projected the monopoly- of- knowledge scenario forwards into 20th century in 'Atlas'. Hayek found this laughably bad, which accounted for the famous randian hissyfit in their meeting at a cocktail party. Otherwise, today, what's clear is that the educational level of our grammar school teachers exceeds that of the self-proclaimed rulers of the universe bizness peeple.
I'm not familiar with what was said at the cocktail party you mention, but I do know that you don't understand what a monopoly is. Nor do you understand the theme of Atlas Shrugged if you think it involved a "monopoly- of- knowledge." Your strange remark about "self-proclaimed rulers of the universe bizness peeple" is like a bizarre characture of the far left's loony conceptions of the businessworld. The only self-proclaimed rulers are those who want to enslave others to Marxist confiscation.
Nothing makes Marxism look good. From Stalin to Mao to to Cuba to Venezuala to Bernie Sanders... nothing makes Marxism look good. Those who try it find the path always leads to a police state, starvation, deprivation, and finally, collapse. The only place that the socialism can exist in any slightly pure state for any period of time is in the university and then only as a theoretical construct unattached to reality and only as long as the financial support comes from the outside - from taxes on businesses and workers and investors. That should make it clear that it is a fantasy, like a man on the roof of a tall building who thinks he can fly, a fantasy that becomes fatal to those who try it in the real world.
For a socialist to make posts in this forum, and to take cheap shots at Rand... well that automatically brands you as a troll. What was in your mind as you type out a post like that, for a forum like this? Does it make you feel all giggly and excited to imagine that you might be annoying people? I don't know... it just seems kind of strange.