Drop the term Capitalism

[hayenmill]

I'm sure this matter has been mentioned plenty of times before, but given that I believe to have new and refreshing arguments, here they are.

I was hoping most of you were familiar with Zhwazi's post (http://boredzhwazi.blogspot.com/2007/05/actually-existing-capitalism.html) over at his blog. It basically addresses some of the communication problems between libertarians and "revolutionary" socialists.

Anyway,

To some, capitalism might mean individual ownership of capital is allowed, or even encouraged, but on a larger scale capitalism is synonymous with mercantilist practice. You're not going to win the hearts and minds of any potential anarchists by positing capitalism as part of it. Capitalism is functionally a state enforced system and is quite contrary to anarchism. This also makes capitalism incompatible with free enterprise.

There is no reason to romanticize capitalism, especially if you're an anarchist.

The real point is, why should one want to insist on their idealized and romanticized definition of a term when the majority of its usage is attached to other meanings?

Also, there seems to be a common "apologetic" fringe on both libertarians and socialists. While some libertarians are usually corporate apologetics, some socialists are state apologetics.

The truth is, as we already know, corporations are entities whose privilege derives from the State. There is no point giving examples of early corporations in the early 19th century, for example, as a proof of free market benefits because the root of the argument - its logical extreme - is flawed.

That is not to say that corporations haven't brought benefits to the market and the world, but to believe that they would be the predominant (or even existent) shape of market entities in a free market is an overstatement.

Likewise, there isn't any doubt that in some instances the State brought some benefits, but that does not justify its existence, its expropriation of value and the title it gives to itself as a regulator and overseer of all personal and economic activity.

So as Zhwazi points out, "Every usage of the word "Capitalism" can be replaced by "Free market", "Mixed economy", "Fascism", or something else." If you want to see more liberty-minded people and and "spread the message", clearing up semantics is a very important part, since it increases the efficiency of the argumentation.

And if you think that you or a family member might be a "corporate apologetic", fear not! Read this enlightening review of Kevin Carson's The Iron Fist Behind The Invisible Hand to broaden your free market ideas.

http://attackthesystem.com/capitalism-versus-free-enterprise-a-review-of-kevin-carsons-the-iron-fist-behind-the-invisible-hand/

(Keep in mind that link was intended for a more socialist, communist audience, and therefore some terms use might appear too extreme. Nonetheless, it proves an excellent source of arguments when debating them)

[CaL DaVe]

I have a co-worker who is a anarcho-communist. It is kind of weird that we ended up working in the same office.

Anyhow we had this same discussion about the meaning of the word capitalist and the term free market. We did hit a lot of snags because he interpreted the words completely different than I meant them. When I would say free trade/market he thought I was meant things like the "North American Free Trade Agreement" which is quite the opposite of free trade from both our perspectives. Yet both of us could not agree because we got hung up on our interpretations of the words. Pretty much what you are saying, hayenmill.

We got to talking further and he realized what I was trying to say and pointed out his interpretations of the word. Since then, I have used the term voluntary markets and we find ourselves agreeing on much more. It was quite a break through for both of us actually.

[anarchir]

Some say drop the capitalism, others say drop the anarchism...argggh.

I know that the anarcho-syndicalysts/commies are PISSED that anarcho-capitalists exist. To them we're a paradox.

I sometimes work with an anarcho-primitivist and he thinks that anarcho-capitalists are a minority among a minority (anarchists)...little does he know.

The hang up I think is on the supposed "exploitation of labor" BS.

Good call on the "voluntary markets." I'm gonna use that.

[Cognitive Dissident]

Anarchism.  Capitalism.

Anarcho-capitalism.  The ultimate "you really don't want to talk to me" ice breaker, combines them both, because "You're either afraid I'm violent, or would pay to watch someone else be violent and/or manipulate those who cannot defend themselves."

Really, though, they're just words, and neither is maligned for what it actually means.  What to do?  Tell people what you think a free society should be like, without dwelling on what it's called.

"I believe all human interaction should be peaceful and voluntary.  I believe the force of monopoly governments is illegitimate, and that what they call money, unless it's something of real value such as gold or silver, is essentially worth no more than the threats they're willing to make to get you to do what they want."

[John Shaw]

Capitalism
n.
An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.

Anarchism
n.
Anarchism is a political philosophy encompassing theories and attitudes which consider the state, as compulsory government, to be unnecessary, harmful, and/or undesirable, and favors the absence of the state (anarchy).

I am an anarcho capitalist. Or a capitalist anarchist. So thpppt.

Hiding behind friendlier, softer, weaker, less offensive terms is lame. Be what you are and face the music.

[AL the Inconspicuous]

hayenmill:  No.

(See also my thread on this issue.)

Communists can twist terms like "free enterprise" to fit within their political system.

Capitalism is the only term that explicitly recognizes individual rights (aka one's "capital").

[Cognitive Dissident]

Capitalism
n.
An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.

Anarchism
n.
Anarchism is a political philosophy encompassing theories and attitudes which consider the state, as compulsory government, to be unnecessary, harmful, and/or undesirable, and favors the absence of the state (anarchy).

I am an anarcho capitalist. Or a capitalist anarchist. So thpppt.

Hiding behind friendlier, softer, weaker, less offensive terms is lame. Be what you are and face the music.

...and to the average person, you're a paid bomb-thrower...you'll never even get them to listen to your definitions.  I'm not in favor of other terms, either.  I'm in favor of telling them what you're for, not how to define you.

[John Shaw]

...and to the average person, you're a paid bomb-thrower...you'll never even get them to listen to your definitions.  I'm not in favor of other terms, either.  I'm in favor of telling them what you're for, not how to define you.

But I don't care. At all. I'm not a salesman for anarcho-capitalism.

Also, those aren't my definitions. 

[Cognitive Dissident]

...and to the average person, you're a paid bomb-thrower...you'll never even get them to listen to your definitions.  I'm not in favor of other terms, either.  I'm in favor of telling them what you're for, not how to define you.

But I don't care. At all. I'm not a salesman for anarcho-capitalism.

Also, those aren't my definitions.  

You're missing the point.  Don't sell anarcho-capitalism.  Sell the concepts not the words.  As for the definitions, I don't have a problem with them, just see the futility of selling them.  Sure, amongst libertarians, it may have some value, but in general, there's no use clinging to terms--any terms.

[John Shaw]

...and to the average person, you're a paid bomb-thrower...you'll never even get them to listen to your definitions.  I'm not in favor of other terms, either.  I'm in favor of telling them what you're for, not how to define you.

But I don't care. At all. I'm not a salesman for anarcho-capitalism.

Also, those aren't my definitions.  

You're missing the point.  Don't sell anarcho-capitalism.  Sell the concepts not the words.  As for the definitions, I don't have a problem with them, just see the futility of selling them.  Sure, amongst libertarians, it may have some value, but in general, there's no use clinging to terms--any terms.

Without clearly defined terminology, everything is just a hazy mush.

[AL the Inconspicuous]

... exactly, and why should we let socialists define what capitalism is and isn't? 

Ayn Rand did a much better job.

[hayenmill]

hayenmill:  No.

(See also my thread on this issue.)

Communists can twist terms like "free enterprise" to fit within their political system.

Capitalism is the only term that explicitly recognizes individual rights (aka one's "capital").

It's not about communists twisting terms, its about using the terms as they have been used throughout history by most people. In that sense, capitalism never fully recognized property or individual rights because it always had a State, whether to regulate or to enforce the monopoly law on property rights

[hayenmill]

... exactly, and why should we let socialists define what capitalism is and isn't? 

Ayn Rand did a much better job.

It's not about letting anybody use whatever terms they like, its about using definitions as they are REALISTICALLY used instead of romanticized ideas.

Better to explain a free market by concepts instead of attaching it to the word capitalism or even laissez-faire capitalism, as it has anti-market connotations, which derives from the existence of a State still in some areas of the economy

[fatcat]

Hiding behind friendlier, softer, weaker, less offensive terms is lame. Be what you are and face the music.

Word.

Plus, even if you get a new term widely accepted, anyone who actually pays attention politically/philosophical will just go, "oh, so you're like an anarchist/capitalist then?". And anyone who doesn't, which is the vast majority of people will say "What does that mean?", just like most people say now if you say you're Anarcho-Capitalist.

In general though, just putting a label on the table and saying "im that", is a sloppy (but easy) way to describe any philosophy, as theres bound to be someone else using that label that you don't really agree with 100% who uses the same label.

[davann]

I agree with Shaw. Don't hide. Be what you are. It is not your fault the definitions are confusing to the sheeple. Fuck 'em.

This talk of "romanticising" capitalism sounds like Haymill has another agenda. I smell a commie.