R.J. Moore II: I don't think it's even one of word use, though. 'Capitalism' for the purpose of describing a market is a connotation which is both oddly specific, historically awkward and generally dubious. And I don't think it's totally inaccurate or unacceptable for the purpose libertarians use it for, except that most people don't believe it means what they mean. And that is kind of a big problem. Obstinance in inconsequentials is as silly as inconsistencies and essentials. I really don't care what people call it, I'm just saying that it's worth considering. Ultimately, though, you're on your own.
I don't think it's even one of word use, though. 'Capitalism' for the purpose of describing a market is a connotation which is both oddly specific, historically awkward and generally dubious. And I don't think it's totally inaccurate or unacceptable for the purpose libertarians use it for, except that most people don't believe it means what they mean. And that is kind of a big problem. Obstinance in inconsequentials is as silly as inconsistencies and essentials. I really don't care what people call it, I'm just saying that it's worth considering. Ultimately, though, you're on your own.
An additional problem with the term is the fact that the emphasize is placed on capital or capital owners. Kind implying that they are priviledged within the system. This may even be true in many industries. But what we would actually emphasize with the free market is that people are free to enter into valid contracts with each other. So from that perspective there is no bias favoring the capital owners over the non-owners who may provide labor, information or the like.
earthmoving
In the present, I don't have freedom to contract.
If I hire you to work for me, I'm required to report the transaction to the IRS. This means I need permission from the IRS and Federal Reserve in order to hire an employee.
Federal Reserve Notes are literally slave work permission points.
I have my own blog at FSK's Guide to Reality. Let me know if you like it.
An additional problem with the term is the fact that the emphasize is placed on capital or capital owners.
Yes, this is what I meant about 'oddly specific'. I mean, qua market, capitalists and their profession is great, it's a fundamental building block of the economy. But it's neither the core nor the crown; if we were to name by essential features of the free market economy 'Volyntarism' and 'Agorism' are good, and in use.
JonBostwick: The word is not simply cosmetic. We are anarcho-capitalists because of how we deal with capital. Capitalists are those who privately own, or advocate the private owernship of, capital. (Though I presume Marx would have been quick to apply the term to anyone who merely tolerated its existance) It can be state capitalism, or it can be market capitalism. To call yourself an anarcho-capitalist is to make an important distinction. A distinction that terms like "individual", "voluntary", "right/left", or even "market" dont clearly make. Ask an anarcho socialist if we are capitalist.
The word is not simply cosmetic.
We are anarcho-capitalists because of how we deal with capital.
Capitalists are those who privately own, or advocate the private owernship of, capital. (Though I presume Marx would have been quick to apply the term to anyone who merely tolerated its existance) It can be state capitalism, or it can be market capitalism.
To call yourself an anarcho-capitalist is to make an important distinction. A distinction that terms like "individual", "voluntary", "right/left", or even "market" dont clearly make.
Ask an anarcho socialist if we are capitalist.
Except most people here probably are not "capitalists" in the finance aspect. When you call yourself an "anarcho"-capitalist, you are clearly making reference to your ties to political economy and not to your ability to trade in capital investments on the market.
The fact is that the word capitalism was derived to mean a pejorative term that describe the state of then 19th century and now means roughly the same thing to most people - save a few misguided apologists like you.
At the very least the word is far too confused and muddled to use and using it will only turn people away, not grow it further.
The Origins of Capitalism
And for more periodic bloggings by moi,
Leftlibertarian.org
liberty student:Capitalism is first and foremost an economic word, not an anarchist one. Which is why I resent the left-anarchists redefining it, then literally making up a bunch of silliness about how it has original meanings or more broad populist meanings than what the word actually means.
How are left-anarchists redefining the word again?Perhaps Ted Koppel could tell us!
liberty student: Niccolò: Ante Simtapalic wrote about this here. Talking about yourself in the 3rd person? Also, do you still have that leather jacket? I'd like to bid on it.
Niccolò: Ante Simtapalic wrote about this here.
Ante Simtapalic wrote about this here.
Talking about yourself in the 3rd person?
Also, do you still have that leather jacket? I'd like to bid on it.
The writer is not me for a reason.
Similar to why Kierkegaard did not attribute many of his writings to himself.
By the way, you want to see leftist? Workers should, in many cases, own the means of production as a matter of efficiency. Anarcho-Syndicalism unite with Individualist Anarchism!
I know what you mean. We agree in all essentials as to what a libertarian order constitutes. I have spent enough money on Mises.org's library to feed me for a year. But you're not representing yourself to me! I understand your ideas, we have an intellectual congruence by which we understand one another. But a defense of 'capitalism' almost automatically demands you to expound the free-market definition to any audience who isn't already libertarian. I can not speak for anyone else, but I am not simply trying to be contrary or denigrating your preference of words. Were you and I the only people in the conversation I would perfectly well understand you. But insofar as you are trying to convince the general public or intellectuals you are using a term which they automatically, by both usage and experience, associate with mercantalism. It may be unfortunate that this is the case. But I can not see how using a term, as understood only be a certain group and misunderstood by practically the entire planet, is either tactful or necessary. There are plenty of common-use words which mean precisely what you intend and bear a closer relationship to the ideas. Those who call themselves 'anarcho-capitalists' often accept or use themselves the label of 'market anarchist' or 'free market anarchist'. 'Market' and 'free market' have likewise been used by libertarian economics as philosophers, whereas 'capitalism' is a rather recent addition which comes from Karl Marx who uses it to describe mercantalism. Stop trying to defend it's potential compatibility, which no one doubts. Simply consider the fact that all you would have to do to avoid these arguments and misunderstandings is to consistently use another term (free market) which you use all the time anyways.
R.J. Moore II: Except most people here probably are not "capitalists" in the finance aspect. When you call yourself an "anarcho"-capitalist, you are clearly making reference to your ties to political economy and not to your ability to trade in capital investments on the market. I know what you mean. We agree in all essentials as to what a libertarian order constitutes. I have spent enough money on Mises.org's library to feed me for a year. But you're not representing yourself to me! I understand your ideas, we have an intellectual congruence by which we understand one another. But a defense of 'capitalism' almost automatically demands you to expound the free-market definition to any audience who isn't already libertarian. I can not speak for anyone else, but I am not simply trying to be contrary or denigrating your preference of words. Were you and I the only people in the conversation I would perfectly well understand you. But insofar as you are trying to convince the general public or intellectuals you are using a term which they automatically, by both usage and experience, associate with mercantalism. It may be unfortunate that this is the case. But I can not see how using a term, as understood only be a certain group and misunderstood by practically the entire planet, is either tactful or necessary. There are plenty of common-use words which mean precisely what you intend and bear a closer relationship to the ideas. Those who call themselves 'anarcho-capitalists' often accept or use themselves the label of 'market anarchist' or 'free market anarchist'. 'Market' and 'free market' have likewise been used by libertarian economics as philosophers, whereas 'capitalism' is a rather recent addition which comes from Karl Marx who uses it to describe mercantalism. Stop trying to defend it's potential compatibility, which no one doubts. Simply consider the fact that all you would have to do to avoid these arguments and misunderstandings is to consistently use another term (free market) which you use all the time anyways.
RJ, I think you misunderstood.
That capitalism should not only be tropped but berated as an inherently statist term is my position.
I was telling Jon that what he said was untrue. Most here aren't capitalists in any way shape or form. Most of us are probably wage workers.
Niccolò: liberty student:Capitalism is first and foremost an economic word, not an anarchist one. Which is why I resent the left-anarchists redefining it, then literally making up a bunch of silliness about how it has original meanings or more broad populist meanings than what the word actually means. How are left-anarchists redefining the word again?Perhaps Ted Koppel could tell us!
I want to respond to both of these comments for myself. I might be a 'left' anarchist, really I'm a value-individualist (amoral egoist) who who loves rational understanding. I happen to agree with more of the 'left' than 'right' of the libertarian market anarchists. But the views that I take up I do not against but on the basis of libertarian and austrian theory. The criticism of the use of the word 'capitalism', as well as western class structure and mercantalism, are firmly rooted in classical liberalism, libertarianism, individualist anarchism and economic science. It is still a subject of critical discussion and development among modern austrians and libertarians. And what we are talking about here is not the nature of the market (which we agree on) nor the imaginary future structure of a libertarian society (which, as a future state of the market and human action, is unknowable).
As for other elements of the alleged 'leftism' of these notions, one hards to square it with certain other of my ideas. Frankly I'm all on the boat for individualist, impartial market relations with a fundamental incentive on mass production and personal profit. I know that not all anarcho-capitalists promote this, but
And I don't cast dire asperations on the business community because I know they're not a monolithic entity and some of them can't help being screwed up by the government. I don't believe that the entirety of current business models is invalid and will be replaced with workers cooperatives or some such. I frankly don't think it's likely, and I for one want to barter with my friends and do cash with everybody else. So, aside from the fact that I agree with some points of analysis of Carson (along with such left-wing nuts as Joseph Stromberg) it's hard to show that I have any sort of leftist or anti-work bias I'm manifesting by misinterpreting Austrian theory. Just because Kevin Carson's economics are flawed doesn't mean they're all worthless, any more than Menger's. And I'm not even defending his opposition to land ownership or economic theory. I'm saying that Kevin Carson's not entirely wrong, and that when he is right his views are supported by the Austrian school past and present. To characterize these as 'leftist' ideas is factually wrong and logically irrelevant.
Some libertarians, quite honestly, underepresent the influence of the State on western economies. No one favors corporate welfare, and I know well enough exactly what you mean by anarcho-capitalism and I am in favor of its principles and theories. So please do not waste your time defending your beliefs and attacking mine as though I were some syndicalist nutjob. I am saying that 'capitalism' as a word is problematic, not your idea of capitalism. Please stop defending capitalism as if I did not know that you were opposed to the military industrial complex. The fact that you are called to defend capitalism or your own definition of capitalism - when I have made no statement to contradict private property, stateless laissez-faire but consistently stressed it - is indicative of the kind of response you get. It is unfortunate that people react so strongly to words rather than meaning, and it is unfortunate that many people do not clarify their ideas. I am also not saying that you have commited some onerous sin or egregious error by using the word in your own sense.
Capitalism, used in the sense of an unhampered market economy, is entirely a disciplinary word. It is not 'wrong' to use it, and is clearly understood by a certain specialized group or field. Yet mainstream economists and liberventionists use the same word to describe a hampered market economy. Likewise the discipline of political philosophy from Academia to NPR use the word to refer to a distinctively Statist system. Among the general public, few of whom even have consistent notions, 'Capitalism' is associated with existing western structures of the economy as well as 'pro-business' legislation.
Even among radically libertarian radical Austrians, such as Hans Hoppe, use words like 'market economy', 'free market' and 'laissez faire' interchangebly with 'capitalism'. And it is easy to distinguish why, the former two are obvious and the latter two were used by groundbreaking economic and political theorists in the libertarian tradition. All four of these words are perfectly reasonable within this tradition. Like engineers and Shriners, a specialized use of language which includes both distinct words and common words which have a special connotation.
'Capitalism' is has a non-obvious meaning to start with, and the use of 'capitalism' to describe a free market has limited precedent amongst a small subgroup, whereas it has the contrary meaning to almost everyone else; both its supporters and opponents, across a range of intellectual abilities, professions, incomes, ideologies, nations and times view capitalism as pro-business/'big business' regulation. With no clear etymological basis for its use it can not even take the claim of clarity. To deliberately use a word to mean the precise opposite of what everybody else means by it a rather silly way to begin defining one's positions. As a word for free markets, Capitalism lack even the etymological justification of laissez-faire. 'State capitalism' is a common term for state regulation in the American model among Austrian libertarians already. Other than sheer inertia or habit, what reason is there for using 'capitalism' to define your views? Its use outside the libertarian/austrian/objectivist community is so different that using it is really only consistent with a conscious desire to create confusion. In conversational speech Capitalism does mean what you mean by it. Disregarding linguistic convention as well as precision is plain silly. Despite a plethora of existing, commonly used words which do mean exactly what you mean and which you use, you choose the one word everyone will misunderstand and are most likely to immediately become hostile towards. It's like calling a religion 'Satanism'.
I think this is a dead letter. I shouldn't have to argue the advisability of clarity, as well as precision, of speech.
I think you've misunderstood Niccolo's position. He's argueing against capitalism and prefers to use the term capitalism to describe a corporatist or mercantalist system. He doesn't identify as a "capitalist" or "anarcho-capitalist". He prefers to use the term capitalism to describe a form of statism.
Brainpolice: I think you've misunderstood Niccolo's position. He's argueing against capitalism and prefers to use the term capitalism to describe a corporatist or mercantalist system. He doesn't identify as a "capitalist" or "anarcho-capitalist". He prefers to use the term capitalism to describe a form of statism.
Ah! Well, I must have missed or confused something with another post. In any case, I hope that my rant and partially imaginary argument will hope clarify this issue for some people. I find most people arguing about the term capitalism within the libertarian tradition are often failing to comprehend the substance of the debate; which is simply basic linguistic convention. The weird need a lot of anarcho-capitalists feel to defend that word and its use is weird, like the word 'capitalism' were itself market anarchy.
I agree.
Frankly, I find it silly to get hung up on semantics. What I support is liberty. If I am talking to an Objectivist I will call that capitalism. If I am talking to a member of the “libertarian left” I will not use that term. The name you use for liberty is not as important as liberty itself.
I am an eklektarchist not an anarchist.
Educational Pamphlet Mises Group
No one has mentioned the definition of capitalism used in the original debates between Marx and the early austrians. Capitalism, as defined by Marxism and Bohm-Bawerk in his refutation of Marxism, is a social organization where laborers are isolated from the risk of a capital investment by being paid fixed wages whatever the outcome of a production process, the capitalist assuming all the risk, earning all the profits if profits are to be made, and suffering the whole loss if he has been mistaken.
Microsecession as a strategy for revolution | Challenge to minarchist | How would a private road system work?
ryanpatgray: Frankly, I find it silly to get hung up on semantics. What I support is liberty. If I am talking to an Objectivist I will call that capitalism. If I am talking to a member of the “libertarian left” I will not use that term. The name you use for liberty is not as important as liberty itself.
Yes, at a certain point it does become anarcho-semantics.
Brainpolice:anarcho-semantics.
Or Semanto-Capitalists.
It's mainly an issue of clarity in standard use, insofar as everyone understands you (Objectivist with capitalism) then we're all well and good. But people often fail to define their terms and - as unreasonable as it is - a lot of people aren't going to let you.
Brainpolice:Yes, at a certain point it does become anarcho-semantics.
Yeah, like this
I'm a market anarchist, agorist, anarchist without adjectives, left-libertarian, objectivist (with a small o, or more accurately "post-objectivist"), psychological egoist, rational egoist, social evolutionist, atheist and fan of austrian economics.
Some people just love their semantics and labels!
I could argue with you for eternity, you're going to continue to promote the left at the expense of the right, while supposedly libertarian thought is above and beyond both. It's shenanigans, and I think you are smart enough to know you do it.
I agree with Ryan Pat Gray. I'm for more liberty. I don't particularly care to be a fan boy of Long or Carson, or to participate in class warfare silliness like Nicky. In the real world, these games and distinctions are meaningless. It's mental masturbation for angry nerds and little surprise that women are not attracted to what is an unbalanced philosophy of circular arguments and fantasy outcomes.
If you find something evil that wobbles, push it. - Gary North
liberty student: Brainpolice:Yes, at a certain point it does become anarcho-semantics. Yeah, like this I'm a market anarchist, agorist, anarchist without adjectives, left-libertarian, objectivist (with a small o, or more accurately "post-objectivist"), psychological egoist, rational egoist, social evolutionist, atheist and fan of austrian economics. Some people just love their semantics and labels! I could argue with you for eternity, you're going to continue to promote the left at the expense of the right, while supposedly libertarian thought is above and beyond both. It's shenanigans, and I think you are smart enough to know you do it. I agree with Ryan Pat Gray. I'm for more liberty. I don't particularly care to be a fan boy of Long or Carson, or to participate in class warfare silliness like Nicky. In the real world, these games and distinctions are meaningless. It's mental masturbation for angry nerds and little surprise that women are not attracted to what is an unbalanced philosophy of circular arguments and fantasy outcomes.
Or some people use various labels to try & more honestly describe various stances, opinions, & concepts their hold to be logical or true, despite the obvious difficulty in trying to concretly describe to another person exactly what you think, especially when what one may think evolves over time due to the assimilation of new information and/or the organizing of previous information. Some people just love flipping around things when it suits their purposes. As for the later non-sequitor about "angry nerds" & "women", the last time I checked, this forum wasn't The Breakfast Club :\.
WARNING: This signature violates Rule 5. Stay classy!
This post was an unecessary attack or flame. I believe you attack what you don't understand.
You left out the facetious preface: "to assault you with a series of labels that I identify with".
I never recall promoting the political left or stating that I do. You have a misconception of me.
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap