Fuck Capitalism

December 2, 2011 by Ian
Filed under: Essay, Free Manch

Don’t miss this excellent piece about the term “Capitalism” from Ofer at Free Manch:

I don’t mean that in the sense that poop is a bad word. I mean bad as in poor, suboptimal, tragically flawed – worse than useless, in fact.

The Words

Capital

The term capital refers to a store of value (like gold), or supplies and equipment that can be used to produce goods and services (like a hammer or a pile of wood). If you get stranded on a deserted island, and go find and sharpen a stick to use to spear fish with, that sharpened stick is capital, and you’re now a capitalist— congratulations!

Capitalist

Every human being, from the beggar on the street to Warren Buffet, is in this sense a capitalist, because they employ capital to produce; even the beggar uses shoes to stand on while begging. Capitalist essentially means tool user, and we all use tools — it’s one of the defining characteristics of human beings. (Honorable Mention: Beavers)

Not Gravitationlists

To call someone a capitalist is about as semantically useful as calling someone an oxygenist — because they breathe oxygen. To say we live under a system of capitalism is about as meaningful and revelatory as saying we live under a system of gravitationalism — because we all use the force of gravity to act. To criticize capitalism or capitalists is about as insane as criticizing breathing, or standing up.

It’s hardly surprising to learn that the terms were popularized by Karl Marx in Volume 1 of his book Das Kapital (1867). Even if you agree with communism, you have to admit Marx was hardly incentivized to use language clearly and accurately when characterizing his ideological opposition. The very use of the terms reveal how poor was his understanding of reality, and hence what concepts conform to reality.

The Associations

Conservatives generally use the term capitalism to mean free market (where government does not interfere in commerce). Liberals generally use the term capitalism to mean fascism or corporatism (the merging of big business and government). Same term, opposite meanings — not surprisingly, these two groups rarely seem able to communicate with each other productively.

Not the Free Market

I get the feeling sometimes that when liberals attack capitalists or capitalism, they have in mind a caricature of an evil, wealthy person who is indifferent to or even takes pleasure in benefiting himself at the expense of others, often using governmental power as a tool to that end. Certainly there are actual examples of such a caricature in real life, and it’s natural and just to despise and denounce such a person. But to lash out in righteous anger at scapegoat people and scapegoat concepts is irresponsible.

Free market simply means an absence of institutionalized coercion — of government. After all, the market is people — is us. Free market simply refers to the sum total of voluntary exchanges among free individuals. To equate free market with unbridled evil is destructive to the clarity of economic discourse, with real, negative consequences in the form of less freedom and a lower quality of life for all.

Good Words

Let’s stop using capitalist and capitalism entirely, and start saying what we mean.

If you’re referring to voluntary exchange (free of coercion) use the term free market. If you’re referring to a system of exchanges forcefully controlled by a monopoly institution of coercion (government), use the term unfree market.

If you’re referring to a person who allocates money and other capital goods (either saved or borrowed) to produce goods and services, use the term entrepreneur. If you’re referring to a person who lends or invests money or other capital goods to an entrepreneur, use the terms lender or investor. If you’re referring to a person who uses violence (government or otherwise) to benefit themselves, use the term asshole.

If you’re referring to money, say money. If you’re referring to equipment and supplies, use capital goods (or producers’ goods if you’re an Austrian economist). To refer to the category of money and capital goods combined, say capital. It’s the only etymological family member with a legitimate usage.

Relevant Links

Zaxlebax – a four minute clip of Roderick T. Long explaining how ‘capitalism’ and ‘socialism’ are anti-concepts that corrupt the clarity of communication

(‘According to Ofer’ is a series of weekly columns by Ofer Nave featuring his musings on liberty-related themes.)

http://propagandalalaland.blogspot.com/ Julia

So pro-capitalist libertarians now want people to think they really don't support "capitalism". Wow.

You can call a system whatever you want, but if it fits with a certain paradigm ("capitalism" being equivocal with hierarchy in the workplace, impersonal private property, wage labor, and a class system) then people will see it for what it is.
Diplod

Julia, what article did you read?
http://madcowprod.com Wolfgang Bohringer

Actually the term "capitalism" was popularized by Marx and Engels in the mid 19th century. The invented the term for the purpose of referring to a particular epoch of Marxian dispensational religion. Marx taught that social history was materialistically determined to progress through various stages. According to Marx, these progressive stages of history were: slavery, fuedalism, capitalism, socialism, communism, and finally a withered away state.

If you think about it, nobody talks about any "isms" with regard to the other factors of production (land and labor). Nobody uses the terms "landism" or "laborism." (Actually Marx does. For him "fuedalism" was the stage of history when economic production was centered on land. And "communism" would become the stage of economic history when production would be focused on labor or the proletariat.)

So, it was really foolish for von Mises and Rothbard to adopt this term "capitalism" and use it in a different sense while re-butting the Marxists.

If we are to use a loaded term such as "capitalism" at all, then we should always prefix it with either "state" or "free market". Hence, I oppose "state capitalism", yet I support "free market" capitalism.

And likewise with regard to other loaded terms such as "socialism"–another term that was first popularized by Marxists for the purpose of labeling a stage of their goofy predestinarian economic history. Thus, I oppose "state socialism", yet I support "voluntary socialism".

There's really no conflict at all between the terms "capitalism" and "socialism" once we unload them via the clarifying modifiers "state" and "free market".
http://propagandalalaland.blogspot.com/ Julia

The term "capitalism", while popularized by Marx, was actually first used by free market anti-capitalists.

http://libertarian-labyrinth.blogspot.com/2011/07…

"Nobody uses the terms “landism” or “laborism.”"

I recall Proudhon using the term.

The problem with "free market capitalism" is that history has shown time and time again that such a system would be impossible. Capitalism without a state would either descend into mutualism (free market socialism) or would revert back to statism. Capitalism is inherently monopolistic.
http://propagandalalaland.blogspot.com/ Julia

*I thought you said "landlordism". I've never read "landism".
Keith

An A for effort

Capitalism is still a net positive term in the US. However, depending on where you are and so on, it may be a negative term. I don't recommend using it with the Keene Occupy folks. However, it's a great term to use with the College Republicans.

It certainly isn't as bad a term as anarchy which is almost always consider a negative term.
http://www.tullyspage.blogspot.com Tully Fitzsimmons

Overall, the author's point on definitions is well-taken: different groups mean very different things when they refer to "capitalism," and that makes for poor dialogue and exchange of ideas. I would add that the word "mercantilism" is an even more appropriate word than "corporatism" of "fascism," because it is precisely the term useed by Adam Smith when referring to the incestuous relationshipo between The Crown and favored Big Businesses.

Where I disagree – and where I always disagree with those who invoke 'free' markets – is the assumption that "free markets" means "the absence of institutionalized coercion." The semantic dichotomoy that assumes that Governments employ coercion (by definition), but corporations do not, confuses the objective reality that de jure force and de facto force result in the same ends. In other words, it assumes that by looking at definitons, rather than outcomes, one can make a realistic seperation of the two. This is the fatal flaw of "right-libertarianism,' the blind beliefe that markets alone solve all ills: it is unable to recognize the de facto coercion of corporate dominance. If one wants true freedom, one needs to develop a mechanism in which BOTH government and corporations are held in check.
Ryan Maddox

"The problem with “free market capitalism” is that history has shown time and time again that such a system would be impossible. Capitalism without a state would either descend into mutualism (free market socialism) or would revert back to statism. Capitalism is inherently monopolistic."

Are you really unaware of the contradiction in your reasoning. You state that capitalism is inherently monopolistic (indicating a propensity for decreasing liberty) yet state that mutualism would emerge from it. How can this be? If capitalism is opposed to liberty, then how can it lead to liberty?

I think your error is in your desire for a pure, ideal society that may never occur. Rather than advocate for a free-market in which capital and land owners will be subject to market forces and compelled to compete to retain their wealth, you reject this in favor of what exactly?

Why do you even entertain mutualism or have any affinity for Kevin Carson? It just doesn't make sense. You believe things will get worse with the combined elimination of regulations and subsidies, don't you? That puts you at odds with the lucid thinking advocated by Carson and others the Center for a Stateless Society.
david-keene

every time I see "fuck capitalism" I think "that must refer to prostitution" which I'm for
Diplod

Semantic disputes are irritating and boring. I would put all this to rest by saying the general market (collective wants) will always win. If gov tries to suppress it then either a gray or a black market will appear. Capitalism has no gray or black market. The various forms of statism always do.
Bob Constantine

Interesting article and comments. Now for the real question …does the beaver have a true opposable thumb ?
HRearden

There is nothing wrong wit the word CAPITALISM. I use it and will continue to do so. I am not into word games. CAPITALISM is good. The only way to have a free economy and liberty is to have CAPITALISM. The problem is that CAPITALISM in general does not exist. CAPITALISM is the separation of economy and state. Agorism is CAPITALISM. I am a fan of CAPITALISM.

$.
PabloKoh

Tully,

I want to mention that absence of government is absence of corporations. Corporations do not exist without the State to provide the legal protection that is the reason for becoming a corporation. No state, no corporation. It is that simple. We may have different definitions of corporation. I think we should take the article's advice and clarify with the words entrepreneur, lender, investor and asshole as the article suggests.
THEkingOFkeene

The 1% *LOVES* *IT* when the 99% is arguing semantics…

*fuck*semantics*…

…use your fucking brain…

…don't be a tool of the 1%…

….fuck semantics…
Alan Chapman

The terms "capital" and "capitalist" predate "capitalism" by many decades.

"Capitalism" was initially used to disparage a system under which politically-connected capitalists enjoyed State-granted privilege and protectionism (ie. mercantilism). This is properly known as State-capitalism or crony capitalism.

Austrian economics uses the term "capitalism" in lieu of the 'capitalistic order of production' which has nothing to do with the State.
Gene

I agree with Tully. Corporations can be just as oppressive as governments. Look at our history of the Industiral revolution. To maximize profits, some companies will show no restraint and that isn't necessarily good for the employees, the local community or the country.Think of Enron. They had no qualms about screwing over their employees.