One thing I have noticed about the term “Capitalism” is that it seems to have different meanings for just about every different ideology. This makes it a pain to describe oneself as an anarcho-capitalist because to some, Capitalism is more like what we consider to be corporatism or statism. Thus, it is that much more confusing to outsiders to understand. It also makes other anarchists (be they the morons over at Infoshop who wouldn’t know Stalinism from freedom or more reasonable individualist/collectivist anarchists who just get the wrong connotations from our name) consider us to be a strange, foreign group because of the name, if only because famous anarchists (Kropotkin, etc) define Capitalism differently than us. Also, Anarcho-Capitalism doesn’t flow off the tongue very well. Communist, Socialist, and Anarchist all flow fine, libertarian is a bit harder but acceptable, but anarcho-capitalist doesn’t work.
Thus, I think we need to think of new names. Voluntarists is good, but isn’t quite the same and is more of a subset of ancaps (same with Agorists, who are described more by their ideal means of removing the state). I personally use market anarchist, but I think someone here might be able to find a briefer but stronger word to use.
That’s a pretty good idea. Everytime someone questions us we could easily say they’re against puppies. Then it’s just another quick jump to “anyone who isn’t a friend of puppies isn’t a friend of humanity.”
(Wow this is kind of fun. Is this what it’s like to plan statist debate tactics?)
Egoist… a good word to fight for, I think we can take it because few want it…and bottom line and all things untangled it is probably the reason why we are talking about what we are talking about.
I agree with OP. Words do not derive their meanings from the roots from which they are constructed but, rather, from usage. People use the word anarchy to describe a state of lawlessness and social chaos. Capitalism has a technical meaning within the discipline of economics that is different from popular usage (popular usage is something more akin to “colonial mercantilism”), which makes it a less-than-desirable label for a social movement.
In terms of my politics, I am anti-state.
In terms of my economics, I am free market.
In terms of social order, I believe we need to reinstate private law and promote the ideals of voluntary cooperation and the naturally harmonious character of human relationships.
I don’t think there is one label that sums all that up, certainly not “anarcho-capitalist.”
“Hey guys, lets talk politics. I am a socialist, what are you guys?”
“I am a social democrat.”
“I’m a conservative.”
“I’m an anarchist.”
“Well, I’m a puppy.”
Heads explode
Also:
Slightly different from ancaps, if only in methodolgy (same thing with agorists). Also, it doesn’t flow very well on the tongue, either (“So you’re a… vol-un-tare-ee-yist?”). Also, the connotations of the word kind of lack direct meaning to us and are probably claimed by others (why don’t we call ourselves anons)
It should be between three and four syllables since most big “ideologies” have about that many.
(In case you haven’t caught on, this is mostly for fun, but I do kind of want a simple descriptor that isn’t loaded or complicated. Also, market anarchist is fine for now, but it is two words and I want one word, dammit!)
Or ‘jewish’. Murray Rothbard invented anarcho-capitalism and was a jew, and Mises was too. And I heard that Gary North proved that the Old Testament is quite pro-market. No one certainly don’t want to be an anti-semitist!
I think anarcho-capitalist is fine; it’s the most accurate as it carries with it implicit meaning. If “outsiders” assume the term means something cartoonishly false, it’s just a google search away from dispelling their ignorance.
The people with an ounce of an inquisitive mind will simply ask “what does that mean?”…just as they will with the terms “voluntaryist” and “agorist”.
I haven’t read North’s book/s on the matter but I’ve heard of them. I managed to read the Bible cover to cover this year and it comes off as rather unapproving of the idea of the state.
I think it has too many names. I don’t believe any other political ideology has so many goddamn names. Last thing we need is some more stupid semantics debates.
I prefer plain old “liberal”. I believe the only political philosophy that is not evil is the one that says that people should have liberty to live their lives how they see fit without interference from tax-funded bullies.