Don’t get frustrated. These left libertarians drove Ego so crazy with their word games that he quit .
It’s not a word game. You are the ones insisting on using a definition of capitalism which is neither historical or commonly employed in contemporary public discourse. So from the perspective of both the the common person and the dictionary, it is you playing a word game.
Why do you continue to make collectivist generalizations? You keep talking about these theoretical groups of people, that you classify under some silly name, as though they actually exist and are a movement. Who does this. Who are they?
I could make up imaginary social groups with imaginary definitions for what they stand for as well. Of course, they wouldn’t exist, but when has reality ever been an issue for philosophers…
Do you agree with Nicky’s redefinition of the word capitalism? Or are you wiling to accept that capitalism is the counter-term to socialism, and that capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production? Or have you redefined that as well, and have a new polylogist polygamist name for it?
It’s not a collectivist generalization. It’s an observation.
Just look around yourself. Observe discourse on politics and economics. Republicans, conservatives and various economists identify as “capitalists” yet essentially defend what we have now.
I reject both terms as anti-concepts but will selectively use them in various contexts, usually drawing a distinction between the anarchistic and statist definitions of both.
Oh really?
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozill…ossary_definition&ct=title
Top 4 results.
-
An economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and distribution of goods. …
regentsprep.org/regents/global/vocab/topic.cfm -
an economic and social system in which individuals can maximize profits because they own the means of production.
www.powerhomebiz.com/Glossary/glossary-C.htm -
Capitalism is an economic theory which stresses that control of the means of producing economic goods in a society should reside in the hands of those who invest the capital for production. …
www.ilstu.edu/class/hist127/terms.html- An economic system in which capital is mostly owned by private individuals and corporations. Contrasts with communism.
www-personal.umich.edu/~alandear/glossary/c.html
Do you agree or disagree with these 4 definitions? I’m assuming that the common person also believes these common definitions. Are they historically or commonly employed enough for you?
Who did you observe?
So if Bob Barr calls himself a libertarian, is that what a libertarian is now? Are you really going to mount this as your defense? Because it is unbelievably weak…
The word in question is capitalism. Even historically, a century or two ago, the use of the term capitalism did not match the anarchistic definition. Putting foreward the anarchistic definition of capitalism is both ahistorical and confusing in contemporary discourse.
Double talk.
I’ve posted definitions, the post is being moderated. Please wait for them and respond. I think your notion of relying on history and what is common, or what people choose to call themselves, is very weak and in my opinion, discredits youre position going back weeks on this forum.
Hmm…
Common definitions you say?
Anarchism == socialism == Stalinism
Based on the link to the anarchist FAQ.
What defines capitalism as free market though? If I called monarchism a free market variance would it make it so? Of course not! You are not proving your position, you’re merely side-stepping it and calling an X a Y. What makes capitalism a free market system? Since when did capitalism become associated with free markets? When the term capitalism was first coined, was it applied to a free market or an unfree market?
I think you should read the link I provided at the Anarchist FAQ - though again I do not agree with all of it.
You have a very limited and narrow idea of what socialism is in its origin.
Socialism can be more free market than capitalism. Depending upon the means by which socialism attempts to achieve its goals - which always means the extermination of economic exploitation.
Sure. Its what capitalist apologists do - invent terms to take the heat off of the same idea.
The very statement ‘Socialism can be more free market than capitalism’ presupposes that capitalism can be free market.
How you came to this conclusion if your previous definition of capitalism was not of free market conditions one may wonder?
So if both capitalism and socialism can be classified as ‘free market’ is it safe to assume that you agree with my previous statement that the free market is something different than capitalism and that capitalism can exist under not so free conditions?
Free market in degrees - though I suppose socialism can be completely free market, though capitalist cannot, which is what I was trying to convey.
I should have said freer instead.
Well capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production, you marxist tool. That pretty well makes it free market in my book.
Well if your definition of the word Monarchism is the private ownership of the means of production, than yes it does.
Wow you and BrainPolice are just so damned contrarian aren’t you? It really is cute, you know completely changing the common definitions of words so you can further cozy up to your socialist comerades. Way to go giuseppe.
Is that like being pregnanter?
What’s the issue, the private ownership being inherently unfair or something?
That definition is vague, since it doesn’t go into any detail about precisely what constitutes the just aquisition of private ownership and what the scope and variation of private ownership is. That vague definition could be compatible with anything from market anarchism to interventionism to fascism. It could signify the “private ownership” of a gang of thugs for all one knows. In short, this definition only begs the question for a whole slew of other definitions.
Stop red-baiting market anarchists. It’s silly.
My position on these words is ultimately that they have no singular meaning to people. There are multiple implications that people associate with them, many of which completely contradict eachother. There is a haze surrounding these words that makes it hard to communicate effectively using them. There are far too many nuances to many people’s positions and interpretations to be able to sweepingly categorize them. It seems silly to fight to make one interpretation of such a word official or universal. What’s important is not fighting to save a word. Ideas are what truly count.
No, it’s that the word “capitalism” is used to refer to two completely different concepts, and the mercantilist-corporatist definition is what most people associate with “capitalism.” Its a package-deal concept, like selfishness, atheism, and anarchism. I myself like the word, and defend it’s proper use. The point that BP and Niccolo are trying to make is that capitalism doesn’t mean free-market anti-statism to most people.
Right. If I describe myself as a “capitalist” to someone, it is quite likely that they are going to assume some things about me that are entirely false. They may assume that I support the current economic system. They may assume that I favor government favoritism to buisiness. I could try to make them redefine “capitalism” to reflect my own views, but what I really should be doing is getting them to understand the plethora of relevant concepts themselves rather than accept a particular definition of “capitalism”.