I am wondering whether I (and we) should just “let go” of the word “capitalism”, just accept that the definition of it has changed.
I, personally, prefer the word or phrase “voluntism” or “voluntary association” or whatever.
What do you think most people think the definition of it is?
I think when people talk about capitalism, they are referring to whatever economic system the USA happens to have at the time.
And what do they believe it has right now.
Do whatever you want. As long as it is in accord with NAP is my advice.
That “answer” is not helpful.
The other important aspect of the definition is that, probably because they believe that the existence of a state, a monopoly government, is basically inevitable, they also include, in the definition, that a state exists.
So to claim that you advocate that a state should not exist but that capitalism should reign supreme just seems to confuse most people.
I use the classical marxist definition. It’s meaningful to most.
Reiterate that, please.
I think we should let it go. Not only does it have negative connotations because the meaning varies depending on the listener, but its also not very descriptive of what system I’m advocating. Capital exists. The question is should capital be owned by individuals or the State, and the name alone doesn’t give any clue as to which I’m advocating.
I call myself a libertarian anarchist. This describes how I think laws should be provided (anarchy) and the kinds of laws I would like to live under (libertarian).
Voluntarist is good too, but its not well recognized (this may be a good thing, I’m not sure) and it might sound ‘idealistic’ if not explained. After all, I support some involuntary actions, i.e. punishments for crimes. The name may come across as saying coercive law is not necessary.
Capitalism is a mode of production characterized by the private ownership of capital and wage-based labor relations to this capital. Laborers are isolated from risk and time preference.
Ok. Don’t do what you want. I guess voluntarism can go both ways.
But I’ll stick with my advice still.
No. “Capital” is the English word for savings applied to investment (anywhere along the structure of production except consumption). “Capitalism”, then, is the theory of economics which begins its analysis with an understanding of the role of capital in the human economy.
In modern parlance, “capitalism” or “free trade” have been redefined to mean what used to be called “mercantilism.” Rather than giving up on language, Austrians should go out and clarify this mistake. The masses don’t decide what the word “capitalism” means, the opinion-molding class does. When the opinion-molding class is held responsible for its gerrymandering of the English language, the word will again be used in its proper sense.
Clayton -
What Michael Moore told them it is. We would call it mercantilism or corporatism.
See this “economist” on RT denouncing what he thinks capitalism is: US revolution is near — economist. I think most people think this way. What an Orwellian world we live in.
There was a thread about this quite recently.
Damn, I was just about to post that.
But, yes I agree with you… Indeed I guess I’m just a trend setter [H]
Wikipedia is entirely non-ambiguous about this btw. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism :
Capitalism is an economic and social system in which capital, the non-labor factors of production (also known as the means of production), is privately owned;[citation needed] labor, goods and capital are traded in markets; and profits distributed to owners or invested in technologies and industries.
There is no consensus on the definition of capitalism, nor how it should be used as an analytical category.[1] There are a variety of historical cases over which it is applied, varying in time, geography, politics and culture.[2] Economists, political economists and historians have taken different perspectives on the analysis of capitalism. Scholars in the social sciences, including historians, economic sociologists, economists, anthropologists and philosophers have debated over how to define capitalism, however there is little controversy that private ownership of the means of production, creation of goods or services for profit in a market, and prices and wages are elements of capitalism.[3]
So all you really have to do is point out that the means of production are not privately owned at all. So the thing people are always quick to point out, namely that capitalism leads to profits leads to war, is ridiculous because who voluntarily gave those companies and soldiers money?
Funny thing is, checking out wikipedia, mercantilism and corporatism don’t mean the same thing. I figured ‘corporatism’ was the new term for mercantilism, but it seems that corporatism means fascism (in an economic sense).
I am always leery of definition changes. While I understand language changes and evolves, I still remember Newspeak from 1984.
Why not just call capitalism “goodness” - so nobody can challenge it?