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.