Adam:
The point was you can advocate voluntaryism without advocating any particular economic system. Hence, no need for a name change.
In other words, the term “capitalism” includes an undeniable value pre-disposition toward monetary issues and toward large-scale production, which value pre-dispostion is absent from the term “voluntarism.” The term “voluntarism” can unite all those individuals who prefer liberty, even if they are adverse to “capitalistic” production and its perceived or real associated institutions. For example, (perhaps some) left-libertarians can agree on a principle of voluntarism, but cannot agree to unite under the banner of capitalism, since the latter term connotes—if not denotes—specific institutions of money and production. Other people such as members of peaceful religious sects, anti-property and anti-hierarchy anarchists, etc., may find the principle of voluntarism largely harmonious with their world-views, whereas they would likely view the advocacy of capitalism as the advocacy of a specific legal and social order, as opposed to a principle of voluntarism in social relationships.
Angurse:
I agree with this. I suppose the implicit point was that therefore, libertarianism is more accurately identified with voluntarism as opposed to capitalism.
Voluntarism is more universal.
There is a difference in explaining to a monk, for example, that we advocate voluntarism, versus that we advocate capitalism.
In doing the former, we advocate something that he may largely agree with, if he doesn’t already practice it fully. In the latter, we advocate something which to him may seem like another religion, which as a monk practicing his own religion, he then cannot accept.
In other words, a monk may choose other than capitalism, and still be a libertarian. He may do this, because he practices voluntarism, and allows that others may choose for themselves, methods of exchange and production that he himself tries to avoid.
Exactly. Voluntaryism is libertarianism. Positively identifying it with capitalism, socialism, or any economic system shouldn’t be done at all in my opinion. Thats why a name change isn’t really needed.
Exactly.
When I saw that picture I was thinking WTF? How can people think this way?
Good point.
This will happen, and I’d bet it will occur sooner than you expect.
Owners of capital is exactly what we advocate, as this is what makes civilization possible.
voluntarism.bmp (37.6 KB)
This just doesn’t seem to have the same shock value…
In a statist/socialist/coummunist society doesn’t the state own or have claim to all/some capital? Capital doesn’t go away in a statist society and it certianly isn’t the only thing that motivates people, indeed AE’s often point out that humans are motivated by a huge number of things, not just the owning or gaining of capital
We don’t have to redefine, just avoid using it. I think libertarians still use the term because major Austrians freely used it, but at this point the automatic misunderstanding is just shooting ourselves in the foot. If we just cease to use it, and instead refer to free markets or voluntarism, we can avoid that whole misunderstanding.
Let’s keep in mind that voluntarism and the free market are essentially the enemies of large capitalists. For them, life is much easier if there is a monopoly on force to lobby, bribe, and get their agents into. That is much easier than competing on a free market or in a voluntary setting.
With this change, we can stand alongside leftists and decry “capitalists” (specifying that we mean crony capitalists or corporatists, which are a de facto part of the state leviathan).
At what point do you stop ceding ground?
Many of you are missing the point. Capitalism being associated with this and that is not some honest mistake. It is a consequence of combat in the field of ideas. A consequence of a smear campaign on the account of the anti-capitalists.
Changing the name is not going to have the effect of people now being able to examine your idea free of preconceptions and bias. They do not hate your term, they hate your idea.
You would just be handing them more ammunition. They could point out to your shift of terms as proof that you are losing the ideological debate. The implication being that your arguments are weak and easily beaten.
Well said.
Marko makes good points. Using a new name will simply result in a jpg that says whatever else instead. If the word under the image means anything, literal accuracy is irrelevant, just call it “Happinessism”.
I think I will start calling myself a Liberal Capitalist Pig and wear this shirt:
Plus you would get a new type of T shirts. Voluntarism = Capitalism, Voluntarism = Capitalism mark II, Voluntarism = Capitalism second time around, Voluntarism = Capitalism with a human mask, Voluntarism = Capitalism + a PR agency.
And because nobody would be left defending Capitalism, establishing this relation or reminding people of it would be all the refutation that would be required.
Using more accurate terminology is not “ceding ground” in any sense. Moreover, in my opinion it was a mistake to use the word in the first place. Ever since Marx wrote Das Kapital it’s been a loaded word. Clinging to words as they used to be used is not noble or a show of strength; it’s just inept.
Many people are going to agree with you here, but I caution that this is absolutely not the case. Anti-capitalists don’t hate our ideas, they simply don’t understand them. They think they hate our ideas, but they are simply confused. To lose sight of this fact is to have already failed.