Capitalism is accurate terminology.
It’s confusing terminology. It would be like if we called ourselves “liberals” without explaining any further. Like capitalism, that word has been co-opted. There’s no way we’re getting it back now.
As opposed to calling yourself a “voluntaryist” and not explaining it any further? Or an anarchist? Nonarchist? Even libertarian? Just explain it further, or say nothing. Every label used is muddy and introducing a new word will still require just as much explanation.
That’s why I prefer using the term “free market” and its variants when talking to non-libertarians.
As to whether it’s better to use an unknown term vs. a known but misunderstood one…I suppose that is in fact a judgment call, but I would say that clearing up misunderstandings based on preconceived notions is much harder than starting from scratch with a new word. I find that even if I specify “free-market capitalism” or explain that it includes only voluntary exchanges, the word still eventually drives people back to “evil capitalist exploiters” and “robber barons.” People’s semantic inertia is just too strong. (Before the Michael Moore film, I might have agreed the word could be salvaged, but now I think it’s a losing battle. Words are just words, no need to feel ownership of them. And capitalist never seemed a very useful word to begin with.)
Sure, as thats more descriptive. I don’t see why we shouldn’t explain ourselves as much as possible.
From my experience, people seem to understand capitalism as nothing more than “buying and selling” which is fairly accurate and generally equate socialism with government intervention. While, their opinions on whether its preferable certainly need to be persuaded more, I don’t think changing terms is going to achieve much. Even Michael Moore admitted that his movie had nothing to do with capitalism. So I don’t really think Marx had that much of an impact.
For example, in the writings of Mises, capitalism is associated with the idea that there are ‘captains of industry’ who strive to serve the consumers. In turn, the consumers ‘vote’ with their dollars, and either reward or punish the captains of industry who strive to serve them. For those captains and entrepreneurs who are not able to provide the masses with what they want, the means of (large scale) production are taken away, transferred to captains who serve the masses better. This is a fairly common conception of capitalism. It is associated with a defined social order: large scale production, large scale capital accumulation, large scale banking. This concept also commonly includes the concept of the “pre-capitalistic ages,” meaning, the times in human history when society was not capitalistic. And thus, capitalism is associated with a specific arrangement of society, as contrasted with other possible or conceivable arrangements.
Libertarianism or voluntarism, by contrast, is more universal. It includes the idea that people may attempt to live communally or in relative isolation. It makes no mention of the relative size of any economic production unit.
The idea of political independence from other people and political self-determination is not identical to the concept of large-scale production and how that is best arranged, or the idea of what system of production is best to provide for a large population.
Liberty and capitalism are not synonyms. If they were, one could say something like:
“In statist society, one is not at capitalism to do what one wants.”
If voluntarism and capitalism were synonyms, a charity could write the following add:
“Seeking capitalists to help organize yearly bake sale.”
This. on so many levels
I’m glad to called myself a talapia sandwich if that is what gets the message across. Terms are arbitrary and culturally conditioned. So I can easily change what term I use depending on the audience. Antistatist. anarchist. Anti-imperialist. Pro market. Libertarian. Misesian. Capitalist. Voluntarist - though this strikes me as oddly lame.
Two exceptions: i will never call myself a conservative and I never use the term liberal in a unexplained negative way. Liberal has too great a history and I don’t think this word is finally done for. I’m happy to call myself a liberal. At Mises.org, we have a house rule that we never use the word liberal as a synonym for New Deal or Great Society supporter or whatever.
We are the only true liberals in the world.
Mises analysed the possibilities into the following partitions Capitalist | Socialist | Interventionist | Autarkist
For him Capitalism was synonymous with “The Market Economy”; and featured private ownership of the means of production.
From the Made Easier Glossary:
Capitalism. An economic concept of civilization that is based on the private ownership (and control) of the means of production. Such an institutional situation permits and inevitably encourages the division of labor, economic calculation, capital accumulation, technological improvement and the voluntary social cooperation of a market economy in which mass production is designed for the consumption of the sovereign masses. Capitalism is the antithesis of statism, socialism and communism which are based on government ownership (or control) of the means of production.
AC. 1-33, 48-112; B. 10, 18, 20-39, 67, 93, 105, 118-19; OG. 49-50, 284.
I used to not like the term, because of its association with corporatism. But reflecting on the paramount importance of capital accumulation vs. capital consumption for civilization, I’ve come to embrace the term.
Except that things like socialism and statism don’t seek to destroy money and capital.