I. Introduction
Defenders of freed markets have good reason to identify their position as a species of “anti-capitalism.”[1] To explain why, I distinguish three potential meanings of “capitalism” before suggesting that people committed to freed markets should oppose capitalism in my second and third senses. Then, I offer some reasons for using “capitalism” as a label for some of the social arrangements to which freed-market advocates should object.
II. Three Senses of “Capitalism”
There are at least three distinguishable senses of “capitalism”:[2]
- capitalism-1
- an economic system that features property rights and voluntary exchanges of goods and services.
- capitalism-2
- an economic system that features a symbiotic relationship between big business and government.
- capitalism-3
- rule — of workplaces, society, and (if there is one) the state — by capitalists (that is, by a relatively small number of people who control investable wealth and the means of production).[3]
Capitalism-1 just is a freed market; so if “anti-capitalism” meant opposition to capitalism-1, “free-market anti-capitalism” would be oxymoronic. But proponents of free-market anti-capitalism aren’t opposed to capitalism-1; instead, they object either to capitalism-2 or to both capitalism-2 and capitalism-3.[4]
Many people seem to operate with definitions that combine elements from these distinct senses of “capitalism.” Both enthusiasts for and critics of capitalism seem too often to mean by it something like “an economic system that features personal property rights and voluntary exchanges of goods and services — and therefore, predictably, also rule by capitalists.” I think there is good reason to challenge the assumption that dominance by a small number of wealthy people is in any sense a likely feature of a freed market. Such dominance, I suggest, is probable only when force and fraud impede economic freedom.
III. Why Capitalism-2 and Capitalism-3 Are Inconsistent with Freed-Market Principles
A. Introduction
Capitalism-2 and capitalism-3 are both inconsistent with freed-market principles: capitalism-2 because it involves direct interference with market freedom, capitalism-3 because it depends on such interference — both past and ongoing — and because it flies in the face of the general commitment to freedom that underlies support for market freedom in particular.
B. Capitalism-2 Involves Direct Interference with Market Freedom
Capitalism-2 is clearly inconsistent with capitalism-1, and so with a freed market. Under capitalism-2, politicians interfere with personal property rights and voluntary exchanges of goods and services to enrich themselves and their constituents, and big businesses influence politicians in order to foster interference with personal property rights and voluntary exchanges in order to enrich themselves and their allies.
C. Capitalism-3 Depends on Past and Ongoing Interference with Market Freedom
There are three ways in which capitalism-3 might be understood to be inconsistent with capitalism-1, and so with a freed market. The first depends on a plausible, even if contestable, view of the operation of markets. Call this view Markets Undermine Privilege (MUP). According to MUP, in a freed market, absent the kinds of privileges afforded the (usually well-connected) beneficiaries of state power under capitalism-2, wealth would be widely distributed and large, hierarchical businesses would prove inefficient and wouldn’t survive.
Both because most people don’t like working in hierarchical work environments and because flatter, more nimble organizations would be much more viable than large, clunky ones without government support for big businesses, most people in a freed market would work as independent contractors or in partnerships or cooperatives. There would be far fewer large businesses, those that still existed likely wouldn’t be as large as today’s corporate behemoths, and societal wealth would be widely dispersed among a vast number of small firms.
Other kinds of privileges for the politically well connected that tend to make and keep people poor — think occupational licensure and zoning laws, for instance — would be absent from a freed market.[5] So ordinary people, even ones at the bottom of the economic ladder, would be more likely to enjoy a level of economic security that would make it possible for them to opt out of employment in unpleasant working environments, including big businesses. And because a free society wouldn’t feature a government with the supposed right, much less the capacity, to interfere with personal property rights and voluntary exchanges, those who occupy the top of the social ladder in capitalism-3 wouldn’t be able to manipulate politicians to gain and maintain wealth and power in a freed market, so the ownership of the means of production would not be concentrated in a few hands.
In addition to ongoing interference with market freedom, MUP suggests that capitalism-3 would not be possible without past acts of injustice on a grand scale. And there is extensive evidence of massive interference with property rights and market freedom, interference that has led to the impoverishment of huge numbers of people, in England, the United States, and elsewhere.[6] Freed-market advocates should thus object to capitalism-3 because capitalists are able to rule only in virtue of large-scale, state-sanctioned violations of legitimate property rights.
D. Support for Capitalism-3 is Inconsistent with Support for the Underlying Logic of Support for Freedom
Capitalism-3 might be understood to be inconsistent with capitalism-1 in light of the underlying logic of support for freed markets. No doubt some people favor personal property rights and voluntary exchanges — capitalism-1 — for their own sake, without trying to integrate support for capitalism-1 into a broader understanding of human life and social interaction. For others, however, support for capitalism-1 reflects an underlying principle of respect for personal autonomy and dignity. Those who take this view — advocates of what I’ll call Comprehensive Liberty (CL) — want to see people free to develop and flourish as they choose, in accordance with their own preferences (provided they don’t aggress against others). Proponents of CL value not just freedom from aggression, but also freedom from the kind of social pressure people can exert because they or others have engaged in or benefited from aggression, as well as freedom from non-aggressive but unreasonable — perhaps petty, arbitrary — social pressure that constrains people’s options and their capacities to shape their lives as they like.
Valuing different kinds of freedom emphatically isn’t the same as approving the same kinds of remedies for assaults on these different kinds of freedom. While most advocates of CL aren’t pacifists, they don’t want to see arguments settled at gunpoint; they unequivocally oppose aggressive violence. So they don’t suppose that petty indignities warrant violent responses. At the same time, though, they recognize that it makes no sense to favor freedom as a general value while treating non-violent assaults on people’s freedom as trivial. (Thus, they favor a range of non-violent responses to such assaults, including public shaming, blacklisting, striking, protesting, withholding voluntary certifications, and boycotting.)[7]
CL provides, then, a further reason to oppose capitalism-3. Most people committed to CL find MUP very plausible, and thus will be inclined to think of capitalism-3 as a product of capitalism-2. But the understanding of freedom as a multi-dimensional value that can be subject to assaults both violent and non-violent provides good reason to oppose capitalism-3 even if — as is most unlikely — it were to occur in complete isolation from capitalism-2.
IV. Why Freed-Market Advocates Should Call the System They Oppose “Capitalism”
Proponents of freed markets, and so of capitalism-1, could obviously refer to capitalism-2, at least, as “state capitalism” or “corporate capitalism” or “corporatism.” But “words are known by the company they keep”;[8] so there are good reasons for advocates of freed markets, especially those committed to CL, to identify what they oppose just as “capitalism.”
1. To Emphasize the Specific Undesirability of Capitalism-3.
Labels like “state capitalism” and “corporatism” capture what is wrong with capitalism-2, but they don’t quite get at the problem with capitalism-3. Even if, as seems plausible, rule by capitalists requires a political explanation — an explanation in terms of the independent misbehavior of politicians and of the manipulation of politicians by business leaders[9] — it is worth objecting to rule by big business in addition to challenging business-government symbiosis. To the extent that those who own and lead big businesses are often labeled “capitalists,” identifying what proponents of freedom oppose as “capitalism” helps appropriately to highlight their critique of capitalism-3.
2. To Differentiate Proponents of Freed Markets from Vulgar Market Enthusiasts.
The “capitalist” banner is often waved enthusiastically by people who seem inclined to confuse support for freed markets with support for capitalism-2 and capitalism-3 — perhaps ignoring the reality or the problematic nature of both, perhaps even celebrating capitalism-3 as appropriate in light of the purportedly admirable character of business titans. Opposing “capitalism” helps to ensure that advocates of freed markets are not confused with these vulgar proponents of freedom-for-the-power-elite.
3. To Reclaim “Socialism” for Freed-Market Radicals.
“Capitalism” and “socialism” are characteristically seen as forming an oppositional pair. But it was precisely the “socialist” label that a radical proponent of freed markets, Benjamin Tucker, owned at the time when these terms were being passionately debated and defined.[10] Tucker clearly saw no conflict between his intense commitment to freed markets and his membership of the First International. That’s because he understood socialism as a matter of liberating workers from oppression by aristocrats and business executives, and he — plausibly — believed that ending the privileges conferred on economic elites by the state would be the most effective — and safest — way of achieving socialism’s liberating goal. Opposing capitalism helps to underscore the important place of radicals like Tucker in the contemporary freedom movement’s lineage and to provide today’s advocates of freedom with a persuasive rationale for capturing the socialist label from state socialists. (This is especially appropriate because advocates of freedom believe that society—connected people cooperating freely and voluntarily—rather than the state should be seen as the source of solutions to human problems. Thus, they can reasonably be said to favor socialism not as a kind of, but as an alternative to, statism.)[11] Embracing anti-capitalism underscores the fact that freed markets offer a way of achieving socialist goals — fostering the empowerment of workers and the wide dispersion of ownership of and control over the means of production — using market means.
4. To Express Solidarity with Workers.
If MUP is correct, the ability of big business — “capital” — to maximize the satisfaction of its preferences more fully than workers are able to maximize the satisfaction of theirs is a function of business-state symbiosis that is inconsistent with freed-market principles. And, as a matter of support for CL, there is often further reason to side with workers when they are being pushed around, even non-aggressively. To the extent that the bosses workers oppose are often called “capitalists,” so that “anti-capitalism” seems like a natural tag for their opposition to these bosses, and to the extent that freed markets — by contrast with capitalism-2 and capitalism-3 — would dramatically increase the opportunities for workers simultaneously to shape the contours of their own lives and to experience significantly greater prosperity and economic security, embracing “anti-capitalism” is a way of clearly signaling solidarity with workers.[12]
5. To Identify with the Legitimate Concerns of the Global Anti-Capitalist Movement.
Owning “anti-capitalism” is also a way, more broadly, of identifying with ordinary people around the world who express their opposition to imperialism, the increasing power in their lives of multinational corporations, and their own growing economic vulnerability by naming their enemy as “capitalism.” Perhaps some of them endorse inaccurate theoretical accounts of their circumstances in accordance with which it really is a freed-market system — capitalism-1 — that should be understood as lying behind what they oppose. But for many of them, objecting to “capitalism” doesn’t really mean opposing freed markets; it means using a convenient label provided by social critics who are prepared — as advocates of freedom too often have regrettably refused to do — to stand with them in challenging the forces that seem bent on misshaping their lives and those of others. Advocates of freedom have a golden opportunity to build common ground with these people, agreeing with them about the wrongness of many of the situations they confront while providing a freedom-based explanation of those situations and a freedom-based remedy for the problems they involve.
V. Conclusion
Thirty-five years ago, the great libertarian hero Karl Hess wrote: “I have lost my faith in capitalism” and “I resist this capitalist nation-state,” observing that he had “turn[ed] from the religion of capitalism.”[13] Distinguishing three senses of “capitalism” — market order, business-government partnership, and rule by capitalists — helps to make clear why someone, like Hess, might be consistently committed to freedom while voicing passionate opposition to something called “capitalism.” It makes sense for freed-market advocates to oppose both interference with market freedom by politicians and business leaders and the social dominance (aggressive and otherwise) of business leaders. And it makes sense for them to name what they oppose “capitalism.” Doing so calls attention to the freedom movement’s radical roots, emphasizes the value of understanding society as an alternative to the state, underscores the fact that proponents of freedom object to non-aggressive as well as aggressive restraints on liberty, ensures that advocates of freedom aren’t confused with people who use market rhetoric to prop up an unjust status quo, and expresses solidarity between defenders of freed markets and workers — as well as ordinary people around the world who use “capitalism” as a short-hand label for the world-system that constrains their freedom and stunts their lives. Freed-market advocates should embrace “anti-capitalism” in order to encapsulate and highlight their full-blown commitment to freedom and their rejection of phony alternatives that use talk of freedom to conceal acquiescence in exclusion, subordination, and deprivation.
<< Back to the Market Anarchism FAQ page
________________
[1]For “freed markets,” see William Gillis, “(The Freed Market),” Human Iterations (n.p., July 31, 2007) «http://williamgillis.blogspot.com/2007/07/freed-market-one-of-tactics-ive-taken.html» (Jan. 2, 2010); for “free market anti-capitalism,” see Kevin A. Carson, Mutualist Blog: Free Market Anti-Capitalism (n.p.) «http://mutualist .blogspot.com» (Dec. 31, 2009).
[2]Cp. Charles Johnson, “Anarquistas por La Causa,” Rad Geek People’s Daily (n.p., March 31, 2005) «http:// radgeek.com/gt/2005/03/31/anarquistas_por/» (Dec. 31, 2009); Roderick T. Long, “POOTMOP Redux,” Austro-Athenian Empire (n.p., June 22, 2009) «http://aaeblog.com/2009/06/22/pootmop-redux/» (Dec. 31, 2009); Fred Foldvary, “When Will Michael Moore Nail Land Speculators?,” The Progress Report (n.p., Oct. 19, 2009) «http:// www.progress.org/2009/fold635.htm» (Jan. 18, 2010). “Capitalism” in Johnson’s third sense refers to “boss-directed labor,” while Long’s parallel expression, “capitalism-2,” denotes “control of the means of production by someone other than the workers — i.e., by capitalist owners.” Foldvary’s final proposal is “exploitation of labor by the big owners of capital.” I am inclined to think that many of those who employ the pejorative sense of “capitalism” intend it to encompass the dominance by bosses of all social institutions, and not just workplaces, though they doubtless see societal dominance and workplace dominance as connected. At any rate, supposing that they do may provide a slender justification for distinguishing my typology from the ones offered by Johnson, Long, and Foldvary.
[3]While capitalism-2 obtains whenever business and the state are in bed together, under capitalism-3 business is clearly on top.
[4]It is unclear when “capitalism” was first employed (the Oxford English Dictionary identifies William Makepeace Thackeray as the earliest user of the term: see The Newcomes: Memoirs of a Most Respectable Family, 2 vols. [London: Bradbury 1854–5] 2:75). By contrast, “capitalist” as a pejorative has an older history, appearing at least as early as 1792, and figuring repeatedly in the work of the free-market socialist Thomas Hodgskin: see, e.g., Popular Political Economy: Four Lectures Delivered at the London Mechanics Institution (London: Tait 1827) 5, 51-2, 120, 121, 126, 138, 171 (“greedy capitalists”!), 238-40, 243, 245-9, 253-7, 265; The Natural and Artificial Right of Property Contrasted: A Series of Letters, Addressed without Permission to H. Brougham, Esq. M.P. F.R.S. (London: Steil 1832) 15, 44, 53, 54, 67, 87, 97-101, 134-5, 150, 155, 180. The pejorative use occurs nearly eighty times throughout the thirty-odd pages of Hodgskin’s Labour Defended against the Claims of Capital, or, The Unproductiveness of Capital Proved (London: Knight 1825).
[5]For a devastating critique of rules — often supported by politicians beholden to wealthy and well connected people who expect to benefit from them — that systematically make and keep people poor, see Charles Johnson, “Scratching By: How Government Creates Poverty As We Know It,” The Freeman: Ideas on Liberty 57.10 (Dec. 2007): 33-8 (Foundation for Economic Education) «http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/scratching-by-how-government-creates-poverty-as-we-know-it/» (Jan. 2, 2010).
[6]Cp. Albert Jay Nock, Our Enemy the State (New York: Morrow 1935); Kevin A. Carson, “The Subsidy of History,” The Freeman: Ideas on Liberty 58.5 (June 2008): 33-8 (Foundation for Economic Education) «http:// www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/the-subsidy-of-history/» (Dec. 31, 2009); Joseph Stromberg, “The American Land Question,” The Freeman: Ideas on Liberty 59.6 (July-Aug. 2009): 33-8 (Foundation for Economic Education) «http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/the-american-land-question/» (Dec. 31, 2009).
[7]Cp. Charles Johnson, “Libertarianism through Thick and Thin,” Rad Geek People’s Daily (n.p., Oct. 3, 2008) «http://radgeek.com/gt/2008/10/03/libertarianism_through/» (Dec. 31, 2009); Kerry Howley, “We’re All Cultural Libertarians,” Reason (Reason Foundation, Nov. 2009) «http://reason.com/archives/2009/10/20/are-property-rights-enough» (Dec. 31, 2009).
[8]I became acquainted with this phrase thanks to Nicholas Lash, Believing Three Ways in One God: A Reading of the Apostles’ Creed (Notre Dame, IN: U of Notre Dame P 1992); see, e.g., 12. But it appears, I have subsequently discovered, to have a legal provenance and to be a rough translation of the Latin phrase noscitur a sociis.
[9]See, e.g., Kevin A. Carson, “Another Free-for-All: Libertarian Class Analysis, Organized Labor, Etc.,” Mutualist Blog: Free-Market Anti-Capitalism (n.p., Jan 26, 2006) «http://mutualist.blogspot.com/2006/01/another-free-for-all-libertarian-class.html» (Jan. 18, 2010); Sheldon Richman, “Class Struggle Rightly Conceived,” The Goal Is Freedom (Foundation for Economic Education, July 13, 2007) «http://fee.org/articles/in-brief/the-goal-is-freedom-class-struggle-rightly-conceived/» (Jan. 18, 2010); Roderick T. Long, “Toward a Libertarian Theory of Class,” Social Philosophy and Policy 15.2 (Sum. 1998): 303-49; Wally Conger, Agorist Class Theory: A Left Libertarian Approach to Class Conflict Analysis (n.p., n.d.) (Agorism.info, n.d.) «www.agorism.info/AgoristClassTheory.pdf» (Jan. 18, 2010).
[10]See Benjamin R. Tucker, “State Socialism and Anarchism: How Far They Agree and Wherein They Differ,” Instead of a Book: By a Man Too Busy to Write One (New York: Tucker 1897) (Fair-Use.Org, n.d.) «http:// fair-use.org/benjamin-tucker/instead-of-a-book/» (Dec. 31, 2009). Cp. Kevin A. Carson, “Socialist Definitional Free-for-All: Part II,” Mutualist Blog: Free Market Anti-Capitalism (n.p., Dec. 8, 2005) «http://mutualist.blogspot .com/2005/12/socialist-definitional-free-for-all_08.html» (Dec. 31, 2009); Brad Spangler, “Re-Stating the Point: Rothbardian Socialism,” BradSpangler.Com (n.p., Oct. 10, 2009) «http://bradspangler.com/blog/archives/1458» (Dec. 31, 2009); Gary Chartier, Socialist Ends, Market Means: 5 Essays (Tulsa, OK: Tulsa Alliance of the Libertarian Left 2009) (Center for a Stateless Society, Aug. 31, 2009) «http://c4ss.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/ Garychartier_forprint_binding .pdf» (Dec. 31, 2009).
[11]Thanks to Sheldon Richman for helping me to see this point.
[12]Cp. Sheldon Richman, “Workers of the World Unite for a Free Market,” The Freeman: Ideas on Liberty (Foundation for Economic Education, Dec. 18, 2009) «http://www.thefreemanonline.org/tgif/workers-of-the-world-unite/» (Dec. 31, 2009).
[13]Karl Hess, Dear America (New York: Morrow 1975) 3, 5. Even more bluntly, Hess writes: “What I have learned about corporate capitalism, roughly, is that it is an act of theft, by and large, through which a very few live very high off the work, invention, and creativity of very many others. It is the Grand Larceny of our particular time in history, the Grand Larceny in which a future of freedom which could have followed the collapse of feudalism was stolen from under our noses by a new bunch of bosses doing the same old things” (1).






Gary Chartier is addressing an important subject in his advocacy of "anti-capitalism" because a large section of the public are antagonized by the concept of capitalism, which was coined by Marx as a denigratory description of people who supposedly exploit workers by taking their remuneration as well as their pleasure in their work (causing "alienation").
The trouble is that another large section of the public, including many libertarians (e.g. anarcho-capitalists), consider capitalism synonymous with the practice of free market economics, as Gary points out. So if freedom lovers begin terming themselves "anti-capitalists" it is certain to lead to years more of misunderstanding.
Surely, therefore, it is much safer for us to use another term for market freedom, and place great emphasis on persuading socialists that market freedom and political freedom are the same thing, and that market freedom represents the moral option, as well as the most efficient one.
He's doing it on purpose. He wants to co-opt the popular, meaningful label 'anti-capitalism' for his own fundie ideology. Just like with the oxymoron 'anarcho-capitalist'.
I don't want to come off as pedantic or contrarian, because I don't particularly object to anything about this piece, but there's an extent to which I think people are focusing too much on the semantic issue of the word "capitalism" itself. This isn't to say that there is a problem with pushing for libertarians to labels themselves "anti-capitalist", but I would want to avoid people simply switching labels without genuinely delving into the substance.
I actually don't think it makes sense for someone who holds fairly *standard* anarcho-capitalist views (the party line, if you will) to start calling themselves an anti-capitalist, because there may very well be some ways in which that would be misleading, I.E. they may very well still support the 3rd definition of capitalism that Chartier highlights while just making this about a preference to label state-buisiness collusion "capitalism".
Also, there are some tricky issues revolving around property that may determine the sensibility of qualifying something or someone as for or against "capitalism". Because it could very well be the case that a given market anarchist's views on property logically entail the 3rd definition of "capitalism", even if they don't intend that. In other words, I have trouble seeing how someone could get away with claiming to be an "anti-capitalist" while holding rigid or absolutist views about property rights, and this is part of why some more social anarchists may look at moves by market anarchists to re-label themselves as opponents of capitalism to be rhetorical tricks.
Ross, you may well be right. I just like to cause trouble. That, and I genuinely identify with and celebrate Tucker's membership in the First International. I don't think it's utterly Pickwickian for me to call myself a socialist.
Brainpolice, I think, of course, that we can get absorbed in arguments about semantics. And I wouldn't think that a standard ancap could reasonably say she was anti-capitalist, probably, unless she also embraced Comprehensive Liberty. If she did, though, I think she could qualify even with fairly rigid views about property. As you know, my own views here aren't absolutist—I'm with Aquinas and Locke on emergencies, for instance. But I guess I do think that people who might emphasize pretty absolutist property rules can still qualify as socialists, depending on the rules and on their good-faith judgments about the consequences of applying those rules. And even as a Thomist on these points, I can certainly grant the value of stable ex ante property rights in given community's legal system even while allowing that lots of different systems might be just (and that the stable ex ante rules might allow for various sorts of limits—cp. the practice of gleaning mandated in the Torah, for instance). I wouldn't want to dismiss the proponents of "rigidity" en masse.
@Gary Chartier – the central problem with this, is that the original pejorative usage of 'capitalist/capitalism' is now completely defunct outside of the minuscule proportion of humanity that read Marx without guffawing.
The current pejorative usage of 'capitalist/capitalism' is a misguided notion that the recent (and coming) economic storm was due to 'unfettered free markets' – a view that is absurd on its face, since the underlying reason for the massive expansion of credit was the centrally-planned short-end of the yield curve (the setting, by government apparatchiki, of the short term price of money – at a non-market-clearing rate [as if I need to add that]).
So while to refer to oneself as 'anti-capitalist' in the [2] [3] sense might be a fun thing to do at a dinner party with other people who 'get it', in the actual battle to undermine State power it's about as useful as glib self-referential statements about anti-Semitism (e.g., claiming that one is proud to be called an anti-Semite by people who are among the most vile on the planet… that will get you precisely nowhere – not saying YOU do that, but others that I know, do).
The number of people who are even vestigally aware of the former pejorative usage of capitalist/capitalism, is so vanishingly small as to be of no importance in any debate: I say this as one who routinely makes pointless historical references in a bid to be interesting (my faves being Crassus in Parthia, Varus in the Teutoberger Wald, and Vercingetorix's 'capitulation with flair')…
In a similar vein, the overwhelming majority of the polity have no idea what 'fascism' is – they think that everyone involved has to have a swastika armband or a black- or brownshirt, goose-stepping and yelling "Juden raus! Auf nach Palestina!". And as such, people who have no objection whatsoever to corrupt intertwining of government and big business, will refer to themselves as 'anti-fascist' without a hint of irony.
Language is fluid – particularly our beautiful English (we don't have a state-endowed Language Police like the Frogs and the Krauts – which is why our language's structure is so beautifully parsimonious, our vocabulary is greater, and our poetry and literature better). And the fluidity of usage has rendered your thesis dead on arrival. I think it's absolutely necessary to refer to CRONY-capitalism in order to get done the job you're advocating.
Sorry.
Cheerio
GT
Your blind hatred of anti-capitalists is disturbing. We need to reach out to radical leftists… because we ARE radical leftists. Libertarianism is about leveling the current state-capitalist power structure, and replacing it with a voluntary society. It's about ending the systematic coercion of our current system to create a society where all may freely flourish in the pursuit of their own goals. It is the dream of the left. Also, capitalism necessarily prioritizes *capital*. By definition, capital-ism is based on the privilege of the capitalist: a privilege created by the state through intervention in the market. Radical leftists have the right idea, they just don't realize that the market is fundamentally not a capitalist institution.
I absolutely agree, and this is where I really am increasingly weary towards "left-wing market anarchists" (besides Agorism). They are filled with too much semantics and romanticism trumping over practical reason. A large part of this is undoubtedly linked back to Tucker/Spooner's usage of the phrase "socialist" which meant nothing what it means today. Hence, why they embraced the term.
In the same sense, the world "capitalist" has also had a complete turn. And in fact, if your opponent hates on you and calls you names, what better way to co-opt it from their own hands and make it your own, make it something you embrace and make it positive. That is why we are all capitalists and not make-believe "socialist" market anarchists.
The fact that one can call themselves an individual-ist and a social-ist at the same time is oxymoronic. Why attribute your name to the social cause (collectivism?), when each and everyone should be for the individual cause (anarchism). Or is your view of anarchy to replace the rule by the few, with the rule by the mob (social)?
GT, I think we've got an empirical disagreement: i think there are lots of people for whom "capitalism" is a pejorative. A significant number live in the US (some are my colleagues). Many more live in places in which state-tolerated private violence and abuse cooperatively perpetrated by the state and the wealthy and well connected is a pervasive fact of live and who have been taught to name the source of their suffering "capitalism." Perhaps they shouldn't have learned this usage; perhaps it's a reflection of bad economics and political opportunism—we'd have to talk about that. But, in any case, for many people, “capitalism” definitely names the enemy.
The fact that calling oneself a proponent of “capitalism’ would be the kiss of death if one were communicating with these people is a perfectly good reason not to use the word, even if free markets had made their lives worse. But of course they haven't: local and international elites have used (or capitalized on others’ use of) violence—the antithesis of freedom—on their own or in tandem with politicians to enrich themselves at ordinary people's expense. People who care about freedom have every reason to stand together with the victims of injustice, and I think our rejection of “capitalism” signals our willingness to do so very effectively.
So: I don't think the ship has sailed yet.
"capitalism-1: an economic system that features property rights and voluntary exchanges of goods and services."
"Capitalism-1 just is a freed market; so if “anti-capitalism” meant opposition to capitalism-1, “free-market anti-capitalism” would be oxymoronic. But proponents of free-market anti-capitalism aren’t opposed to capitalism-1; instead, they object either to capitalism-2 or to both capitalism-2 and capitalism-3."
I agree with the position against capitalism-2 and capitalism-3, but what about the Carson-type of Free-Market Anti-capitalism? Capitalism-1 is anarcho-capitalism, so mutualists and libsocs are against that.
You should define "Free Market Anti-capitalism" like this;
Free market anti-capitalism: an economic system that features POSSESSION rights (not property!) and voluntary exchanges of goods and services.
test
David Gendron,
See my reply here.
If you are in uncomfortable position and have no money to get out from that, you will require to receive the home loans. Just because that would help you emphatically. I take short term loan every year and feel myself fine because of that.
this is a good post. thank you
It is posts like this that drives allies away from C4SS. Yes it may stir up trouble, but only with those who my be allies, either by directly sharing freed market views (without the label of "freed market" perhaps being in their vocabulary) or indirectly by alienating those who are very close to the freed market position, but understandably and rightfully defend the overwhelmingly common use of the term along the lines of #1. While I agree that there are those who use the term perjoratively, they are almost exclusively socialists of some form, who simply wish to force those who have succeeded or have some thing in their life that the socialist doesn't, to be punished for that perceived injustice (certainly no real injustice need be present) such that the socialist need not labor to improve her live, or perhaps more importantly even be responsible for her own life.
Rather than fighting this impractical battle to redefine liberty as radical leftism, we are better off from a philosophical and pragmatic position to as much as possible avoid loaded terms in favor of those without baggage and which better describe the positions of liberty. So going after "capitalism" by creating two uses of the term which if ever seen, are seen only very rarely, merely alienates the overwhelming majority of potential allies and coverts, just as holding onto the misleading terms of "leftism" and "socialism" (both of which have to have lengthy explanations which largely ignore history, in order to seem even remotely compatible with the absence of the state) also drives away or puts up unnecessary barriers to allies.
I have lost count of the number of times I have asked why there is this death grip on the term "socialism" and other similar statist terms by many at C4SS, when it adds nothing positive, but instead merely puts up barriers to growing support. So far the best answers I have received, on the rare time answers are offered, has been those lengthy attempts to justify the usage because of obscure efforts of the past to redefine the terms along similar lines. Obviously this is not a justification at all, but rather weak appeals to authority at best.
To drive the point home in a very personal way, I myself would have contributed time and effort to C4SS because of their Stateless U, except that this death grip on the terms which point to anti-liberty positions. I am far from alone, as threads on this topic elsewhere demonstrate.
Yep! Pure obsession with semantics if anything. No different from the Nazis calling themselves national-socialist, everyone loves the term apparently! Communist, fascist, left-wing free-market, we're all socialists! And everyone of them hates "capitalism" for some reason too. I guess that's what happens when you have science-fiction writers for philosophers, everything seems like one giant LARP-ing contest. Let them keep the romantic rhetoric, and we Libertarians can actually continue preaching Liberty to the world.
This is definitely a topic thats close to me so Im happy that you wrote about it. Im also happy that you did the subject some justice. Not only do you know a great deal about it, you know how to present in a way that people will want to read more. Im so happy to know someone like you exists on the web
While I agree that there are those who use the term perjoratively, they are almost exclusively socialists of some form, who simply wish to force those who have succeeded or have some thing in their life that the socialist doesn't, to be punished for that perceived injustice (certainly no real injustice need be present) such that the socialist need not labor to improve her live, or perhaps more importantly even be responsible for her own life.
My recent post Bulldozers And Dirt Construction Websites
An Alternative to Capitalism (since we cannot legislate morality)
Several decades ago, Margaret Thatcher claimed: "There is no alternative".
She was referring to capitalism. Today, this negative attitude still persists.
I would like to offer an alternative to capitalism for the American people to consider.
Please click on the following link. It will take you to an essay titled: "Home of the Brave?"
which was published by the Athenaeum Library of Philosophy:
http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/ste…
John Steinsvold
“Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result."
~ Albert Einstein
Capitalism required the state to form it, and needs it to sustain it.
Love to see how you'd run your 'free market' without their police and army to shoot anyone who tries to eat for free.