Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Free markets against capitalism.

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

There is discussion in the libertarian community, especially as of late, as to whether the term capitalism is a term we should be using to describe or denote our preferred socio-economic system. Roderick Long explains in the following video:

Basically the argument is a historical one, that capitalism has been used more often to refer to state subsidized and supported markets than to the laissez-faire ideal we hold as the proper definition. Sheldon Richman provided some historical context for us in this talk:

So, what is the use of the term if it originally referred to state favoritism towards business and capitalists? Instead, most argue, we should scrap the term capitalism and instead say we support free (or freed) markets only.

I've been wondering if Objectivists will agree with this argument or hold that supporting capitalism still makes sense, so long as we clarify that we mean capitalism without state support.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not unsympathetic to this idea.

I ran into a far leftie the other day who was fine with "entrepreneurship" but didn't like "capitalism" (he associates the term with the sort of pull peddling that is bad here in the US and worse in other countries).

Of course he wouldn't be such a leftie if he didn't think that almost all business in the US was enthusiastic pull-peddling (as opposed to pull peddling only because that's the only method left to survive), but it was interesting that in many respects we had common ground as to what was good, and uncommon vocabulary for labelling it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Long's analysis, that both terms are at least popularly used as packaged deals, but it seems to me the suggestion to abandon it doesn't entirely follow, but that leaves the question of when to abandon an anti-concept and when to reject the negative conflation part of it. If it does happen to be that the term "capitalism" is conflated with (1) the free market, and (2) government favoritism toward business, then if we reject it on the grounds of opposing (2), we could be just as misunderstood as rejecting (1) (going around saying "smash capitalism," or trying to promote "free market anti-capitalism" will confuse the hell out of people.) The most important thing is I think the necessity to clarify and define your terms, hopefully to disassociate the latter meaning, in the same way Rand attempted to do with "selfishness." That being said, a part of that means that it's also imperative to recognize the second meaning is often present when we may not realize or intend it. Perhaps in contexts where it could be confused, one might consider using a qualifier like "free market capitalism" or "laissez-faire capitalism" whilst not assuming that everyone means the same thing.

The interesting thing to note, and the problem that needs further looking into, is why for Rand certain terms were anti-concepts and/or packaged deals and that this constitutes a reason for rejecting the term, whilst some others are the same, and we should hang on to the terms. For example, Rand claims that "extremism" is an anti-concept, since it lumps "extreme" defenders of evil and "extreme" defenders of good together as though they were equivalent (CUI 176.) Hence one should not say either "yes, I am an extremist" (which would commit you to acknowledging a relationship with extreme defenders of evil) or "no, I am not an extremist" (which would commit you to being a moderate defender of the good.) Instead one should reject the very notion of "extremism" and decline to use the term at all. The same goes for "isolationism," "McCarthyism," "ethnicity," "meritocracy," "duty," "an open mind," etc.

But yet, the same ("two meanings, with the proper meaning serving to cover and to smuggle the improper one into people's minds") obtains in the case of "selfishness" and "capitalism," but it seems odd to say we should reject these, since it might imply "I reject regard for my own interests," or "I reject the free market economy." So why not at the same time with the others, since it might imply "I reject extreme defense of the good," "I reject national self-interest," "I reject anti-communism," etc., but Rand doesn't seem to concerned that those misunderstandings could be made? When should one advocate for linguistic reform, and when should one throw out a term altogether?

Edited by 2046
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good points, 2046.

I think terms such as selfishness and free market have value in and of themselves, as they spell out the meaning in their names. Is a man typically viewed as selfish (short-sighted, antisocial, unsympathetic) a truly acting selfishly? In the case of a free market, could we mislabel our current system as a free market? Not if we take the words literally. We have a constrained market, not a free one. Free market also has a less ugly history than capitalism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...