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?