This seems like the kind of thing that I'll probably get burned at the stake for but here goes....
Should be attempt to abandon the term "Captalism"?
Wasn't the term "Capitalism" invented by socialists? Indeed I've heard before that Karl Marx was the first philosopher who used the term in a major work.
Doesn't the term "Captalism", temporarily forgetting the modern view of people with top hats and money bags walking by streets clustered with the homeless and poor, doesn't the term mean that the only thing that people are motivated by is money.
If I'm operating free of government today, I'm technically a "capitalist" but what if I'm not motivated by money? Is it not vulgar do suggest that the only thing that people are motivated by is capital or money? Indeed it is of course true that especially in the buisness world people are interested in money, but that often isn't the only thing that they are after and money is hardly ever the end goal. Also has we have stated a million times in our arguments financial markets are jus like all other walks of life, they are all VOLUNTARY and not necissarily based off of the will for money.
Therefore I suggest that we stop using the term "Capitalism" in favor of "Voluntarism", not only as a political ideology but to replace the term capitalism with voluntarism, because people are motivated by their voluntary goals and wills and act as such, if this be through capital or monetary means then so be it.
By ending our use of the term capitalism we can avoid some very unpleasent preconcieved notions and indeed replace it with a more practicle term, furthermore we would have a furhter way to seperate mixed econonomy or state facism with what we truly mean by using the term voluntarism.
So finally I propose an economy of voluntarism, not of capitalism.
I hope I'm not just being foolish here but I do believe that using the term voluntarism as an economic term would help us greatly in terms of appeal and accuracy.
Thoughts?
I am not afraid to call myself an Anarchist, or a Libertarian, or a Free Lover, or that I espouse Capitalist ideals. I am what I am. And if people have a problem with how I define what those terms mean, they probably need to get a stick out of their arses.
The arguments over semantics is pretty old and irritating, to be honest. It won't matter what you call yourself, someone else will always step in and tell you your definition is wrong.
So I tend to not call myself any of those terms when debating. People will eventually pick up on it or they won't. I just tell people the following things at the beginning of a debate, "I won't argue with anyone who wants to point the gun at my head", or "I'm all for the maxim of personal liberty in my life, my business; in anything that does not cause physical harm to someone's person or property".
You observe, but you do not see.
We had a guy posting here last night convinced he was some kind of anarchist when, really, he was a Marxist-Communist. 3 pages of dialogue couldn't persuade him otherwise.
While your idea of reshaping the perceptions of the word Capitalism is noble, Voluntarism could just as easily be construed as something quasi-Communist involving totally free labour. Who knows..
The economic invalids and the opponents of freedom will always find a way to brand our movement with smears and nonsense. I don't believe it is something we should concern ourselves with.
No. Taking a term of dispargement and wearing it as a badge of honour is something that can be very powerful in rallying the base. Radicals for Capitalism! Chaaaaaarge!Voluntarism. Meh.Can you feel the difference.
Marko: No. Taking a term of dispargement and wearing it as a badge of honour is something that can be very powerful in rallying the base.
No. Taking a term of dispargement and wearing it as a badge of honour is something that can be very powerful in rallying the base.
That reminds me of the creationists who use the slogan "Teach the controversy" quite cleverly.
Hard Rain: The economic invalids and the opponents of freedom will always find a way to brand our movement with smears and nonsense. I don't believe it is something we should concern ourselves with.
Exactly, it doesn't matter what they brand us with, merley as long as we can pick an accurate and noble term, it doesn't matter what they call us, merley what we call ourselves.
Marko: No. Taking a term of dispargement and wearing it as a badge of honour is something that can be very powerful in rallying the base. Radicals for Capitalism! Chaaaaaarge!Voluntarism. Meh.Can you feel the difference.
I'll remember that when I'm leading the Libertarian armies of the world to victory over the statist hordes.
There is a clear definition for the term capitalist: someone who invests in capital at large scales and employs wage labor to operate this capital.
Not sure there is a clear definition for capitalism except: a social order that provides protection for capitalists.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
The Late Andrew Ryan: Doesn't the term "Captalism", temporarily forgetting the modern view of people with top hats and money bags walking by streets clustered with the homeless and poor, doesn't the term mean that the only thing that people are motivated by is money. If I'm operating free of government today, I'm technically a "capitalist" but what if I'm not motivated by money? Is it not vulgar do suggest that the only thing that people are motivated by is capital or money? Indeed it is of course true that especially in the buisness world people are interested in money, but that often isn't the only thing that they are after and money is hardly ever the end goal. Also has we have stated a million times in our arguments financial markets are jus like all other walks of life, they are all VOLUNTARY and not necissarily based off of the will for money. Therefore I suggest that we stop using the term "Capitalism" in favor of "Voluntarism", not only as a political ideology but to replace the term capitalism with voluntarism, because people are motivated by their voluntary goals and wills and act as such, if this be through capital or monetary means then so be it. By ending our use of the term capitalism we can avoid some very unpleasent preconcieved notions and indeed replace it with a more practicle term, furthermore we would have a furhter way to seperate mixed econonomy or state facism with what we truly mean by using the term voluntarism. So finally I propose an economy of voluntarism, not of capitalism.
TLAR:
Great thoughts. I agree, and I consider the primary value of libertarianism voluntarism, a principle more important than any proposed concrete legal order.
"It would be preposterous to assert apodictically that science will never succeed in developing a praxeological aprioristic doctrine of political organization..." (Mises, UF, p.98)
I think that branding, rebranding, PR, sales pitches, trying to appeal to stay-at-home-moms and that sort of thing only take you so far. At the end of the day, the folks who prevail are the folks who are determined and who know what they want. Take the Bolsheviks in Russia. They did not win out by rebranding themselves into something nicer sounding. They won out by taking an extreme end of a position, sticking to their guns and knowing when to strike out.It`s an analogy that is not perfect because the Bolsheviks aimed to take over the state, all we aim is to seceede from the state, but I think it applies nontheless. Strategically the base, the avant-garde is the most important. The name must be picked on basis of what uplifts our hearts, not on basis of what a good brand name to appeal to some home at stay mom might be.
Marko: I think that branding, rebranding, PR, sales pitches, trying to appeal to stay-at-home-moms and that sort of thing only take you so far. At the end of the day, the folks who prevail are the folks who are determined and who know what they want. Take the Bolsheviks in Russia. They did not win out by rebranding themselves into something nicer sounding. They won out by taking an extreme end of a position, sticking to their guns and knowing when to strike out.It`s an analogy that is not perfect because the Bolsheviks aimed to take over the state, all we aim is to seceede from the state, but I think it applies nontheless.
I think that branding, rebranding, PR, sales pitches, trying to appeal to stay-at-home-moms and that sort of thing only take you so far. At the end of the day, the folks who prevail are the folks who are determined and who know what they want. Take the Bolsheviks in Russia. They did not win out by rebranding themselves into something nicer sounding. They won out by taking an extreme end of a position, sticking to their guns and knowing when to strike out.It`s an analogy that is not perfect because the Bolsheviks aimed to take over the state, all we aim is to seceede from the state, but I think it applies nontheless.
Except that changing our name slightly doesn't change our fight does it? Also the Bolsheviks had a fantastic name (majority) which didn't have a negative preconception. I'm saying this as food for thought and advocating that people use the term voluntarist more than capitalist under the belief that this is more effective. It's a slight change in tactics not saying that our fight is lowered in any way.
And I don't know about you but I'm not satisfied with just seceding from the state, I want to dsiband the state altogether in whatever way I can.
Ehm, the name of the ideology of the Bolsheviks was Communism. And they were quite happy with that. They did not hold conferences trying to figure out if they could change the name of their ideology to try to give it a wider appeal and sell it better. That is what Menshevik`s were doing and they lost.
The Late Andrew Ryan: Should be attempt to abandon the term "Captalism"? Wasn't the term "Capitalism" invented by socialists? Indeed I've heard before that Karl Marx was the first philosopher who used the term in a major work. Doesn't the term "Captalism", temporarily forgetting the modern view of people with top hats and money bags walking by streets clustered with the homeless and poor, doesn't the term mean that the only thing that people are motivated by is money.
The term capitalism was used well before Marx and the socialists, it has always meant "owners of capital." Which seems fine to me. Marx was famous for describing the capitalist mode of production as relying on the state...
An "economy of Voluntaryism" is a meaningless phrase, as it doesn't describe an economic activity. Now, a voluntaryist society would be fantastic.
Ok what I'm saying is that this is a general peice of advice for the chagning of tactics, this is not a conference and this is not a series of conferences is it?
Angurse:An "economy of Voluntaryism" is a meaningless phrase, as it doesn't describe an economic activity. Now, a voluntaryist society would be fantastic.
Doesn't it? Doesn't it imply that goods and services are provided for voluntary means? To say that capital is the only reason is to totally rule out things such as charity.
Angurse: The term capitalism .... has always meant "owners of capital."
The term capitalism .... has always meant "owners of capital."
Angurse:
To me, this gets right to the heart of TLAR's original post. According to your definition, if and when we advocate "captialism," we advocate a system that has "always meant owners of capital." I think this was exactly what TLAR was getting at.
If and when we advocate "voluntarism," (whether in economic affairs, or in non-economic social relationships), we advocate a principle of association that TLAR is implying is the real essence of libertarianism, as opposed to a conception of libertarianism that refers only to "owners of capital."
The Late Andrew Ryan:Doesn't it? Doesn't it imply that goods and services are provided for voluntary means? To say that capital is the only reason is to totally rule out things such as charity.
That doesn't actually rule out charity, as the capitalists are still responsible for the production of the goods produced. But there is nothing within the term capitalism that implies that goods and services aren't provided for by voluntary means. Voluntaryism seems like the perfect match for an economic system like capitalism.
No, I understand what we define capitalism as and I'm not proposing a NEW system, just a different name for it. The term "capitalism" can also be read in a literal sense as "moneyism" as in the only thing that motivates the individual is capital or money.
The Late Andrew Ryan:No, I understand what we define capitalism as and I'm not proposing a NEW system, just a different name for it. The term "capitalism" can also be read in a literal sense as "moneyism" as in the only thing that motivates the individual is capital or money.
Who cares how others can interpret it? People can just as easily misinterpret voluntaryism as being for charity and volunteer work as opposed to profit.
The Late Andrew Ryan:The term "capitalism" can also be read in a literal sense as "moneyism" as in the only thing that motivates the individual is capital or money.
If this is what people really think capitalism means then they are hopeless intellects. We should instead appeal to reason, not advertising, in order to sway people and whatever the word capitalism next becomes connoted with, will become the reason for people to accept it.
Adam:
The point was you can advocate voluntaryism without advocating any particular economic system. Hence, no need for a name change.
The Late Andrew Ryan: No, I understand what we define capitalism as and I'm not proposing a NEW system, just a different name for it. The term "capitalism" can also be read in a literal sense as "moneyism" as in the only thing that motivates the individual is capital or money.
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: Adam: The point was you can advocate voluntaryism without advocating any particular economic system. Hence, no need for a name change.
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.
Adam Knott: 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.
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.
MatthewF:
Exactly.
When I saw that picture I was thinking WTF? How can people think this way?
Angurse: 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.
Good point.
This will happen, and I'd bet it will occur sooner than you expect.
Adam Knott: Angurse: The term capitalism .... has always meant "owners of capital." Angurse: To me, this gets right to the heart of TLAR's original post. According to your definition, if and when we advocate "captialism," we advocate a system that has "always meant owners of capital." I think this was exactly what TLAR was getting at. If and when we advocate "voluntarism," (whether in economic affairs, or in non-economic social relationships), we advocate a principle of association that TLAR is implying is the real essence of libertarianism, as opposed to a conception of libertarianism that refers only to "owners of capital."
Owners of capital is exactly what we advocate, as this is what makes civilization possible.
This just doesn't seem to have the same shock value...
Stranger: Owners of capital is exactly what we advocate, as this is what makes civilization possible.
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
The Late Andrew Ryan:Should be attempt to abandon the term "Captalism"?
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).
Why anarchy fails
AJ: The Late Andrew Ryan:Should be attempt to abandon the term "Captalism"? 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.
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.
Marko:They do not hate your term, they hate your idea.
Well said.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
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.
Marko: AJ: 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. At what point do you stop ceding ground?
AJ: 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.
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.
Marko: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.
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.