Let me preface this by stating my political beliefs. Those who follow me probably know my beliefs very well, but to those who just randomly stumbled upon this essay, I will do my best to describe my beliefs:
My ideal society is an anarchist decentralized one with numerous different communities, with its foundational element being property rights. Said communities would voluntarily form their own criteria for admission, and individuals deemed incompatible with said community would be removed (see Hoppe’s covenant communities). The main moral code of said society would revolve around the NAP (non aggression principle). Economically it would be dominated by free markets and voluntary exchange. Law wise voluntary polycentric law organizations would exist there the customer would have to pay a fee to be secured, and said law organizations and individuals in general would operate under the NAP (non aggression principle). Healthcare would be privatized. Those less fortunate would be able to join a voluntary aid society similar to those in the early days of the US.
From what I’ve described, you’d picture the ideology of anarcho-capitalism, spearheaded by the late Murray Rothbard, which is also an ideology which revolves around non-aggression, property rights and free markets. In addition, my views of communities would also make me a Hoppean, which is a label that I don’t explicitly deny or accept (from what I’ve seen, most self described “Hoppeans” are snakeskin belt statists, which is why I don’t 100% agree with the Hoppean label).
However, I would not describe myself as a capitalist, and I only describe myself as an anarcho-capitalist because it serves well enough as a description of my beliefs. By saying this, I have opened myself up to a question: Why do you reject the label “capitalist?”. And from here on out, I will describe my reasoning that lead me to abandoning the term capitalist.
“Why do you reject the label “capitalist?”
I will preface this section by stating that my societal analysis is far from a socialist one, and as a matter of fact, I am identical to my anarcho-capitalist peers in many ways. However, unlike my anarcho-capitalist peers, I use the term “capitalism” reluctantly, and the reason why I use it so reluctantly is that the term has essentially lost all of its meaning.
Yes. Capitalism, as a concept doesn’t really exist, rather, it is an anti-concept. Now what is an anti-concept? An anti-concept is an unnecessary and rationally unusable term designed to replace an actual existing concept. The term was coined by philosopher and author Ayn Rand, however I’ll be looking at Roderick Long’s usage of the term, where he likens “capitalism” to an anti-concept, alongside “socialism”.
Now I think the word “capitalism,” if used with the meaning most
“Rothbard’s “Left and Right”: Forty Years Later” by Roderick T. Long (2006)
people give it, is a package-deal term. By “capitalism” most people mean
neither the free market simpliciter nor the prevailing neomercantilist system simpliciter. Rather, what most people mean by “capitalism” is this free-market system that currently prevails in the western world.
In short, the term “capitalism” as generally used conceals an
assumption that the prevailing system is a free market. And since the
prevailing system is in fact one of government favoritism toward
business, the ordinary use of the term carries with it the assumption
that the free market is government favoritism toward business.
What Roderick Long gets at is that people use capitalism to refer to many different, essentially unconnected concepts. If you were to walk up to a random person on the street, and ask them what capitalism is, you’d probably get an answer similar to what Long brought up above, “the free-market system that currently prevails in the western world“. However, today’s economic system is a free market that had both of its legs cut off, and now the “free markets” biggest critics wonder why it can’t run anymore, so while there is a technical free market core, that core has been so crippled that “capitalism” of the 21st century is barely even comparable to “capitalism” of the 19th century. Not only that, but capitalism refers to so many different concepts, ranging from neoliberal economics to anarcho-capitalism to NRx to Keynesianism, which are ideologies that wildly differ in everything but the core sentiment of “markets and trade”, and by that logic we could also claim that “market socialist” ideologies could technically be capitalist, however this is yet more proof that capitalism (but also socialism) is an anti concept.
If I were to sum up my objections to the label “capitalism”, it would be the lack of a real meaning, considering everyone assigns a wholly different meaning to the term based on their particular political viewpoints.