I use capitalism in a manner mutually exclusive with slave labor because it requires self-ownership.
This seems like a sort of definitional gimbal lock; it makes it harder to describe the world because two potentially-separate degrees of freedom are collapsed into one. While I’m reluctant to argue definitions, I think it’s worth using terms in ways that allow us to describe the world in more detail rather than ones that collapse distinctions.
I expect to see this usage of “capitalism” not in history or economics, but in the sort of political doctrine where it’s intended to lock those concepts together; to imply that capital markets and individual freedom are either the same thing, or closely related — more closely, I think, than history and contemporary events really support.
It would seem weird to me, for instance, to claim that a publicly-traded company that is discovered to have done something to violate individual freedom is thereby no longer a participant in a capitalist economy. The New York Stock Exchange doesn’t ask “does this company infringe individual freedoms anywhere in the world?” before letting a company be listed. (To be clear, I’m not proposing that it should; I’m saying that it’s useful to talk about “participation in a capital market economy” and “fully respecting some set of individual freedoms” as distinct axes.)
(For what it’s worth, I think “self-ownership” is a pretty odd expression, because one of the central traits of ownership is that it can be transferred, and one of the central traits of selfhood is that it cannot. Your relation to yourself is distinct from property ownership in that you can sell any piece of your property, but you cannot sell your self; no matter what obligations you may have signed up for, you always retain possession of your self.)
Mostly agreed with what you say about the word “capitalism.” But with the NYSE example, I think it would be natural to say that the company did something not particularly capitalist. Is the CCP-owned Air China a capitalist entity? It’s certainly less capitalist than Southwest.
I think there’s at least two ways meanings can be combined. The easy one is words with multiple meanings. For example, “capitalist” has two meanings: someone who believes in free markets, and someone who owns a lot of capital. Some rhetorical tricks are played by trying to dance from one to the other, usually by denouncing libertarians as greedy corporates who benefit from the system. The second is concepts that include multiple constituents. For example, “capitalism” is a major concept that includes the things you brought up.
Inasmuch that capitalism is a centuries-old concept with a lot of philosophy behind it, I think it’s worth keeping “capitalism,” in its sense as an organization of political economy, to its broader meaning which contains both freedom of labor and market-based allocation. They are correlated enough to be a sensible cluster. We can use other terms for the constituents.
For comparison, “security” contains many concepts, such as integrity (untruster party can’t influence trusted output) and confidentiality (untrusted party can’t read input from trusted party). But we can talk about security as a whole, with other terms for its individual dimensions.
Perhaps it was a mistake to trust ChatGPT, but (my short summary of) its opinion is that Ayn Rand always gained her money by writing, i.e. selling her products directly to the market, while Adam Smith was employed at a university, in addition to gaining money from his books (especially the Wealth of Nations), and only gained a passive income from investing later in life.
(It’s not important; I am just sharing my data.)
EDIT:
I guess we need to distinguish between even more meanings of “capitalist”. Consider the following examples:
Person X buys a lottery ticket on their 18th birthday, wins a few millions, puts all the money in passively managed index funds, and spends the rest of life collecting generous passive income, watching anime, and debating online.
Person Y builds a small company and hires a few employees… the business is so-so, it pays the bills but is often at the verge of bankruptcy, fifty years later it finally goes bankrupt.
Which one of these is more of a “capitalist”? The latter spent more effort capitalisting, but the former had more capital and more profit.
This seems like a sort of definitional gimbal lock; it makes it harder to describe the world because two potentially-separate degrees of freedom are collapsed into one. While I’m reluctant to argue definitions, I think it’s worth using terms in ways that allow us to describe the world in more detail rather than ones that collapse distinctions.
I expect to see this usage of “capitalism” not in history or economics, but in the sort of political doctrine where it’s intended to lock those concepts together; to imply that capital markets and individual freedom are either the same thing, or closely related — more closely, I think, than history and contemporary events really support.
It would seem weird to me, for instance, to claim that a publicly-traded company that is discovered to have done something to violate individual freedom is thereby no longer a participant in a capitalist economy. The New York Stock Exchange doesn’t ask “does this company infringe individual freedoms anywhere in the world?” before letting a company be listed. (To be clear, I’m not proposing that it should; I’m saying that it’s useful to talk about “participation in a capital market economy” and “fully respecting some set of individual freedoms” as distinct axes.)
(For what it’s worth, I think “self-ownership” is a pretty odd expression, because one of the central traits of ownership is that it can be transferred, and one of the central traits of selfhood is that it cannot. Your relation to yourself is distinct from property ownership in that you can sell any piece of your property, but you cannot sell your self; no matter what obligations you may have signed up for, you always retain possession of your self.)
I really like this phrase. :)
Mostly agreed with what you say about the word “capitalism.” But with the NYSE example, I think it would be natural to say that the company did something not particularly capitalist. Is the CCP-owned Air China a capitalist entity? It’s certainly less capitalist than Southwest.
I think there’s at least two ways meanings can be combined. The easy one is words with multiple meanings. For example, “capitalist” has two meanings: someone who believes in free markets, and someone who owns a lot of capital. Some rhetorical tricks are played by trying to dance from one to the other, usually by denouncing libertarians as greedy corporates who benefit from the system. The second is concepts that include multiple constituents. For example, “capitalism” is a major concept that includes the things you brought up.
Inasmuch that capitalism is a centuries-old concept with a lot of philosophy behind it, I think it’s worth keeping “capitalism,” in its sense as an organization of political economy, to its broader meaning which contains both freedom of labor and market-based allocation. They are correlated enough to be a sensible cluster. We can use other terms for the constituents.
For comparison, “security” contains many concepts, such as integrity (untruster party can’t influence trusted output) and confidentiality (untrusted party can’t read input from trusted party). But we can talk about security as a whole, with other terms for its individual dimensions.
Examples:
capitalist pro-capitalist: Ayn Rand
capitalist anti-capitalist: Friedrich Engels
non-capitalist pro-capitalist: Adam Smith
non-capitalist anti-capitalist: Karl Marx
You mixed pro-capitalists: Adam Smith actually made a lot of capital from investment, while Ayn Rand never had much money.
Perhaps it was a mistake to trust ChatGPT, but (my short summary of) its opinion is that Ayn Rand always gained her money by writing, i.e. selling her products directly to the market, while Adam Smith was employed at a university, in addition to gaining money from his books (especially the Wealth of Nations), and only gained a passive income from investing later in life.
(It’s not important; I am just sharing my data.)
EDIT:
I guess we need to distinguish between even more meanings of “capitalist”. Consider the following examples:
Person X buys a lottery ticket on their 18th birthday, wins a few millions, puts all the money in passively managed index funds, and spends the rest of life collecting generous passive income, watching anime, and debating online.
Person Y builds a small company and hires a few employees… the business is so-so, it pays the bills but is often at the verge of bankruptcy, fifty years later it finally goes bankrupt.
Which one of these is more of a “capitalist”? The latter spent more effort capitalisting, but the former had more capital and more profit.