Skip to main content

This is not about capitalism, the theorized socio-economic system of production.  This is about the word “capitalism” itself.  The term, “capitalism” has been used, abused, reborn, and re-mutilated so many times that if one were to use the term, you have to immediately stop and define what you mean by “capitalism”. Why is that?  There aren’t multiple definitions of mercantilism or feudalism.  So what happened to “capitalism”? To find out, follow me through the comical history of “capitalism”, the word.

In the Beginning...


"Capitalism" came into focus somewhere around the early to mid 18th century.  But nobody called it "capitalism" at the time.   The term "capitalism" didn't appear until about a 100 years later when it was first coined by socialists in the mid 19th century as a pejorative for the current state of the world.  This was when the term capitalism was first used to describe a socio-political-economic system.  (there are a few uses of the term pre-1850.  But they were all used as synonyms for commerce or a capitalist.  And was not widely used, and, therefore I think can be ignored)  So the first comical thing to note about the term, "capitalism" is that the history of the word is tied to socialism and socialist thought, and NOT to the system it describes.

What about Marx?


Here's another funny thing about “capitalism”.  Despite what most people think, Karl Marx, the most infamous socialist, neither coined the term nor popularized it.  The term "capitalism" was coined by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon,  A French individualist socialist(more commonly referred to today as an anarchist).   You will not find the term anywhere in The Communist Manifesto.  Later, when Marx and his partner Engels wrote Das Kapital, they would describe the situation as "the capitalist mode of production".  Engels may have used "capitalism" later in life, but neither he nor Marx popularized the term.

It wasn't until the turn of the century that it was made clear that "capitalism" was the word to describe what socialists opposed.  Werner Sombart's "Der Moderne  Kapitalismus" in 1902 exploded the term's popularity both inside and outside of socialist circles.  Or as respected historian Fernand Braudel puts it in his book Civilization and Capitalism:

In fact, it was not until the beginning of this century that it fully burst upon political debate as the natural opposite of socialism.  It was to be launched in academic circles by Werner Sombart's explosive book Der moderne Kapitalismus.  Not unnaturally, this word which Marx never used was incorporated into the Marxist model, so much so that the terms slavery, feudalism and capitalism are commonly used to refer to the three major stages of development defined by the author of Capital.
The term must have stuck because two years later Max Weber published his famous tome, "The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism" which is "the fourth most important sociological book of the 20th century".

So, to be clear on why I find this so damn funny... At the beginning of the 20th century, "capitalism" became a "marxist" term that was neither coined nor popularized by Karl Marx!

Capitalism is a good thing now?


Now fast forward 60 years.  It's 1962 and at this point, The terms “capitalism” and “capitalist” had been pejoratives and a negative descriptions used by socialists for 100 years.  Up until this point, intellectuals that were opposed to socialism described themselves as being in favor of liberalism(especially the classical kind) and not "capitalism".  Then, Milton Friedman publishes a book called Capitalism and Freedom in 1962.  And then 4 years later, Ayn Rand comes out with her book Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.  In these books, these (now famous) authors described "capitalism" in glowing terms and came out FOR it.

Wait a minute!  (insert record scratch sound)  What the F*!)K Just Happened???  The 50s and early 60s mark when many intellectuals started openly using the term "capitalism" as the term for their ideal system instead of "liberal", "free market", "Laissez faire", or "free enterprise".  I've checked as many places I can think, but it just didn't happen until that time.

The Foundation for Economic Education was created in 1946 to promote free markets.  And no where in their founding 14 principals was the term capitalism.

The American Enterprise Institute founded in 1943 didn't defend "capitalism", it defended "competitive, free-enterprise".

The Founding article in William Buckley's conservative National Review mentions "capitalism" only in relation to socialism.  Among the magazine's "convictions", it only states "The competitive price system" and no mention of "capitalism".

Who can I blame for this???


Now we come to the person whom I blame for this whole mess:  Ludwig von Mises.  At the time, he was a semi-known Austrian economist who was very much in favor of "liberalism" and very much against socialism.  However, in his writings, he adopted the language of his socialist rivals.  In his 1922 book titled "Socialism", he acknowledged that the term "Capitalism" was a "political word".  He stated:
The terms "Capitalism" and "Capitalistic Production" are political catchwords. They were invented by socialists, not to extend knowledge, but to carp, to criticize, to condemn. Today, they have only to be uttered to conjure up a picture of the relentless exploitation of wage-slaves by the pitiless rich. They are scarcely ever used save to imply a disease in the body-politic. From a scientific point of view, they are so obscure and ambiguous that they have no value whatever. Their users agree only in this, that they indicate the characteristics of the modern economic system. But wherein these characteristics consist is always a matter of dispute. Their use, therefore, is entirely pernicious, and the proposal to extrude them altogether from economic terminology, and to leave them to the matadors of popular agitation, deserves serious consideration.
Despite that, Mises attempted to "appropriate the word for his own purposes".  After acknowledging this, 2 paragraphs later, he tries to justify the use of the term "capitalism" to describe the liberal system that he favored:
If the term capitalism is used to designate an economic system in which production is governed by capital calculations, it acquires a special significance for defining economic activity. Understood thus, it is by no means misleading to speak of Capitalism and capitalistic methods of production, and expressions such as the capitalistic spirit and the anti-capitalistic disposition acquire a rigidly circumscribed connotation. Capitalism is better suited to be the antithesis of Socialism than Individualism, which is often used in this way.
As far as I can tell, this 1922 book was the beginning of the shift in the meaning of the term Capitalism.

So then, what is the connection between Mises and future "capitalism" supporters?  Ludwig von Mises was Fredrich Hayek's teacher in Austria.  The one that converted him from socialism to "liberalism".  Hayek would later found a social club called the Mont Pelerin society in 1947 for free market economists.  At the founding meeting was Hayek, Mises, and... Milton Friedman, the aforementioned author of "Capitalism and Freedom".  I don't think it is a stretch to say that Mises attempts to redefine capitalism as a positive would've rubbed off on the younger economists.

In fact, before founding the society, Hayek published the book "The Road To Serfdom" where he did pretty much the same thing as his teacher did in "Socialism".  He notes that the term conceals the truth, but then later redefines the term "capitalism" and then speaks approvingly of it.  On page 89 of the book he wrote

Though the terms "capitalism" and "socialism" are still generally used to describe the past and the future forms of society, they conceal rather than elucidate the nature of the transition through which we are passing.
And then by page 109 he redefines capitalism and praises it as the only way democracy can thrive:
It is now often said that democracy will not tolerate "capitalism".  If "capitalism" means here a competitive system based on free disposal over private property, it is far more important to realize that only within this system is democracy possible.
Another early and obscure attempt to redefine capitalism - and then come out in favor of it- was by Political Philosopher Frank Chodorov.  In October of 1945 he wrote an article titled "Let's Try Capitalism".  Whether his attempt to redefine capitalism was his own, or influenced by Mises, I cannot say for certain.  But being that he was very much active in the "free market liberalism" movement in New York for years, and that Ludwig von Mises had been teaching at NYU for 5 years while promoting free markets, it's not hard to fathom that they may have run into each other and exchanged ideas by 1945.  In fact, based on the fact that both men knew Murray Rothbard(Another "free market" advocate) and Milton Friedman, it is hard to imagine that they didn't at least know each other.

Backlash, and Backlash to the Backlash


So after the "free market" advocates tried to commandeer the word for their own purposes, you can imagine that there was a backlash.  But the backlash wasn't from state socialists.  It came from anarchists and other "free market" advocates!

In 1972 Murray Rothbard noted the absurdity of trying to commandeer the term "capitalism" as a description of what he advocated for.  By 1972 , Murray Rothbard notes in an essay that there are multiple definitions of "capitalism".  He tries to split the definition in two to describe two very different concepts, "free-market capitalism" and "state capitalism".  Naturally he is in favor of one and against the other.

From the very first we run into grave problems with the term "capitalism." When we realize that the word was coined by capitalism's most famous enemy, Karl Marx, it is not surprising that a neutral or a pro-"capitalist" analyst might find the term lacking in precision. For capitalism tends to be a catchall, a portmanteau concept that Marxists apply to virtually every society on the face of the globe, with the exception of a few possible "feudalist" countries and the Communist nations (although, of course, the Chinese consider Yugoslavia and Russia "capitalist," while many Trotskyites would include China as well). Marxists, for example, consider India as a "capitalist" country, but India, hagridden by a vast and monstrous network of restrictions, castes, state regulations, and monopoly privileges is about as far from free-market capitalism as can be imagined

If we are to keep the term "capitalism" at all, then, we must distinguish between "free-market capitalism" on the one hand, and "state capitalism" on the other. The two are as different as day and night in their nature and consequences.

Other, more modern writers have continued the backlash.  Sheldon Richman argues that libertarians should use "capitalism" as the description of what they oppose.
We are a group of libertarians who understand that historically the word "capitalism" has meant, not the free market, but crony capitalism -- that is, collusion between business and State at the expense of consumers/workers. Thus we refuse to use the word "capitalism" to describe what we favor: individual liberty in all respects and free, competitive markets. We believe that what we have today IS capitalism -- and we oppose it.
Other modern free marketers have noted the same thing.  And now, of course, there is a backlash against this backlash.  The suggestion of letting "capitalism" return to it's original meaning, is rejected because(among other reasons), we shouldn't let the definition of words change.  I shit you not:
As Sheldon admits in his talk, however, changing words is like changing currencies.  If they're already widely accepted, you need a really good reason to abandon them.  Awkward etymology notwithstanding, I think the concepts of capitalism and socialism are good enough to keep using.

Conclusion


So now you know why it is so damn hard to talk about "capitalism".  And now, before one can even debate the merits of "capitalism", one has to define what they mean by "capitalism".  Do they mean the system of exploitation as defined by Proudhon or Marx(who both defined it differently)?  Or do they mean "a competitive system based on free disposal over private property"?  Or something else?  My recommendation is to never use the term.  If one has to define a word every time one uses it, then it's not a useful word.

If you enjoyed this article, let me know.  If there is interest I can attempt a similar article on the terms "socialism", "liberalism", "fascism", and probably even "keynesian".  Also, if you ever an article by an influential person from before 1922 describing "capitalism" as a good thing, please let me know.  I would be interested if there is another or a different person we can blame for this mess.

Cross Posted From SnowCow - Society

Originally posted to MoneyLiberty on Tue Aug 05, 2014 at 06:15 AM PDT.

Also republished by Anti-Capitalist Chat and Community Spotlight.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  "'we shouldnt let the definition of words change'" (2+ / 0-)

    Thanks for the laugh and reminding me that the same force that drives general conservatism also applies to stuff like that and, hopefully, is just as successful in stopping 'progress'...

    Personally, I, and everyone I know, have been using 'capitalism' as a swear or slander for the past 10 years or so. Usually followed by an eye roll.

    "...So the world might be mended"

    by Cofcos on Tue Aug 05, 2014 at 09:45:58 AM PDT

    •  But we love it (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      nolagrl

      as we have bought another computer,
      before the poor 50% of the people on earth
      get their first electrical outlet.

      rich people on earth are insecure
      when they dont have enough bars in their cells.

      boycott everything
      .

      More Fear, More Profit. Its Math.

      by Pattern Math on Tue Aug 05, 2014 at 11:47:48 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I DID enjoyed this. Please continue. (5+ / 0-)

    Play chess for the Kossacks on Chess.com. Join the site, then the group at http://www.chess.com/groups/view/kossacks.

    by rhutcheson on Tue Aug 05, 2014 at 11:02:41 AM PDT

  •  “matadors of popular agitation” (3+ / 0-)

    ...beautiful!— and so befitting raptor TParty capitalists

  •  Couple of points (4+ / 0-)

    First, Proudhon was not an "individualist" anarchist. He advocated federations of worker's associations, was opposed to wage labor imposed by an owning class, famously declared private property used in production to be theft, and actually came up with the concept of the true value of labor being exploited and appropriated by the owning class before Marx (what Marx termed "surplus value). He also recognized the value of collective labor as being more then the sum of its parts (a concept Marx adopted from Proudhon). Proudhon stated that workers have natural rights to that which they produce. Much of Proudhon's early contributions were distorted by Marxists over the years, because secondary sources were parroted over and over without checking the primary source.

    Proudhon's philosophy was further developed and modified by later anarchists like Bakunin, who introduced revolutionary anarchism and collectivism (see my sig), followed by Kropotkin who was an anarcho-communist. But Proudhon laid the basic foundation of non-statism, the federalizing of workers associations, the absurdity of "property", the rights of workers to the fruits of their labor.  Proudhon's influence was largely behind the creation of the First International (International Working Men's Assocation), and the anarchic influence in the Paris Commune (recallable and mandated delegates, the rejection of the state, which Marx ironically lauded as reflecting his own ideas)

    Proudhon was the first to apply the term anarchist to a sociopolitical philosophy by his declaration of himself as an anarchist, thus coining that usage of the term, and anarchism has always henceforth been anti-capitalist.

    In anarchist theory, capitalism is defined by an economy based on wage-labor (or wage slavery!) which is the exploitative relationship between the owner and the employee, the owning class and the working class being the two primary classes created by private property used in production. It is based on capitalists' exclusive monopolization of capital as property to exploit the non-capitalists (workers), by treating the value of their human labor as a commodity subject to the market, reducing them to sub-human status, equal to a sack of potatoes or an asset that can be bought and sold. It exploits labor by not rewarding labor according to its production.

    The definition of anarchism has always referred to this anti-capitalist theory, and still has this meaning in most of the world. The term libertarian was also adopted by anarchists to express the anarchist principle of free association and non-coercion, the right to live as free beings without unequal relationships of power. Anarchists view capitalism as a form of slavery of the majority, the working class.

    The recent arrivals on the scene, the American self-styled 'libertarians" have to some degree co-opted the terms anarchist and libertarian, which, as I've stated, still hold the original anti-capitalist meaning outside of the U.S. and to a smaller degree the U.K. In anarchist literature the terms libertarian still are used today to indicate the anti-capitalist form. Anarchists do not feel the need to attach an appendage like "left" to these terms, since historically the meaning has always meant anti-capitalist and leftist politics. Anarchists are not going to cede these terms to the right wing newcomers attempting to confuse people with these oxymorons. There is nothing libertarian about capitalism and wage-slavery, and theft of public assets.

    Here's a good discussion with Chomsky (very short and viewable, only seven minutes) that gives a skeletal explanation of the history.

    "Liberty without socialism is privilege, injustice; socialism without liberty is slavery and brutality." - Michael Bakunin (Economic Left/Right: -10.00 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -9.79)

    by ZhenRen on Tue Aug 05, 2014 at 11:23:27 AM PDT

    •  Anarchism and Proudhon (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ZhenRen, thanatokephaloides

      Always nice to meet a fellow fan of Proudhon.  It looks like I stepped into a controversy about Proudhon that I wasn't even aware of.  I will be reading up on it more.

      As for your other point.  I am aware of the two, almost completely separate, libertarian traditions.  It will likely be the topic of my next diary.

      Our Dime: Understanding the Federal Budget

      by Dustin Mineau on Tue Aug 05, 2014 at 11:49:06 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It's really not that much of a controversy (2+ / 0-)

        in common anarchist thought. Individualist anarchists were mostly an American strain and were never representative of the movement, but nonetheless recognized as an important part of the history. Individualist anarchists are anti-capitalist, because they do not support wage labor. If the individualist forms and communist forms represent wings along a spectrum, Proudhon falls on the social side of the spectrum.

        The problem isn't so much the debate within anarchist movement (and there has been debate), but more the way Marxists have tried to paint Proudhon in distorting his view so absurdly as to accuse Proudhon of supporting wage labor and being against worker associations, among other distortions, which defies Proudhon's writings. I think that colors the view and confuses people who read both anarchist and Marxist literature.

        "Liberty without socialism is privilege, injustice; socialism without liberty is slavery and brutality." - Michael Bakunin (Economic Left/Right: -10.00 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -9.79)

        by ZhenRen on Tue Aug 05, 2014 at 11:59:22 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Anarchists (and Marx too) (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          lucid, thanatokephaloides

          don't view a market as the defining core of capitalism, but rather wage labor. Proudhon's concept of worker associations that would be worker controlled and worker self-managed (without bosses, without an owning class), and which would sell their products on a market, with prices reflecting costs, and relationships among worker collectives determined by agreements, with mutual banking (not profit-based, with fractional interest charged merely to cover costs) owned and operated by the workers, was not capitalism.

          Some people have conflated a market with capitalism, which even Marx did not agree with. It isn't a market which defines capitalism, it is the owning class/working class unequal relationship based on unequal distribution of property, which Proudhon called theft.

          Bakunin's and Kropotkin's influence (which, in keeping with anarchist theory, really is not exclusively theirs, but reflects the bottom up influence from the anarchist community) is much more reflective of the mainstream anarchist movement than Proudhon, but Proudhon has been called the "father" or the foundation of anarchism, along with Bakunin sharing that description.

          "Liberty without socialism is privilege, injustice; socialism without liberty is slavery and brutality." - Michael Bakunin (Economic Left/Right: -10.00 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -9.79)

          by ZhenRen on Tue Aug 05, 2014 at 12:18:40 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Your answer earned my rec and tip (2+ / 0-)

        Thank you!

        "Liberty without socialism is privilege, injustice; socialism without liberty is slavery and brutality." - Michael Bakunin (Economic Left/Right: -10.00 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -9.79)

        by ZhenRen on Tue Aug 05, 2014 at 12:01:10 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  The definition of the word (2+ / 0-)

    Even on DKos I've run into the problem of the moving of goal-posts when it comes defining capitalism.
      The defenders of the status quo will even ignore the dictionary definition in favor of some sort of utopian vision of capitalism. Thus they can point to idealized events (free exchange of goods) while ignoring the ugly history of capitalism (slavery, exploitation, monopolies).

    "The oppressors most powerful weapon is the mind of the oppressed." - Stephen Biko

    by gjohnsit on Tue Aug 05, 2014 at 11:32:10 AM PDT

  •  Yah it is hard to discuss something that is (2+ / 0-)

    without one definition.  Capitalism is certainly  not be a rose!

    "When wealth rules, democracy dies." Me

    by leema on Tue Aug 05, 2014 at 12:00:21 PM PDT

  •  I know someone who adulates (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    thanatokephaloides

    Ludwig von Mises and Friedman to a lesser degree.
    Unfortunately I can't discuss it with him as he continues to define a playing field that ignores reality, global warming etc.

    "When wealth rules, democracy dies." Me

    by leema on Tue Aug 05, 2014 at 12:03:36 PM PDT

  •  The same goes for the word "socialism", which (2+ / 0-)

    the contemporary RW describes as virtually any deviation from the marketplace whatsoever.

    Then they mash all the opponents of the unregulated marketplace together in one heap--US liberals, European Social Democrats, Communist, even Nazi ("National Socialism").

    Find out about my next big thing by reading my blog. Link is here: http://bettysrants.wordpress.com

    by Kimball Cross on Tue Aug 05, 2014 at 01:23:06 PM PDT

  •  The past is littered with (3+ / 0-)

    the drivel of industrial age economic blowhards. Harrumph! Only the free market can deliver the promise....bla bla bla.

    Marx was a real thinker. But most of the pro big business writers were exactly the same as today: Apologists for an unfair system that concentrates wealth and power into the hands of a very few.

    A true craftsman will meticulously construct the apparatus of his own demise.

    by onionjim on Tue Aug 05, 2014 at 01:58:14 PM PDT

  •  Rec'd, though I disagree w/ conclusion (3+ / 0-)

    IMO it is necessary to talk about capitalism, to discuss the political-economic system as a whole.  Discourse is necessary to clarify the reality whatever words are used, but "capitalism" remains the common designation of a  system dominated by large owners of capital.  

    "Free-market" capitalism is an ideological myth - see my tag line, a take off on the economists' bromide "there is no such thing as a free lunch."  Markets depend on a framework of law, legal tender, enforcement of contracts and rules against fraud, and public infrastructure. As Elizabeth Warren put it, "you didn't build that." Moreover, competitive markets evolve toward oligopoly as successful competitors increase market share.  

    The contemporary economic reality is mixed economies, with giant corporations predominating,  but with substantial public sectors (hard-won through struggle and now under assault) allocating substantial resources with some regard to common need.  The "private" economy is intertwined with the state, as concentrated wealth buys political power, resulting in corporate welfare, regulatory capture, etc.

    The "neoliberal" turn toward more plutocratic capitalism, initiated by Reagan and Co,  a reaction against the mid twentieth century Keynesian "social contract" has become as intellectually bankrupt as it became financially bankrupt in the last decade.  But we can only reverse it by mobilizing the exploited majority -- as Bill Moyers says, "organized people can beat organized money."  

    A sustained democratic movement  requires understanding, which requires "naming the system," as we used to say in the 1960s.  Diffuse populist anger can too easily be coopted and misdirected, which is why the GOP gets votes from much more than the 1%.  But growing populist sentiment is giving us the opportunity to move from corporate capitalism to a much more democratic political economy.

     

    There's no such thing as a free market!

    by Albanius on Tue Aug 05, 2014 at 02:20:29 PM PDT

  •  Excellent diary!!! n/t (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dustin Mineau

    That's one more thing to add to my long list of small problems. --my son, age 10

    by concernedamerican on Tue Aug 05, 2014 at 05:59:00 PM PDT

  •  Please do a similar diary on "socialism." Can't (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dustin Mineau, Nautical Knots

    wait to read that one!

    That's one more thing to add to my long list of small problems. --my son, age 10

    by concernedamerican on Tue Aug 05, 2014 at 05:59:49 PM PDT

  •  charming! thank you (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dustin Mineau, mkor7, Nautical Knots

    Please address your wit to 'socialism.'

    Economics, that totem of the Right, is a Social Science.  The study of theories of social systems.

    Economists have a poorer rate of success than voodoo priests.

    Because voodoo is based on ritual, not wishful thinking and bloodless musings.

    If you hate 'socialism' you are 'anti-social.'  If you cannot adjust your behavior to social norms, you are sociopathic.

    You can have freedom or ignorance. Never both. - me

    by nolagrl on Tue Aug 05, 2014 at 11:26:31 PM PDT

  •  Thanks for an excellent overview (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mkor7

    One point that I think needs to be researched and elaborated is how today's conservatives ended up believing that the USA was founded as a capitalist society. As I have tried to point out, this is historically inaccurate, because the concept of capitalism was not fully formed until nearly a century after the American Revolution. Which of course leaves the question: what was the economy of the USA intended to be. Here, the historical record is chock full of examples of the national and state governments supporting economic activity leading to each new technological revolution: in the 1790s, hiring geometers and surveyors and mathematicians and cartographers to chart the hazards of coastal waters, and to build lighthouses; in the early 1800s sending out Army expeditions to explore and map the west; in the 1820s, outright financing of the building of The National Road; in the 1840s, giving money outright to Samuel Morse to develop the telegraph; in the 1850s and 1860s, giving millions of acres of the public land away, free, to companies in exchange for their promise to build railroads; in the 1910s, paving roads and building bridges to facilitate the use of new fangled motor vehicles; in the 1920s, supporting the development of aviation with lucrative mail carrier routes; in the 1930s, bringing electricity to rural areas that privately owned power companies could not see a profit providing service to; in the 1950s, building an interstate highway system; in the 1960s, kick-starting applied scientific research by making a commitment to a manned moon landing; in the 1970s and 1980s, funding the development of things called routers, TCIP, and ARPAnet.

    And I think it would be extremely useful, for the purposes of political agitation and education, to include a discussion of Thorstein Veblen's critique of capitalism: that there is a vital difference between industry, which creates wealth, and business, which appropriates and accumulates wealth. A few years ago, Veblen scholar Jon Larson wrote a great article on the difference between industrial capitalism (which roughly characterized the USA economy from the 1940s to 1960s) and financial capitalism, which is what we're fighting today.

    A conservative is a scab for the oligarchy.

    by NBBooks on Wed Aug 06, 2014 at 06:46:16 AM PDT

  •  Liberalism and neo-liberalism (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Nautical Knots

    Your article also makes it easier to understand why von Mises, Friedman, and the other Mont Pelerin devotees used to term "neo-liberalism."

    A conservative is a scab for the oligarchy.

    by NBBooks on Wed Aug 06, 2014 at 07:15:59 AM PDT

  •  Capitalism is destroying itself. (0+ / 0-)

    Capitalism is destroying itself faster than any socialist could imagine...
    If the socialist only knew what a fragile, flim-flam system it really is...    

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site