How anticapitalists define capitalism.
So when it comes to conversations about economics, there's a tug of war over what "capitalism" means, and the pro-capitalists seem to be struggling to assert their definition because the anti-capitalist definitions are very entrenched.
Which is a bad thing because anti-capitalist definitions of "capitalism" tend to be biased garbage. "Capitalism is when bad things" is a phrase that alludes to this, but I see there's some need for a breakdown.
1; Capitalism amirite?:
A lot of people are casual anticapitalists, and don't really have a definition. They're operating on a socially infectious habit of blaming everything bad on capitalism. Rich getting richer? Capitalism. Small business struggling? Capitalism. The snack you like getting discontinued? Capitalism.
To these people "capitalism" doesn't have a real meaning, it's just a convenient scapegoat and bogeyman for everything they don't like.
2; Capitalism is this list of bad things:
It can be greed and corruption, corporations, a "system defined by exploitation," whatever the specifics, "capitalism" is defined this way is synonymous with evil.
Not much to say about it, it's just blatant with bias.
3; Capitalism is basically everything (but actually just the bad things.)
This one is a bit more convoluted. This is a case where someone starts with a definition of "capitalism" so broad and all-encompassing that it doesn't have any meaning.
From there, "capitalism" can conveniently be blamed for every negative outcome in a system. (While any positive outcomes are ignored, disqualified, or otherwise not credited to capitalism.)
In summary: "Capitalism is when bad things" is an apt summary of how critics of "capitalism" describe it.
For your typical critic of capitalism, "capitalism" isn't a clearly defined system or set of principles that lead to bad outcomes, by their biased definition, it is the bad outcomes. (See also the logic underpinning "not real communism" where a bad outcome isn't communism, "communism" is the utopian outcome they want, so any failures automatically don't count.)
“Capitalism” is a term made up by Marx, which is why I don’t like using it, but the inertia is a bit overwhelming at this point.
The libertarian right has a few ding-dongs in this area, too. Like people who say “Capitalism = Freedom”, which is kinda stupid, even if you like capitalism a lot. More commonly it tends to be equivalent to “free enterprise”, which is fine, but I’ve heard it defined in a particular way:
That is, when someone raises money (said “capital”) in order to buy machinery and industrial space, then hires workers to work on those machines to produce goods for a wage. There are other implications, like a financial system that allows people to pool their resources into corporations to facilitate such a framework.
I’ve seen one anarchist type hunger for a world where everything is decentralized, yet practical enough to allow for a functional industrial economy to work without corporations. Though does that mean they’re going to prevent people from voluntarily pooling their resources? Or will there be no concept of an LLC and you’ll just be open to lawsuits if your company fucks up? Hmm
Honestly, given that people have been trying to appropriate and redefine "capitalism" longer than I've been alive with no real success. Only pro-capitalists recognize the pro-capitalism definition. Maybe it's past time to change that.
Perhaps people who believe in free markets and economic freedom should come up with our own term with an accompanying manifesto instead of continuing the failed attempt to appropriate Marxist terminology.
