"Capitalism" A Pejorative?

[The Intransigent Faction]

So I got hit with this in a discussion:

First they said that:


Capitalism is a pejorative invented by Marx and is not an accurate description of the system he was referring to. "Capitalism" implies a primacy of capital, whereas its real primacy is human freedom of association and exchange.
When viewed in this way, the only fundamental difference between an Anarcho-capitalist and an Anarcho-syndacalist, as far as I can see, is the belief in private property.

Also, when I used this explanation of the "labour theory of value":



The Labor theory of value arises from the fact that all value inherited in commodities stems from labor, as opposed to capital. i.e. if one were left to his whims in the wilderness with only his labor to live by, he would be able to forge tools to create capital with, and thus and endless supply of wealth. If this man were a capitalist on the other hand, and tried to survive without working, he would be dead in a matter of days. Because capital alone is not enough to create wealth, you can see that labor alone IS enough to create wealth.

I goit this response:


In a free market, people on that island would pursue whatever they could so that they might survive, and trade their goods with others to acquire what they couldn't produce themselves. It would enable everyone's survival.

Just wanted to see what others thought of this.
Oh and as for my school..I'm almost done step one. People are starting to understand that Communism is a classless, stateless society...
Just the other day, my history teacher, who apparently majored in political science, said this:

"On the one hand there are Conservatives, who believe that government intervention should be minimal and we should let people fend for themselves. On the opposite side there is Marx, who advocated Communist states--societies completely run by the government."

Oh the lies!

I've been asked when I mentioned "classless, stateless".."How would that work?" I think I've fgured out how to approach this question, and a lot of credit for that goes to RevLeft and this thread. Thanks, comrades!

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Just the other day, my history teacher, who apparently majored in political science, said this:

"On the one hand there are Conservatives, who believe that government intervention should be minimal and we should let people fend for themselves. On the opposite side there is Marx, who advocated Communist states--societies completely run by the government."
If you have the gonads (or ovaries) to contest your teacher's statements, I would definitely take the opportunity to do so. When I was in public schools similar remarks were made by teachers across a spectrum of classes, and even as a non-communist I took the opportunity to correct their statements. At the very least they should distinguish between communism and the "communist states."


In a free market, people on that island would pursue whatever they could so that they might survive, and trade their goods with others to acquire what they couldn't produce themselves. It would enable everyone's survival.Included in the statement "whatever they could" would be slavery, rape, theft, and murder. :lol:

This respondent is under the misconception that you can't trade in socialism, or that somehow it's automatically diverted to capitalism by doing so. The difference between capitalism and socialism is quite simple: one rejects wealth from non-labor activities, such as land commodities, and one doesn't. Under socialism the forces of nature can either be harnessed in a collective capacity, or they can be subverted to a market with just acquisition and compensation, but you can't get wealthy from the natural world, nor the plights of others. The only source of wealth dependent of the individual is labor.

Taking the island example, the most skilled hunter would probably want the others to assist him for some food. Perhaps he wants them to scrub his feet for some deer meat. This is acceptable, even if it does conform to a market or bartering economy. However, the hunter should not be able to force a contract. Agreements only go so far as the present. Even if I say I will do so and so, I am not obligated to the future. However capitalists would argue that I am, which legitimizes slavery. The hunter could be the only one around with a bow, and in exchange for feeding everyone else he demands their obedience forever.

Here is where the state gets involved, of course. To maintain this contract, he probably needs more force. So he associates with others with far less restrictive terms and uses that collective capacity to enforce the contracts.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Here are some replies to your opponent's points:


Capitalism is a pejorative invented by Marx and is not an accurate description of the system he was referring to.
I'm not sure who coined the term "capitalism" - I don't think it was Marx, though. In any case, it doesn't matter what you call it. A rose by any other name is still a rose (or in this case, a pile of garbage by any other name is still a pile of garbage). You can call the current economic system anything you like; that doesn't change any of the arguments against it.


"Capitalism" implies a primacy of capital, whereas its real primacy is human freedom of association and exchange.
No, the real primacy is that of private property which can be invested in a for-profit business.

What do you call private property which can be invested in a for-profit business? Capital.

Hence, "capitalism."


When viewed in this way, the only fundamental difference between an Anarcho-capitalist and an Anarcho-syndacalist, as far as I can see, is the belief in private property.
Yes, that's true. And private property makes for a BIG, HUGE, IMMENSE difference. Private property is the ultimate source of all exploitation, oppression, tyranny and inequality in the world. Why? Because the right to own private property means the right to exclude other people from freely using the tools they need in order to survive.


In a free market, people on that island would pursue whatever they could so that they might survive, and trade their goods with others to acquire what they couldn't produce themselves. It would enable everyone's survival.
True. But you're describing an economic system in which everyone is self-employed. That's not capitalism. (in fact, it's a system which can only work in agrarian societies)

The defining feature of capitalism is private property over the means of production. On that island, the "means of production" are the tools that people use to make stuff, plus the land that can be used to grow food. Capitalism means that there is a group of people who own all the land and tools, so that the rest of the island's inhabitants have a choice between working for these owners or starving.

[The Intransigent Faction]

If you have the gonads (or ovaries) to contest your teacher's statements, I would definitely take the opportunity to do so. When I was in public schools similar remarks were made by teachers across a spectrum of classes, and even as a non-communist I took the opportunity to correct their statements. At the very least they should distinguish between communism and the "communist states."

Indeed I will, and have in the past.
I happened to have barely slept the night before, and have a worry that I'll misspeak or leave out something important. Still, I guess it's better that I speak up that worry about not saying exactly the right words.
In any case, thanks very much to both of you.