In my unpublished 2003 article Democracy Or The Republic?, I have a paragraph which is very appropriate in the context of this entry:
“How often do we engage ourselves in a passionate debate, marveling at the complexity of issues involved, yet hardly realizing that all this said complexity proceeds from the simple fact that we do not know what we are talking about. Sometimes we argue about different things we have chosen to call by the same name. On another occasion we happen to talk about the same thing called by different names, etc…”
Capitalism is one of such fuzzy terms, which has many meanings, and, as soon as we start arguing about it, a confusion sets in, as to which of these meanings we are talking about. Without making sure that we are “on the same page,” there is little point in a further argument, except for indulging ourselves in preaching to the choir inside us--- a totally senseless activity!
Going even further, I can say that the problem of too many definitions is largely caused by the fact that the term “capitalism” has itself become an empty shell housing different prejudices and biases pro and contra to bear witness to its semantic degeneration in theory and inexorable thinning down in practical application. In this opinion I find an eminently distinguished ally in the person of Noam Chomsky:
“To begin with, I think terms like “capitalism” and “socialism” have been so evacuated of any substantive meaning that I don’t even like to use them. There’s nothing remotely like capitalism in existence.” (From his 1991 Interview with David Finkel of The Detroit Metro Times.)
This entry collects several definitions of capitalism/capitalist, demonstrating their diversity of meaning, and proving the point that I am thereby making without any doubt to the contrary. But before we start moving in that direction, here are just a few different manifestations of the ‘capitalist’ concept that readily come to my mind in this regard.
--Capitalism as an economic system.
--Capitalism as a political system (as opposed to “Communism,” for instance).
--Capitalism as a system of business administration.
--Capitalism as a philosophy.
--Capitalism as an ideology (definition of ideology, its relation to ethics, etc.).
--Capitalism as a culture.
Webster’s Dictionary (see my special Introduction entry Webster’s Dictionary As An Authority Of Sorts, to be posted later) characteristically gives two meanings for the word capitalism:
---“The economic system in which all or most of the means of production and distribution, as land, factories, railroads, etc., are privately owned and operated for profit, originally under fully competitive conditions: it has been generally characterized by a tendency toward concentration of wealth and, in its later phase, by the growth of great corporations, increased government control, etc.”
Here is the catch, in the sense that it is under such government control that capitalism proper loses its strict meaning and turns into something else, a mixed model, that is! Surprisingly, this definition of capitalism as an economic system, aside from being incomplete, contains elements which are arguably not part of such a definition at all, such as increased government control, which ought to be interpreted as a government restraint on laissez-faire capitalism, and not as part of the nature of capitalism as such!
And now, my main point of interest, which is to become the subject of a separate entry, which follows, as to how this insistence on private ownership correlates with the notion of State Capitalism, insofar as the basic mechanical components of capitalism as an economic phenomenon are concerned. Is this State Capitalism a misleading term relating to something which is not capitalism at all, or is it Capitalism too? Once again, my answer is that the catch is in the multiplicity of the definitions. In my entry that deals with the concept of State Capitalism I am attempting to revise the technical definition of capitalism so that the notion of ownership by the state becomes consistent with the term itself.
---“The principles, methods, interests, power, influence, etc. (is there a single aggregate word to describe all of these?) of capitalists, especially of those with large holdings.”
It can be suggested that this definition touches upon the functioning of capitalism as a system of business administration, as well as on certain elements of its philosophy. I am, however, surprised how inadequate this definition is both in terms of its failure to consider other meanings of capitalism, and in the inclusion in the Webster’s definition of certain arbitrary elements, which do not seem to legitimately belong there, at the expense of several definitely more legitimate elements.)
And, once we are on the subject, here are three Webster’s meanings for the word capitalist:
---"A man who has capital which is or may be employed in business." (Including his own business! This makes the first definition the most neutral and generally acceptable, except that the reality is not that neutral.)
---"An upholder of capitalism." This definition of a capitalist, as an upholder of capitalism, seems deceptively comprehensive, but only until we realize that it brazenly capitalizes on the ambiguity of the ill-defined term capitalism, so here is the catch and the key to the riddle.
---"Loosely, a wealthy person." Immediately giving the word capitalism itself an ethically negative meaning, by the implication of the existence of poverty. Mind you, it is not wealth itself, but its existence alongside with poverty that introduces the anti-capitalist moral dimension into the picture.
(Part II follows immediately.)
“How often do we engage ourselves in a passionate debate, marveling at the complexity of issues involved, yet hardly realizing that all this said complexity proceeds from the simple fact that we do not know what we are talking about. Sometimes we argue about different things we have chosen to call by the same name. On another occasion we happen to talk about the same thing called by different names, etc…”
Capitalism is one of such fuzzy terms, which has many meanings, and, as soon as we start arguing about it, a confusion sets in, as to which of these meanings we are talking about. Without making sure that we are “on the same page,” there is little point in a further argument, except for indulging ourselves in preaching to the choir inside us--- a totally senseless activity!
Going even further, I can say that the problem of too many definitions is largely caused by the fact that the term “capitalism” has itself become an empty shell housing different prejudices and biases pro and contra to bear witness to its semantic degeneration in theory and inexorable thinning down in practical application. In this opinion I find an eminently distinguished ally in the person of Noam Chomsky:
“To begin with, I think terms like “capitalism” and “socialism” have been so evacuated of any substantive meaning that I don’t even like to use them. There’s nothing remotely like capitalism in existence.” (From his 1991 Interview with David Finkel of The Detroit Metro Times.)
This entry collects several definitions of capitalism/capitalist, demonstrating their diversity of meaning, and proving the point that I am thereby making without any doubt to the contrary. But before we start moving in that direction, here are just a few different manifestations of the ‘capitalist’ concept that readily come to my mind in this regard.
--Capitalism as an economic system.
--Capitalism as a political system (as opposed to “Communism,” for instance).
--Capitalism as a system of business administration.
--Capitalism as a philosophy.
--Capitalism as an ideology (definition of ideology, its relation to ethics, etc.).
--Capitalism as a culture.
Webster’s Dictionary (see my special Introduction entry Webster’s Dictionary As An Authority Of Sorts, to be posted later) characteristically gives two meanings for the word capitalism:
---“The economic system in which all or most of the means of production and distribution, as land, factories, railroads, etc., are privately owned and operated for profit, originally under fully competitive conditions: it has been generally characterized by a tendency toward concentration of wealth and, in its later phase, by the growth of great corporations, increased government control, etc.”
Here is the catch, in the sense that it is under such government control that capitalism proper loses its strict meaning and turns into something else, a mixed model, that is! Surprisingly, this definition of capitalism as an economic system, aside from being incomplete, contains elements which are arguably not part of such a definition at all, such as increased government control, which ought to be interpreted as a government restraint on laissez-faire capitalism, and not as part of the nature of capitalism as such!
And now, my main point of interest, which is to become the subject of a separate entry, which follows, as to how this insistence on private ownership correlates with the notion of State Capitalism, insofar as the basic mechanical components of capitalism as an economic phenomenon are concerned. Is this State Capitalism a misleading term relating to something which is not capitalism at all, or is it Capitalism too? Once again, my answer is that the catch is in the multiplicity of the definitions. In my entry that deals with the concept of State Capitalism I am attempting to revise the technical definition of capitalism so that the notion of ownership by the state becomes consistent with the term itself.
---“The principles, methods, interests, power, influence, etc. (is there a single aggregate word to describe all of these?) of capitalists, especially of those with large holdings.”
It can be suggested that this definition touches upon the functioning of capitalism as a system of business administration, as well as on certain elements of its philosophy. I am, however, surprised how inadequate this definition is both in terms of its failure to consider other meanings of capitalism, and in the inclusion in the Webster’s definition of certain arbitrary elements, which do not seem to legitimately belong there, at the expense of several definitely more legitimate elements.)
And, once we are on the subject, here are three Webster’s meanings for the word capitalist:
---"A man who has capital which is or may be employed in business." (Including his own business! This makes the first definition the most neutral and generally acceptable, except that the reality is not that neutral.)
---"An upholder of capitalism." This definition of a capitalist, as an upholder of capitalism, seems deceptively comprehensive, but only until we realize that it brazenly capitalizes on the ambiguity of the ill-defined term capitalism, so here is the catch and the key to the riddle.
---"Loosely, a wealthy person." Immediately giving the word capitalism itself an ethically negative meaning, by the implication of the existence of poverty. Mind you, it is not wealth itself, but its existence alongside with poverty that introduces the anti-capitalist moral dimension into the picture.
(Part II follows immediately.)
No comments:
Post a Comment