Concerning Walter’s article today, there is never an end to the argument over words and their meanings in ideological and political discourse. Whenever any word has come to a point of eliciting positive feelings in common use, it is bound to be appropriated, usually in some incomplete or distorted way, by those who want to appeal to its supporters. As was once true of liberalism, it has become true of libertarianism. As it was true of free enterprise, it has also become true of capitalism. To the degree that ideas regarding economic or political freedom gain traction, to that degree will the words and phrases that best describe those concepts be taken over and used by others. This continual process of expropriation cannot be stopped, and it is, in my opinion, absolutely futile to give up the use of adequate words. At my first FEE seminar 40 years ago, it was carefully explained that we were neither conservatives nor libertarians. When I asked what exactly we were, Leonard Read replied that we were all believers in the “freedom philosophy.’ Later that day, Hans Sennholz, in answer to the same question, replied that we were all “advocates of the private-property order.” While deeply affected by what I learned from FEE in 1970, I never had much use for the euphemisms coined in Leonard’s effort to avoid using “libertarian,” which he had once loved, because he was convinced it had been appropriated by ‘anarchists.” His refusal to employ a very useful term for someone who makes liberty a paramount priority achieved nothing. I recommend not giving up on good words, else we lose them all.
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/12418/giving-up-on-good-ideological-words/
Giving up on good ideological words
Previous post: New Blog: The Libertarian Standard
{ 21 comments }
“I recommend not giving up on good words, else we lose them all.”
I think Orwell would agree.
BTW, this philosophy would suggest we stick to the word “liberal”, despite the fact that people in the US now think that it somehow means “socialist without being socialist”.
I agree with the article with a caveat.
Words are important whether they end up carrying good or bad connotation. The key is matching words with actions. In the end this is how all people and especially politicians should be judged.
Yes, for every “good” word: (a) there are settings in which the “good” word is “bad,” a pejorative; and (b) there are other words (e.g., “denial”) that implicitly rob the target of all scruples, along with any basis for consideration, much less respect.
“Denial” has gotten lots of exercise with addressing Holocaust history, as well as questioning global warming. Much of the word’s usefulness comes from applying it to targets to which it does not apply (parties who are not EVEN “denying”).
Fortunately, the same process, abused too widely and too long, can devalue the word and remove its “teeth.” Something like that happened to “Communist sympathizer” in the 1950s as the McCarthy era came to an end.
At least AGW is coming to be seen as the hoax it always was. One out of two ain’t bad.
I recommend not giving up on good words, else we lose them all.
Therein lies the problem: why is “capitalism” a good word for what we libertarians believe?
I don’t think that “capitalism” encompasses all of what libertarians believe, but it does have one good point; it implies an emphasis on property rights.
http://mises.org/daily/3735
“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. Free-market capitalism is a network of free and voluntary exchanges in which producers work, produce, and exchange their products for the products of others through prices voluntarily arrived at. State capitalism consists of one or more groups making use of the coercive apparatus of the government — the State — to accumulate capital for themselves by expropriating the production of others by force and violence.”
… let them try take over anarcho-capitalism… lol.
The term “Capitalism” is misleading, it implies that there’s an idea that can be opposed. It’s equivalent to something like “Gravitism” – the philosophy that things tend to move towards each other according to their mass and their separation, except we call it “Gravity”, because it’s not a philosophy, it’s a fact. “Capitalism” is the same, it’s not an idea, it’s an inescapable fact about human nature: People respond to incentives. Thus people will tend to act to their advantage. This is not a theory that can be overthrown by a “better” theory that makes you feel better, it’s a simple fact. I propose the alternative term “Capity”, to sound like “Gravity”, to denote this, any thoughts?
What matters is dynamism in getting the ideas out, not maintaining comfortable and anachronistic definitions.
You can tell the difference between a marketer and an ideologue, as an ideologue will insist that what he has to sell has value (capitalism) even if his clientele is ambivalent, and a marketer is willing to sell the masses what he has, by marketing it as what they want.
By all accounts I have encountered, Leonard Read was an excellent marketer.
DixieFlatline, I’m not sure I understand your comment about Leonard Read.
Read didn’t want to “sell” anyone anything, let alone market to “the masses.” That’s the opposite of what he and FEE were about. Instead, he just put the ideas out there plainly, for any who were interested, and hoped others might benefit from them. As for word choices, I gather that he just wanted to use terms that he believed best reflected his views.
Agreed.
Colin Phillips:
You don’t seem to have the faintest idea what you’re talking about; a dictionary might help
Gene Berman,
What a jerky reply. I understood what Colin was saying (I don’t think “capity” works, though). Colin is getting to the root of why old Karl was keen on saddling us with this word. I’m not going to consult a dictionary either, as I invent these two deliberately silly words:
I’m a capitalist because I’m a “eatist” and I wish to always earn my food. Everyone is an “eatist” making everyone a capitalist or a “thieveryist” (or a combo). There is no third “ism” since the end of hunter/gatherer times.
Not to extend this discussion forever but I want to make it clear that Leonard Read was a hero, an inspiration, and a friend to me. Not only did he recommend me in 1978 to head the CCE, I was one of several candidates who were interviewed as his possible successor as FEE president in the early 1980s (another being Larry Reed, who is current president). I don’t criticize Leonard for looking for another term to describe FEE’s teachings; I only meant to point out that I think that it would have been more effective for him to say, “We are libertarians, by which I mean that we put a high value on economic and political freedom. Most of us connected to FEE believe that we can ensure such freedom by limiting government to the protection of rights and the defense of our territory, but some other libertarians believe that governments, by their nature, will not remain limited and so they advocate and argue for a stateless society; i.e., anarchy.” Leonard spent much of his energy over the last decade or so of his life differentiating FEE’s “freedom philosophy” from the positions of Bob Lefevre and Murray Rothbard, to use two examples. Sheldon Richman, who is a good friend and a former colleague of mine, is as well-read and has as much intellectual integrity as anyone I have ever known. His stance in opposition to use of the word “capitalism” is commendable. But in my opinion it will make no more difference than did Leonard Read’s opposition to “libertarianism” 40 years ago.
Rich Wilcke:
I never met Mr. Read but had the very great pleasure (and honor) of speaking with him by phone
in early 1980 (or was it ’81?) when I could still have been considered a beginner in studying Economics.
I would say that the conversation lasted nearly an hour, during which time I expressed to him a view (having to do with the future of society) which was not only somewhat (at least to my then-thinking) original but, also, somewhat “whacky.” To my very great surprise, he was very effusive in agreement with me, explaining that he’d held a nearly identical view for many years (without ever expressing the notion a single time, he said, because he didn’t want to get a reputation as “whacky.”)
There is a “rest of the story” to the incident but I have neither time nor inclination at the moment nor is the matter something for general discussion here. If you’re interested, let me know by email and I’ll explain the matter further.
mpolzkill:
I moderate my criticism–at least somewhat–to note Mr. Phillips is not unique in needing a dictionary. As for your “jerk” comment, I am assured most are wont to “consider the source.” .
Huebert:
Though my knowledge of Read is quite limited, Dixie Flatliner hits the nail on the head in discerning both an ideologue and a marketer. Essentially, I’d think of him as a highly functional interface. If you don’t think he was a marketer, I can’t comprehend how you could have “I, Pencil” and missed the deliberate thrust toward “the masses” in language, content, and even in physical form. As another indicator, I’d suggest that no one rises very far in the Chamber of Commerce–in the national organization–without being something of a “salesmens’ salesman.”
I don’t doubt that he had the strongest sales skills and that he was highly effective in dealing with people in all respects. But what he did in running FEE certainly didn’t involve anything like mass marketing. He wouldn’t even put a sign at the road to let people know FEE was there! He also eschewed sales tricks — for example, he would not allow book prices to end in .95 or .99.
Of course, he was very good at writing in a highly accessible way, so that (hopefully) any reasonably intelligent person could understand and appreciate his point. And, I gather, he was good at persuading people in one-on-one conversation. But that’s not really a method for winning over the masses.
Look at Elements of Libertarian Leadership (online at mises), in which he gives his “methodology” for spreading liberty. It doesn’t involve marketing in the usual sense, especially not mass-marketing.
Agreed with all of this, except it was odd that he abandoned the word “libertarianism” at one point (not sure if he ever came back to it). I find such overwrought semantics to be a bit crankish or at least a bit overly obsessed with strategic considerations. It bugs me sort of like it bugs me when I come across people who say they are not “into” labels. What? So they are non-labelers?
I have read a lot of Read’s stuff and liked it, but found his sort of grandfatherly home-spun wisdom tone a bit cloying after a while, and some of his titles were non-descriptive (To Free or Freeze; How Do We Know?; Talking to Myself). But I appreciate what Read did in building FEE and advocating liberty (or “the freedom philosophy”).
Leonard used to boast, privately, that he had been personally responsible for resurrecting the word “libertarian’” at some point – presumably in the 1940s or 1950s – and he used it proudly up until around 1970. He never went back to using it as openly as in the 1960s. I love the word as a description of someone who value economic and political liberty. I don’t care if Chomsky uses it or not. During on LP campaign, Ed Crane wrote a letter to Ronald Reagan, before he became president (when he was a free-market radio commentator) demanding that he stop referring to himself as a libertarian. It’s a good word; I want to keep it…and, frankly, I feel the same way about “capitalism.”
I don’t see changes in the meaning of words as being a bad thing. Historically, the meanings of some words have been stable, while other words have changed completely. As people feel the need for new words, they invent them Useful new words are adopted by others; old words and meanings which outlive their usefulness become archaic and are no longer used.
This is true for both political and non-political words. The meanings of many political words have been stable for the last hundred years. For example, the words “tyranny”, “dictator”, “socialism”, “bureaucracy” and “communism” have not changed appreciably.
Libertarian, anarcho-capitalist, paleo-liberals have also appropriated a few words. One example is the re-branding of the word “anarchist” which, despite the existence of the writings of Benjamin Tucker, was (100 years ago) mostly identified with bomb-throwing anarcho-socialists. Another example is Rothbard’s attempt to revise the word “monopoly” back to its original meaning “government grant of privilege.”
When President Obama claims he is for, “free enterprise” or some other such nonsense, I don’t think that anyone is fooled. His supporters understand that by “free enterprise” he means what we call “fascism.” Indeed, the president’s “educated” supporters understand that “free enterprise” is the only way to achieve “liberty”, having learned all about the virtues of “free enterprise” in “economics” class in our nation’s various “educational” institutions.
Comments on this entry are closed.