Rad Geek: Well, I think that he obviously is [...]

I disagree. Rothbard is nothing except dead.

“As you already know, Stephan, I’ve already spelled out several different things that “capitalism” can mean, depending on context, on several different occasions. I don’t know precisely what David Gendron means by it.”

Me neithers.

“But I do know that he doesn’t mean “an advanced free market of a libertarian, property-rights respecting society” by it.”

Well, I do, which is why I spelled it out.

“if I needed to know just what he meant to answer his question, then I think I might consider asking him what he means, instead of ignoring context entirely and offering a non-responsive “answer” based on a question you know he wasn’t asking.”

Well, I gather you didn’t like my answer, but I am not sure how you would have had me answer. Neither of us know what he means, so I guess I could have asked him to clarify. Instead of answering. But i figured I would state my position and clarify my own terms (something he failed to do), and then he could figure out whether my own clearly laid out position was or was not compatible with whatever internal leftish framework is swimming around in his head.

Or I could have assumed some leftish understanding of the market and capitalism and answered “no”–thus conceding a substantive debate in the guise of a semantic one–which is one motivation, I think, for the slippery way many left-types discuss this issue, refusing to define, saying its semantic only, then saying it’s not, and on and on.

In my view, the leftists have clearly lost in their campaign to demonize the use of the word “capitalism.” They gave it a yeoman’s effort, but alas, it fizzled.

“Don’t be disingenuous. You keep trying to tell me that I’m “focusing on semantics” here, Stephan, but, again, you’re the one who began your answer with ‘if by “capitalist” you mean ….’ My complaint in this thread has nothing to do with an argument about the right meaning of the word “capitalism.” It has to do with your treatment of your interlocutor.”

My interlocutor received what he deserves. If he is going to use crankish or loaded or undefined terms, there is nothing wrong with me specifying exactly what I believe–and doing this requires, unfortunately, that I define what I meant by “capitalism,” due to the confusion spawned by the left-semantic campaign–and then he can figure out how to map my substantive views to his own terminology. There is nothing wrong with this at all. I used capitalism in MY sense, he is using it in HIS sense. Except that I explained what mine is.

“The discussion has nothing to do with trying to “change accepted terminology.” It has to do with responding to the question that was asked, not a different question that you find easier to discuss.”

I did respond. I could not answer yes or no since his meaning is not clear. And even if it was I could not answer yes or no alone, without endorsing his own usage (which is I guess the trick/trap LL’s want us to fall into?). So I laid out my own position very clearly, and defined my terms. That you criticize this is extremely perplexing.

” That sort of thing may be a nice lawyer’s trick, but it doesn’t help much if the aim to actually get closer to truth, or even mutual comprehension.”

Well his failure to define terms and/or attempt to trick me into subtly adopting the leftish semantic-substantive points doesn’t seem to either. My defining my own position does.

“What does Gendron mean by it? Capitalism-2? Capitalism-3? Something else in the neighborhood? I dunno. If it mattered to me to find out what he meant by his question, then the thing to do would be for me to ask him what he means. Rather than shoving ahead with a completely non-responsive “answer” based on something that he’s already told you he doesn’t mean by the term.”

Anyone with half a lick of sense can figure out what my own view is based on my answer. How he maps it to his own internal language is a separate matter.

“Unfortunately, this cheap rhetorical trick (as well as related cheap tricks, such as constantly changing the subject to his preferred hobby horses, or pissing and moaning about people “changing the accepted meanings of terms,” and then pissing and moaning, if they should take the bait and try to respond to this claim, about how they are “focusing on semantics” (!) rather than substance) is all too indicative of how Stephan chooses to approach this particular issue. I don’t know what he thinks it accomplishes, but I guess he gets to throw around the word “obfuscate” a lot.”

Nevertheless, none of this meta-talk changes the fact that in an advanced libertarian society there will be private ownership of the means of production, and that intelligent people will have various concepts associated therewith, and even words to use to denote those concepts.

“His view is that workplace hierarchy will be much less common absent the state, because it’s currently supported by state invasions against the property rights of poor people, and state subsidies to the employing class. This is of course a very different claim from the claim that you simply have no right to hire on labor at a factory.”

right. And Carson may be right that it would be less common. Who knows. Carson is right that the state distorts things greatly. I happen to think that the state harms firms more than it helps them (on the whole), and that without the state we’d have a large degree of hierarchical firms, even large multinational firms than now, but also perhaps more diversity in the same of more opportunities to have self-sufficiency, avocational work, localism, etc. I think it is completely unjustified to say that the dominant model would be a non-hiearchical, non-employment based one. But I’d love to have a free society so we can try it out.

As you already know, Stephan, I’ve already spelled out several different things that “capitalism” can mean, depending on context, on several different occasions. I don’t know precisely what David Gendron means by it. But I do know that he doesn’t mean “an advanced free market of a libertarian, property-rights respecting society” by it. How do I know? Because David Gendron already said that that’s not what he’s complaining about when he complains about “capitalism.” Presumably you know this too, because you already made a one-line reply in that thread, just below where he says that that’s not what he has a problem with.

Of course, knowing what he does not mean only goes so far. But if I needed to know just what he meant to answer his question, then I think I might consider asking him what he means, instead of ignoring context entirely and offering a non-responsive “answer” based on a question you know he wasn’t asking.

Kinsella: Otherwise, all this meta-talk and confusion is in my view exactly what you get when you start focusing on semantics …

Don’t be disingenuous. You keep trying to tell me that I’m “focusing on semantics” here, Stephan, but, again, you’re the one who began your answer with ‘if by “capitalist” you mean ….’ My complaint in this thread has nothing to do with an argument about the right meaning of the word “capitalism.” It has to do with your treatment of your interlocutor.

Kinsella: and trying to change accepted terminology

The discussion has nothing to do with trying to “change accepted terminology.” It has to do with responding to the question that was asked, not a different question that you find easier to discuss. That sort of thing may be a nice lawyer’s trick, but it doesn’t help much if the aim to actually get closer to truth, or even mutual comprehension.

martin: So the point was that he *doesn’t* mean “Carsonian property rights” [by "capitalist property rights"]?

Obviously not, because he already said he has no problem with Carsonian property rights, whereas he does apparently have a problem with capitalist property rights.

The point is that he already explicitly stated that he doesn’t have a problem with “an economic system that features Carsonian property rights and voluntary exchanges of goods and services,” whereas he does have a problem with Chartier’s capitalism-2 and capitalism-3. So when Gendron makes it clear that he has a problem with “capitalist property rights and profits,” it’s pretty clear that he is probably referring to institutions connected with capitalism-2 or capitalism-3, not with capitalism-1. Yet when he asks Kinsella a question about it, Kinsella proceeds to try and answer a question about capitalism-1, “an advanced free market of a libertarian, property-rights respecting society.” That makes it pretty clear that Kinsella is choosing to interpret “capitalism” to mean what he customarily uses it to mean, rather than what Gendron might be using it to mean.

What does Gendron mean by it? Capitalism-2? Capitalism-3? Something else in the neighborhood? I dunno. If it mattered to me to find out what he meant by his question, then the thing to do would be for me to ask him what he means. Rather than shoving ahead with a completely non-responsive “answer” based on something that he’s already told you he doesn’t mean by the term.

Unfortunately, this cheap rhetorical trick (as well as related cheap tricks, such as constantly changing the subject to his preferred hobby horses, or pissing and moaning about people “changing the accepted meanings of terms,” and then pissing and moaning, if they should take the bait and try to respond to this claim, about how they are “focusing on semantics” (!) rather than substance) is all too indicative of how Stephan chooses to approach this particular issue. I don’t know what he thinks it accomplishes, but I guess he gets to throw around the word “obfuscate” a lot.

Martin: That surprises me, because I thought that in Kevin’s view on property rights you can not – for instance – own a factory while others work in it.

That’s absolutely not Kevin’s view. (Or Tucker’s, from whom Kevin draws a lot of his analysis and critique.)

His view is that workplace hierarchy will be much less common absent the state, because it’s currently supported by state invasions against the property rights of poor people, and state subsidies to the employing class. This is of course a very different claim from the claim that you simply have no right to hire on labor at a factory.

Martin: assuming David is a mutualist

I can’t speak for Gendron, but I don’t think it’s safe to assume that he’s a mutualist. Lots of non-mutualist Anarchists have no basic problem with mutualist economic arrangements (that is, they don’t consider them anti-Anarchistic), but do personally prefer some other kind of arrangement (communistic, collectivistic, social ecology, whatever) over mutualism.

martin: do you support the property rights of a capitalist with respect to the capital and the profits that come from it?

That’s an interesting interpretation of the question. I don’t know whether it’s the right interpretation of the question. I do know that it wasn’t Kinsella’s interpretation of the question — since Kinsella already said that he was taking “capitalist” to refer to “an advanced free market of a libertarian, property-rights respecting society.” Not to the particular occupation of somebody in the business of renting out capital.

That surprises me, because I thought that in Kevin’s view on property rights you can not – for instance – own a factory while others work in it.

But in either case, mutualists use “capitalism” to mean something that inherently involves the employer-employee relationship as the dominant form.

So when a mutualist (assuming David is a mutualist) askes wether someone supports “capitalist property rights and profits”, he is likely to mean it the way I put it before: do you support the property rights of a capitalist with respect to the capital and the profits that come from it?

To which as I noted before, Stephan gave an affirmative reply, with some further clarification.

So I say again, I really (still) have no idea what Rad Geek is on about when he writes:

In other words: “David, sure, of course, if by ‘capitalist’ you mean something that I already know you don’t mean by it, then in that other sense of the word, which has nothing to do with your question, how could one not be in favor of property rights and profit?”

If a situation can count as capitalist by Stephan’s standards but not count as capitalist by mutualist standards, then they would seem to mean different things by the term, no?

Well, if that’s really the case (see above, I’m not yet convinced) then yes, there is a difference, but it’s not like it’s something entirely different. It’s not like capitalist the way Stephan describes it is something that has “nothing to do with your [Davids] question”, is it?

Some mutualists (like François) regard the employer-employee relationship as inherently contrary to rights; others (like Kevin) don’t, but think it would tend to be much less common in a freed market (i.e. they think the dominance of the employer-employee relationship is the result of rights-violations, rather than thinking it is itself a rights-violation). But in either case, mutualists use “capitalism” to mean something that inherently involves the employer-employee relationship as the dominant form. In other words, a freed market that was dominated by cooperatives would not count as “capitalist” as mutualists use the term; but it might well (depending on details) count as “capitalist”in Stephan’s sense (whether or not Stephan thinks this a likely outcome of freed markets).

If a situation can count as capitalist by Stephan’s standards but not count as capitalist by mutualist standards, then they would seem to mean different things by the term, no?

Why on earth would that be the likeliest alternative?

What other alternatives are there? (Aside from “mutualist-style holdings” as you call them, but surely he didn’t mean *that*.)

I thought it was pretty well known to all parties in this debate that “capitalism,” in the sense usually condemned by mutualists, is not synonymous with “capitalism” in the sense usually lauded by Austrians.

First of all I think that’s beside the point, because the question David asked Stephan was about capitalist property rights, not about capitalism as such.

Second I don’t think it’s true. If only. “Capitalism” in the sense lauded by Austrians permits an employer-employee relationship which is something mutualists object to (at least that’s how I understand it). Sure there are other aspects to “capitalism” in the mutualist sense to which mutualists object, but which Austrians don’t consider part of “capitalism”, but at the end of the day, “capitalism” in the purest Austrian sense is – as far as I know – still objectionable to mutualists.

I thought it was pretty well known to all parties in this debate that “capitalism,” in the sense usually condemned by mutualists, is not synonymous with “capitalism” in the sense usually lauded by Austrians.