Posted on 07/05/2025 5:50:09 AM PDT by MtnClimber
Writing in the Wall Street Journal on June 30 (July 1 in the print edition), editorialist Matthew Hennessey advocates that “Capitalism Needs Champions.” Reacting to the victory of avowed socialist Zohran Mamdani in New York City’s mayoral primary, Hennessey says that the electoral result indicates that the defenders of capitalism are doing a poor job, and need to step up their game:
Let Zohran Mamdani’s victory in last week’s Democratic mayoral primary in New York serve as your periodic reminder that capitalism is in dire need of able defenders. Socialism has more cheerleaders than it deserves, considering its record of consistent failure. Markets need champions too. This is always true, especially now. . . . [T]he problem isn’t capitalism. The problem is complacency.
I don’t disagree. But there’s another problem for defenders of what its enemies call “capitalism.” The problem is that capitalism is not an “ism.”
Think about it. In every instance other than the word “capitalism,” the suffix “ism” is used to designate something as a system of beliefs. The implication of the “ism” suffix is that there are adherents who have adopted these beliefs, and who think that these beliefs are the correct and moral ones that should be adopted by everybody. Such, they think, is the way to a better world. Thus religions are clearly all “isms”: Catholicism, Protestantism, Mohammedism, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, even Paganism. In the political realm, most any organized system of beliefs with advocates on its behalf gets the “ism” suffix: not just socialism and communism, but fascism, anarchism, liberalism, conservatism, environmentalism, and plenty more. Even sets of policy prescriptions associated with a particular politician can become an “ism”: think Reaganism, Obamaism, or Trumpism.
But “capitalism”? It’s just a fundamentally different thing. Capitalism is not a belief system. Nobody “believes” in capitalism per se. The word “capitalism” is better understood as a descriptive term for the natural order that arises in the presence of private property and free exchange. The natural order is full of warts and flaws, as are all human institutions. The combination of private property and free exchange could perhaps make a good case for being designated an “ism,” but it turns out that we don’t have that concept in a single word.
The system of private property and free exchange has demonstrated its ability to provide for every human want and need in remarkable abundance: necessities like food, clothing and shelter in incredible quantities and variety; refined art, music, entertainment and other culture; services to provide for every human comfort; and at the same time also every kind of dubious product and service, from drugs to the sex trade to loan sharking to cryptocurrencies to guns, and on and on. Even murder for hire! Some people achieve wild success and wealth, while others struggle to survive no matter how much abundance is created.
It’s all a jumbled mess. Who wants to advocate for this? Certainly not an idealistic young person looking for purpose in life by helping to create a perfect world.
There are no such warts and flaws in the fantasy world of socialism. In socialism we have a true belief system that offers an imaginary path to a world of perfect justice and fairness if only we will follow its creed. And the path is claimed to be an easy one — basically, just have the government take greater control of the economy and allocate all the wealth in a fair manner. Unfortunately, socialism has been proven time and again not to work. In short order, it will bring about economic decline, followed ultimately by near universal poverty and deprivation (with the exception of a few privileged persons who get to run the socialist state machinery).
So yes, we do need champions for “capitalism,” or at least for the system of private property and free exchange. But we also need to recognize what we are advocating for. We cannot claim to have a set of beliefs and prescriptions that, if followed, are the key to achieving a perfect world, or a completely fair world. Our system will always be full of warts and flaws. But it does offer the opportunity for everyone to have the freedom and the dignity to make their own decisions in life, to seek their own success in life, without need for the consent and meddling of government busybodies.
Maybe there is a large group of the “idealistic” to whom capitalism will never appeal. If that group is large enough, then the lesson of the economic failure of socialism will need to be re-learned in bitter experience in every generation from now to the end of time. But we can certainly keep pointing out that the world of perfection offered by socialism is an illusion, and that the actual world that will emerge from socialist prescriptions is far worse than the one we get from private property and free exchange. I’m actually optimistic that there can continue to be a critical mass of voters to keep the advance of socialism at bay, but it’s a much closer horse race than I ever would have thought.
I wouldn’t go that far. But I would say it’s part of it.
It was Karl Marx who defined and popularized the term. He used it to describe an economic system that was doomed to fail.
How the hell did this crazy nutball communist who talks about seizing the means of production when the Democratic primary for New York mayor? Our Democrats this stupid? Nowhere in the US Constitution is it legal to seize the means of production.
free enterprise is the result of the natural law of individual rights
capital is required to have a decent standard of living
should the capital be controlled by the govt or individuals?
by the govt is a totalitarian society
by individuals is a free society
so does the US have capitalism or free markets?
I think Jesse Jackson said something like “Without capital, capitalism is just another ism.”
“Ev’rybody’s talking ‘bout
Bagism, Shagism, Dragism, Madism, Ragism, Tagism
This-ism, that-ism, is-m, is-m, is-m
All we are saying is give peace a chance
All we are saying is give peace a chance”
“does the US have capitalism or free markets”
It has both. Very easy to see it. Just look at ebay, etsy, craigslist, FBmarketplace etc. They’re all free markets using currency or barter.
In Iraq, in 2004 I saw that capitalism and free market are the default economy among people. The market only gets corrupted by greedy and lazy ppl who try and game it thru their own laziness and corruption.
Which is why the rich love socialism.
Free enterprise!
Free enterprise.
Socialism, fascism, communism are designed systems. They are planned economies with a single plan and planner (individual, committee, or government). It can seem logical and orderly, with everyone doing as they are told. However, the plan is superficial as not every relevant thing can be identified in a timely way.
“Capitalism” is an attack term. I prefer to say, “free enterprise system.” It’s what happens when people are free. People freely produce, freely trade, freely organize for productive purposes. There is no single plan. Everyone is a planner. The plans produce predictable results. Lots of problems are identified and solved and progress is made.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.