There has been a great deal of talk about capitalism of late, most especially in the political theatre of the United States. Considering how many have been flinging the word about, it is surprising that the number of people who understand what capitalism is seems to remain relatively small wherever fierce debate is held. Still more often, and more blatantly, misused, is the term capitalist. There are many subtle and disputable ways in which I believe it is misused, but the most common way is nothing short of baffling.
This piece is not intended as a deep analysis of the correct usage of the term capitalist (though I may do that if and when I get around to it). Rather, its purpose is merely to dispel this particular misattribution. I have had to do so in debates with such exasperating frequency, that I have often thought to myself that I should simply write out a prepared article to explain it once and for all. Then, whenever the need should arise, I could simply link the offending disputant to said article. So here it is.
Now, what, you might ask, is the nature of this most jaw-dropping misinterpretation? In its most egregious form, it is simply using the term “capitalist” interchangeably with “the rich”, “the super-rich”, “the wealthy class”, or even “the one percent”. This is quite simply not what the term means at all. “Capitalist” means someone who endorses the capitalist system. That is all. It describes neither what that person achieves within that system, nor what he or she intends to achieve.
In its less extreme form, this blunder occurs when somebody uses the term “capitalist” to mean somebody whose intention is to gain wealth through that most reprehensible activity, the mutually consensual exchange of goods or services (I trust, dear reader, that you detected the note of sarcasm). I repeat, the term does not suggest anything about the subject’s financial ambitions, neither does it suggest anything about their success therein.
By way of illustration, consider the rich people that you know of. Naturally we should sample those in the relatively free countries of the world, and not those who gained their riches purely through state power, or other forms of coercion. Do you think it would be accurate to describe people such as Mark Zuckerberg, Hillary Clinton, Bill Gates, or Oprah Winfrey, as capitalists? Of course it would not. Why not then? Because they do not support the existence of the capitalist system. All of these examples, to greater or lesser degrees, challenge the free market. Of course there are also rich people who support the free market such as Peter Schiff, but being rich is not what makes them capitalists.
How, then, do we succinctly define “capitalist”, with reference to avoiding these errors. A capitalist is simply somebody who supports the existence and operation of the free market. That is all. A capitalist of an Epicurean persuasion could intentionally live in a state of perpetual destitution, and yet remain a capitalist. What does it take to be a capitalist? All it takes to be a capitalist is to be against any form of using force to coerce the desired economic activity. Economic activity should not be confused with immoral activity that intrudes upon the rights of others. Those may be legislated against, and lie within the purview of the judiciary. Economic regulation is entirely another matter.
There it is. Condemning capitalists is not at all the same thing as condemning the rich, super-rich, or the 1%.