Тег: Terminology

If the term “capitalism” was invented by the left, isn’t the attempt to rehabilitate this word and use it in a positive context playing by their rules?

(as far as I know, this term was first used by Louis Blanc, a French socialist, in a negative context, contrasting it with socialism)

анонимный вопрос

The ways of memes are unfathomable… The opposition of “capitalism-socialism” seemingly reflects quite accurately the opposition of big money to big battalions, which is why it took hold.

I personally try not to use the word capitalism in its pure form, because if you add the tomato juice of anarchism to this vodka, it becomes much tastier, and the name of the cocktail sounds less vulgar. But it just so happens that phrases like market anarchism or free-market anarchism turn out to be longer and clumsier than a simple ancap.

In principle, this is not the only term that started as a derogatory label and later acquired a certain academicism and moral neutrality (for example, minarchism), and conversely, many words started as something bright and beautiful, but are now used as nothing other than insults, and decent people try to distance themselves from such associations (I am referring primarily to liberals, who in the US are currently synonymous with the word socialists, and in Russia synonymous with the word social Darwinists).

The best thing one can do, wishing to treat language as carefully as possible, is to use fewer value judgments. For instance, Svetov is currently actively trying to revive the half-forgotten word nomenklatura, which for me, a representative of the first non-Soviet generation, is a term more from warehouse accounting. Why spoil words? There is the wonderful word official, which is far clearer than some nomenklatura, and means exactly the same thing. Fine, this is already nitpicking and a matter of taste; I am giving it simply as an illustration of the fact that you cannot please everyone.

So overall, I agree with your thesis that established connotations must be taken into account, but it is not absolutely necessary to follow them in everything, or even more so to break them on principle solely on the grounds that opponents once invented this rule.

There is a certain reckless cynicism in portraying the monster that others see in you…

Can a libertarian demand respectful behavior toward themselves (not only in communication) by virtue of their age or past merits and achievements? And can someone demanding this be called a libertarian?

anonymous question

I will take advantage of your question to talk a bit about terms.

There is an offer. One subject says to another: let’s make an exchange, I give you A, you give me B. Refusing the offer without violating libertarian principles can become a reason for bargaining (how about B+C?), or for a shrug of the shoulders: well, it’s my business to offer, and your business to refuse.

There is a request. One subject says to another: give me A, if you don’t mind. Refusing to fulfill a request without violating libertarian principles can become a reason to move to an offer (what if I give you B, will you give me A?) or for a shrug of the shoulders: well, if not, then not.

And there is a demand, which is a request with a specified sanction for non-compliance. One subject says to another: give me A, or I will do B to you, and it won’t be pleasant. If no sanction is provided, it is not a demand, but a request. If a sanction is provided but not specified, it is a demand disguised as a request (I do not recommend such a practice, but these are my personal taste preferences).

In principle, one can distinguish another gradation where a demand is accompanied by a preliminary small sanction to prove the seriousness of intentions. Let’s call such a demand, for example, an ultimatum.

From the point of view of libertarian principles, making a demand or, even more so, an ultimatum, is permissible in relation to persons who have caused damage to the claimant. If the damage is material, it is permissible to specify material sanctions in the demand; if the damage is simply an inconvenience, then it is permissible in the demand to specify only the causing of inconvenience as sanctions.

And so we move to the answer to the question. Yes, a libertarian has the right to demand certain conveniences out of respect for age, but they can only threaten the causing of inconvenience for non-compliance.

— Young man, give up your seat for the grandmother!
The young man ignores the demand disguised as a request.
— How ill-mannered today’s youth has become! They jump on the bus and immediately run for a free seat. 
And then the grandmother stands over his soul and grumbles, causing inconvenience.

well-mannered youth

Likewise, a libertarian has the right to demand preferences out of respect for merits, but they can only threaten, for example, with the refusal of further cooperation, thanks to which these merits appeared.

— I have been working for you for five years without any complaints, and every time you put me on New Year’s duty without even asking for my opinion. I don’t care about double pay; I want New Year’s with my family and children. Either you show respect, or I will look for another employer who will show it.