A note on socialism, capitalism, and terminology.

I'm reading Markets Not Capitalism, an anthology of essays on individualist anarchism, and am thoroughly enjoying it. The authors do what I've long wished more libertarians would do by pushing the libertarian analysis to its conclusions, rather than employing market arguments as a buttress to existing arrangements. But I do have a small quibble.

As the title indicates, the authors make many vigorous arguments against labeling the individualist anarchist position as a capitalist one, and by and large I agree with these arguments. Words are defined by customary usage, and in the United States at least, "capitalism" is commonly understood as the existing economic system. Identifying our position as anti-capitalist puts the libertarian position in the proper revolutionary relationship with existing arrangements. What we seek is not tinkering around the edges or fussing with a few ancillary features of the current political and economic system but rather a complete revolutionary overhaul of that system on principles of individual liberty.

Many libertarians defend use of the word capitalism by arguing that as they and other free market thinkers have used the word it means simply a system of "natural liberty," as Adam Smith termed it, and that they are not responsible for the misuse of the term by defenders of the existing order. I have another point I want to make so I will not air all the historical arguments the authors employ against that reasoning. I will content myself with pointing out that when you say to someone not steeped in libertarianism that you support "capitalism," this hypothetical person does not typically see what you are saying as a revolutionary statement.

On to my other point: several of the authors argue that the proper term for the individualist anarchist position is socialism. While they make several good arguments for this claim, I cannot endorse it and label myself a socialist for reasons broadly similar to those I gave against "capitalism" above. Perhaps strongest argument is the historical one. All the 19th century anarchists identified as socialists, even libertarian forefathers such as Benjamin Tucker. They argued fiercely against the state socialists attempts to abscond with that term, but alas, the state socialists won. "Socialism" nowadays means, in Tucker's terminology, "state socialism." For this purely strategic reason, I cannot self-apply the label "socialist." Identifying myself as a socialist would be almost deceptive, as virtually no one outside narrow individualist anarchist circles understands the term the way I would be using it.

So what word to use? "Individualist anarchist" works fine, as does "market anarchist." Many anarchists, such as the authors of the Anarchist FAQ, argue that you cannot be an anarchist without being a socialist. My response is essentially to blow a raspberry at them. If they accept a 19th century definition of socialism, as almost no one today does, then sure, I am a socialist. If they insist on a modern definition of socialism, to the extent that they're socialists, they are not anarchists.