@Jeremy:
My rejection of the term capitalism is simple: I don’t like the emphasis on capital, period.

While my refusal to even use the word anymore (aside from when discussions like this arise) ultimately comes from Roderick Long’s “zaxlebax” analysis, my long-time dislike of the term is partly due to the emphasis on capital as well.

The emphasis on profits also turns me off, although I have no inherent objection to profits as such. A freed market would open the door to alternatives to the profit-maximizing ethos that has thrived under current conditions.

I agree with your comments about BK Marcus. His clinging to the word “capitalism” aside, I’m generally quite fond of him. One additional hang-up though: Hagbard Celine never provided a definition for “political capitalism”. Robert Anton Wilson would not be pleased about this.

*note: I provided a wayback machine link to that Black Crayon page because the site is currently down for some reason.

I still think all parties involved need to re-read Long’s remarks on the matter. If you’re clear about what you mean by any given word, there’s no problem. But people like Marcus (and anti-capitalist leftists, for that matter) aren’t clear about what they mean - they want to use shorthand in lieu of conversation, packaging complex positions up with nice, tidy, loaded labels. Anybody who disagrees with the meta-decisions they’ve taken behind the scenes can go fuck themselves.

My rejection of the term capitalism is simple: I don’t like the emphasis on capital, period. I think there’s better defenses of individual liberty than browbeating people with economic arguments. I think free markets - and lots of other arrangements like co-ops and mutual aid societies - come from free people, instead of springing fully formed from Mises’s head. I don’t think Marcus is intellectually dishonest; I think he’s behaving in a self-righteous, smug manner that downplays ideas in favor of trite categories.

What a shame - he’s an excellent writer; why demand monopoly over a word?