This is a common problem I’ve had when trying to talk to people about capitalism, namely that first hurdle of getting people to admit that it exists at all. Even from a perspective outside of politics it might seem odd. It’s a word coined by Karl Marx about halfway through the 1800s referring to a specific arrangement of society. There is a neatness to this, the sort of bureaucratic satisfaction of technical language.

The word ‘Capitalism’, for all that it’s repeated and as broad its connotations, reflects a very simple idea.

So why then is there any confusion? How can there be a basis for debate as to the very definition of a word, or the existence of the economic system it refers to? I imagine even the most strident denier of the very existence of capitalism would happily concede that yes, most things that produce other useful things are privately owned or that people are free to sell their own labour as they choose. Not that I’m discounting an argument on the basis of pedantry; rather that ‘capitalism’ is a specific piece of technical language necessary for constructive understanding of the issue at hand.

The insistence remains, generally justified by handwavings towards a usage peculiar to a particular group. While it is true of course that words can take on new meanings and come to mean radically different things to different groups of people, the problem is one of discourse. The scenario in the above skit tends to play out it in rather more heated language, and the difference in linguistic connotation between pro-capitalists and anti-capitalists is a key reason. If someone were to say that they were against capitalism and you understood ‘capitalism’ as referring to the basic freedom of association while understanding markets as a key expression of human nature, you’d rightly be horrified!

But crucially, critics of capitalism agree with the same fundamental values that lead people to defend capitalism as an expression of freedom. That same value for human freedom, human life, and human expression is in fact what motivates a socialist worldview. Accusations of authoritarianism and disregard for human nature abound, and the casualty after it all is discourse. Neither party comes away having changed anyone’s mind, or even having really understood what was on their interlocutor's in the first place. This harms us all.

This, ultimately, is why the notion of capitalism held by people like Carl is a problem. Not just that it’s an incorrect usage of a technical term (although that is the case as well), but also that it harms the ability of people to exchange ideas in a useful manner.