The Comical History of Capitalism(the word)

This is not about capitalism, the theorized socio-economic system of production.  This is about the word “capitalism” itself.  The term, “capitalism” has been used, abused, reborn, and re-mutilated so many times that if one were to use the term, you have to immediately stop and define what you mean by “capitalism”. Why is that?  There aren’t multiple definitions of mercantilism or feudalism.  So what happened to “capitalism”? To find out, follow me through the comical history of “capitalism”, the word.

In the Beginning...

"Capitalism" came into focus somewhere around the early to mid 18th century.  But nobody called it "capitalism" at the time.   The term "capitalism" didn't appear until about a 100 years later when it was first coined by socialists in the mid 19th century as a pejorative for the current state of the world.  This was when the term capitalism was first used to describe a socio-political-economic system.  (there are a few uses of the term pre-1850.  But they were all used as synonyms for commerce or a capitalist.  And was not widely used, and, therefore I think can be ignored)  So the first comical thing to note about the term, "capitalism" is that the history of the word is tied to socialism and socialist thought, and NOT to the system it describes.

What about Marx?

Here's another funny thing about “capitalism”.  Despite what most people think, Karl Marx, the most infamous socialist, neither coined the term nor popularized it.  The term "capitalism" was coined by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon,  A French individualist socialist(more commonly referred to today as an anarchist).   You will not find the term anywhere in The Communist Manifesto.  Later, when Marx and his partner Engels wrote Das Kapital, they would describe the situation as "the capitalist mode of production".  Engels may have used "capitalism" later in life, but neither he nor Marx popularized the term.

It wasn't until the turn of the century that it was made clear that "capitalism" was the word to describe what socialists opposed.  Werner Sombart's "Der Moderne  Kapitalismus" in 1902 exploded the term's popularity both inside and outside of socialist circles.  Or as respected historian Fernand Braudel puts it in his book Civilization and Capitalism:

In fact, it was not until the beginning of this century that it fully burst upon political debate as the natural opposite of socialism.  It was to be launched in academic circles by Werner Sombart's explosive book Der moderne Kapitalismus.  Not unnaturally, this word which Marx never used was incorporated into the Marxist model, so much so that the terms slavery, feudalism and capitalism are commonly used to refer to the three major stages of development defined by the author of Capital.

The term must have stuck because two years later Max Weber published his famous tome, "The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism" which is "the fourth most important sociological book of the 20th century".

So, to be clear on why I find this so damn funny... At the beginning of the 20th century, "capitalism" became a "marxist" term that was neither coined nor popularized by Karl Marx!

Capitalism is a good thing now?

Now fast forward 60 years.  It's 1962 and at this point, The terms “capitalism” and “capitalist” had been pejoratives and a negative descriptions used by socialists for 100 years.  Up until this point, intellectuals that were opposed to socialism described themselves as being in favor of liberalism(especially the classical kind) and not "capitalism".  Then, Milton Friedman publishes a book called Capitalism and Freedom in 1962.  And then 4 years later, Ayn Rand comes out with her book Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.  In these books, these (now famous) authors described "capitalism" in glowing terms and came out FOR it.

Wait a minute!  (insert record scratch sound)  What the F*!)K Just Happened???  The 50s and early 60s mark when many intellectuals started openly using the term "capitalism" as the term for their ideal system instead of "liberal", "free market", "Laissez faire", or "free enterprise".  I've checked as many places I can think, but it just didn't happen until that time.

The Foundation for Economic Education was created in 1946 to promote free markets.  And no where in their founding 14 principals was the term capitalism.

The American Enterprise Institute founded in 1943 didn't defend "capitalism", it defended "competitive, free-enterprise".

The Founding article in William Buckley's conservative National Review mentions "capitalism" only in relation to socialism.  Among the magazine's "convictions", it only states "The competitive price system" and no mention of "capitalism".

Who can I blame for this???

Now we come to the person whom I blame for this whole mess:  Ludwig von Mises.  At the time, he was a semi-known Austrian economist who was very much in favor of "liberalism" and very much against socialism.  However, in his writings, he adopted the language of his socialist rivals.  In his 1922 book titled "Socialism", he acknowledged that the term "Capitalism" was a "political word".  He stated:

The terms "Capitalism" and "Capitalistic Production" are political catchwords. They were invented by socialists, not to extend knowledge, but to carp, to criticize, to condemn. Today, they have only to be uttered to conjure up a picture of the relentless exploitation of wage-slaves by the pitiless rich. They are scarcely ever used save to imply a disease in the body-politic. From a scientific point of view, they are so obscure and ambiguous that they have no value whatever. Their users agree only in this, that they indicate the characteristics of the modern economic system. But wherein these characteristics consist is always a matter of dispute. Their use, therefore, is entirely pernicious, and the proposal to extrude them altogether from economic terminology, and to leave them to the matadors of popular agitation, deserves serious consideration.

Despite that, Mises attempted to "appropriate the word for his own purposes".  After acknowledging this, 2 paragraphs later, he tries to justify the use of the term "capitalism" to describe the liberal system that he favored:

If the term capitalism is used to designate an economic system in which production is governed by capital calculations, it acquires a special significance for defining economic activity. Understood thus, it is by no means misleading to speak of Capitalism and capitalistic methods of production, and expressions such as the capitalistic spirit and the anti-capitalistic disposition acquire a rigidly circumscribed connotation. Capitalism is better suited to be the antithesis of Socialism than Individualism, which is often used in this way.

As far as I can tell, this 1922 book was the beginning of the shift in the meaning of the term Capitalism.

So then, what is the connection between Mises and future "capitalism" supporters?  Ludwig von Mises was Fredrich Hayek's teacher in Austria.  The one that converted him from socialism to "liberalism".  Hayek would later found a social club called the Mont Pelerin society in 1947 for free market economists.  At the founding meeting was Hayek, Mises, and... Milton Friedman, the aforementioned author of "Capitalism and Freedom".  I don't think it is a stretch to say that Mises attempts to redefine capitalism as a positive would've rubbed off on the younger economists.

In fact, before founding the society, Hayek published the book "The Road To Serfdom" where he did pretty much the same thing as his teacher did in "Socialism".  He notes that the term conceals the truth, but then later redefines the term "capitalism" and then speaks approvingly of it.  On page 89 of the book he wrote

Though the terms "capitalism" and "socialism" are still generally used to describe the past and the future forms of society, they conceal rather than elucidate the nature of the transition through which we are passing.

And then by page 109 he redefines capitalism and praises it as the only way democracy can thrive:

It is now often said that democracy will not tolerate "capitalism".  If "capitalism" means here a competitive system based on free disposal over private property, it is far more important to realize that only within this system is democracy possible.

Another early and obscure attempt to redefine capitalism - and then come out in favor of it- was by Political Philosopher Frank Chodorov.  In October of 1945 he wrote an article titled "Let's Try Capitalism".  Whether his attempt to redefine capitalism was his own, or influenced by Mises, I cannot say for certain.  But being that he was very much active in the "free market liberalism" movement in New York for years, and that Ludwig von Mises had been teaching at NYU for 5 years while promoting free markets, it's not hard to fathom that they may have run into each other and exchanged ideas by 1945.  In fact, based on the fact that both men knew Murray Rothbard(Another "free market" advocate) and Milton Friedman, it is hard to imagine that they didn't at least know each other.

Backlash, and Backlash to the Backlash

So after the "free market" advocates tried to commandeer the word for their own purposes, you can imagine that there was a backlash.  But the backlash wasn't from state socialists.  It came from anarchists and other "free market" advocates!

In 1972 Murray Rothbard noted the absurdity of trying to commandeer the term "capitalism" as a description of what he advocated for.  By 1972 , Murray Rothbard notes in an essay that there are multiple definitions of "capitalism".  He tries to split the definition in two to describe two very different concepts, "free-market capitalism" and "state capitalism".  Naturally he is in favor of one and against the other.

From the very first we run into grave problems with the term "capitalism." When we realize that the word was coined by capitalism's most famous enemy, Karl Marx, it is not surprising that a neutral or a pro-"capitalist" analyst might find the term lacking in precision. For capitalism tends to be a catchall, a portmanteau concept that Marxists apply to virtually every society on the face of the globe, with the exception of a few possible "feudalist" countries and the Communist nations (although, of course, the Chinese consider Yugoslavia and Russia "capitalist," while many Trotskyites would include China as well). Marxists, for example, consider India as a "capitalist" country, but India, hagridden by a vast and monstrous network of restrictions, castes, state regulations, and monopoly privileges is about as far from free-market capitalism as can be imagined
If we are to keep the term "capitalism" at all, then, we must distinguish between "free-market capitalism" on the one hand, and "state capitalism" on the other. The two are as different as day and night in their nature and consequences.

Other, more modern writers have continued the backlash.  Sheldon Richman argues that libertarians should use "capitalism" as the description of what they oppose.

 We are a group of libertarians who understand that historically the word "capitalism" has meant, not the free market, but crony capitalism -- that is, collusion between business and State at the expense of consumers/workers. Thus we refuse to use the word "capitalism" to describe what we favor: individual liberty in all respects and free, competitive markets. We believe that what we have today IS capitalism -- and we oppose it.

Other modern free marketers have noted the same thing.  And now, of course, there is a backlash against this backlash.  The suggestion of letting "capitalism" return to it's original meaning, is rejected because(among other reasons), we shouldn't let the definition of words change.  I shit you not:

As Sheldon admits in his talk, however, changing words is like changing currencies.  If they're already widely accepted, you need a really good reason to abandon them.  Awkward etymology notwithstanding, I think the concepts of capitalism and socialism are good enough to keep using.

Conclusion

So now you know why it is so damn hard to talk about "capitalism".  And now, before one can even debate the merits of "capitalism", one has to define what they mean by "capitalism".  Do they mean the system of exploitation as defined by Proudhon or Marx(who both defined it differently)?  Or do they mean "a competitive system based on free disposal over private property"?  Or something else?  My recommendation is to never use the term.  If one has to define a word every time one uses it, then it's not a useful word.

If you enjoyed this article, let me know.  If there is interest I can attempt a similar article on the terms "socialism", "liberalism", "fascism", and probably even "keynesian".  Also, if you ever an article by an influential person from before 1922 describing "capitalism" as a good thing, please let me know.  I would be interested if there is another or a different person we can blame for this mess.

Marvel Digital Comics Unlimited App is Still Terrible

MDCU App Crashes Again

The Android Phone App for accessing Marvel's Digital Comics Unlimited service is still awful as of June 2014.  Marvel seems to come out with new updates all the time, and I just wanted to warn people who are considering the app.

For those who haven't heard, Marvel Digital Comic Unlimited (MDCU), is a Netflix-like subscription service, but for comic books.  The company that brought us Spiderman, X-men, and 100s of other comics is offering their fans access to over 15,000 comic archive(and growing) for a low monthly price.  The cost is about the equivalent of 2 comics a month.  It's a great idea, and for people like me who have never been into comics, it gives me a chance to try lots of comics or read the large history of Marvel Super-Hero history.

Like Netflix, Marvel is understandably concerned people will take their streaming content, save it, and spread it and destroy their business model.  So, they create custom, encrypted apps that alone can access the MDCU content.  The problem is that, the app on android is so fucking terrible.  On every android phone I've tried it, and every update of the app, the usability ranges from frustrating and completely unusable.

Until this last April, my MDCU subscription was a complete waste of money.  When I first got the service, the app slightly worked for me for a couple months, but then an update came by and made it unusable.  I couldn't even view a comic.  I must have contacted support 4 or 5 times trying to get help.  The only response I got was "we know, we're working on it".  I got no response when I asked for more details or asked for my account to be temporarily suspended\escrowed until they got their act together.

I was excited  when I found a new app update as I was hoping to actually make it work.  Fortunately, the app is now usable, but still damned frustrating.  When I start it up, half the time my login credentials are lost, but then suddenly show up when I change screens.  When downloading comics to view later, the whole app freezes up.  And When I close the app and come back, I'll get a message that it crashed  and for about 5 minutes, really weird stuff happens.  Also, when displaying my comics that I place in my library, half the information isn't displayed unless I do a "refresh", but as soon as I leave the screen it all disappears again.

I am not the only person to complain.  Marvel forums and other blogs\forums around the internet are full of people complaining about it as well.

I will say that the Website interface has worked pretty well.  However, I enjoy reading on my smart phone or tablet.  They are easier to hold than a laptop.  Also my phone is more portable and I always have it with me if I'm suddenly in a "waiting" situation like at a Doctor's office or DMV line.  Chances are you won't have your laptop with you, but will have a phone.  That's why I think the phone\table App is important to work and is the real value to the service.

All that being said, I still think the service is a pretty good deal.  I'm currently trying(with all the frustrations) to work my way through Marvel's vast super hero history starting with old comics starting in 1961.  However, I just wanted to warn future potential customers that are planning on purchasing MDCU:  Be prepared for the Android Phone App to be a frustrating experience and maybe even unusable.

Why is Bookmarking Getting HARDER!?

Why do I feel like bookmarking is getting harder?  You would think that creating an easy to use interface to save, backup, retrieve, search, and browse bookmarks would be a problem that was solved a decade ago, wouldn't you?  But here it is 2014 and not only do I feel like bookmarking links has stagnated, I feel like it's actually going backwards.

I am a bookmark junky.  I admit it.  I have over a thousand bookmarks.  That many bookmarks is useless unless they are organized, sortable, and searchable so that I can find what I need.  And I need it across multiple devices and browsers.   The solution I've been using is an old, but still useful one:  Del.icio.us bookmarks

When delicious  first came out it was brilliant.  First of all it gave a FREE place to store your bookmarks online so that you weren't out of syn across multiple browsers.  The second innovation was replacing stodgy hierarchical folders with tags.  (Another innovation was sharing and early "social networking" but that's not important to this)

Now that the information was tagged and stored in the cloud, one still needed a user interface to browse, search, and find the bookmarks when you needed them.  Things didn't really improve right away on the U.I front.  Delicious had a website interface, but it wasn't(and still isn't) the fastest way to go.  Other programs and add-ons would take your list of bookmarks and arrange them just like your browser does.  It would take each of your "tags" and treat it like a folder with all your arrange them, it just made all your labels a "folder".

But then came... the delicious firefox add-on.  This add-on was the epitome of bookmarking User Interface.  It was fast, easy to use, and makes finding my obscure bookmarks fast, easy, and accurate.  More on the brilliance of this add-on later.

Delicious was king of cloud bookmarking, but then I it stagnated as other sites came along and innovated new features.  Features like grabbing a screenshot of a bookmark, or grabbing a copy of the whole page.  Others would remember how far down you had scrolled.  The whole time though, Delicious just stayed the same.  Why did Delicious stagnate?  I don't know.  Maybe it was yahoo's fault?  Maybe it the underlying technology that kept it from being further improved, I don't know.

But even as others got better bookmarks, none (in my not so humble opinion) ever created as great a U.I. as the official Delicious Firefox add-on.  Therefore, over the years, I have continued to use the Delicious service despite the stagnation.  I have remained content with it even though the add-on has also stagnated because it's still the best U.I. I have found.

But disaster struck.  Yahoo sold the Delicious service to AVOS.  At first, I was overjoyed at the news.  I thought that it might mean they would start investing in improving the add-ons(like maybe a Chrome add-on that's as good as the firefox one), and start making the bookmarks better.  They even took the existing add-on and rebranded it in the mozilla store.  Unfortunately, my experience with Delicious since AVOS took over has been a fucking nightmare.

One of the first things AVOS did was change the add-on to a web-based pile of shit.  I clung to the old add-on like a cat trapped in a tree.  I installed the old version and just kept using it.  But then AVOS started mucking around with API and it quit working.  Fortunately, some heroic netizen saved the old add-on and somehow modified it to keep working.

But, this month, my luck has finally run out.  I can't find the old version anywhere, and AVOS has mucked around with the API again.  This time by launching a new website.   My old add-on is dead, it'll never add, update, or remove a delicious bookmark again.  And the new "service" that AVOS offers really is a piece of shit.

So what was so great about the old one?  I'll show you.  This is a picture of the add-on.

The first thing that I like is that I can choose to always display my bookmarks in a sidebar.  Since most websites limit their width and I work on a widescreen, I lose no website real estate by having it there.  So it's always there that I can quickly go to it when I need something that I know I'd already found before.  But if I did want it to go away I could use either ctrl+b or click the "x" on the window.

The second thing is the separation of the Tag list from the bookmark list.  I can select a tag, and below it displayed the bookmarks under that tag.  This is far different from the traditional stodgy tree view where the bookmarks are inserted into the tag tree and it actually makes it more difficult to find other tags.

The third thing is the 1 layer of nested labels.  As you can see I have 3 sites under the tag "SQL", but 1 of the sites also has the tab "join" and another the tag "Programming" so that if I'm browsing for something I can further narrow down my search.

The fourth thing is the Search.  I can Search just Tags or tags and bookmarks.  And the search checks the bookmark URL, title, and description for matches.

The fifth thing is choosing how the tags and bookmarks are sorted in the display.  I can do oldest to newest, most frequently used, etc... and I can quickly change the option within the interface without opening a cludgy "options" page.

The sixth thing is the easy add bookmark integration.  There is a button that pulls up a new popup window to add the current page to a bookmark.  If text on the page is highlighted, it automatically adds it to the description page, it recommends tags for the page(if any) and also an easy check box to make the bookmark public or private.

Finally, the auto saving of the site's "favicon" is a great visual indicator when looking for a specific bookmark, and gives my eyes something to look at besides text.

The new integration isn't technically an "add-on" it is a "service" so I was able to leave the old one on for comparison sakes.  If you're like me, you took one look at the AVOS delicious "service" and said "What. The. Fuck. AVOS?"

Going down the list of things that I liked and compare.  First, It is a sidebar so that's good.(I don't care if it's on the left or right)

The second thing is that tags and bookmarks are separated.  I can choose a tag, but they are in a weird "word cloud" format that I have trouble looking at.  Also hard to look at is the giant text of the bookmark titles make it so that I can't easily scan the titles.  Oh and there is a bunch of junk at the top of the widgit so that I have to scroll half way down just to see the tags and bookmarks.  So this is mostly(but not totally messed up)

Third thing, no nested labels so that's completely busted.  Fourth, the Search option I have to scroll up and I can't choose just tags - so that's completely busted.  Fifth, can't sort tags or bookmarks - completely busted.  Sixth, the "add bookmark" feature is a clunky interface and it doesn't insert my highlights into the text - mostly busted.  Finally, no favicons.

The awfulness doesn't end there.  The "settings" button just takes me to a page where I can update my profile.  At the bottom it has a link for feedback(oh AVOS, don't even go there!  Maybe I'll send them a link to this post.)

I was DONE with Delicious when this happened and was going to finally make the move to google bookmarks since it had the most add-ons.  You know what I discovered, while it's add-ons (both for firefox and Chrome) are better than the new AVOS ones, they are all the old stodgy treeviews.  None of them are as streamlined as the old official Delicious firefox add-on.  None!  (if you find one, please let me know because it'll save me a TON of work)

So here is what I'm going to do dear readers.  I am taking matters into my own hands.  I am going to write a google Chrome Add-on for delicious bookmarks that works like the old Delicious Firefox Add-on.

I'm going to start with a Chrome Add-on since I've been meaning to move to it.  I'll have the U.I. work with Delicious first since that's where my bookmarks are still being held.  I am just going to recreate the features of the old one first.  Once that is up and ready I'll release it to the world and hopefully will get some feedback.

After that, my pipe dream would be to add some features to it.  I'd also like to make it work with google bookmarks since I don't think AVOS and delicious will be around for much longer.  And finally, maybe make a firefox add-on so that I can easily switch between the two browsers.

If you have an idea what to call my new add-on, leave me a comment.  Right now I'm leaning towards "Easy Bookmarks" with the tagline: "bookmarking done right".  But I bet some reader will come up with a better name.