Writing in the Washington Times today, Balint Vazsonyi questions the use of the term "capitalism" to describe modern, free-market economies, arguing that the term persists more because of its rhetorical power than for its use value as a socioeconomic descriptor. Connoting an oppressed proletariat virtually enslaved by a dominant class that owns and controls the means of production, "capitalism" gives a ready-made, knee-jerk agenda to rabble-rousing Marxist groups such as the Anti-Capitalist Convergence, which rants against capitalism on its various Web sites and organizes anti-capitalist marches and protests in American cities. Nobody questions the logic at play in such movements, Vazsonyi points out, because nobody has adequately redefined capitalism after Marx -- in fact anti-capitalist activists have a vested interest in not redefining capitalism. Although liberal economies themselves have evolved and changed quite dramatically over the past century and a half, those opposed to them still essentually rehearse arguments developed in the context of Victorian factories and early urban slums. Arguing for an understanding of capitalism as a historically and socially delimited phenomenon (and arguing that the economy of the United States was never truly "capitalist" in the Marxian sense), Vazsonyi proposes the more apt descriptive terms "free markets" or "free enterprise" to denote the economic systems that presently previl throughout most of the contemporary Western world. However, the lingering power of the word "capitalism" becomes evident when he asks rhetorically "Can you see an outfit called 'Anti-Free Market Convergence' organizing demonstrations in Washington?". Marxist activists need to preserve "capitalism" as the object of their opposition because they cannot afford, after all, to be seen explicitly opposing freedom ("anti-free" would look rather odd on an activist's placard). What looks like a quibble over terminology actually reflects deeply rooted politial differences: libertarians realize that opposing free markets and opposing freedom itself are really quite complementary; the Left, au contraire, proceeds in the deluded belief that opposition to markets will bring about greater freedoms for all. (To which I say: Read Hayek. Now.)

Modern humanities departments give Marxist activism its pseudo-intellectual rationale, and the rhetorical power of anti-capitalist rhetoric flourishes unabated in today's English, women's studies, and sociology departments, where faculty and students alike positively trip over one another to display their socialist credentials (the graduate student teaching "Gender, Desire, Power: Rethinking the Novel" during the week is likely to be found protesting capitalist oppression on the weekend). Note, however, the clear disconnect between humanities academics' theoretical pontifications on socioeconomic issues (cue much reverential invocation of continental philosophy and literary theory) and anything approaching credible thinking on modern economic policy. On this point, see Penn English alum Asparagirl's description of a recent debate between Brink Lindsey, director of the Cato Insitute's Center for Trade Policy Studies and author of Against the Dead Hand: The Uncertain Struggle for Global Capitalism, and Michael Hardt, associate professor of comparative literature at Duke and co-author of the anti-globalization tract Empire. Hardt has made quite a splash on the academic scene of late: The Guardian notes that "eminent professors describe Empire as 'nothing less than a re-writing of the communist manifesto for our time' and the first 'great new theoretical synthesis of the new millennium'"; influential publications such as the The New York Times, Time, and The Nation have heaped praise upon the volume, too. "Does it have the staying power and broad appeal necessary to become the next master theory?" Emily Eakin asked in the New York Times. "It is too soon to say. But for the moment, Empire is filling a void in the humanities." Meanwhile, Lindsey's book has largely been ignored in the mainstream media, and no self-respecting English professor would be caught dead reading it, let alone assigning it to a class. Despite this, Asparagirl's description of the Lindsey/Hardt face-to-face debate is telling: "[Lindsey] seemed to have thought through his positions quite clearly and had a multitude of examples to bring up to illustrate his points", she writes; by contrast, "Michael Hardt seemed very unsure of himself, almost intimidated to be there.... It was hard to believe that he is a professor, as he seemed to not be able to clearly articulate much of the thesis of his own book." This is what happens when clear, sharp, perceptive economic thinking faces off against the jargony puffery of modern Marxist theory: the former is convincing and logical; the latter is pompous, porous claptrap. Fortunately everyone but humanities academics can see this to be true.