Its Defenders Need To Understand That "Capitalism" Is Not An "Ism"

Writing in the Wall Street Journal on June 30 (July 1 in the print edition), editorialist Matthew Hennessey advocates that “Capitalism Needs Champions.”  Reacting to the victory of avowed socialist Zohran Mamdani in New York City’s mayoral primary, Hennessey says that the electoral result indicates that the defenders of capitalism are doing a poor job, and need to step up their game:

Let Zohran Mamdani’s victory in last week’s Democratic mayoral primary in New York serve as your periodic reminder that capitalism is in dire need of able defenders. Socialism has more cheerleaders than it deserves, considering its record of consistent failure. Markets need champions too. This is always true, especially now. . . .  [T]he problem isn’t capitalism. The problem is complacency.

I don’t disagree.  But there’s another problem for defenders of what its enemies call “capitalism.”  The problem is that capitalism is not an “ism.”

Think about it.  In every instance other than the word “capitalism,” the suffix “ism” is used to designate something as a system of beliefs.  The implication of the “ism” suffix is that there are adherents who have adopted these beliefs, and who think that these beliefs are the correct and moral ones that should be adopted by everybody.  Such, they think, is the way to a better world.  Thus religions are clearly all “isms”:  Catholicism, Protestantism, Mohammedism, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, even Paganism.  In the political realm, most any organized system of beliefs with advocates on its behalf gets the “ism” suffix:  not just socialism and communism, but fascism, anarchism, liberalism, conservatism, environmentalism, and plenty more.  Even sets of policy prescriptions associated with a particular politician can become an “ism”:  think Reaganism, Obamaism, or Trumpism.

But “capitalism”?  It’s just a fundamentally different thing.  Capitalism is not a belief system.  Nobody “believes” in capitalism per se.  The word “capitalism” is better understood as a descriptive term for the natural order that arises in the presence of private property and free exchange.  The natural order is full of warts and flaws, as are all human institutions.  The combination of private property and free exchange could perhaps make a good case for being designated an “ism,” but it turns out that we don’t have that concept in a single word.