In Reagan’s autobiography, he uses the word capitalism exactly zero times. Milton Friedman talked and wrote for decades about free enterprise. Meanwhile, in 2026, “freedom” polls exceptionally well across the political spectrum.

When Louis Blanc used le capitalisme in 1850, it was to describe “the appropriation of capital by some to the exclusion of others.” When Karl Marx later railed against capitalists in Das Kapital, it was the label he gave to those he derided as corrupt and exploitative. Marxists have never meant this label as a neutral descriptor, let alone as a compliment.

Free enterprise, in contrast, is plainly descriptive. With its French cognate entrepreneur, it connotes not a system but individual initiative. Those who would defend capitalism ought to be talking about “free enterprise” instead.

There is more at stake here than phrasing things in ways that poll well.

The ideas underpinning socialism are essentially utopian, premised on the ability of the state to overcome the human failings of greed and selfishness. Most religions, including Christianity, Judaism, and Hinduism, have the same aspiration, with the important distinction that they look to God rather than the state for the inspiration to overcome mammonism.

Western culture has long denounced the worship of money, selfishness, and greed.

Money is many things:  accumulated labor, a store of value, a means of exchange, and importantly a measure of success or failure in an enterprise. But as a matter of morality it must not be an end in itself. Rather, it is a useful means to an infinite variety of ends, good and bad. It is a tool.  Important though it may be, it is not worthy of being the center of its own “ism.”

The etymology of socialism is rooted in society. It connotes a central concern with people. The etymology of capitalism couldn’t be more different. It’s about money. The argument between the two is therefore rigged from the start. It’s a straw man contest of people versus profits. What’s lost is the fact that profits are not the end goal but the product of wealth creation that directly addresses all manner of human needs and lifts people out of poverty.

Free enterprise has a strong case to make as a superior moral system. But defending it as “capitalism” puts the argument in a rhetorical hole from the start by implying that money is of central importance. 

Time to abolish capitalism. Viva free enterprise!

Nice. I always thought that "free enterprise" is a better description than "capitalism."

Doesn't help that "capitalism" is the name that our current shitty cronyist Cantillonistic system is stuck with