I have the fortune to have a lot of people around me, friends, family, acquaintances, who are both intelligent and educated, and politically inclined. Both to the Right and the Left of the spectrum. And in the last few years we immersed ourselves in heated discussions or civilized conversations here and there about the value or oppressive nature of Capitalism. In so doing, I have been struck by a rising observation: we are not speaking of the same thing. Capitalism does not mean the same for the Right and the Left. It’s not that it’s valued differently, it’s that it is a completely different concept altogether. For the Right, it means everything market. For the Left, it’s what Marx said it is. Both views are mistaken. And that allows the populists to go forward and do whatever they will – drastically attacking Capitalism or defending it with tooth and nail.

Grosso modo, Marx defined Capitalism as an evolution occurring after Feudalism, propelled by the Industrial Revolution of the late 1700s and early 1800s, characterized by the rule of the capitalist, who owns the means of production, enslaves labor through wages and other means, and accumulates power and wealth through profit-taking. These hoarders of capital thrive in inequality and revel in the power they have over the working class – which should rebel and take power for itself.

My (and many other critics’) problem with this description is that it ignores a great deal of History in order to fit the theory – nitpicking what is interesting from what is not. Profit-taking, wages, long-distance commerce (for many, a crucial capitalistic practice), credit, interest-taking and banking, speculation, capital accumulation and many other capitalist-linked phenomena appeared all over the world over and over again throughout the centuries. Even the Industrial Revolution environment seemed to have happened before, in the Middle Ages (in what Marx called Feudalist societies), as say the likes of Gimpel, Pirenne, Duby and others.

There were labor disputes in medieval times and worker strikes for better pay in Flanders in the 13^th century, or in Florence in the 1378 Ciompi revolt, for example. There were corporate wars about watermills in France in the 12^th century – absolutely crucial for the economy of the time. Venice and Genoa’s maritime empires were famously fueled by their bankers and merchants – like the Grimaldi and the Doria. Even in the ruins of Pompey more shops and trade posts were found than actual residencies – many of these trading sites supposed to be managed and worked by actual slaves and entertain international trade. Later European empires, one after another, seemed to be supported by strong capitalistic structures that were typical of dynamic Europe. From the Portuguese, to the Spanish, to the Dutch, to the British, capitalistic structures were so powerful in mobilizing the people and creating innovation that they propelled European hegemony over the world, even with limited resources, limited demographics, and limited power bases.

Capitalism and the capitalistic way of life, in my view, are much older and much broader than Marx proposes. However, after the Industrial Revolution of the 18^th century, Modern Capitalism was born and that’s what we still have in place today. This arguably brought centuries of prosperity and was closely connected to the Liberal Revolutions, as the French Revolution and the American Revolution and many others. These revolutions battled against the ruling tyrannies of the Aristocrats and promoted Democracy, Equality, the Rule of Law, and other innovations as the Freedom of Expression, Freedom of Religion, Freedom of Association, etc.

Now, as the Liberal Agenda settled, States, Governments and Legislatures could have steered Modern Capitalism in one of two ways.

The first, which I’ll call Market-Based Capitalism, would promote healthy competition, free markets, international trade, protection for consumers and small, micro and medium companies against unbalances and unfair practices, a fair Rule of Law, opposition to monopolistic and oligarchic powers, subsidies and security for individuals who fall through the cracks in the system, liberty, equality and solidarity, etc.

The second, which I’ll call Elitist or Aristocratic Capitalism, means empowering and protecting a new Aristocracy (Capitalist Aristocracy), allowing unlimited wealth, subsidizing large corporations and industrial bases, limiting the liability of investors, allowing off-shore accounts and tax advantages, tolerating shady banking practices and dishonest corporate behavior, promoting lenient bankruptcy laws, bailing-out those who are “too-big-to-fail”, advancing economic protectionism, protecting cartels and monopolies, and deregulating practices that are damaging for the citizens and consumers.

Unfortunately, States, Governments and Legislatures have systematically chosen to steer society toward Elitist Capitalism. Instead of assuming themselves as guarantors of the fairness of Capitalism, they have shown to be corruptible and promiscuous, allowing the wealthy to rule. As I have written before, modern Elitist Capitalism is also characterized by three inclinations: Aristocratic Thinking (the idea that those born/raised or made/risen in wealth are superior beings that deserve more than the others), Elitism (the idea that these elites should rule the world, and their opinions and positions are obviously better and more effective), and Corruption (including nepotism and cronyism).

In my humble opinion, what many criticize in Capitalism today is not Capitalism per se, but the modern practice of Capitalism, namely Elitist Capitalism. A practice that reflects the choices of Governments and Legislatures, as well as State interventionism, and which corrupts the Liberal Agenda and market fairness and integrity. But Capitalism per se, although a force of nature that should be ruled in, has brought incredible progress, social development, and growth. I argue that it is important to start speaking of it with some agreement of what it is, at least, so not to throw away the baby with the bathwater.