LEXICOGRAPHICAL EVIDENCE FOR THE

COMMONLY UNDERSTOOD DEFINITIONS OF THE

TERMS CAPITALISM, SOCIALISM, AND
INTERVENTIONISM.

Brent Kingi (August 2015)

INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this brief essay is to provide some lexicographical evidence for the
commonly understood definitions of capitalism, socialism, and interventionism. The scope of
this essay is restricted to that purpose alone. This essay does not intend to provide a thorough
critical analysis of the justifications put forward for the definition of these terms, but merely to
show that their commonly understood definitions are acceptable in argumentation.
It can be said that one of the most important rules of argumentation is to define your
terms. This should be obvious. If terms are not carefully defined within the appropriate context,
participants cannot be expected to know what to argue for or against. If we cannot agree on the
definition of key terms in a debate, there cannot be any common ground upon which to analyse
each others argument. If, for some reason, there is a disagreement on the definition itself, the
participants can either agree to stipulate a definition for sake of argument or debate the
definition itself.
If the participants choose the latter, the arguments to support or defeat a definition can
be provided in two main ways:
1)

Appeal to the contemporary and historical i.e. lexicographical lineage of the

term itself. As a first resort, we can refer to dictionaries. Dictionaries, as a rule, aim
to codify the meaning of terms in the context of contemporary use. This is useful
because it at least provides some starting point in a debate over definitions. Once a
dictionary definition is given, assuming there is one, then there may be debate over
its legitimacy. Is the dictionary definition representative of its common use in
intellectual and non-intellectual discourse? At this stage, references to treatises,
articles, and editorials may be necessary.

2) A critical analysis of the logical implications of the definition. This relies on

revealing any logical contradictions inherent in the definition itself. This method
takes for granted the definition given by an arguing participant. It is then subjected
to an analysis of its logical coherency in the context of the original debate.

Below will be provided the tentative definitions of the terms capitalism, socialism and
interventionism1. It is the contention of this essay that these tentative definitions are legitimate
(as supported by lexicographical evidence) and should therefore be accepted in a debate
regarding them. After the tentative definitions are given, a brief list of references will follow
to support them. The essay will then conclude with a final remark.
TENTATIVE DEFINITIONS
The following are the tentative definitions of capitalism, socialism, and interventionism. By
presenting these definitions, it is not the purpose to show that these are the fully exhausted and
comprehensive definitions of the terms. The intention here is merely show that these restricted
definitions are, insofar as the definitions show the essential difference between the terms,
legitimate for use in argumentation:
Capitalism: A system under which all means of production i.e. land, labour, and
capital are owned and controlled by individuals or associations of individuals and are
considered private property. Decisions over the use of these means are left entirely with
the individual owners or shared-owners.
Socialism: A system under which all means of production i.e. land, labour, and capital
are owned and effectively controlled by society at large through a single centralised

Interventionism, in contemporary discourse, takes on two connotations: 1) an economic connotation referring to

state interference within the domestic economy; and 2) a foreign policy directed toward interfering with the political
affairs of a foreign nation. The latter connotation is not essential for the purposes of this essay.

acting authority, typically a state, and are considered public property. Decisions
concerning their effective use is assumed by a centralised decision-making body.
Interventionism: A system under which the means of production can be privately
owned, but decisions concerning their use by individuals or associations of individuals
are not entirely autonomous. Under such a system, activist government plays a role in
the regulation of property use.

LEXICOGRAPHICAL EVIDENCE
Below is a list of dictionary and website entries that provide some evidence of the
tentative definitions above. Reference to less academic sources, such as popular websites, is
intentional in order to acquire a more broad survey of the definitions in question. Some of these
definitions include more than what is covered in the tentative definitions. For example, some
describe the economic, political, and social aspects of the definitions. This is not an essential
point for the purposes of this essay. The intention here is merely to provide a general
understanding of the similarity of the tentative definitions to those present in contemporary
lexicographical sources. Formal references will not be provided. If the reader wishes to verify
these entries, it will have to be on their own accord.
Cambridge Dictionary (American & British)
Capitalism: An economic system based on private ownership of property and business,
with the goal of making the greatest possible profits for the owners.
Socialism: Any economic or political system based on government ownership and
control of important businesses and methods of production.
Interventionism: (Of a government or their actions) often becoming involved, either in
the problems of another country, or in the economy of one's own country.

Oxford Dictionary (British Edition)

Capitalism: An economic and political system in which a countrys trade and industry
are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.
Socialism: A political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that
the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by
the community as a whole.
Interventionism: Favouring intervention, especially by a government in its domestic
economy or by one state in the affairs of another.

Websters Unabridged Dictionary (1913)

No entry for capitalism.
Socialism: A theory or system of social reform which contemplates a complete
reconstruction of society, with a more just and equitable distribution of property and
labor.2
No entry for interventionism.

Marriam-Webster Dictionary
Capitalism: An economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of
capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices,

Notice how this more of a description of the theory of socialism as propounded by its advocates rather than a
description of the practical implementation of socialism.

production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in
a free market.
Socialism: Any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or
governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution
of goods.
Interventionism: Governmental interference in economic affairs at home or in political
affairs of another country.

Collins English Dictionary (Complete and Unabridged)

Capitalism: Free enterprise or private enterprise, an economic system based on the
private ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange, characterized
by the freedom of capitalists to operate or manage their property for profit in
competitive conditions.
Socialism: Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means
of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized
government that often plans and controls the economy.
Interventionism: Advocating intervention, esp. in the affairs of a foreign country.3

Dictionary.com
Capitalism: An economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means
of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by
private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or stateowned means of wealth.
Socialism: An economic theory or system in which the means of production,
distribution, and exchange are owned by the community collectively, usually through
the state. It is characterized by production for use rather than profit, by equality of
individual wealth, by the absence of competitive economic activity, and, usually, by
government determination of investment, prices, and production levels.
Interventionism: The policy or doctrine of intervening, especially government
interference in the affairs of another state or in domestic economic affairs.

American Heritage Dictionary (5th Edition)

Capitalism: An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are
privately or corporately owned and development occurs through the accumulation and
reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.
Socialism: Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means
of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized
government that often plans and controls the economy.
Interventionism: The policy or practice of intervening, especially: The use of
government power to control or influence domestic economic activity.

Investopedia.com
Capitalism: A system of economics based on the private ownership of capital and
production inputs, and on the production of goods and services for profit. The
production of goods and services is based on supply and demand in the general market
(market economy), rather than through central planning (planned economy). Capitalism
is generally characterized by competition between producers. Other facets, such as the

There is no reference to the economic connotation of interventionism.

participation of government in production and regulation, vary across models of

capitalism.
Socialism: An economic and political system based on public or collective ownership
of the means of production. Socialism emphasizes equality rather than achievement 4,
and values workers by the amount of time they put in rather than by the amount of value
they produce. It also makes individuals dependent on the state for everything from food
to health care. China, Vietnam and Cuba are examples of modern-day socialist
societies. Twentieth-century socialist governments were overthrown in
Czechoslovakia, East Germany and the U.S.S.R.
No entry for interventionism.

Wikipedia.org
Capitalism: An economic system in which trade, industry, and the means of production
are largely or entirely privately owned. Private firms and proprietorships usually
operate in order to generate profit, but may operate as private non-profit organizations.
Central characteristics of capitalism include private property, capital accumulation,
wage labour and, in some situations, fully competitive markets. In a capitalist economy,
the parties to a transaction typically determine the prices at which they exchange assets,
goods, and services.
Socialism: A social and economic system characterised by social ownership of the
means of production and co-operative management of the economy, as well as a
political theory and movement that aims at the establishment of such a system. "Social
ownership" may refer to cooperative enterprises, common ownership, state ownership
(achieved by nationalization), citizen ownership of equity, or any combination of these.
There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all
of them.5
Interventionism: An economic policy perspective favouring government intervention in
the market process to correct market failures and promote the general welfare. An
economic intervention is an action taken by a government or international institution in
a market economy in an effort to impact the economy beyond the basic regulation of
fraud and enforcement of contracts and provision of public goods.

Marxists.org
Capitalism: The socio-economic system where social relations are based on
commodities for exchange, in particular private ownership of the means of production
and on the exploitation of wage labour.6
Socialism: The organisation of society in such a manner that any individual, man or
woman, finds at birth equal means for the development of their respective faculties and
the utilisation of their labour. The organisation of society in such a manner that the
exploitation by one person of the labour of his neighbour would be impossible, and
where everyone will be allowed to enjoy the social wealth only to the extent of their
contribution to the production of that wealth.7
No entry for interventionism

Again, this refers to the intentions of the socialist system, not the actual results they stem for its implementation.
The claim is that socialism is decentralised in nature, but in practice its implementation requires centralisation.
6
This definition is based on the Marxian labour theory of value (the refutation of which is not within the scope of
this essay), but its reference to private ownership in the means of production is consistent with other definitions of
capitalism.
7
This definition was extracted from a sea of vague quotes under the glossary for socialism. Yet again, this definition
refers to the idealistic intentions the author has in mind for the socialist system. The definition does not seek to
explain exactly how this organisation of society would manifest itself. It does not refer to the state or any
collective means of ownership.
5

Worldsocialism.org
Capitalism: Capitalism is the social system which now exists in all countries of the
world.8 Under this system, the means for producing and distributing goods (the land,
factories, technology, transport system etc.) are owned by a small minority of people.
We refer to this group of people as the capitalist class. The majority of people must sell
their ability to work in return for a wage or salary (who we refer to as the working
class).9
Socialism: Central to the meaning of socialism is common ownership. This means the
resources of the world being owned in common by the entire global population. In
practice, common ownership will mean everybody having the right to participate in
decisions on how global resources will be used. It means nobody being able to take
personal control of resources, beyond their own personal possessions.10

Mises.org11
Capitalism: A form of social cooperation under which the means of production are
owned by individuals or associations of individuals, such as corporations. The owners
use the means of production directly to produce, or they lend them, for a compensation,
to others who want to use them in production. The individuals or associations of
individuals who produce with their own or with borrowed money are called
entrepreneurs.
Socialism: The form of social cooperation under which all means of production are
owned by the nation. The government decides what should be produced and how it
should be produced, and allots each individual a share of the consumers' goods for his
consumption.
Interventionism: A system of private ownership of the means of production in which
the government intervenes, by orders and prohibitions, in the exercise of ownership.

CONCLUSION
From the brief survey of evidence provided above, it appears that the
tentative definitions for all three terms are justified. Ultimately, when talking about
capitalism and socialism we generally have in mind what the consensus of definitions
above have in mind.
This, then, permits us to use these terms in a productive debate. If we take
the above evidence as sufficient, then the tentative definitions should be accepted as
legitimate for the purposes of argumentation. This means those who wish to use these
terms in a manner contrary to the way they are defined above must provide not only
lexicographical evidence to contrary, but also provide sound logical justifications for
them. As far as this is not achieved, we must acquiesce in the tentative definitions. It
was the purpose of this essay to show evidence to support the tentative definitions, the
task of which has been achieved.

This is claim based only on a broadly conceived definition of capitalism. There exists in the world countries whose
governments have complete control over their respective economies, e.g. North Korea, and would, under this
definition, be considered capitalist. This is because they have defined capitalism in terms of a class theory, and not
necessarily on political or economic categories. It claims private property is limited only to a class of capitalists.
9
This definition is predicated on Marxian class theory, and implies the labour theory of value.
10
Here, the definition implies a central body or number of such bodies which individuals partake in through some
mechanism. The claimed mechanism is that of democratic control, where everyone gets to vote on the decisions over
the use of world resources. It is important to note, however, that this takes for granted the opposite state of affairs
being individual ownership and determination of use of said resources, i.e. capitalism.
11
These definitions are taken from Misess Interventionism: An Economic Analysis (1940).