Political discourse today is plagued by the incorrect use of labels.  Words like “left” and “right” are tossed around without thought and, worse, misused to the point where they lose their meaning.  This is not accidental.  Politicians and public figures have weaponized language, twisting words to fit their agendas and muddling the lines of understanding.  If you value clear, rational thought, be vigilant with your words.  They have meanings, and these meanings must not be allowed to shift to serve political interests.

One of the most misunderstood aspects of political labels is what truly differentiates the left from the right.  There is only one consistent way to delineate these sides: property.  Attempts to categorize political ideologies using other measures are fundamentally flawed.  If you are aware of a way to draw a clear and consistent distinction other than property, bring it forth—it’s unlikely one exists.

Karl Marx saw the abolition of private property as essential to his vision of society.  Thus, he sits squarely on the left.  In contrast, Ludwig von Mises described the market economy as being summarized by the concept of private property.  That places him firmly on the right.  Any deviation from this property-based understanding dilutes the truth.

Confusion often arises when discussing fascism.  It’s labeled as a “right-wing” ideology, but this is wrong.  Fascism does not allow true property ownership.  It merely disguises its control under the terms of the market economy.  Thus, it aligns more with socialism than with genuine capitalism.  Socialism places property in the hands of the state, while fascism permits nominal private ownership but dictates its use.  The distinction is a superficial one.  Both systems represent forms of statism, where the state exerts dominance over the individual.

Marx’s supporters may argue that he stood for communism, not socialism, but this is another misunderstanding.  Socialism is the path to communism, a supposed utopia where the state would eventually “wither away” after achieving full control.  In practice, this vision has proven elusive, leaving behind only the mechanisms of control without the promised dissolution of the state.

Modern political systems blend elements of socialism and fascism, creating a hybrid form of statism.  The result is an environment where property rights are eroded, and individual autonomy is diminished.  Socialism means state ownership of property.  Fascism means state control of property with a facade of private ownership.  Communism is the hypothetical end stage of socialism.  Capitalism, on the other hand, means true ownership of property by individuals.  It means you own your body and have the direct ability to control your actions and decisions.  If you agree with these principles, you are in favor of capitalism, even if political language has misled you.

The battle for language is as important as any political struggle.  Nearly all political arguments today are rooted in statism.  This may come as a shock to those who consider themselves non-leftist, but without grounding discussions in property rights, we risk falling into the statist trap.  Using terms carelessly concedes ground to those who wish to blur the distinctions between freedom and control.

We must guard the language of liberty and act as the intellectual defenders of capitalism.  Only through the clarity of language can we protect the concept of individual freedom and true ownership.  Without this vigilance, we risk losing more than just words—we risk losing our freedom.