Bret Devereaux

This is not to say that language doesn't evolve; of course it does. Abandon the shared rules for language and its ability to communicate meaning is diminished. We collectively negotiate new rules all the time, but new-comers must be initiated into it as it exists. Thus, rules.

Which is why, in language, as in so many things, one must learn the rules in order to know when to break the rules. The skilled writer or speaker transforms language not by standing outside of the rules and ignoring them, but by standing within them with mastery of them.

And that applies to socially constructed *everything* (historically and in the present) more broadly. Just because someone is arbitrary, or socially constructed doesn't mean it isn't real and doesn't necessarily mean that it is purposeless or malignant.

Some arbitrary, socially constructed things are very bad (like racism), other arbitrary, socially constructed things are quite good (like the concept of 'democracy'). Simply pointing out they are arbitrary accomplishes little.

Pointing out something is socially-constructed and not "natural" can be very powerful when it is something like "capitalism" that is naturalized and falsely read back into all of history back to the paleolithic rather than acknowledged as historically-contingent and transcendable

Depending on how you define capitalism, expect some fairly thorny arguments, though. E.g. evidence for early economic systems in Mesopotamia have tended over the years to drift towards a larger 'private' sector and a large but somewhat smaller space for a 'command' economy.

'Capitalism didn't exist in the ancient world' requires either 1) a quite narrow, technical definition of capitalism, far more narrow and technical than the common, popular one, or 2) a reading that largely excludes the last 4-5 decades of archaeological evidence.

To be clear, there is something to be said for (1), but the argument is often made w/o clarifying that capitalism in that context is understood narrowly or that the prior alternative was 'control by a hereditary aristocracy via political means' which is hardly a *better* system.