Misesian Wisdom for Careful Political Dialogue

The world’s financial capital will soon have a self-identified socialist mayor. Zohran Mamdani won New York City’s mayoral election campaigning in the vein of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA). The rise of politicians openly identifying as socialist provides Christians with an opportunity for greater political clarity.

Christians must carefully consider definitions when analyzing the changing landscape of our nation’s politics. This care helps us evaluate what we say and how we say it. Proverbs 15:2 declares, “The tongue of the wise makes knowledge attractive, but the mouth of fools blurts out foolishness” (CSB). Solomon exhorts readers to carefully consider their words. We must avoid blurting out foolishness and falsehood in political discussions or debates.

The writings of Ludwig von Mises foster clear thinking and accurate speech by dividing political and economic systems into three categories: capitalism, socialism, and interventionism. Christians should be able to distinguish between the foundational tenets of each system. Such knowledge enables proper, biblical analysis of each system’s assumptions, assertions, and accomplishments.

Capitalism

The term “capitalism” has a surprising origin. Mises unpacks the history of this word writing that “capitalism” was not termed “by a friend of the system, but by an individual who considered it to be the worst of all historical systems, the greatest evil that had ever befallen mankind. That man was Karl Marx.” Despite this hostile beginning, “capitalism” is an accurate term.

Essentially, “capitalism” means a free market economy. A market system includes the free use of capital in productive enterprises. No central authority guides key industries and private property rights are rigorously protected. Free exchange of goods and services occurs in an open market.

Minimal government intervention characterizes capitalism (the “free” in free market). It restricts state activity to protecting the market through actions such as enforcing contracts and punishing fraud. Socialism, however, accepts a much broader role for the state.

Socialism

Mises defines socialism as a system in which “all the means of production are in the exclusive control of the organized community.” He further notes that “all other definitions are misleading.” The organized community manifests itself in the state or government.

The DSA’s 2025-2026 platform contains many recommendations for “progressing” toward a socialist system. However, it does not mention controlling all the means of production. The platform calls for policies that fall short of full socialism—Medicare for all, housing for all, etc.

Mises’s definition highlights the importance of clear and precise language. Even the DSA fails to clearly identify itself with socialism as defined historically. Ironically, both the DSA and politicians like Mamdani during his campaign use the term socialism inaccurately. A more precise word to describe their political and economic agenda is “interventionism.”

Interventionism

If socialism means total state control of the economy, then interventionism means partial control. Society still operates by a market economy but with restrictions (at times severe). The state in this system plays a considerable role directing production and consumption. Mises writes that the state acts by “injecting into the workings of the market, orders, commands, and prohibitions, for whose enforcement the power and constraint apparatus stands ready. But these are isolated interventions.”

Many policies that modern socialist politicians embrace are better termed “interventionist.” Mamdani’s policy goals to continue price controls on rent stabilized apartments, raise the minimum wage, or provide “free” bus service are isolated interventions in the economy. They are not full-blown control of productive forces.

However, Mises emphasizes that these policies are harmful. He notes, “Interventionism does not take all freedom from the citizens. But every one of its measures takes away a part of the freedom and narrows the field of activity.” The government in an interventionist system has significantly fewer limitations than in a free market system.

The state assumes the role of market director. It declares what economic activity can and cannot occur. Mises sums up interventionism: “The real meaning of the interventionist principle … amounts to the declaration: Business is free to act as long as what it does complies exactly with the plans and intentions of the government.” Mises saw nefarious and continual growth of government in an interventionist context—to the point of morphing into socialism.

Conclusion

Mises humorously wrote that “the usual terminology of political language is stupid.” He decried misuse of the word “capitalist” to describe a system with significant government intervention (such as exists presently in the United States). Mises valued clear and accurate definitions.

Albeit less comically than Mises, Solomon provided greater wisdom about proper use of language. Proverbs 14:3 asserts that, “The proud speech of a fool brings a rod of discipline, but the lips of the wise protect them.”  Christians follow this admonition, and avoid embarrassment, when they carefully consider their words. Accepting Mises’s threefold division of political life helps us avoid using unhelpful, biased, or downright incorrect terms when communicating. Instead, Mises equips Christians with a solid theoretical foundation to engage in accurate and winsome dialogue on political and economic topics.