Talk:Capitalism/Archive 15

This is an archive of past discussions about Capitalism. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

→

Use talk for actual discussion

In particular, pasting the entire (mostly unrelated) article on the Index of Economic Freedom into this talk page, in multiple copies, is completely pointless. That article already exists, and all the editors here are aware it exists. It concerns a different topic than this article.

There's a remark by Wittgenstein about being shocked by a news story, and buying multiple copies of the newpaper to verify that it's really true. Ludwig figured out what was wrong with that methodology: perhaps we could learn from him. LotLE×talk 03:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Large scale deletions and violations of npov

Now the article has been cleaned from all modern pro-capitalist arguments so that the Marxist POV should not have any troublesome counter-arguments.

This has been followed by archiving or deletion of all the ongoing talk page discussions about this.

Here is some of the material that is obviously so dangerous that the readers should not be allowed to see it even on talk pages.[1][2]Ultramarine 03:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Criticisms of capitalism section

I actually agree with Ultramarine (though for different reasons), that the "criticisms" section is a bit unbalanced. Marx' general analysis is notable. And Lenin's work on capitalism in relation to imperialism is worth mentioning. But there's a lot missing there: where are the utopian socialists; the Narodniks; the anarchists of various strips; the Luddites; etc. Most of this sort of thing, should of course go in the child article. But a couple sentences seems worth mentioning to me. LotLE×talk 03:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Explain why the main empirical pro-capitalitst arguments has been completely deleted.Ultramarine 03:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

They can be seen here: [3]Ultramarine 03:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

The topic of this article is "Capitalism"; which is to say, roughly, "What is Capitalism?" The topic of "Is Capitalism good or bad?" is not the one this article addresses. Nor is the topic "Does economic deregulation cause greater growth?" Nor is the topic "What are the best public policies to cause economic growth?" Those topics might be reasonable to address in other articles—in fact, they are addressed in many other articles, including the one Ultramarine has repeatedly cut-and-pasted here.

FWIW, most of the thinkers we present who have been influential in trying to answer the question "What is Capitalism?" were themselves pretty staunchly pro-Capitalist. Certainly Smith was strongly pro-Capitalist. So was Schumpeter, and the Austrian School economists. Weber and Keynes are slightly more mixed-bag, but both were essentially enthusiastic about capitalism as a system. Marx, obviously, was more-or-less opposed to capitalism; but even that is hardly that simple. Marx himself thought that Capitalism was an historically necessary stage of economic development that unleashed greater productive forces than any prior system. But the question of "pro-" or "con-" is not the issue of this article. All the thinkers presented tried to answer the ontological question of "what is it?"

Now it's true that the figures Ultramarine calls "ancient"—by which she means "recent modernist thinkers"—are dead white guys. There hasn't really been anything fundamentally new in understanding capitalism in the last 50 years. But even if some thinker came along with completely novel understanding of the issues, it's inevitable that figures of the recent past (say, a century ago) will have more diffused and rarified influence than some brand new idea, no matter how good the new idea might be. This article isn't breaking news, but an overview of trends in understanding the nature of Capitalism over the last 400 years or so. This week makes up a pretty narrow slice of 400 years, as does this year, or even decade. LotLE×talk 04:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately this shows a serious lack of understanding of the subject. As noted, none of the above persons have contributed anything during that last 50 years. It is of course ridiculous to state that there has been no development and research on capitalism during the last 50 years. There has been an enormous amount of quantitative research and theores developed from that.

There certainly no wikpedia policy that states that an article should only deal with the correct definition of the word. Articles should deal with all significant aspects, including effects, benefits, disadvantages, criticism, and advocacy. The Index of Economic Freedom documents not only economic growth, as implied above, but many other things as life expectancy and literacy. Hundreds of researchers have used it in different fields. This research should be mentioned for two reasons: 1) What has been the impact of capitalism. 2) This impact is one the main arguments for capitalism. It violates NPOV to only mention criticism and what some theorists think happens, but not to mention advocay and what has actually has happened.Ultramarine 04:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I again ask why this was removed "In response to criticism, proponents of capitalism have argued its advantages are supported by empirical research. The Index of Economic Freedom, for example, has showed that nations with more “economic freedom” score much higher on variables such as income and life expectancy, including the poor in these nations."Ultramarine 19:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that sentence is fine, actually. I don't think we're any worse off without it, but it doesn't do any active harm IMO (it's a slight amount of "special pleading", but not horribly). You might want to ask the editors who took it out why they did so, on their talk pages. LotLE×talk 19:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

It was you who removed it: [4].Ultramarine 19:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you still oppose it? If so, explain why.Ultramarine 20:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't be asinine: I moved it to a different section. How about if we stick back in the slightly irrelevant IEF editorial that you like, but you self-revert your outright falsification in the lead sentence. C'mon, there's not a shadow of good faith in claiming that capitalism is defined by the complete lack of government regulation... hell, your hero de Soto makes the point about regulation being essential to a functioning capitalist system. According to your latest edit to the lead, we'd be obligated to yank de Soto. LotLE×talk 20:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

You have a point, so made the corrections.Ultramarine 20:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey, in the paragraph of criticisms levied by Vladimir Lenin, could somebody please cite page numbers for each of the criticisms so I can attempt some better rebuttal paragraphs? I don't really want to read through 300 pages; it doesn't look like a particularly interesting read :-/ --Todd 08:20, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

The one sentence on Lenin's 100 page pamphlet refers to the general thesis of the essay, so no narrower page numbers make sense. Btw. If anyone had the slightest doubt that Sneaky Todd is a sockpuppet, I think this post should put that to rest. Can someone please do a checkuser before he gets through semi-protection? LotLE×talk 16:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm through my 96 hours, an will probably edit the section later today. By all means, please do a check-user on me; it would put this silly sock-puppet speculation to rest. I'm not sure why I'm a suspect, though, most of what I've done on this article is attempt to encourage some kind of consensus on the talk page. You seem a little quick to accuse. --Todd 19:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

POV tag

This version of the article is too critical and Marxist. I have put up NPOV tag, it can be replaced with unbalanced if necessary. -- Vision Thing -- 07:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

This comment is more-or-less insane. I'm not going to do anything with the NPOV tag. But calling the article "too Marxist" is just nuts. Marx basically gets one of 5-6 "theory" subsections; while 4-5 non- or anti-Marxists the rest of the theory sections (how you count depends on where the "Democracy" thing goes). But the theory as a whole is about equal sized with the "history" section, which has nothing whatsoever to do with Marx. If anything, the relatively space in the article that discusses Marx' analysis is vastly less than his comparative influence in understanding the nature of capitalism. Even the already fairly brief mention of Lenin's thesis I reduced to a single sentence (which is fair, actually, a pointer to other places is better). Essentially, the thesis advanced by Ultramarine, and sometimes by Vision Thing, is that the mere awareness that Marx existed is the same thing as being a "Marxist". LotLE×talk 07:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Vision Thing, you removed it yesterday [5] I hope you don't insist that it stay up, which is likely to make matters divisive again and end the constructive tone that was struck yesterday. I restored a version similar to the one on which you compromised yesterday [6] and removed the tag, assuming that you will be satisfied with the arrangement you proposed yesterday. 172 | Talk 07:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Article is too unstable, compromise intro to which we agreed is now changed and it looks like infinity0 plans to changed it again. Also, I’m not taking about Marx's analysis but of Marxist POV of editors. Tag stays up until article comes to stable, uncontested version. Unfortunately, right now I don’t have time to balance it, so it will have to wait until beginning of the next week. -- Vision Thing -- 07:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

The intro has not changed significantly since your compromise yesterday. [7] The possibility of future changes is not a consideration in inserting a POV tag; the POV tag means that an editor is currently challenging the neturality of the article as it currently stands-- not the neutrality of the editors or possible future changes. Please remove the tag. At this stage, it'll only serve to posion the work environment, which will make it more difficult to engage in a serious discussion of your proposed changes when you have time next week. 172 | Talk 08:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Just passing by, and thought I'd add my two cents. I don't think this article is horribly POV (in the same way that most WP articles about the US are, for ex.), but one problem is that the article concludes with a section called "Criticisms of capitalism." There are criticisms woven throughout the text. I don't see why this section is needed. And if it be declared necessary, it seems a counterbalancing "Support (or whatever) for Capitalism" section should be added. --Cultural Freedom talk 2006-06-30 10:15 (UTC)

Reporting that there have been criticisms of capitalism is not the same as criticizing capitalism. Further, it is becoming standard to include "critiicsms of" sections toward the bottom of articles. There is nothing unusual about it here. 172 | Talk 16:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

There are of course rules in Wikipedia against POV-forks. It is explicitly stated that criticisms sections should contain counter-arguments, if there are any. Unfortunately, they are now completed deleted from this article, see prior sections above, violating NPOV.Ultramarine 16:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

private property

I am returning this from the archive, because I don't believe the discussion is over: I think we had this discussion a while back, though that may have been Crotalus Horridus (or however that's spelled). It's unclear what you mean about how those use-rights are specified, but if you're talking about e.g., some kind of open field system, then that would be a kind of public, or collective ownership, not private ownership. Hence, not capitalism. MrVoluntarist 15:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

My point exactly - not capitalism, but means of production are still privately owned. It sounds like for you at least the fact that land, specifically, is considered a means of production and is privately owned is crucial to capitalism. I do not argue this. But if this is a key factor, then perhaps the article needs a section on debates over ownership of land and the historical pricess by which it became a commodity (or whatever word you prefer, to describe something that is bought and sold as well as used). Slrubenstein | Talk 15:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

What? Are you reading the same thing I am? What you described is not capitalism, AND it doesn't have private ownership. Of course land is one of the means of production -- read the article! If a major part of that economy is not privately owned, it's not capitalism, and in no way is a counterexample to "capitalism involves mainly private ownership of the means of production". MrVoluntarist 15:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

If you don't have the right to sell a thing or give it to someone else, then you don't own it. Ownership entails a right to dispose of a thing as one wishes. Land was not owned by private individuals in feudalism because they didn't have the right to trade their real estate amongst each other. Just like if the law prohibited you from selling your own labor, then you wouldn't own yourself. You might own yourself morally in that case but not legally. The state would own you. If there are any means of production communistically owned, then like MrVoluntarist says, it wouldn't be part of capitalism. A free society allows anyone to establish any type of economic system they want. It just so happens that in free societies, the overwhelming majority of people choose to engage in capitalism. Some in the U.S., like some hippies, choose communism and set up their communes out in the country. They operate in a communist system within the free society. They're not part of the capitalist system. C-Liberal 19:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The "overwhelming majority of people" work under capitalism. A worker is not a capitalist - he is a commodity ( his labor ). The only difference between capitalism, feudalism, communism, socialism, etc for the "overwhelming majority of people" is who "owns" the means of production - ie the capitalists ( those with $$ ), the lords ( those with knights ), the people ( well sort of ), etc. Getting up in the morning and going to work all day is the only constant in all these systems for the "overwhelming majority of people".

I am reading the same thing as Mr. Voluntarist, and I wish he woulod take me in good faith, because i am trying very hard to take him in good faith. First, I think Mr. Voluntarist and C-Liberal are acting in bad faith when they bring up the matter of land again because I have explicitly conceded that yes, in these cases land is either not considered property at all, or it is owned by some public institution (e.g. the state). I observed that private ownership of land, specifically, seemed to be very important to Mr. Voluntarist's understanding of capitalism, and observation which I think is accurate and in no way hostile. And I suggested that if private ownership of land is such an important feature of capitalism the article should have a separate section on how land became privatized and debates over its private ownership. I do not see how this could be taken as a hostile remark, and on the contrary I thought I was being constructive. I get the sense that Ultramarine and others, now Mr. Voluntarist, are dividing editors into two camps, pro-capitalism and anti-capitalism. This is not a good faith gesture and it does not pave the way for constructive collaboration. I do not care whether Mr. Voluntarist approves of capitalism or not, but he is a fellow editor and I am trying to derive from his comments something constructive that we could both agree merits discussion in the article. isn't that what these talk pages are for?

A second point: land is one of the means of production, but it is not the only means of production. The fact remains that there are societies where means of production (not including land) are privately owned. Mr. Voluntarist seems confused about my point. My point is that these are by his definition (which I am willing to accept) not capitalist ... and this means that private ownership of the means of production is not in and of itself sufficient to characterize a society as capitalist. NOTE: I did not say all of the means of production, in fact, I specified that some means of production (e.g. land) are not privately owned. (this is why I suspect ownership of land merits its own section, which I repeat I consider a constructive suggestion and I am flabbergasted why Mr. Voluntarist responds sarcastically). Slrubenstein | Talk 10:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Right, private ownership of the means of production is not sufficient for capitalism. You have to have a laissez-faire economic environment as well, which is to say that the markets decides how to allocated goods, services, and income and the prices for these things instead of the government. In other words a free market. Private ownership of the means of production but with the state making those decisions would be a command economy. And anything in between would be a mixed economy. C-Liberal 15:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you agree then that more attention needs to be paid to how, in Europe, land came to be seen as a commordity (or if you prefer private property), and how political economists, physiocrats, and others at the time (perhaps up to Henry George's criticisms) theorized this, in the article? I am trying to pinpoint places where more work can be done to good effect. It also sounds based on your comments that there was a change in the meaning of ownership. My point is that defining capitalism as based on private ownership of the means of production is inadequate. Let us not argue about the wording of the first sentence - I care about the substantive quality of the article itself. Based on your comments and those of Mr. Voluntarist, it sounds like two things call for more specific discussion: the changing status of land, and changing notions of ownership. On both these matters there is likely to be both historical research and debates among theorists, and I am proposing that we have more of both in the article. Are you agreeing or objecting? Would you add anything to the proposal? If you have done real research on this, can you work on it? Slrubenstein | Talk 11:49, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there was ever a changing in the meaning of ownership. I don't think the tenants were ever regard to "own" the land they were working. C-Liberal 01:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

No, but I think (in feudal Europe) they ownedd their own tools, if not in feudal Europe than certainly in other societies where either land was not considered property at all or was owned by the state. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Someone over at the [State capitalism] page has highlighted a contradiction between this article and that one, namely the definition of capitalism: Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production are privately owned, and capital is invested in the production, distribution and other trade of goods and services for profit. - obviously the point in bold is the point of contention between state capitalist theorists and others generally, but I'll just state here (without making any change) that I think the part in bold is superflous - for example at the least you could have two states which own their means of production trading as if private firms in a capitalistic way. If you have production for exchange then you have capitalism - just because someone (a Sovnarkom planner) tells you who to sell to doesn't stop it being a sale. Anyway, I'll trya nd clarify this at the state cap page...--Red Deathy 07:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Deletions of disputed tags

Why are the disputed tags immediately deleted? Please discuss the points mentioned in "Large scale deletions and violations of npov" and "Criticisms of capitalism section" above.Ultramarine 14:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Archiving

Let's try to not archive sections if they are still fresh. In heavily edited talk pages such as this, unless we are at about 60kbs or more, it's best to keep farily current arguments readily visible. I know this increases server lag, but it's simply a lot easier to be able to quickly see recent discussions. Thanks.--MONGO 16:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

When I archived, the talk page was over 140k. I was not myself able to load or edit the talk page consistently, thereby making it unusable for discussion. I wasn't really sure which parts might be considered "current"; the stuff at bottom was the repeated cut-and-paste from another article, which was distinctly non-fresh. The last several comments were distributed fairly evenly through the existing sections, and the section that some editor restored here was not among those with most recent prior discussion. If editors would refrain from pasting in large chunks of extraneous material, the talk page would grow much less quickly. LotLE×talk 17:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

To archive ongoing discussions, especially those stating criticisms of the article, instead of continuing the discussion, is very questionable.Ultramarine 18:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that we should try and keep comments as brief as possible though...long winded comments, or copy and pastes from other texts just fill this up, when a simple link to the article will do. Whatever we can do to make sure we be concise and also keep current info here as much as possible, though this may not happen if we adding 40kbs a day of commentary.--MONGO 18:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the danger of longer load times, the increased need for care when editing, etc., that attends a large discussion page is far, far smaller than the hassle of going to an archived page to see where a discussion began. It's now actually very hard for a newcomer like me to catch up. Can someone who knows how please "un-archive" recent material? ~~I'm going to return the POV warning until I can prove to myself that it's not warrented (which is going to be difficult with the recent discussion spread out over archived pages).~~ (18:23. No, I'll wait a little bit longer, hoping that someone un-archives the relevant discusions.) --Cultural Freedom talk 2006-06-30 18:18 (UTC)

If you feel like reading a 140k discussion page, fee free to. It's right there in the archive section, prominently linked and labelled. The "hassle" of having a completely unusable current talk page is far, far, far greater than that of making you click one extra time. LotLE×talk 19:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Peackock phrases

I'd ask editors here to be mindful of Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms. Actually, the one one "weasel words" is relevant too. I've noticed quite a few cases where a given person, or essay, or argument, etc. is praised as "influential", or "important", or "ground-breaking". And similarly, Friedman is introduced as "Nobel-Prize winning". Just tell us what the essay said, or who the person was; if it weren't important or influential to some degree, it wouldn't have any place in this article to start with. Wikilinks to the relevant article let readers find out more about the person or essay. In Friedman's case, there's an extra little irony: The economics prize popularly mischaracterized as the "Nobel Prize"... ain't. Alfred Nobel did not endow a prize in economics; one was added much later, and named after Nobel ('commemorative'). But even minus that wrinkle, it tries to create an insinuation of Friedman being better than the earlier economists discussed (sort of hiding the fact that most of those discussed preceded the creation of the prize; so could not have one just as a chronological fact).

Still, there were/are plenty of peacock terms about lefties too. It ain't just a feature of the conservatives. Don't tell us the Manifesto (or a certain passage in it) is "famous", just quote it. And so on. LotLE×talk 00:32, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

"Nobel Prize winning" may be misleading in spcific cases, or unnecessary, but it isn't a peacock term. Its specific and notable, as much in the case of Friedman as in that of, say, James Tobin. --Christofurio 20:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

If you find an article on WP that isn't about the Nobel Commemorative prize, nor about Tobin himself, and it refers to him as "Nobel-prize winning ...", I implore you to remove the peacock adjective. And likewise for any other winner of any other medal or prize. The fact someone won something is notable in certain contexts, but not on generic reference to the person in relation to some other subject.

For example, we should write:

The Mumford conjecture was proved in 1975 by W. J. Haboush, about a decade after the problem had been posed by David Mumford.

We should not write:

The Mumford conjecture was proved in 1975 by W. J. Haboush, about a decade after the problem had been posed by Fields Medal winner David Mumford.

However, if the discussion itself is closely related the topic for which someone won a major prize, it might be OK to write (this hypothetical, and AFAIK untrue):

The Mumford conjecture was proved in 1975 by W. J. Haboush, about a decade after the problem had been posed by David Mumford. Mumford won the Fields Medal for his work on the conjecture.

None of the peacock adjectives in this article were anywhere close to directly germane to the use made of the source. LotLE×talk 20:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

New Marxian economics

As much as I hate to say it, the new section on Resnick & Wolff is longer than the topic merits in this particular article. It really does pain me to point this out: Rick Wolff was on my dissertation committee, and I really like him quite a lot personally (maybe Cplot would like to do an article on Rick himself). There genuinely is something novel in Rick & Steve's work, which answers the ontological question of "What is capitalism?" in a way none of the other thinkers presented do. But they are just not notable enough for three paragraphs of this article. I think it would be quite reasonable to include a mention, but reduced to about two sentences, possibly with a footnote containing slightly more explanation beyond the plain citation. LotLE×talk 06:13, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

In defense I would say the subsection isn't on the work of Resnick & Wolff per se (though that has been quite infulential in contermporary Marxism), but on their reading of Marx's Capital. The reading presented above the subsection is another reading, but it's no more the correct or only reading of Marx. I or someone else could find page citations from the three volumes of Capital to support everything I wrote in that subsection. So I think three paragraphs of the article in the section on Marxism could be devoted to what Marx writes about capitalism, understood in contemporary terms. In reading the parent section, I don't get a good sense of what Marxian political economy thinks capitalism is. I tried to provide some elaboration and clarification of that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cplot (talk • contribs) .

I support Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters' shortening of the content on Richard Wolff. We must have criteria for limiting the scope of these sections. There have been so many different strains of neo-Marxism here that it's difficult to account for all of them in the main Marxism entry, let alone here. The list could go on and on forever... 172 | Talk 18:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I think in the shortened form, the description matches a broader group of (post-)Marxians than only the neo-Althusserians. Rick & Steve are fine as representatives, but the general idea of overlapping class-process tendencies is held by others as well. We shouldn't belabor the micro-points, but as a broad line of though, it's worth a sentence or two (which it has now). <font color="darkgreen">LotLE×talk 19:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Good point. On that note, nice job on the wording. 172 | Talk 19:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of pro-capitalist arguments

I again ask why all sourced pro-capitalist arguments are deleted? Please explain why even this short paragarph is deleted: [8].Ultramarine 18:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Cut the WP:POINT stuff out! I'm with you, as far as it goes, in thinking the IEF (short) paragraph "criticizing" the criticism section is sufficiently harmless to retain. But removing the entire section to "get even" with an (anonymous) editor who removed your pet paragraph is a really gross violation of wikiquette. LotLE×talk 19:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Mixed citations

For an example/discussion, take a look at Wikipedia talk:Footnotes/Mixed citations and footnotes. Wikipedia:Harvard referencing also discusses this (and points to the example). Generally, what I'd like for this fairly academic-tone article is to use named-inline references to book sources that are simply cited without further comment; but use footnotes for elaborations/clarifications of points made in the text. Such footnotes might include cases where different sources are provided and contrasted in some way, but the contrast would disrupt the flow of the main text. Mostly we're there; I'd like to convert a few more book links to citation list form.

If anyone cares very much, we can convert the simple parenthetical Harvard citations to the templatized {ref_harvard} form. That has the minimal advantage of letting you jump to the bottom of the page, where the source is detailed. But I tend to feel the template has as many pitfalls as benefits (mostly, it's easy to get the fields wrong: for example, a slight spelling problem in the simple inline form doesn't prevent reader identification; it does prevent the links from working though). LotLE×talk 19:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. I'm still learning much of the technical aspects of wiki. I kinda like the idea of mixed references, but I can see the problems too: such as mixing footnotes with references. I prefer the the Harvard parenthetical citations, but I also like the idea of being able to jump down to the details and back again. Is there any way with wiki to accomplish that? What do others know about such an feature and how dow they feel about it. --Cplot 19:53, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

As well as the examples I mention above, you might want to look at Template talk:Ref_harvard itself. For a robust academic article that I worked on to put Harvard referencing in place (and was FA and front-page), see Retreat of glaciers since 1850. LotLE×talk 21:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Austrian school, marginalism, and the value of capitalists

Unfortunately, this edit [9] is seriously incorrect and violates npov. Marginalism is primarily a neoclassical concept, not something that belongs only to the fringe Austrian school. It violates npov to delete how mainstream economists explain the profit of capitalists and instead have many paragraphs about the LTV which almost no economists believe in anymore.Ultramarine 00:46, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

As could be expected, the pro-Marxist writers have now created a version with many paragraphs describing the LTV and how this explains how the capitalists expoits the poor. The opinion of the vast majority of economists are reduced to two sentences. Of course there are is no mention of how they view capitalists.Ultramarine 04:30, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I would like to point out that the LTV was originally developed by pro-capitalists (as part of classical economics) before being adopted by Marxists. Surely it cannot be considered an inherently anti-capitalist theory. -- Nikodemos 13:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Market economy

Whoever is writing the definition doesn't know what capitalism is. You can't define capitalism without noting that it's the private sector that decides where capital is going to be invested, what goods are going to be produced, and how they are going to be distributed and priced rather than the state making these decisions. Capitalism is not simply private ownership of the means of production. It's a market economy, which means that it's not a planned economy. C-Liberal 01:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, a capitalist economy is a market economy, but not every market economy is necessarily capitalist. And there are (theoretical) economic systems that are neither centrally planned nor market-based. -- Nikodemos 12:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Though I've long since ceased trying to get my fellow editors to recognize this and include it in articles, the key to understanding capitalism is a particular sort of free market: freedom in the market for enterprise equity or debt. --Christofurio 13:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

A capitalist economy is not necessarily a market economy. We should not draft an intro with a definition that is so restrictive that it cannot be applied to all economies that have been described by economic historians as capitalist, including mercantism and the political economy of the European fascist regimes. 172 | Talk 19:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

All you examples satisfy the simple test I just mentioned: all had a free market in enterprise equity and debt. They had, in other words, arrangements for the purchase and sale of stocks and bonds. That is the best defining feature of capitalism. --Christofurio 15:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

A market cannot exist without private property, since market relations are based on it. And Nazi Germany was a socialist economy since the estate controled everything (prices and profits were only prices and profits in name they did not exist in reality).--RafaelG 16:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Were stocks and bonds for sale on the exchanges? --Christofurio 19:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Trading stocks and bonds on an exchange is by no means necessary to have a capitalist economy. After all, only an extremely small amount of companies are even listed on a stock exchange! In most countries, small and medium enterprises (SMEs) generate most of a country's GDP; in general these SMEs are not listed anywhere. Furthermore, the majority of companies is incorporated (in Europe at least) under regimes such as LLCs or partnerships - i.e. they do not even issue stock and their ownership cannot be traded. Indeed, even some of the largest companies are unlisted: IKEA is organised as a Dutch foundation; Rolex as a Swiss foundation; KPMG, PwC and other audit companies are organised as partnerships; Migros (the biggest Swiss supermarket chain) is even organised as a cooperative company. Concerning bonds: most of the debt that exists in the world has not been issued in the form of tradable bonds - so the same argument could be made for those. Therefore, trading shares and bonds is by no means necessary to have a capitalist economy. Luis rib 17:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Surely Capitalism is a society in which the dominant economic activity is governed by capital - which if I recall my Smith is defined as a good/factor of production which is employed in producing goods for sale with a view to returning to its original form in increased magnitude. (i.e. investing money to make goods for sale in order to have more money at the end - theoretically you could have some sort of capitalist barter economy, perhaps). That being so it doesn't matter who owns the capital or in what form so long as capital is employed. I'll just add a rider, though, that technically state property is private property belonging to the government as an incorporated person.--Red Deathy 08:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Lead section

As an excercise, I read through the article to compile a list of what the various schools see as the characteristics that define capitalism. There's certainly no concensus to reach, but I thought the leading material could at least summarize those characteristics and show the diversity of meanings ascribed to the term "capitalism". Though not a surprise, the almost all share the idea that markets are a feature of capitalism. However, beyond that there are many different disagreements that I think should be reflected briefly in the lead section. For example, it could be argued that certain strands of neoclassical thought view only markets (which they see as ubiquitous even without commodities; as in household negotiations). For this view capitalism is eternal: always has been and always will. This contrasts with most of the other views presented that view markets as only one of the characteristics of capitalism and therefore see capitalism as arising in recent centuries. Some other features that should probably be included in the leading material are: profit motive, drive to accumulate (growth), the issue of whether capitalism is characteristic of private enterprises only or whether it might also include state run or state sponsored enterprises (like USSR and fascist states) or what institutions need to be separated from the state (like banking, etc.); credit/finance systems; and perhaps the Marxian ascribed characteristic of the division between those who control access to means of production and those who don't. Finally, the Weberian view of the importance of bureaucracy should be reflected in the lead section in my view. This would help draw out those important characteristics of capitalism elaborated on in the rest of the article. This way a casual reader could get the digest version without reading any further. Any thoughts? --Cplot 04:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the note Lulu posted on your talk page: I believe that the lead as it exists now ... is in pretty good shape .... It's not necessarily the best thing possible, but it seems good enough that we should work for stasis, not for radical rewrite. Keeping the intro relatively simple and circumscribed, as it seems to be stabilizing now, I think leaves it less prone to abuse by POV warriors. 172 | Talk 06:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Moreover, including all the concepts Cplot mentions above (as well as a brief into to its history, which is needed) is... well, that's the whole article, isn't it? At the least such ideas would push the lead far longer than WP:LEAD suggests. A lead is just there to pique reader interest (and generally summarize the topic), the rest of the article is where the details are. LotLE×talk 07:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

The lead neglects to tell WHO is making the decisions about what to invest in, what to produce, how to distributed it and decide upon prices. In capitalism the *private sector* is doing this, not the state. C-Liberal 20:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

"Capitalism generally refers to a economic system in which the means of production are privately owned and in which production of goods and services is determined through trade in a mainly free market. In such system capital is invested in the production, distribution and/or exchange for profit. The term also refers to several theories that developed in the context of the industrial revolution and the Cold War meant to explain, justify, or critique the private ownership of capital, to explain the operation of such markets, and to guide the application or elimination of government regulation of property and markets. (See political economy, laissez-faire.)"

What’s wrong with this introduction? It’s a mainstream view that can be supported by numerous sources. -- Vision Thing -- 10:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

S-protect? wtf?!?

What is the deal with the S-protect? I see some of the comments that you have been leaving on each others pages, and I guess you think that some of us are sock-puppets. I can't speak for everyone else, but there is probably another explanation for all of the new accounts, and it might have something to do with 172's complete friggin rewrite. I guess my 96 hours are almost up, I'll find something else to work on until then. --Todd 08:24, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

It's just a way of monopolizing control over the article by the old guard. It's not justified at all. Anything to keep fresh blood and new perspectives out I guess. Typical. It goes against the spirit of Wikipedia though. C-Liberal 19:17, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Contrast with planned economy

To Vision Thing (and others): I'm willing to defend inclusion of this concise sentence as part of the lead: Capitalism, during the last century, has often been contrasted with planned economies. I know 172 finds this sentence extraneous, and I don't think it is strictly needed right in the lead. But I can see the point that some readers might find that contrast clarfying. But adding a whole lot of other sentences that wax poetic about how great free markets are, how all decisions are made by the market rather than government (thereby excluding all existing societies that have, y'know regulation), and so on, really makes the lead ugly and unworkable. If you will stop the additional editorializing that, frankly, fails to actually add anything beyond wordiness to the above point, I'll push for inclusion of the basic point.

I do think the first paragraph flows better with the sentence at the end, where Cplot put it, then it does with the sentence in the middle. But I'm relatively indifferent on exact order of the sentences. LotLE×talk 21:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I think I was to insert the sentence in the end of the paragraph, when I was trying to reach a compromise with VisionThing. [10] You're correct that I find the sentence unnecessary in the lead, though I also "see the point that some readers might find that contrast clarfying," as you put it.

Now directing my comments particularly toward Vision Thing: My concern is that clarification is often not helpful when it has the effect of offering an overly simplistic picture. To a degree government planning is common to all economies. France, for example, probably initiated the most comprehensive economic planning in the capitalist world after the Second World War. Postwar French planners often set investment targets and funds even in non-nationalized sectors of the economy. My point is that we should avoid fostering the misimpression that capitalism is defined by the absence of government planning, or that capitalism cannot coexist with certain levels of planning. 172 | Talk 01:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Moreover, just about any laws in some way "make decisions about production, trade, etc". My corner store sells coca-cola, and it sells absolut vodka, but it doesn't sell any brand of cocaine. The reason that particular commerce decision is made isn't because the "free market" decided it was the best choice, it's because the government decided such. In other words, there is "planning" in the USA economy... and there has been in every other place that has existed at any time. There are a few absolutist libertarians (very few) who eschew even this type of planning, but whatever the ideal the word "capitalism" is not usually used in a way that excludes all existing "mixed" economies. LotLE×talk 02:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. In constructing useful definitions, it's a good rule of thumb to focus on the core features that essentially make the concept distinct. In democratic theory in contemporary U.S. political science, this point, for example, is made by Giovanni Sartori. Planning/the lack of planning does not necessarily distinguish capitalism from other economic systems. 172 | Talk 02:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

You're wrong. If the state is dictating the economy, then it's not capitalism. Capitalism is about private ownership and private control. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheVisitor (talk • contribs) .

So per my example: any country that has anti-drug laws is "not capitalism", right? And any country that has mandates about the carrying capacity of specific roads? And any country the regulates a standardization of electrical line voltages? And so on. Like I say, TheVisitor (whom I assume is a new alias for an old user), is welcome to be an absolutist libertarian, but that's not the commonplace or consensus meaning of the word "capitalism". LotLE×talk 03:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

You miss the point. This has absolutely nothing to do with libertarianism. Capitalism does not mean no regulations. It means that the government does not set the prices of commodities. That is left to the marketplace to be determined by supply and demand. And investments are left to private decision. That is, the government is not coming in and telling business that they have to invest in this or that. I am giving you the commonplace consensus understanding of capitalism. Capitalism is not a planned economy. North Korea would be a planned economy. In capitalism that state does not plan the economy. That is left to the private sector. TheVisitor 21:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, TheVisitor, you are not an economist, nor a social scientist of any sort; if you were, you would know that social scientist would find your caricature rather laughable. Regulation simply means determining prices in a way other than supply-and-demand. The price of cocaine is not what pure free-market would set it at, but is artificially inflated by regulation. For that matter, the price of hybrid cars is artificially deflated by direct subsidy in the USA; but then, the price of road transport is also subsidized by government building roads with taxes. In even the most capitalist countries, the government has a huge role in determining prices of commodities (and probably even a greater role in determining investments). If you really think gov't isn't telling you what to invest in, try building a meth lab in you neighborhood, and see whether any guys with guns come and state their opinion on your investment stategy. LotLE×talk 00:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Obviously you don't have much of a clue in regard to these matters. Let me clue you in a bit. A planned economy is not a capitalist economy. A capitalist economy can have SOME intervention by the state. If the intervention is comprehensive then it is NOT a capitalist economy but a planned economy. What distinguishes a capitalist economy from a planned economy is a LACK of intervention by the state. That does not mean NO intervention. It means it has MUCH less intervention than a planned economy. If it's half planned and have capitalist then it's a mixed economy. Understand? TheVisitor 03:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

TheVisitor - I think that's being a tad POV, there are respectable theories and disputes about exactly what capitalism is (perhaps the article should reflect the disputed nature rather than try to impose one view) - I see little difference between resource allocation by corporate bureaucrats and by state bureaucrats - Ford is a planned economy. What makes the difference is generalised commodity production - that's how we can differentiate capitalism from prevoious economic systems. The setting of the price itself is fairly irrelvent so long as there are prices and commodity exchange, hence the [State capitalism] page. After all, Socialism/Communism is supporsed to be a society without money at all, so we can differntiate between that economic system clearly as well...--Red Deathy 08:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Mixed economy

I think we've reached consensus that this sentence is acceptable in the lead. Looking at it again, I actually start to like it affirmatively, not just as "not harmful". On reflection, I think there genuinely are some readers for whom this would be clarifcation:

Capitalism, during the last century, has often been contrasted with planned economies.

However, in further highlighting along the same line, I think the point VisionThing and some others have been trying to get about the use of "mixed economy" as a comparison/contrast is also worthwhile, if kept to very minimal form. This is just slightly longer (not counting the citation, but citations are good), but does both things:

Sometimes contrasted with planned economies, most developed countries of the last century are usually regarded as capitalist, but are also often called mixed economies^[1] due to government ownership and regulation of production, trade, commerce, taxation, money-supply, and physical infrastructure.

LotLE×talk 03:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I still don't understand the sentence Most developed countries... are usually regarded as capitalist. Since the collapse of the socialist bloc, wouldn't it be all? Which OECD economies are the possible exceptions? 172 | Talk 00:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The time frame indicated is "the last century", so that's not just 2006. But different experts use the phrase "mixed economy" in different ways, sometimes as a type of capitalism, sometimes as a contrast with it. I don't think we have to decide on a country-by-country year-by-year basis what's "in" and what's "out". But the terms "planned economy" and "mixed economy" are ones a fair number of readers might know about, and the general idea that capitalism is contrasted with PE, and slightly-contrasted with ME, is worth noting concisely. The particular word "most" is generally a placeholder for a range of opinion; if you can find an equally short way of indicating the general direction, I'm not attached to the exact words. LotLE×talk 01:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, for some reason I missed the part framing the sentence in terms of "the last century." My eyes are getting worse and worse all the time. 172 | Talk 09:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Ideology and history

I think it would be easier to deal with this issue if we distinguished between capitalism as an ideology and capitalism as a historically specific set of institutions (both of which have been studied by social scientists and historians). Slrubenstein | Talk 12:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

When I was working on the rewrite I thought about working that distinction into the structure of the article, creating a section on ideology. However, I had trepidations about doing so, assuming the section would easily magnet for followers of fringe movements like the last article, which was heavily POVed by Randroids on the right and anarchists on the left. 172 | Talk 20:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I certainly have sympathies on both sides of the Slrubenstein/172 discussion above. I think a third issue is that institutions and ideologies are not nearly so easily pulled apart as just saying it suggests. Is and ought are terribly entangled in real life. Take for example my recent bete noir of some editors trying to define capitalism as government not making any decisions about production/exchange/etc. That's a perfectly well-known strong libertarian positiion (ideology) on how things ought to be... but at the same time, a lot of libertarians (of stronger or weaker stripes) have been involved in deciding government policy for several centuries. While nowhere has achieved (or suffered) the strong version that some editors were sticking into the lead, what has actually happened economically unquestionably reflects centuries of ideological inclinations to do things in certain ways (by people in positions to make decisions). LotLE×talk 00:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Nevertheless I think the distinction is useful. One way to handle Lulu's point is to historicize ideologies meaning (1) as best possible put them in order of historical emergence and (2) in each discussion of an ideology, provide historical context. In response to 172's concern, our NPOV policy insists we represent all major POVs. We all concede POV's we do not like will end up being represented (including Randites). Of course, we need to distinguich between major and minor and any controvery should be talked out thoroughly on the talk page before incorporated into the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

In general, I'm supportive of Slrubenstein's idea of adding more coverage of "ideologies of capitalism", subject to the obvious concerns with maintaining NPOV, verifiability, and perhaps especially undue weight. The theorist we present so far are mostly from the perspective of trying to understand what capitalism is (which is obviously germane and central), but a bit more on the influential folks who have opined on what it should be is worth adding in. There are bits and pieces both under the analysts and under the "criticism" section, but maybe it can be presented more systematically (perhaps a section called "ideologies" that subsumes "criticisms" and "legal frameworks" from the current version). LotLE×talk 17:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I like Lulu's idea of creating an "idelogies" section that subsumes "criticisms" and "state and legal frameworks." Neverthless, I still fear that some editors will stop by this article insisting that we start treating their minor figures as if they were major figures (of course, we've already seen a lot of this in recent weeks)... How would an "ideologies" section be organized? By subsections on 19th century conservatism, liberalism, socialism, communism, etc.? Chronologically? By region? 172 | Talk 17:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, first, I really like Lulu's way of distinguishing by theories of capitalism from ideologies of capitalism as "what it is" versus "what it should be" (0r, "what it should not be" - we can distinguish between Marx's explanation of how capitalism works versus why he thinks it harms people and is doomed to fail. One can in Weber and Durkheim too distinguish between their analysis of modernity and their critiques of modernity, by way of analogy). I think we need to make this distinction very clear up front: theories are just what capitlaism is and ideologies are either what capitalism should be or what makes it good or what makes it bad.

I generally prefer historicizing and continue to think that we should list ideologies in order of their emergence, and also provide the historical context for the ideology. We may then see centers of ideological production move over the map. If this is the case, then geo-political context is as important as historical context (i.e. ideiologies emerge not just at a particular time, but at a time when a particular place is either industrializing or expanding imperially or in crisis). In short, I think we should avoid ordering them in terms of a left-right or pro-con continuum. Not only does that usually lead to very simplified or even simplistic readings of ideologies, it invariably runs into complexities when people start arguing over what is "truly" conservative or radical.

As for fringe theories, well, let's see what the policies say. Do they give guidance on distinguishing between a fringe theory and a major one? I think we just have to sort this out as we work on the article. I have two suggestions: first, the old google test - not great, but sometimes a useful indicator. Second, insist that accounts be backed up by real and not original research, asking for sources being books published by university presses or peer-reviewed journals, or publications of major institutions (e.g. the IMF or World Bank). This will screen out an awful lot of crap. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: We can distinguish between Marx's explanation of how capitalism works versus why he thinks it harms people and is doomed to fail. Exactly. I was trying to make that distinction earlier, putting the former in the Marxian political economy section under theories of capitalism and the latter in the "criticisms" section... I like the idea of listing the ideologies in order of their emergence. Still, in doing so, we should clarify the distinction between the new section we'll be drafting and the existing "history" section... As for the fringe theories, your advice is sound. I suppose we'll also just have to hope for the best. 172 | Talk 19:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Just to chime in on a narrow point: I think a chronology of ideologies is much better than trying to arrange them on a left-right axis (or any other axis). LotLE×talk 19:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Me too. By the way, in case I wasn't clear earlier, I was never proposing such an axis. I'm not much of a fan at all of such ahistorical axes anyway. 172 | Talk 20:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I strongly appreciate the distinction Slrubenstein made here: [The] geo-political context is as important as historical context (i.e. ideologies emerge not just at a particular time, but at a time when a particular place is either industrializing or expanding imperially or in crisis). The reference to industrialization and imperial expansion brings to mind the research agenda on late-industrialization established by Alexander Gerschenkron. Since the 19th century, late-industrializers have often sought to catch up with more advanced econonomies by stressing the consolidation of their respective states and the adoption of alternative strategies of industrialization. Economic theorists in Germany in the late 19th century and Japan in the early 20th century, for example, arguably tended to envision a more dirigist strain of capitalism than their Anglo-Saxon counterparts.

In response to Slrubenstein's distinction, perhaps we can devise some sort of hybrid organization covering both place and time. We may divide the "ideologies" section into subsections on time or the historical context. The Great Depression, for example, may be one these subsections. In turn, these subsections may be further divided up by headings covering place or the geo-political context (e.g., newly industrializing countries, Third World, Soviet bloc, countries affected by crisis, oil producers). Such a structure would make the section relatively tough to write. Still, it may be an effective check against the tendency to focus on the Anglo-Saxon economies and ignore the rest of the world, especially developing countries. 172 | Talk 22:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Given length constraints, I think we should avoid overcategorizing place+time trends in ideologies. Especially since the history of capitalism has largely been one of center vs. periphery rather than specific regional distinctions. I think something like three or four general time periods would be about the right main division, maybe: "Pre-19th C", "19th C", "20th C". Within that, a clause or sentence can contextualize a given thinker. E.g.: "Meanwhile, writing in the context of American slave-ownership, Frederick Douglass propounded..." Each such section about "trends in ideology" might have 3-5 paragraphs, I think. LotLE×talk 14:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Link to Mises.org

Why are you removing this link from external links section 172? This article is talking about Austrian school of economics and its views on capitalism so it has every right to be included here. -- Vision Thing -- 21:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

No, the page is not specifically on capitalism (what it is and how it works), unlike the three encyclopedia articles on capitalism already under the external links. The word "capitalism" is not even mentioned once in the page you've linked. The word "capitalist" is mentioned exactly one time. Now, you could go ahead and link another mises.org page if, for example, it contained an entry describing what capitalism is and how it works or how it helps people. In doing so, you should then balance that link with sites advocating different approaches to understanding economics (neoclassical economics, neo-Keynesian economics, neo-Marxism, etc.). 172 | Talk 21:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the page is specifically on capitalism (what it is, how it works and what is not working) from the Austrian point of view. Did you tried to read the articles on the front page? Also, on the right under Literature and All subjects there are various articles and books categorized. Most of the subjects are about capitalist economics. Anyway, I added and marixist's link for balance. As for the other schools, you can freely add their links too. -- Vision Thing -- 17:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

The addition of the Marxist link made things worse. Both links are not specifically relevant to a general entry on what capitalism is. Please to not place any random link related to economic thought in the links. 172 | Talk 23:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Mises.org is not a suitable website for this article as it is a fringe POV. See my arbitration case. -- infinity0 08:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The main point is not about "balance", it's simply that Wikipedia articles are not link farms. I'm sure that mises.org (or maxists.org) have some articles that are vaguely relevant to "what is capitalism?"... but we don't have a goal of finding links to every one of the 50 million URLs that are vaguely on-topic. Only resources either specifically cited or used as general reference material should be linked, and very sparingly on the latter category. LotLE×talk 00:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Is there an offical policy on what should be linked? -- Vision Thing -- 19:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

A good guideline to look at is Wikipedia:External links. But also stuff in WP:CITE and scattered various places also addresses this. There are certainly a lot of guidelines on WP, not all entirely consistent with each other. But if you've read things like FAC nominations and Peer Reviews, you start to get a sense of what the most experienced editors find the relevant level of linking. As a rule, a lot more WP articles overlink than underlink now: think about whether a resource is so relevant that a print publication like EB or academic reference books would also mention it. If the answer is a clear "No", that probably is a good clue about what we should do (no, our content is not identical to EB; but it's a reasonable heuristic). LotLE×talk 20:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:External links under "What should be linked to" says: "On articles with multiple points of view, a link to prominent sites dedicated to each, with a detailed explanation of each link.". This is an article that deals with multiple points of view and Mises.org is a prominent site dedicated to Austrian School so there is no reason not to add it. -- Vision Thing -- 12:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The link must be more than vaguely relevant to the topic. The external links section in this article is not a link farm for any random group advocating a particular economic ideology. 172 | Talk 05:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

It isn't vaguely relevant to the topic. It's a link to the prominent site dedicated to the Austrian view on capitalism. -- Vision Thing -- 19:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Catholic Position

Unfortunately, the teachings of the Catholic Church may be getting construed by writers such as Michael Novak [11]to justify the immoral practices usually associated with capitalism. The Church's actual position may help reveal the other options available than just those presented in the article. JBogdan 23:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

JBogdan's discussion of Catholic attitudes toward capitalism is fine to mention concisely, but his version gives vastly undue weight. Many religious traditions, including both other strains of Christianity and other religions, have made critiques; the very-weakly critical Catholic position must not be given undue weight. LotLE×talk 04:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Lulu did a nice job summarizing JBogdan's addition on Leo XIII and Rerum Novarum. When rewriting the article, I'd meant to add a line or two on Rerum Novarum under "criticism" myself, but I forgot.

By the way, Lulu, could you tell me what you think about my last post under the "ideology and history" discussion above? I'd like to be able to figure out how to best organize the "ideology" section Slrubenstein is proposing. 172 | Talk 05:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

In your recent edit, 172, you removed the {fact} tag after: Many 19th century conservatives were among the period's most strident critics of capitalism, seeing market exchange and commodity production as threats to longstanding cultural and religious traditions. I do believe my rearrangment to get the Rerum Novarum material just after that flows better, but most of the critics I take the 19th C comment to refer to are prior to 1891, and most are within Protestant traditions. The nearby links to the Luddites and Shakers might suffice here (they're not exhaustive, but do provide examples), but I still think it sure couldn't hurt to footnote some book about 19th C religious opposition to capitalism. LotLE×talk 14:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that in Criticisms of capitalism this part was removed "as it is not the official position of the Roman Catholic Church". Can someone clarify what is official Catholic position? -- Vision Thing -- 17:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Your comment is at the wrong talk page, Vision Thing. Editors of this article (Capitalism) are not necessarily editors of Criticism of capitalism. For example, I have no plan to touch the latter soon... I find it just too much of an unbearable mess to try to hack through. This article, however, is shaping up into something fairly readable and informative. LotLE×talk 17:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Fixed paragraph on Criticisms of capitalism. Also, the Catholic Church's position is significant because it binds approximately one out of six people to abide by its rules (actually, everyone is, but we will leave that for another time). Rerum Novarum does not have a weak critique of capitalism--it condemns what we know as "capitalism." The encyclical offers the solution to the evils of capitalism, but, as usual, people would rather learn the hard way. JBogdan 02:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

This is just amazing. You give a link to the Rerum Novarum, and in the same breath say it condemns Capitalism. Kind of silly, since it is so easy to go and read it for one's self. Capitalism is the natural consequence of private property and free trade. The position of the Holly Church is that private property is a God-given right. How is it possible that the church would emphatically defend private property, but condemn Capitalism??? It is as if you where a believer in the Labor theory of value and condemned Marx. Private property cannot exist without capitalism, and capitalism cannot exist without private property (someone should talk to the Chinese:-). One begets the other. I think you are not clear on the position of the Church. Dullfig 19:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, Dullfig, but you are incorrect on the Catholic position. Read paragraph 2425 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

2425 The Church has rejected the totalitarian and atheistic ideologies associated in modem times with "communism" or "socialism." She has likewise refused to accept, in the practice of "capitalism," individualism and the absolute primacy of the law of the marketplace over human labor. Regulating the economy solely by centralized planning perverts the basis of social bonds; regulating it solely by the law of the marketplace fails social justice, for "there are many human needs which cannot be satisfied by the market." Reasonable regulation of the marketplace and economic initiatives, in keeping with a just hierarchy of values and a view to the common good, is to be commended.

To read the whole section in the Catechism on the 7th Commandment, start here. JBogdan 14:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Please don't insert such idiosyncratic POV material, JBogdan. While I agree that the Rerum Novarum is worth briefly mentioning, nearly no non-Catholic critic of capitalism would characterize it as anything other than an apologetics for capitalism; and even fewer Catholics take that document as current church doctrine, which has moved in a much more pro-Capitalism direction in the last hundred years (especially in the condemnation of Liberation Theology and Catholic Worker positions). LotLE×talk 04:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not many Catholics accept it does not have anything to do with its binding force--it just means a lot of people are sinning. Rerum Novarum is still an official encyclical and the morality it requires is still binding (actually, it was binding before the encyclical was written because the encyclical only summarised the responsibilities that were already required by charity and justice). But, if you insist, The Catechism of the Catholic Church says the same thing in the section on the seventh commandment. You can the section on the seventh commandment here, or you can go to paragraph 2425 [12] if you want to be specific (but note--for some of the other aspects of the Church's position, you have to check the paragraphs on the following page). JBogdan 00:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Lulu, your justification for changing the official Catholic position on Capitalism was the following:

rm POV (and minoritarian) advocacy of specific Catholic theological trend, state actual (mixed) position in encyclopedic terms

It appears one of the three problems exist:

You have not read the appropriate documents of the Catholic Church on the subject
You have read the documents, and do not understand them
You have read the documents and understand them, but you do not like what they say

The references were provided to affirm that it is indeed the current official Catholic position, and what the oficial Catholic position is. You have not provided any reliable references that show otherwise. For further information, see the policy page on Verifiability. JBogdan 16:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Catholicism and Capitalism AGAIN

...move from my user talk page: PLEASE keep article discussion where it belongs...

Lulu, your justification for changing the official Catholic position on Capitalism for the second time was the following:

tone down POV and WP:OR in advocacy of specific narrow subcurrent of catholic theology)

Read paragraph 2425 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

...same exerpt given several times in this talk page...

To read the whole section in the Catechism on the 7th Commandment, start here. If you have references to show the verifiability of you opinions, you must include them. See the Wikipedia policy page on WP:V, or more specifically, WP:V#Burden_of_evidence. JBogdan 14:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Certainly the section you have quoted does not support the position you are trying to insert into the Capitalism article. It sounds like maybe you are trying to advance the Liberation Theology position... which is one I have comparative symphathy with personally, but is not by any longshot the majority position of the Catholic Church. And no, I'm not going to allow some theological nonsense into the article about how it doesn't matter what actual Catholics do on the grounds that such-and-such is "true doctrine".

We have articles related to Catholic theology. You are more than welcome to work on those. I am not about to let the Capitalism article turn into an internal theological discussion of trends in minority Catholic thinking. LotLE×talk 14:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Lulu, this is the third time you have edited the section without citing resources. Your justification for your edit was the following:

(Problems w/ POV insertion: a) Wikilink when available; b) jargonish theology tone; c) verbal presumption that Catholoic theology is truth; d) misleading of overall Catholic)

Right, and if you insert POV original research advocating a somewhat heterodox interpretation of Catholic theology another time, I will clean it up for a fourth time. And if necessary, a fifth, sixth, seventh, etc. time. If it gets to that though, it's probably time for a user conduct RfC against you though.

Citing an exerpt that plainly does not say what you apparently wish it said does not allow you to put your own advocacy in an encyclopedia. Among the "some Catholics" who have been rather staunchly, and nearly uncritically, pro-Capitalist are the current pope and the previous pope (but not so much Leo 13)... but this is simply not an appropriate article to go into a lot of detail on Catholic theological disputes and history. A minimal and passing mention of the limited subcurrents in Catholicism to certain aspects of Capitalism is all that is merited, and that exactly what my edits have all had. LotLE×talk 02:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

First, the official Catholic position is the official Catholic position; I am not pretending that my view is the official Catholic view. Second, the wikilink to Rerum Novarum is available, but I stopped using that encyclical as the most prominent source be cause you objected to its current accuracy. Instead, I used the Catechism of the Catholic Church as the most prominent (you inserted a dead wikilink), and I added three references for the papal encyclicals, beginning with John Paul II's encyclical (commemorating the 100th anniversary of Rerum Novarum--and holding the same position as Leo XIII). The Wikipedia verifiability policy says not to use Wikipedia articles as references. Third, if it was jargonish I agree that it should be easy to read, but nor should it be inaccurate. Did your edit give any significant improvement to its ease of reading other than cut the number of sources and remove the mention that the Catholic Church's position is significantly different from other critics? Fourth, I did not say that the Catholic position is the correct position in the article, nor do I ever remember saying that on Wikipedia. I did say that it is significantly different from other critics' positions (I may have even said "very" different, but that is obvious enough). Fifth, it is indeed possible that many Catholics are perfectly content with capitalism. Many are also content with contraception, abortion, euthanasia, homosexuality, pre-marital sex, adultery, cursing, swearing, lying, gossiping, and divorce. That does not mean that the official Catholic position is partly critical or sometimes critical (nor should it be called the "Catholic position," even though these sins may be accepted among many Catholics, even among many of the clergy--it just means many Catholics will not be "saved"). Sixth, I am not promoting Liberation Theology, nor do I intend to do so. Look at the Wikipedia article on Liberation Theology--obviously not the official Catholic position. If what I added is not the official Catholic position, or, as you say, "sometimes" or "partially" or "occasionally" or whatever, you must back it up with reliable resources. Reliable resources for this matter would be official ecumenical council documents, encyclicals or their equivalents, or catechisms promulgated by the Papacy (the Baltimore Catechism doesn't count as a reliable resource in that matter, even if it dissents from the official Catholic position). Currently one Catechism, three encyclicals, and the Wikipedia verifiability policy uphold what I had before you edited it. Do your research and find your reliable references. JBogdan 01:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

If I might offer my good offices as a Socialist and lapsed Catholic/Anti-Catholic Atheist - skimming the text or the Redrum Nowayum (or whatever it's called) it did strike me as being predominantly critical of socialism rather than capitalism. It seemed a froceful defence of private property, and if we look here: Let the working man and the employer make free agreements, and in particular let them agree freely as to the wages; nevertheless, there underlies a dictate of natural justice more imperious and ancient than any bargain between man and man, namely, that wages ought not to be insufficient to support a frugal and well-behaved wage-earner. that to me is evidence of proposing a how to do it properly guide to running capitalism (since so far as I'm concerned the Capitalist System and the Wages System are synonymous). Saying that capitalism must be run ethically isn't a critique of capitalism - it might be a critique of some types of proponent (cf. the invisble hand) and of hedonistic ideology passim. Finally, while the holy Mother church may well have a statement on capitalism, I do not think it's actions as a church make it notable as a critic of capitalism. As Lulu has suggested, Libertarian Theology might have a place in that slot, but not the Church per se.--Red Deathy 08:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

As an afterthought, perhaps the Catholic position belongs in the theories/perspectives section - provided you could whistle up some authorities to show Catholicism has a distinct and notable position on what capitalism is and how it works.--Red Deathy 10:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Roman digression

Someone added this digressive footnote to the lead that claimed that some scholars argue Roman economy was capitalist. As a general matter, the point is both too narrow and too heterodox to be appropriate for the lead. In my edit comment removing it, I stated that it might be possible to mention later in the article. However, after following the provided link: <http://sshi.stanford.edu/Seminars/Papers/classics/temin.pdf>, I noticed that the cited article does not itself even make that claim. Instead the article discusses the "market economy" of Rome. For that to mean the same thing as "capitalist" is to follow one specific line of thinking on what capitalism is, one which is not majority, let alone consensus. In any case, the author of the paper does not himself draw the specific equivalence of market=capitalism, not mention the words "capitalism" or "capitalist" anywhere in the article. So that boils down to some contentious original research, several steps removed from marginal sources. LotLE×talk 03:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Lead section ("separately")

Right, I've been being bold and making changes I think correct in removing an unnecessary part of the lead section, it suffices to say that it is capital (I take umbrage at being asked to stop, I scrupulously go by the principle of 3 reversions and will back down then, but please do allow me to make my case). Capital remains capital no matter who owns it - a state owned corporation is still investing capital and so long as it doesn't use taxes to subsidy itself it usually still makes profits and turns over its capital. I realise that is contentious, perhaps, but it's, Shirley, better to leave out parts of defs. that are contentious. basically, I'm trying to remove a contradiction with the state capitalism page, there are otehrways, but this one seemed quickest. I don't think I'm adding anything fallacious, nor detracting from the article ("Capitalism is also usually considered to involve the right of individuals and groups of individuals acting as "legal persons" (or corporations) to trade in a free market." makes a similar point in the same paragraph).--Red Deathy 12:37, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Red Deathy is correct. To insist that the lead must say that the means of production are privately owned is POV. (Not to mention the fact that means of production owned by a state such as the U.S. are still considered capital.) The state-capitalist analysis is serious and notable, and should not be excluded from the lead's definition of what capitalism is. Franklin Dmitryev 13:25, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm happier with mostly privately owned (still not quite accurate IMNSHO - and still unnecessary, as in inessential to the definition of capitalism). Perhaps to try and deal with my main problem, at the end of the paragraphg, after the bit about contrast with planned economy we could give a nod of some sort to the state capitalist theory, as in 'some writers, though, maintain that the planned economies of the Soviet Union etc. were in fact something called state capitalism.' which might resolve the contradiction. I'll insert something like that tomorrow unless strenuous objections are heard.--Red Deathy 10:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Those state capitalist theorists are minor enough in the scheme of theorization that the nod really does not belong in the lead. Such a mention would be perfectly fine in the "History" section, or possibly under the "Marxist political economy" section (next to those "tendencies" folks). The problem with your edits, Red Deathy, was that they claimed an centrally essential role for capital as the mechanism of production: that may be true, but it's not what most thinkers have emphasized; most have focused on private ownership of means of production. The predominant identification is in Smith and Ricardo, its in Keynes and Sraffa, its in Weber. In fact, the private ownership thing is central in Marx, the role of capital as such is more of a "derived consequence" for him. About the only folks who have the "pure capital" theory are the moneterists in the Chicago School (not even most neo-classicals). LotLE×talk 14:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Not so sure about Marx, certainly, I'd have to go back look at Smith. For Marx the theory of commodity fetishism meant that the private capitalist is just a representative of the capital, which has taken on an almost autonomous role in its own right. After all, MoP only becomes capital when it enters into a specific set of social relations (for Marx at least and by my memory implicitly in Smith). Anyway, like I said, I'll accept a climb down (unless I can check a couple of source and come back)....--Red Deathy 14:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I checked wealth of nations - and the chapter on revenues of for the state does include sections on state run businesses, which are described as 'mercantilist' (and given Smith was writing from before the coining of the term capitalist, it does seem to be synonymous with that description). What seems to be more important than ownership (as in who owns) seems to be the change of ownership, and the existence of the market combined with capitalistic production.--Red Deathy 08:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, in the light of this, can I propose amending the lead to read 'separately' instead of 'mostly privately' which I think captures the essence of the situation. After all, privately is largely meaningless, especially if you consider that large corporations are commonly (albeit unequally) owned by share holders, and in teh UK are called public liability firms (or something like that)?--Red Deathy 09:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like original research to me. You are suggesting a different word than almost all historical thinkers use, on the grounds you feel its a better analysis. LotLE×talk 14:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I would disagree it's original research in as much as the wording of wikipedia is down to the editors in order to explain the verifiable facts we are presenting, and in the previous comment I made I demonstrated that perhaps some of the writers you cited don't necessarilly hold to that word in quite the way you seem to suggest they adhere to it. If you extend the principle of no OR to the extent that we cannot use our own wording to describe the subject we may as well give in and simply cut and paste public domain articles from elsewhere. It can't be OR if it isn't proposing any new facts or interpretations. After all, if we stuck with the adaemics terminology often in many other fields that would mean we wouldn't be able to translate physics, say, concepts to the common reader Finally, I have published sources which state do state more or less what I was trying to convey. So, I'd rather if you disagree with the connotation or for whatever otehr reason you don't think it would be a good change,say so, but don't pull up irrelevent policies --Red Deathy 14:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

If you look at definitions of capitalism you will see that even the Marxist definition says "in particular private ownership of the means of production". -- Vision Thing -- 18:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Vision Thing's reference here is quite germane. Notice that almost every single other source uses the specific phrase "private ownership of means of prodcution", or some very close paraphrase of that. No single one of the external sources uses "separate ownership ..." (indeed, I don't even really know what that would mean). LotLE×talk 20:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[[13]] The Marxist quotes don't really support that. I think separately certainly captures the spirit and meaning of such sources as Wealth of nations (which admits state enterprises as possible capitalist concerns, albeit ones not run well for moral hazzard reasons). It goes to the essence of the fact that things have to be owned separately by different people/groups. However, take such entities as the Church of England, a private none state agency, which does not have a property qualification for membership, but which owns capital - do the firms it owns cease to be capitalist? Anyway, I accept your principled disagreement so won't try the change, otehrs can just read this exchange and make their own mind up later.--Red Deathy 08:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

You mean like: Encyclopedia of Marxism: "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. ? Or, e.g.: In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.? LotLE×talk 13:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't take a textbook called the Encylopedia of marxism as a neutral source at the best of times, the Bolsheviks had a dog in this fight in as much as they could claim to have abolished private property (at least legal titles, the state remained the private property of the bolshevik party, in effect, though). You'll see my link was to the Marxist writers further down (I've corrected it). M&E did adjust their theory (particularly E) after the rise of the joint stock company, whcih is, after all, commonly owned by the shareholders...ISTR that line is from the manifesto, which predates most of their serious economic work--Red Deathy 07:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I would argue that for Marx - and I am limiting this comment to the marxian view - it is the commoditization of labor rather than the privatization of capital that is the central and defining feature of capitalism. This is not to say that Marx failed to recognize that capitalism was privately owned. However, he also commented on how capitalism destroys private property as it also creates private property. I think many people identify private ownership of the means of production with Marx´s definition with capitalism because they understand his definition of socialism to include the abolition of private ownership of the means of production. But just because Marx believed that the end of capitalism would involve the abolition of the private ownership of the means of production does not mean that he therefore considered private ownership of the means of production to be THE defining or central characteristic of capitalism. user:slrubenstein

Maybe. But the two things are closely interrelated. I guess it boils down to whether Marx considered the slave society of the antebellum US south to be "capitalist" (since labor-power was not a commodity there, rather laborers were). LotLE×talk 17:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

He often referred to the Southern Slave-hodlers as semi-aristocratic, ISTR, I'll have a run through his civil war writings and get back t'ya.--Red Deathy 07:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC) - "The present struggle between the South and North is, therefore, nothing but a struggle between two social systems, the system of slavery and the system of free labour. The struggle has broken out because the two systems can no longer live peacefully side by side on the North American continent. It can only be ended by the victory of one system or the other." & "The cultivation of the southern export articles, cotton, tobacco, sugar , etc., carried on by slaves, is only remunerative as long as it is conducted with large gangs of slaves, on a mass scale and on wide expanses of a naturally fertile soil, which requires only simple labour. Intensive cultivation, which depends less on fertility of the soil than on investment of capital, intelligence and energy of labour, is contrary to the nature of slavery." Hmmmm...--Red Deathy 08:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, let´s say the commoditization of labor-power, then. I certainly did not mean that he meant the commoditization of laborers (i.e. humans). SR

Someone removed Marx section

Even though Marx had faulty reasoning and incorrect conclusions, it should at least be mentioned on the talk page that the section is being deleted. It is being restored until it passes through the talk page. JBogdan 00:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely. That Marx section was not just yours, though I congratulate you on its quality. That Marx section should be there. In my opinion, the removal was the whim of drive-by vandals; they might like to see their vandalism tolerated for a day. :) Put the Marx section back in tomorrow. Any other opinions anybody? --Rednblu 01:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad you reverted the vandalism, JBogdan. The section still needs some work in my opinion; for instance, it should make clearer where Marx departed from Smith and also shortly describe what he conceived of as his unique contribution to political economy, namely the theory of the dual character of labor under capitalism (concrete and abstract). But in general, this section should definitely stay. If it gets re-vandalized, we might need some help protecting it. --Dialecticas 01:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Good ideas. --Rednblu 02:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

That was me

I removed the Marx section and I'm not a vandal. I removed it because there's no good reason for it to be there. This is specifically an article on capitalism. What does Karl Marx have to do with capitalism? Why not have a Betty Crocker on capitalism section? Or maybe a Daffy Duck on capitalism? King Wen_€ŸØãç 08:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be mean, but how can you not see what Marx has to do with capitalism? He is a well-known philosopher who's main body of work dealt with economics--especially capitalism and alternatives to it. Daffy Duck and Betty Crocker never articulated any beliefs about capitalism as far as I know. The Ungovernable Force 08:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

No, they probably didn't. My question is why is it necessary to have to listen to someone's beliefs about capitalism? This is an article about capitalism. Who cares what Karl Marx had to say about it? As a matter of fact, just the insertion of what somebody had to say about it, especially someone who proposed alternatives to it, is pov pushing. Wikipedia is an encycopedia not a blog where people air their feelings about topics. So let's just stick to the topic -- capitalism. King Wen_€ŸØãç 08:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Then you should have deleted the entire "perspectives" section. That section is devoted to puting forth notable perspectives that have been taken on capitalism and it's nature. If you or I had gone and put our perspectives on capitalism in the article, then yes, it should have been removed, but Marx's analysis of capitalism is very notable. The fact that he rejected it doesn't matter. That section doesn't even present it as negative or postive, it merely presents Marx's description of capitalism. It has just as much place there as the others. The Ungovernable Force 08:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with ungovernable Force, Marx is relevent not least for definingand theorisng capitalism, but also in terms of the effort put into his refutation by other leading economists - the fact is that what capitalism is is itself a highly contested subject, and simply citing some promenant models avoids POV arguments. We might as well remove Adam Smith because his model of capitalism bears little resemblence to modern corporate capitalism.--Red Deathy 09:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

It's hard to read much sincerity in the deletion, which very notably did not delete the quite similar sections on Smith/Ricardo, Weber, Austrian School, Keynes, etc., all of whom—just like Marx—articulated theoretical descriptions to try to answer the questin "What is Capitalism?" LotLE×talk 15:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect to everyone else, the issue here is not Marx. Thwe issue is that KingWen does not understand our NPOV policy. She needs to read it perhaps with the ehp of a tutor, that is all. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the real issue is that KingWen was really Thewolfstar/Lingeron/who knows how many other socks they have. They know the policy and really don't care. Ungovernable Force^{The Wiki Kitchen!} 06:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that Marx being here is a good idea, since Capitalism can be defined by what it is not. A definition can be what something is. A definition can also be a comparison/contrast with something else, especially with an abstract concept. Hires an editor 22:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Daffy Duck on Capitalism

I distinctly remember Daffy saying to Elmer Fudd, "It's not duck season. It's wabbit season." He then pointed to Bugs, presumably a more appropriate victim for Fudd.

One might argue that there is profound significance here. Fudd, the capitalist, is allowed to try to bag his profit -- some woodsy creature or other. But he should play by the rules -- i.e. attend to what the game warden says about what "season" it is.

Or maybe I'm just having some fun. Th-th-th-that's all folks. --Christofurio 14:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC) (enhanced by LotLE×talk)

I see almost no difference between the different econmic systems. Under capitaism, feudalism, commmunism, etc I would get up each morning - along with millions of others - and go work for the masters. Under each system the owners - if I was lucky, some would say talented - would get up later, after someone fed them and drove them to the plant, etc and tell me what to do or if they even needed me today. At the end of the week I would get my check and next week I would do this all over again - if lucky until I died or was allowed to retire for a year or two. Other than ownership, what is the difference.

One difference is the question of efficient allocation. If resources are inefficiently allocated, this improves the odds that some people won't get up in the morning because they will have starved to death the previous night, or will be sent home from the plant early because there is no work for them. What system of ownership of the means of production is most likely to produce the optimally efficient allocation of resources? If that question is of no importance to you: go in peace. --Christofurio 14:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I've always been fond of this old joke (you've probably all heard it, but c'est la vie):

Q. What is the difference between Capitalism and Communism?

A. Capitalism is the oppression of man by man; under Communism, it is the other way around.

...And if you'd like to look at my dog and pony... LotLE×talk 20:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Capitalism refers to several theories? What?

The introduction says "The term also refers to several theories [citation needed] that developed in the context of the Industrial Revolution and the Cold War meant to explain, justify, or critique the private ownership of capital, to explain the operation of such markets, and to guide the application or elimination of government regulation of property and markets." That doesn't make sense. Capitalism is a system, not a theory. Writings about capitalism are not themselves referred to as capitalism. Please give a cite for the claim that the word "capitalism" refers to theories. DTC 23:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

No, you claim that capitalism refers to a system. This system is made up of observable things, but claims that these things cohere into a system are simply claims, i.e a theory. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Theories are not called "capitalism." Theorists theorize about the system called capitalism. The theories themselves aren't called capitalism. DTC 02:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I would say that capitalism refers both to an ideology,l and to a set of practices and institutions that that ideology concerns itself with. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Request for Portal

Should this topic have a portal? I'm working on the Cold War Portal, and there's a Communism Portal, but not one for Capitalism?

Hires an editor 21:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Not sure; Capitalism seems to be an economic system, not a political system. Would be found under economics. Dullfig 22:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

That capitalism is an economic system is one widely held point of view. Some (especially MArxians) view it as political. Both views must be represented to maintain NPOV. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC) Isn't it fair to say that an "economic system" and a "political system" are generally two different ways of labelling a single fact? The difference ebtween political science and economics as academic fields, for example, is method, not subject matter. --Christofurio 20:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, It seems to me that pure capitalism, laisez-faire capitalism, requires that the government not involve itself at all in the economy, so that would mean that politics and economy don't mix. In Eurpean economies, where the government has its "tentacles" in everything, then in that case politics and economy would mix, but that is only because of the nature of European politics, not because of the nature of economy. -- Dullfig 22:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Way wrong, I'm afraid, Dullfig. In the case of a minimal government, that doesn't regulate working conditions, wages, prices, pollution or the like ... we can't really say that this is a case where "politics and economy don't mix." They are still one and the same. There is a continuing (political) decision to refrain from the regulation of working conditions, wages, prices, pollution or the like. This is a political fact looked at in one way, an economic fact looked at in another. They are two names for the same thing -- differing sciences, but not differing sets of facts. --Christofurio 03:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

So, should there be a portal for capitalism, whatever it is? Political or economic, Capitalism has been the designation for the American system, as opposed to Socialism as practiced in Europe. It has been used as a counterpoint to communism in particlar during the Cold War. I just think it should have a portal, that's all. In fact, a portal might be a good place to hi-lite some of the differences between the political/economic/whatever things people seem to think it is. Hires an editor 20:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Globalization

To grant Capitalism with Life expectancy and Infant mortality is strange. Live expectancy will drop in russia significantly after the end of communism. Cuba has one of the higest Live expectancys on the whole continent and is what I see a communist country. Infant mortality dropped everywhere even in counties like cuba and russia. The income point is OK but only world wide, but within the capitalist countries the income gap. Delete the two points because thea are NPOV.--Stone 16:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I love it when people talk about the "income gap". Poor people in Kenya would kill to be poor people in USA. Most "poor people" in the USA have television, car, a roof over their head; We even have a problem with obesity among the "poor". But instead of saying "look what a great economy, even the poor are well off", no, let's concentrate on how much more money the rich have. The solution is to abolish personal property, so we can all live in cardboard shacks like the truly poor of the world... Dullfig 16:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Life expectancy is now increasing, especially in the more democratic nations in Eastern Europe. Infant mortality was very low in Cube before the revolution.Ultramarine 16:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Cuba 39/1000 (1960) 9/1000 (1995) decreas 77%

Venezuela 56/1000 (1960) 21/1000 (1995) decreas 63%

(Mortality Decline in Cuba, 1900-1959: Patterns, Comparisons, and Causes James W. McGuire) The decreas was strong in all contries not only in capitalist ones.--Stone 17:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Cuba, see this: [14]. "Cuba's infant mortality rate of 32 per 1,000 live births in 1957 was the lowest in Latin America and the 13th lowest in the world, according to UN data. Cuba ranked ahead of France, Belgium, West Germany, Israel, Japan, Austria, Italy, and Spain, all of which would eventually pass Cuba in this indicator during the following decades[7]. Cuba’s comparative world ranking according to data in Table 1 has fallen from 13th to last out of the 25 countries examined. Also missing from the conventional analysis of Cuba's infant mortality rates is its staggering abortion rate of 77.7 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15-44 in 1996[8] -- which, because of selective termination of "high-risk" pregnancies, yields lower numbers for infant mortality. Cuba's abortion rate was the 3rd highest out of the 60 countries studied."Ultramarine 17:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

So you really think the decrease is all to high risc pregnacies? Ok lets state 50% but even than the infant mortality dropped during comunist time.--Stone 17:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Russin Live expectancy: 70.1 (1970) 69.0 (1980) 69.5 (1990) 66.1 (2000) 66.8 (2005 prog) 67.4 (2015 prog) [15] The capitalism did nothing add( the decrease is because of alcolism and tuberculosis)--Stone 17:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Many do not consider Russia particularly capitalist. See this: [16]. Note also that life expectancy began to decline in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe well before the end of Communism. In many Eastern European nations, particulary the more democratic, is started to rise immediately after the fall of Communism. In undemocratic and not particularly capitalist Russia is has not. [17]Ultramarine 17:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding average infant mortality in general, and not some selected cases, see the tables at the end of this: [18]Ultramarine 17:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The article compairs basically third with first world, which is stupid. To compare two things with an infinit set of variables you have to compare two which have nearly all variables the same to get rid of cross contamination of your data. Compare two contries in Europe is better than one from africa and one from europe.

The inf mort of irland and germany are basically the same, although in germany abortion because of health reasons is allowed and forbiden in irland, so this does not give the benefit you claim for cuba over the rest of latin america. --Stone 08:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

The life expectation in which contry in eastern europe has risen after the fall of communism? [exaples are here].

The income increase and the wealth you gain is dramatic after the change from com to cap, this sometimes also increases the life exp and decreases the inf mort but to link both so tight into globalization is wrong. --Stone 08:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Globalization has pro and con and the pro are by far more than the con. The free trade benefits the poor contries. The economic groth world wide also gives benefits to the first world contries exporting machines for production in developing contries. The wealth also decreases the agression potential and the likelyhood of war, so there are a lot of benefits.--Stone 08:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

You may find this article interesting: [19] Ultramarine 00:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of pro-capitalits arguments

This was deleted: "In response to criticism, proponents of capitalism have argued that its advantages are supported by empirical research. For example, advocates of the Heritage Foundation's Index of Economic Freedom point to a statistical correlation between nations with more economic freedom (as defined by the Index) and higher scores on variables such as income and life expectancy, including the poor in these nations." [20]

Explain.Ultramarine 16:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I know this is probably just like banging my head against a wall: but please try to think of the encyclopedic content of this article, not just about opportunities to have a soapbox for your own beliefs. Probably any inclusion at all of the Heritage Foundation schtick is on the side of "special pleading", since it's really not very notable in the world of thousands upon thousands of different studies of growth, economic planning, income distribution, and so on.

But even if we supposed this particular study were more special than it is, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the "criticisms of capitalism" section of the article. That section presents (very consisely) about a half dozen different lines of criticism. A general "capitalism is good" motto has nothing much to do with most of them:

Luddite/protestant criticisms of "dehuminization by machines" is not answered by the IEF stuff
Catholic theological moral positions have nothing to do with the IEF stuff
Marxist arguments about "impediments on utilization of means of production" also have nothing to do with the income/life-expectancy stuff.
Ecological critics don't talk about anything the IEF does
Anarchist/neo-primitivist anti-control-society folks really aren't talking about income

There might be a narrow strand of social-democratic or utopian socialist critics who have one claim (among several) that "Capitalism decreases income of the poor". Actually, a little bit of that in the critiques of imperialism too. So for one argument of one sliver of the critics, the "Capitalism increases income" schtick is minimally relevant. But this isn't a section on the "critics of the critics" anyway. LotLE×talk 19:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I see no problem with moving it to another place in the article. Regarding peer-reviewed empirical studies, they are obiviously more reliable than someone's opinions.Ultramarine 19:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Lulu here. Still, personally I'd support keeping Ultramarine's Heritage Foundation paragraph in order to keep the article page history stable. POV disputes tend to attract new POV warriors, which often makes constructive changes all the more difficult. I don't think any of us want to see such a mess here at this time. 172 | Talk 00:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, I was the one who combined the two separate existing references to the Heritage Foundation's Index of Economic Freedom. While I don't actually think it needs to be in the article at all, in the interest of cooperative editing, I retained most of the words from both sections, and just improved the flow slightly. Ultramarine then added a sentence that is superfluous, but is harmless enough, about "Peer reviewed articles have mentioned IEF". The presentation itself isn't so bad (even if a digression), but it just seemed so ugly an incongruous where it had been, since it really had nothing at all to do with "criticisms of capitalism". But even Ultramarine writes just above that she has "no problem with moving it"... so all should be happy. LotLE×talk 02:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Usury

Any true capitalist would never call it usury. What does exist is loans at very high interest rates. But with so many other alternatives, the only reason one would take out a loan at such high interest rates, is that your situation prevents you from getting a regular loan. The person making the loan is taking a gamble by loaning money to someone that is such a high risk. Shouldn't he get a higher return on investment because of the higher risk? And the person taking the loan is not being coerced into taking the loan, right? I feel the term usury is POV, because it implies that what the person loaning the money at high interest is doing something wrong. So only critics of capitalism would use such a term. -- Dullfig 23:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, yeah, it's sort of negative, but there is nothing inherently pov about linking to articles that criticize capitalism. We try to remain neutral, which means presenting both sides, positive and negative, supporters and critics. Ungovernable Force^{The Wiki Kitchen!} 23:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Technically, any lending of money for interest is usurious - Islamic lending (and perhaps it's woth finding a way to link Islamic banking in somehere) lends money on a joint ownership basis, for example. Likewise, anyone who sells a skill, talent or ability for money is a prostitute and anyone who writes for a living is a pornographer - int etymology grand?--Red Deathy 07:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Usury doesn't have a direct connection with capitalism, it existed in other systems too (eg. feudalism). -- Vision Thing -- 16:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Infant Mortality

And as I mentioned above I am still not vonfinced that the infant mortality and life expectation is the best example for the benefits of globalization. If this are the only benefits than globalization is a overestimated concept. The paper [21] compares first with third world contries which makes everything very hard to compare. Also no contry changed from capitalism to comunism without revolution or heavy econmical crisis, which makes it hard to compare the changes and thei influence on the two variables. There must be better examples how about politicak freedom and globalization or armed conflicts and globalization or what ever.--Stone 08:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Religious criticism

Perhaps a way out of this debate about Catholicism would be to admit different strands of religious critique, i.s. Islamic criticques of Capitalism? methodists? ("The Labour Party owes more to mjethodism than to Marxism" Harold Wilson), Dalai Lama? AFAICS the current version (Lulu's)of the Catholicism bit is still fairly non-notable and still doesn't amount to a criticism of capitalism.--Red Deathy 13:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

There is a passing mention now of some protestant critics: Shakers, Luddites, etc., but without belaboring it the way the Catholic paragraph does (even in my less belabored edits). Actually, the Islamic issue is a good point, given that Muslims take the OT prohibition on usury much more seriously than do the xtians (well, some of them do; but enough to call it a "religious critique"). LotLE×talk 13:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I changed the paragraph to one about various religious belifs and capitalism. Why was only one mentioned before? 72.139.119.165 01:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

^ Case, Karl E., Fair, Ray C., Principles of Macroeconomics, Chapter 22 Globalization, Prentice Hall (2004)

[1] Case, Karl E., Fair, Ray C., Principles of Macroeconomics, Chapter 22 Globalization, Prentice Hall (2004)

[1]