Talk:Capitalism/Archive 24

Singular event?

Soxwon, what singular event are you referring to in you revision of my revision - last I checked there are millions of robberies all the time, and a lot of money is spent by private individuals to protect their property by force.--Red Deathy (talk) 15:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC) Oh, I'll add, I don't see what WP:SYN has to do with anything, an unreferenced claim was removed, and I commented in my reasoning why the claim wasn't supportable on logical grounds - private property conceptually includes the right to use force to defend that property against aggressive interlopers.--Red Deathy (talk) 15:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

You're misunderstanding the statement.

Through capitalism, the land, labor, and capital are owned, operated, and traded, without force or fraud

refers to compulsory actions, not protection. Protection is addressed later in the paragraph. I was initially unclear as to what your statement was referring to and thought it might be referring to some form of fraud or misconduct in business. (probably made that assumption on your name, I apologize) Soxwon (talk) 16:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

My point was that they are owned and operated by force, lest others steal them away. I suppose a stronger version of that point would be the claim by at least one economic anthropologist i've read who suggests that the development of trade goes hand in hand with thedevelopment of political structures, i.e. the mechanisms to recognise and protect property and transaction right. I realise the point you're trying to make, but the fact is is that force does come into play, even in consensual contracts (if one party reneges, for example).--Red Deathy (talk) 07:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

First usage of Capitalism

In the Etymology section it's stated that Arthur Young uses the term Capitalism in his work Travels in France, buth when I search the source text, I only find Capitalism used in the foreword, not in the text from 1792? Do I miss someting? See http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=292&layout=html Nsaa (talk) 23:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Perspectives

The Perspectives section is a sidetrack and seems to be limited only to perspectives that are enthusiastic about capitalism or are mildly critical. This is no perspectives section if it doesn't include at least a brief explanation of Karl Marx and other major formative thinkers such as Thorstein Veblen. Why not just create a new page which is more inclusive of perspectives, both positive and negative? Wikipedia doesn't exist to whitewash. Nubeli (talk) 22:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The Goose-Step

I want to add a link that shows another way (besides starting wars etc--"Rogue State" Wm Blum) that USA forced Americans & the world to "be capitalist" through the education system: The Goose-Step (book): A Study of American Education is a book, published in 1923, by the American novelist and muckraking journalist Upton Sinclair. It is an investigation into the consequences of plutocratic capitalist control of American colleges and universities. Sinclair writes, “Our educational system is not a public service, but an instrument of special privilege; its purpose is not to further the welfare of mankind, but merely to keep America capitalist." (p. 18) Stars4change (talk) 21:32, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Article is too long and repetitive

When editing this article Wikipedia gives a warning that this article may be too long: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_size. Since the majority of the sections are linked to specific articles it would increase legibility to reduce the size of this monstrosity. The Perspectives section can easily be summarized (as I had attempted earlier) with links to the appropriate articles on Keynesian, neo-classical, classical, marxian economics and so on. There's no need to revisit all the tenants of these various economic theories.

I also feel that the Perspectives section should not be first, but rather after History. People reading the article should be presented first with an overview and the development of captalism and then given a sense of all the different theories. Nubeli (talk) 17:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Previous Discussion

The use of voluntary has nothing to do with whether a person is in a capitalist society voluntarily. It has to do with the voluntary exchange of goods and minimal to no interference from outside forces such as the government. As for the force or fraud, I'm not sure how that is self-evidently false and hoped you could explain your reasoning. Soxwon (talk) 16:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Capitalists have certainly been known to use force and fraud; does the lead say they aren't used because it's dealing with theoretically pure capitalism? Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 19:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes for the most part. Soxwon (talk) 19:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Why should the article be about "theoretically pure" capitalism and not what capitalism has actually been historically? Certainly, as a current of thought that influences the practice, these things should be explained in the article, but being that the introduction is supposed to be a definitive segment I think it should shy away from implying that capitalism is necessarily free of force or fraud, or that the modern mode of production isn't "really capitalist", as the laissez-faire segment indicates. Ormi 05:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Because to better understand how something works and why, you should know how it is supposed to work. Putting the concepts and purest form first makes it easier to show how and why the variations differ as well as the basic thinking behind the system as a whole. Soxwon (talk) 20:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

How is laissez-faire the "pure" form and not the variation, if it has historically never been practiced? In other words, why is the fact that it proposes an absolute minimum of public involvement in private affairs pertinent? Ormi 22:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Because it has been suggested as one of the pure forms. Soxwon (talk) 22:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and how does that suggestion change what capitalism is enough to be definitive of it? If it doesn't modify the definition of the term or offer any immediately useful context I can't say it belongs in the introduction. Ormi 00:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to have to disagree with you on offering useful context and it has been established as part of the lead by several discussions so I think the consensus is that it should stay the same. Soxwon (talk) 00:32, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Guys, I think you are both talking past one another. "Capitalism" refers both to a belief about how economies should work, and a set of practices. As with most anything people do, ideals often conflict with practice. I think it si a profound mistake to conclude that this means that either the ideals or the practice is "wrong." Why ideals and practices contradict is an interesting question and a matter of debate and as with everything else instead of pretending it doesn't occure, Wikipedia should provide an account of all significant views in notable sources. Moreover, people have different ideas of what capitalism is ideally, and other people have different ideas about what it is in practice. We need an article that accommodats all this.

A long time ago I helped craft this, but now banned user user:RJII deleted it repeatedly. I am not sure whether other people who watch this page would wish to resurrect it but here it is just in case people are curious:

Capitalism generally refers to

• a combination of economic practices that became institutionalized in Europe between the 16th and 19th centuries. Exactly which historic and current practices are considered part of "capitalism" varies among users of the term. Ways in which this period differed from earlier ones include the prevalence of wage labor, the private ownership of capital including land, relatively freer trade (but see mercantilism), and the enforcement by the state of private property rights rather than feudal obligations.

• competing (and contentious) theories that developed in the 19th century, in the context of the industrial revolution, and 20th century, in the context of the Cold War, meant to justify 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.

• and beliefs about the advantages of such practices.

Well, that was my best effort (of course, others worked on it - it was more or less stable for over a year before it was deleted). Slrubenstein | Talk 02:46, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

hey Rubinstein! ... problem!!! I think that capitalism is more realistically considered not just an economic system or "combination of economic practices" but rather a particular complex of social institutions that include the state, and cultural institutions such as the media and educational institutions. That the historical instauration of the capitalist system required extensive involvement of the state to establish purportedly "laissez-faire" conditions has been convincingly depicted by Karl Polanyi. It has required as a condition of its sustainability what has been described as the construction of a social ethos - a dominant generalized attitude which internalizes the values of capitalist imperatives. Numerous scholars think of capitalism not only as an economic system but as a complex of social institutions constituting domination by a particular constellation of power. These thinkers range from Marx to Polanyi and Veblen and Brady through to modern thinkers such as Foucault and Wallerstein. BernardL (talk) 03:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The first question is, do peopel currently working on this article see value in what I propose? If the answer is "yes," then the second question is, how can it be improved, and of course anyone can edit it to improve it. I happen to agree that capitalism is a political system, as Marx and Foucault argue. But Marx and Foucault are providing theories of capitalism. I wrote the above to be as NPOV as possible, which meant a very generic definition that everyone could agree on. The second bullet point, calling attention to "capitalistm" as a theoretical construct, provides ample opportunity to provide, in the article, Marx, Polanyi, Wallerstein, Foucault's views of capitalism highlighting as needs be those views that you are drawing on, and explaining why these theories see capitalism as more than economic. I think intros should be as generic as possible to accomodate all views, so divergent, conflicting views can be spelled out in the body. In my definition, capitalism "was institutionalized" - that is all I wrote, but of course the body of this article can go into great detail about how this institutionalization revoled around social and political transformations. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I do find value in your proposal. The current introduction needs some serious work. We need provide a good overview of capitalism and the debates without providing excrutiating details (that's what linked articles are for), and this will help. Nubeli (talk) 12:33, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I like how concise Slrubenstein's 2 points are. They include the need for the state to set and enforce property rights. This is no minor point as Douglas North noted in his Nobel Prize lecture. Can I offer this advice: capitalism should at the bare minimum include state enforcement of property rights. After that, what needs to be distinguished is where between free-market systems and state-capitalism or corporatism, does capitalism lie? Free markets do require property rights (at least implicitly), but oligopolies and monopolies are not free market economies, yet they are the backbone of the US economy which I believe to be the modern prototype of a capitalism. So, there is a difference between a state of free-market “perfect competition” and the state in which capitalism exists. This is due to Marx’s accumulation of capital phenomenon in which firms continually merge. That being said, just the term “capitalism” does not, in my opinion, indicate very much inclusion of the political and social institutions of a state. The terms “state-capitalism” or “corporatism” do, however. On the other hand, capitalism is not necessarily a "perfectly competitive" free market system as it is predominately composed of oligopolies, monopolies, and monopolistically competitive firms. MoralMoney (talk) 6:37 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, in response to BernardL Polanyi’s notion of an “embedded economy” is more of a general statement about all economic systems rather than something particular to capitalism. Polanyi’s vision is definitely interesting, but in my discussions with Prof. James (“Ron”) Stanfield Polanyi is considered to be a heterodox economist rather than someone form the mainstream “neo-classical” school of thought. Ditto for Veblen. However, even mainstream economists admit that capitalism usually involves a large amount of oligopolies and the concept of monopolistically competitive markets captures your concerns about advertisement. MoralMoney (talk) 7:29 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Force/Fraud

As I've pointed out previously, force is a necessary part of contract - if one party defaults, ppolice/bailifs may be called in to enforce the contract, that is compatable with capitalism. Fraud is a moral not an economic category, logically, capitalism can exist alongside fraud, so it's absence cannot be considered an essential part of capitalism. I think the simple excision of force/fraud from the definition does not alter POV, but simply remains silent on the issue, maybe the point about the oughts of froce/fraud could be moved furtehr down the article?--Red Deathy (talk) 12:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Moving it further down the article may well be an idea. In any case, my experience says that the terms 'force' and 'fraud' are highly used in libertarianism and a more detailed description would be preferable. Anyway, I see it has more to do with the laws of a country rather than any particular value of force or fraud. Munci (talk) 15:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Munci The use of force and fraud in the opening paragraph of the article seems to be jumping too quickly into the particulars of the subject. The concept of “property rights” is a much more common economic term and force and fraud are simply violations of property rights. Why discuss the violations of property rights without first even mentioning the one thing that forms the basis of a market system? Property rights needs to be included in the intro and then fraud, theft and any other violations may be discusses later, although this article is getting lengthy and disorganized. MoralMoney (talk) 8:42 27 June 2009 (UTC)

They sell footballers

This http://www.er.uqam.ca/nobel/gedeonou/slavery2/ that in capitalism it's all the same thing to buy & sell humans, including into prostitution, & we now have to sell ourselves. Stars4change (talk) 16:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Capitalist ethics

According to Arjen Hoekstra, the current unregulated capitalist/consumerist trading system is unethical. Arjen Hoekstra compares the consumption of products made at such a fashion that it devestates the local environment (bringing people locally in trouble) withthe handling of stolen goods. He says that it is "playing innocent while purchasing a bycicle for 10$ of a junkie".

Perhaps it can be added in article. The analogy used above (which is I believe very accurate) could be mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.176.1.77 (talk) 17:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

M&Ms says: WHAT? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.209.74.201 (talk) 16:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The Role of the State in a Capitalist System

The problem with defining capitalism is that there may not only be a difference between theory and practice, but also one between the experts and the general public. But before discussing what the experts say it should be noted that, as a matter of pure logic, even a minimalist capitalist system must have a state that provides the service of legislating and enforcing property rights. One could make a leap of logic and argue that, in theory, enforcement could possibly be conducted by the market, but legislation? This one exception necessitates the role of the state in the provision of some services.

But capitalism is, at its root, a Marxist term. The current definition does not capture this and is from a side discussion in a chapter entitled “Price Determination” from a fairly unknown introductory economic principles textbook. A more rigorous discussion can be found in Frank Stilwell’s “Political Economy: The Contest of Economic Ideas”. This is a graduate textbook for a Political Economy course by a well-known expert. He argues that:

“Capitalism may be defined as a system based on the unfettered operation of the competitive market mechanism.”

This seems to be what is being done in the wikipedia base definition without the small, yet significant, inclusion of “most” in the definition. Yet, in the very next sentence, Stillwell proceeds with:

“This fits in with the most commonly held notions about capitalism as the ‘free-market’ economy. However, it interprets capitalism so narrowly as to make it almost non-existent.”

Instead, Stilwell states that Marx’s original distinction bridges the gap between “technical” and “social” aspects of capitalism. The definition is:

• the separation of labor from the ownership of the means of production
• the concentration of the ownership of the means of production in the hands of a single class-the bourgeoisie or capitalist class
• the appearance of a social class dependent for its subsistence on the sale of labor power-the proletariat or working class

Maybe we could go ahead with this definition instead of the one from a little-known economic principles text. Either way, the existing definition is one of common usage/practical capitalism and should mention some level of state provision of services such as law enforcement, military provision, highway/transportation system, and public education. If we go in a more economic/theoretical direction then the term should be defined in a more classical manner as Stilwell suggests.MoralMoney (talk) 18:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Say it's slavery?

Since there have been so many books that prove capitalism IS slavery of the masses to make a few people rich, when will you say that it's slavery? These are just some of the books that prove it: "The Rich and the Super Rich" by Ferdinand Lundberg; "Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower" by William Blum; "When Corporations Rule the World" by David Korten; "Dirty Truths" by Michael Parenti; "100 Ways America is Screwing up the World" by John Tirman; "Give Me Liberty" by Gerry Spence; "Democracy for the Few" by Michael Parenti; "America Beseiged" by Michael Parenti; "Downsize This" by Michael Moore"; 'The War Against Women" by Marilyn French; Noam Chomsky's books; & many more? If we'd end capitalism we'd immediately end world poverty, & this article should just say the wage is slavery.. Stars4change (talk) 04:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:FLAT much? Soxwon (talk) 04:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

. . Capitalism should indeed be defined as "The Traditional Neanderthal Practice of Tribal Slavery to Tribal Chieftains", even though Capitalism poses as an economic system because it allows its slaves to invest their spare time in the production of pre-owned products and services and to barter these in village malls for chieftain-manipulated slave-labor script.
. . No references need vouch for this fact, whose unpleasant effects are frequently impressed on all slaves.
. . However, presenting the true definition of an "Economy" would be edifying to your readers because of its stark contrast to phony landlord Capitalism.
. . This definition appears in Talk:Economy (or was until it was maliciously removed by unknown capitalist bandits - see reprint below)and in the revolutionary new eBook, "THE OCTAHEDRON, The Symbol Of Man, Blueprint For Civilization", available from Amazon.com in Kindle Book format, and in computer format at MobiPocket.com with a free eBook reader.
. . If you have noticed that you are a slave to club-wielding Neanderthal chieftains, perhaps you have enough motivation to liberate yourself by organizing a local Consumer-Based Economy and link it to others elsewhere.
. . Such an economy would enable you and your friends to order everything you want from your economy - even an ideal, modern, self-governing city - and pay for everything with your labor, rather than with slave-labor script.
. . This entire process is described in complete detail in the referenced eBook.
. . . . . . Civilized Man (talk) 02:05, 10 July 2009 (UTC) . . . Early Summer, Cancer 18 (that's July 9 on the retarded Capitalist calendar).

. . "Economy" is properly defined as a "Scientific System of Labor Exchange", not a primitive market barter practice!
. . This entire topic on the definition of "Economy" needs to be totally re-written to remove all arbitrariness to qualify as a Definition.
. . Quite obviously, despite common erroneous usage, primitive market barter and peddling of existing goods in open markets can never be considered to involve any kind of system.
. . Nor can the slavery of Socialism or the Compulsory Market Consumption involved in Capitalism be considered an economic system.
. . The instinctive word "Economy" can be defined ONLY as "a scientific System of Exchange of Future Labor created by the Long-Term Industrial Orders of the ultimate Consumers".
. . The barter of existing products for other existing pre-owned products, or for intermediate standard items of barter such as money or currencies, could therefore occur only OUTSIDE an economy.
. . The scientific system of future labor exchanges can occur ONLY when the ultimate consumers create those jobs through orders placed with industry for Future production, and the workers involved state their relative preferences for the different types of specialized labor involved.
. . This scientific exchange of specialized labors can be decided precisely through a mathematical equation involving The Principle of Fair Labor Exchange.
. . This can be systematically computerized as "the square root of the product of the two ratios of each worker's relative preferences for the two types of jobs involved in a labor exchange".
. . . . . . . Civilized Man (talk) 09:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC) Civilized Man. . . Early Summer, Cancer 16 (that's July 7 on the retarded Capitalist calendar).

POV terms

Was there a reason that bourgeois was used four times in the article outside of the marxist and criticism sections? Soxwon (talk) 22:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Marx was the classical economist who first used the term "capitalism" to describe an economic system. The term bourgeois is used to describe the class of people who own and control capital. Why was this unacceptable to you? Just because Marx created the term? Isn't that an ad hominem? Whose POV are you worried about? Why aren't you worried about your own? You should be because the creator of the term "capitalism" isn't given his due in the article and becasue of this it has become a big pile of ....Thanks for the deletions Soxwon, you POV!MoralMoney (talk) 01:14, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Repetitive paragraphs

67.188.42.104 (talk) 04:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC) I know this is copy/paste Wikipedia, but it is unnecessary to have this paragraph repeated twice within the span of half dozen paragraphs:

"Feudalism began to lay some of the foundations necessary for the development of mercantilism, a precursor to capitalism. Feudalism took place mostly in Europe and lasted from the medieval period up through the 16th century. Feudal manors were almost entirely self-sufficient, and therefore limited the role of the market. This stifled the growth of capitalism. However, the relatively sudden emergence of new technologies and discoveries, particularly in the industries of agriculture [64] and exploration, revitalized the growth of capitalism. The most important development at the end of feudalism was the emergence of “the dichotomy between wage earners and capitalist merchants”.[65]"

Politically Biased Reality Destroying Factuality of this Article

Karl Marx. No other name carries so much political baggage. Despite this, he should not be ignored as the first person to express the term “capitalism” as an economic system. Before the cold war, before WWII or WWI there were 3 main classical economists: Smith, Ricardo, and Marx. That’s just inescapable economic history. The etymological section of this article makes the claim that Adam Smith is “often described as the ‘father of capitalist thinking’”, and then cites Smith’s original work. Obviously Smith couldn’t make this claim about himself! Is this a personal opinion? Who said he is “often described” as this? Smith could be described as the father of free-market and laissez fair economic thought and policy, but capitalism is not necessarily synonymous with laissez-faire.

So, why is it relevant that Smith never used the term? And if Smith, as the father of capitalist thinking, is just an opinion and there is no supporting cite for the opinion, then why is this a part of an article that is already too long?

Marx’s 1844 manuscripts are also ignored in the etymological section. In these he uses the term “kapitalist” in reference to an economic system, but had not used the term “kapitalism” yet. It was in Das Kapital that the term was first used as a description of an economic system. Why is this not noted? Why is the use of “capitalist” as a person who owns capital more relevant and found before the factual origins of “capitalism” as an economic system? Instead the article simply states that Marx “only” used the term twice. But these were the first two times in history that the term was used to describe capitalism as an economic system! This hardly deserves the qualifier “only”.

The historic significance of this can be seen today. In economics, the symbol for capital is ‘k’ due to Marx. This is ‘k’ for “kapital” and “kapitalism”! This article is really an inaccurate joke as it leaves out the creator of the entire concept simply as a matter of American politics. MoralMoney (talk) 22:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Marx is NOT a classical economist. That's all I have to say. His economics start in direct contrast to classic liberal economics.Teeninvestor (talk) 22:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it is a matter of subjective interpretation as to whether Marx should be claimed as part of classical political economy. Certainly he owes a significant debt to Ricardo and classical theories pertaining to a "labour theory of value", but just as he stood Hegelian dialectics on its head he also radically interpreted and transmuted core ideas in classical political economy. There is much in his work that departs from political economy because he believed that supply and demand and the so-called invisible hand were secondary phenomena for the explanation of capitalist distribution and capitalist development. Recent histories have shown that Smith cannot be reasonably described as a father of capitalism; I would add that while Smith in reality advocated a kind of socialized market system this cannot be equated with what is now understood as free markets or capitalism. Giovanni Arrighi, among others have convincingly demonstrated that Smith at the time that he wrote felt that China's market economy was superior to Europe's "unnatural" path of capitalist development and as such he was a pre-capitalist in favour of a non-capitalist market economy. He was also definitely not a laissez-fairist: " the spheres in which Smith advised the legislator to intervene were legion, including the provision of protection from internal and external threats to the security of individuals and the state police and national defence), the administration of justice, the provision of the physical infrastructure neede to facilitate trade and communication, the regulation of money and credit, and the education of the mass of the population to counter the negative effects of the division of labour on its intellectual qualities. In these and other spheres Smith's advice to the legislator was based on considerations that were social and political rather than economic." (Arrighi- Adam Smith in Beijing: Lineages of the 21st Century) BernardL (talk) 01:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

There really isn’t much of a debate among academics as to whether Marx was one of the main classical economists. You're right that he owes something to Ricardo, but the use of the labor theory of value is the exact identifying criteria of a classical economist. Smith, Marx, and Ricardo all used the labor of theory of value and this is what makes them classical economists. But the concept of supply and demand wasn’t developed then. After the classical economists there was Marshall, Jevons, and Menger. They started to develop the demand side of the supply and demand model. Then Samuelson put everything together in the 1910’s-1920’s to create the S & D model. While Marx is definitely not a classical liberal economist he definitely was a classical economist. The terms are similar but very different.MoralMoney (talk) 23:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Classical economist <> classical liberal. See eg Malthus. On the main point, it's obviously right to include Marx's use of the term. Until quite recently, "capitalism" was primarily a pejorative term used by Marxists. Supporters preferred "free enterprise" and similar. JQ (talk) 00:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Interesting and infoirmative discussion, fellas. But, as with all things, what matters is not our own well-informed positions but whether any notable source has expressed a significant view that Marx was a classical economist, classical liberal, or whatever. It's not up to us. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:15, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

On Marx as a classical economist, here is a good list of links [1]. But that's a side issue. What's much clearer is that the use of the term "capitalism" to describe an economic system (as opposed to the use of "capitalist" to refer to individual owners of capital) is primarily due to Marx. This point should be in the lead.JQ (talk) 08:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I cleaned up the etymology section as best I could but I agree there are some issues with the lead. The issue extends into the Wikipedia article on mixed economy as it uses sources that claim a mixed economy is a mix of socialism and capitalism thus making socialism synonymous with command economies and capitalism synonymous with free-markets. I haven’t checked those sources yet, but I can tell you that the lead in this article on capitalism is from a side discussion in a chapter on pricing in a fairly unknown introductory economics textbook. It is an erroneous part of everyday speech to use capitalism as synonymous with free markets and socialism as synonymous with command economies. The above discussion on the role of the state cites Frank Stilwell’s work. He published a graduate-level text on political economy. From my studies as a PhD student in one of the last universities that specializes in political economy I can tell you the choice that needs to be made is one of capitalism and socialism as is used in common language vs the use of the terms in academia. A mixed economy should be seen as a mix between laissez-faire, perfectly competitive markets and command economies rather than a mix of capitalism and socialism which are actually both mixed systems in practice. Stilwell has a nice discussion on the issue and I mention his conclusions in the above discussion on the role of the state. MoralMoney (talk) 23:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Criticism Section -- Start of Economic Crisis

The Criticism section says this: "Following the economic crisis which began in 2008..." This presupposes that there actually was an economic crisis, that reader knows what economic crisis is being referred to, and that it began in 2008. It would also require some sort of citation I imagine. All these things seem to lead to information beyond the subject of the article, and indeed the whole point of the phrase -- which is simply to provide a date that the papacy said something. I think I will be WP:BOLD and edit it out. Feel free to revert with comments here if you disagree and would like to discuss. HyperCapitalist (talk) 05:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Major edit of Perspectives

The Perspectives section has needed some major shortening for some time. You can find ALL the information in separate articles. By Wikipedia guidelines we should only provide an introduction or highlight where the school of thought touches on the topic of capitalism. The place for detail is elsewhere. So I'm not censoring since people are free to go into detail on the respective pages. But here I will be making all perspectives concise will still giving them appropriate weight according to their importance (and not according to how I agree with them). Nubeli (talk) 16:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that article was not too long. It had around 60 KB of readable prose. I'll restore deleted content until clear consensus is reached that trimming is needed. -- Vision Thing -- 19:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. It is clearly against the aim of Wikipedia to include all that info in one article. Much of it is repititious of other articles. The entire History section is just a copy of the History of Capitalism article!! Nubeli (talk) 19:14, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually History of Capitalism is a copy of History section from this article. History of Capitalism needs a further expansion. -- Vision Thing -- 19:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course, that's the way it works: things get spun off when they get too big. You don't keep the original info. Go expand the History of Capitalism article then. I compared the two versions and tried to make sure every relevant bit was included in the separate sub-article. Nubeli (talk) 19:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I would like to get input from other editors before cutting. -- Vision Thing -- 20:14, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

If you had to get consensus before making any changes at all at Wikipedia then nothing would ever change. Just read through it and make your edits. That's what I did. By reverting the entire article back appears to be an attempt to take control of the content and prevent others from improving it in any meaningful way.

I believe I make a good case that we need to reduce the size of this article, and there is lots of extraneous detail in the Perspectives pages that is repeated in the individual sub-articles. We don't want to bore people nor cause unnecessary duplication of effort by having to edit this page plus the sub-articles. Nubeli (talk) 20:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

By the way, the original article was approaching 110 KB before I pared it down to 60 KB. Even at 80 KB Wikipedia was giving us a warning. Nubeli (talk) 20:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Original article had around 60 KB of the readable prose. -- Vision Thing -- 16:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

It still included plenty of info that is not directly relevant to understanding the concept of capitalism and can easily be treated in the articles of the schools of thought in question. These will still need to be edited down, which I've done and will attempt again. Nubeli (talk) 18:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

More - far more - people will come to the article on "Capitalism" than to the article "history of Capitalism" or "Hayek." The article that most people will read is the article that should provide as much information as readers will want to know. I agree that material has to be relevant to understanding capitalsim, but i am suspicious of the word "directly." What a marxist considers relevant to understanding capitalism may not be shared by a Weberian who may not share the views of a follower of Hayek. We have to make sure each view is presented as intelligible. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Wage labor

Wage labor is not essential to the definition of capitalism. A sole proprietorship is a capitalist enterprise. What makes something a capitalist is that it is owned and operated by a private individual rather than by the state, not whether the owner hires some help. Wage labor is just a natural consequence of capitalism, of allowing people to own their own businesses. Some hire help, some don't. Introman (talk) 14:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

You are incorrect. The definition doesn't mean that every enterprise needs to have employees, in fact many do not. But the definition is taking into account the total individuals in a capitalist economy of which the majority are wage earners and must sell their labour power in order to make ends meet. Early on, Adam Smith saw this developing: "What are the common wages of labour, depends everywhere upon the contract usually made between these two parties, whose interests are by no means the same. The workmen desire to get as much, the masters to give as little as possible. The former are disposed to combine in order to raise, the latter in order to lower the wages of labour."

Even if in theory everyone could start their own sole proprietorship, this does not happen. In order to differentiate between cottage industry and capitalism, we must include a definition that stresses the fact that the majority of individuals work for a wage and that capital is vendible. Nubeli (talk) 14:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Again, even if that were true, it's not part of the definition of capitalism. It would be a Marxian CRITICISM of capitalism, of allowing individuals to own businesses. The criticism is the allegation that allowing individuals to own businesses brings on a situation of people having no choice but to work for others that have started a business. But it's not part of the definition. Introman (talk) 16:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not a criticism. We are defining what capitalism is in actuality, not some ideal. The fact is that one of the major things that differentiates capitalism from previous economic systems such as feudalism or craft artisans is that the majority of people are wage labourers - they sell their labour and own little to no capital. This may be worse or better - it may seem better than feudalism since there is free mobility and people aren't tied to one feudal lord. It may be worse because the individual has little decision-making power over the production process. Who's to say - it's not your place to call it a criticism when it's a defining feature that stands it apart. So in addition to the vendibility of property/capital, wage labour is the other major piece of the puzzle. Nubeli (talk) 17:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Your definition is not sourced. You are not citing a definition. Capitalism is defined as private ownership of the means of production. There is no necessity that a business hires help in order to be capitalist. In socialist systems and communist states, people work for a wage too. Also, you can't define capitalism "in actuality." It IS an ideal, as are all economics systems as defined in economics. If the U.S. goes 60% government owned enterprises, 40% private are you going to change your definition of capitalism to suit that? Introman (talk) 18:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Introman, you seem to have a rather narrow view in defining capitalism. First, we aren't looking at an "ideal". The whole article looks at the history and development of capitalism. It's a historical process, but there are some defining features of the process. This is all way beyond neoclassical economics, which usually doesn't take a historical view. A defining feature of capitalism is that most people sell their labour power. This isn't true of communist states or feudalism (despite your assertions to the contrary). Nubeli (talk) 18:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

A business owner is a capitalist and owns capital. They gain a stream of revenue and profit from their capital. Capital is vendible so a business or its parts could be bought and sold. If someone has a sole proprietorship their business is still vendible therefore it is still capital. This is pretty basic stuff for any business person. Just because the potential is there for sole proprietorships doesn't mean it's dominant or a major defining feature of capitalism (except for the fact that business owners can sell their business which didn't happen before capitalism). Nubeli (talk) 18:47, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Are you even aware that most business in the U.S. have no employees but the owner? There is no definitional necessity either way in regard to wage labor. That's why definitions of capitalism don't mention it. You're not citing a definition. A capitalist economy could conceivably even have zero wage labor. Introman (talk) 18:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

You are violating WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. Your view of capitalism is as relevant as my view which is to say, zero. All that matters is a significant view from a reliable source. marx's is a significant view from a reliable source. It doesn't matter whether you like it or not. Now, research other reliable sources for other significant views and we can include them along with Marx's Slrubenstein | Talk 18:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense. I'm having a discussion on the talk page. NPOV and NOR rules don't apply here. Don't try to intimidate me into silence. Introman (talk) 19:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

"Capitalism is defined as private ownership of the means of production." By whom? Please bear in mind that there is no one definition of capitalism, there are many. Marx defined capitalism in terms of a labor market, this is very clear in Capital. Private ownership of means of production occurs in Feudalism; it is only when the principle form of labor is free, wage labor, that the means of production become concentrated in the hands of capitalists. Wage labor is essential to the definition of capitalism because, as marx explains in chapter 1 of capital, until labor is free and commoditized, capitalism does not exist. Of course, this is only the Marxist definition of capitalism, others have other definitions. "A capitalist economy could conceivably even have zero wage labor." What is your source? Slrubenstein | Talk 18:52, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

If you want a Marxist description of capitalism then specify it as such in the article. It owuld be not be a mainstream view but fringe. Introman (talk) 18:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

In Wikipedia you don't win arguments by labeling your opponent. When I quote Adam Smith you label be Marxist. I'm looking for a definition that works for most people.

Are you aware that the majority of people actually sell their labour? And that the majority of market value of capital is in the dominant corporations? You are correct that there are a lot of sole proprietorships in the US, but this doesn't encompass the majority of people, and definitely not the majority of market power.

You're desparately trying to think of some imaginary country where absolutely everyone owns their own business and no one is employed. That is just silly and evading the issue at hand. Maybe because no such country exists is perhaps a good clue that you are not adequately defining capitalism. Nubeli (talk) 19:05, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey introman,NPOV demands that we include all significant views. marx's is one of them. It is not a fringe view. And why don't you actually read the article before editing the lead? Slrubenstein | Talk 19:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey Slrubenstein, Marx may have a notable definition, and if so should be included, but it certainly is fringe and therefore should not represented as any more than that. Read the policy on fringe views. The overwhelming majority of definitions in available sources speak nothing of requirement of capitalism is that individuals are in a position requiring them to sell their labor power or that capital must be concentrated in few individuals. Introman (talk) 19:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

In the social sciences, the most significant definitions of capitalism are those of marx, and of Weber. So marx's is definitely a very significant view. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:12, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Historically Marxisms played significant role. Today however it is a fringe philosophy. -- Vision Thing -- 19:13, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say it wasn't significant. I said it's a minority view among the definitions of capitalism in available sources. The overwhelming number of definitions of capitalism do not say that a requirement for a system to be capitalist is that capital is concentrated in the hands of a few and that people are thus forced to work for these people rather than start their own businesses. Introman (talk) 19:16, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you should actually look at what people say about capitalism. I took a fairly mainstream view from Adam Smith, the father of economics. In it Smith recognizes the dichotomy of capital and labour, and the concentration of capital. I really don't think this is a radical view or anything. Nubeli (talk) 19:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Adam Smith had a labor theory of value. That's not mainstream. Just because something is from Adam Smith doesn't make it mainstream. In addition, regardless of whether your interpretation of Smith is correct, and I don't think it is, the definition of capitalism you're trying to present is not mainstream. Introman (talk) 19:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I amended the sentence to allow for the fact that individuals may start their own proprietorship and so become capitalists themselves. Though individuals are not legally forced to become wage labourers, there are certainly a number of economic barriers to becoming a businessperson and incentives to remain a wage earner, such as the stability of a regular job compared to the uncertainly and irregular earnings of a small business. Nubeli (talk) 19:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Nubeli, you're claiming "most capitalist economies a minority of individuals own and control the majority of capital through a number of dominant corporations" and citing Adam Smith as a source? You're making claims about "most capitalist economies." Adam Smith is hasn't surveyed today's economies. Furthermore, which ones are capitalist and which ones are mixed economies? Most economists would call the U.S. a mixed economy, because of major government intervention and ownership, so I don't know what economies you're talking about. Also, even if it were true, you're making it look like it's part of the definition of capitalism, that to be capitalist requires that capital is concentrated in a few hands. That's not in any mainstream definition of capitalism. Introman (talk) 19:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Thee are three mainstream definitions of capitalism today: Marx, Weber, and Hayek. Given that each is equally notable today, the intro must reflect each in some way. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Can you quote those definitions and provide a source that says they are mainstream definitions? I'm asking this because I was never able to find a clear cut definition. Maybe we could just summarize all three and put this issue behind us. -- Vision Thing -- 20:11, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

If the lead is going to represent a mainstream view then don’t we want a view of capitalism in practice? If not, then shouldn’t we take the view of academics who specialize in studying theoretical capitalism? Introman wants to have it every which way. He wants a definition that is theoretical, but doesn’t want any definition from Marx, despite the fact that Marx originated the study of capitalism. He grabs a citation from a side discussion on pricing from a fringe introductory economics text and claims that this is what all academic experts think. Then he wants a view that represents mainstream definitions but not if it’s from Merriam Webster because that definition allows for a role of government. After that he wants a mainstream definition of idealized capitalism that doesn’t actually exist in practice and is synonymous with free market systems? Seriously, this guy is a one-man quality wrecking machine. Why can’t anything be done?MoralMoney (talk) 06:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't have any problem using the Merriam-Webster definition. I had a problem with you claiming it said something it didn't. It says it is "an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market." Where do you see in that that that anyone but private entities own the means of production? Also I never was opposed to a definition from Marx. I just said that it's a minority position, so that's all it should be represented as. And if you want to look at capitalism "in practice" then you have to find an economy that fits the definition then look at that economy. You seem to be working backwards. How are you going to know what nation has a capitalist economy unless you first have a definition to see if it fits? Introman (talk) 17:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

We are never going to find a good definition of capitalism by going to Merrian Webster. It is a terrible method to go to dictionaries, which simply document correct spelling and pronunciation and how common people use words. An encyclopedia - Wikipedia isa an encyclopedia - is a compendium of the world of scholarship. We should go to the top anthropology, sociology, political scince, history and economic academic journals and search them for capitalism and see which approaches dominate. Different approaches may be majority in different fields - there is no sense in aggregating, we just have to say "In sociology the mainsream definition is" and "In anthropology there are two competing approaches" etc. But an encyclopedia is about scholarship, we want to know ht are mainstream definitions and approaches used by scholars. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:57, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you're wrong about Merriam Webster. I believe the definitions come from research by their editors on how words are used by a variety of sources, including scholars, papers, books, etc. It's a pretty solid dictionary. Introman (talk) 22:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

That is the M-W def I was trying to bring in. The key there is “an economic system characterized by…..and by prices, PRODUCTION, and the distribution of goods that are determined MAINLY by competition in a free market.” Throw out all the percentages you want, but this definition leaves a role for government to determine production that is not mainly, or chiefly, or mostly, produced in the private sector. This is capitalism in practice. My issue is that by leaving this out and then saying you are talking about capitalism in theory you are really just talking about a free-market system. Thus you destroy the true meaning of capitalism in theory which isn’t concerned with market mechanisms, but with the system of property rights that allows for the creation of a capital-owning class and wage-labor class. That’s all it refers to. “Free-market” system and “command economy” or “planned economy” are the concepts that are combined in a mixed economy. Those terms refer to market mechanisms. Socialism and capitalism refer to property rights and ownership of capital. What is the point of making everything synonymous with everything? You take away the specific meaning of each.MoralMoney (talk) 23:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The definition says "mainly by competition...." To me, that doesn't mean that government is sometimes setting the prices, but that sometimes prices may be set by producers based on other factors than competition. And you're correct that capitalism is a system of private property rights. What property rights is, is the right to exclusive control over what you have. The more private property rights you have, the less government is controlling what you have. A system of private property rights in the means of production is a system that allows the owners of property to make their own production, pricing, and distribution decisions rather than government forcing those decisions on them. The more that government controls the means of production, the less property rights there are. So you're making my point, by saying capitalism is a system of private property rights. Introman (talk) 23:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

For goodness sake, Wikipedia is not a dictionary! And if we just gave the dictionary definition of capitalism, I would just tell people "Why waste your time at Wikipedia, just look it up in the dictionary." We are supposed to be an encyclopedia. That means doing research. Do you think you can research good articles by surfing the web or cribbing from Webster's? If we are going to write an encyclopedia, let's actually do research. you know, like they taught us to do in college. you know, read books publsihed by academic presses. Articles published in peer-reviewed journals. Is this too hard for you? then don't try to write encyclopedia articles!! Really, guys, if we want to produce something good, we actualy have to work at it. Reading dictionary definitions does not cut the mustard. There are real scholarly boks out thee on capitalism and different approaches to capitalism and we should be reading those books to sort out how scholars look at capitalism.Introman claims that websters is well-researched... and, so, why shoud I care? Are you saying we should let the folks at websters do our research for us? Excuse me, but that is just making a mockey of Wikipedia. We should be doing our own research. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:53, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, yeah, we’re getting caught up with this Merriam-Webster thing, but that’s not really what this is about. It’s about the role of the state in a capitalist system. And, no, Introman, I’m not making your point. The government is needed to legislate and enforce property rights. This is a service the government produces. Just because property rights exist doesn’t mean that there is no government provision. I did draw upon the main text from my graduate-level course in political economy. I don’t have time to bring in 2 or 3 or 4 more sources saying what that one says in order to make it sound like I really, really, really know what I’m talking about. Maybe after the summer class I’m teaching ends I’ll have more time to bring them in. Until then I suggest Introman read Frank Stilwell’s “Political Economy”.

Just on the dictionary thang, though, the Oxford Dictionary gives (as I've cited here before) the wonderful definition: " a system which favours the existence of capitalists." Which leads to Capitalist: "One who has accumulated capital; one who has capital available for employment in financial or industrial enterprises." and finally, capital itself: " 3. A capital stock or fund. a. Commerce. The stock of a company, corporation, or individual with which they enter into business and on which profits or dividends are calculated; in a joint-stock company, it consists of the total sum of the contributions of the shareholders. Also, the general body of capitalists or employers of labour, esp. with regard to its political interests and claims (cf. LABOUR n. 2b). b. Pol. Econ. The accumulated wealth of an individual, company, or community, used as a fund for carrying on fresh production; wealth in any form used to help in producing more wealth." Which could be distilled for our purposes as "Capitalism, an economic system that favours individuals, companies or corporations in accumulating wealth to produce more wealth." Or something like that...As it is, I think the lead is OK, whilst I wouldn't agree with every phrasing and shade of meaning, it is teh product of long discussion and stabilisation of the article. the only quibble I have is one that returns from time to time, regarding whether all property needs to be privately owned, or most (I'd favour the latter, a "mixed" (so-called) economy is still capitalism in my book).--Red Deathy (talk) 07:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe in the meantime we can agree that capitalism is based on a system of property rights that allow people to own the means of production and sell their own labor. I think this summarizes what Stilwell is getting at, although Stilwell suggests that this set of property rights creates 2 specific classes: those who primarily own the means of production and those who sell their labor.

Of course "the government is needed to legislate and enforce property rights." That's the corollary of what I've been saying. If the government is protecting property rights then it's not violating them. If the government is protecting property rights, then it's protecting your right to do what you want with your property. A private property system is one where the government does not tell you how you have to use your property. If you own a business, then you decide what you're going to produced, how many you're going to produce, and the prices you're going to charge, not the government. The government protects your right to do that, to the degree that private property exists. The more that government prevents that, the more that property rights are diminished. Introman (talk) 15:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

And if I add this is Introman just going to delete it? If so, why should I waste my time?***MoralMoney (talk) 04:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)**

Your definition sounds pretty good to me. But look, the issue is this: the lead should reflect the body. We should not be arguing over definitions of capitalism ex nihilo. The article has a section on "perspectives on capitalism." The introduction does not ned to give a single dfinition of capitlism, but it does have to introduce the article by indication what the main viws of capitalism are that we cover in more detail into the body. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Well here is an attempt,

There are several interpretations of the term capitalism, each one being somewhat contentious. The tension stems from several issues, but the main sources debate and confusion are twofold:

• In common usage, the term has become synonymous with free markets, while in academia the focus is on the role of property rights and ownership of the means of production.

• Capitalism in practice typically resembles a mixed system such as the United States rather than a completely free market system.

After this we could work in the existing definition as one of common usage of the term and then the Stilwell definition that I have cited in the above "role of the state" discussion. MoralMoney (talk) 16:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Private property in the means of production IS a free market. That's exactly what a free market is. It's the government allowing private control over the means of production. It means government is taking a laissez-faire approach. There is no dichotomy between free markets and private property rights. And it's absurd to say that capitalism in practice resembles a mixed economy. Either it's a capitalist economy or a mixed economy. It can't be both. There is a term called "capitalist mixed economy," which means a mixed system that is biased towards capitalism. Maybe that's what you're looking for. Introman (talk) 19:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Theory and practice are much more rich and informative than the world you’re trying to create. Property rights form the legal and social institutions within which a free market can operate. They are sufficient conditions for the free market, not the free market itself. The free market itself refers to the exchange that can occur given these conditions. I never said there was a dichotomy. They are different. Forming the dichotomies and seeing them everywhere in other people’s words really is taking away from how colorful and distinct all these ideas are.

If you make capitalism synonymous with free-markets then you turn it into a dull gray and very bland term that is indistinguishable from everything except the bitter taste that a command economy leaves in your mouth. You also make it completely irrelevant to reality. Are we to stay in our ivory towers theorizing about hypothetical economic systems that might exist only in our minds? Capitalism in practice refers to people’s best attempts to actually do something with these ideas. If the attempt ends up looking a lot like what a theoretical mixed economy might, then that should be noted. Do you have any example of a capitalist country that does exist? If not, then this is a problem because the general public believes it does and often refers to the United States as a capitalist system.

Either way, don’t you think the issues and problems we’ve been discussing should be mentioned? If you search other sites for discussions on capitalism there is surprisingly much confusion over a term that is used so often. We should address these and let the reader know about the source of their confusion.***MoralMoney (talk) 23:19, 24 July 2009 (UTC)***

A free market is the absence of government regulation of property. That's also what private property rights is. It's the same thing. A free market is the condition where the government protects property but doesn't regulate it, i.e. doesn't control it. This means you are allowed to own a business, and make the decision on how much you're going to produce, what you're going to charge, what you're going to pay your employees, and so on. This is what private property is, the absence of government control over what you have. That's what capitalism is, i.e. private ownership and control over the means of production. Pretty much every definition you're going to come across is going to say that capitalism is the means of production being owned and controlled privately rather than by the government. If you can find evidence that a number of definitions say that capitalism is government controlled, rather than privately controlled, means of production, then of course that should be addressed. Concerning "mixed economy," even U.S. government literature points out that the U.S. is a mixed economy: http://www.colorado.edu/AmStudies/lewis/ecology/mixedeconomy.pdf I don't think you can find anyone that would deny that the U.S. is not pure capitalism. Introman (talk) 18:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

You’re missing the point here. I never have argued that the US is not a mixed economy. I agree with you that it is a mixed economy. But notice that this article you just cited does not mention capitalism once. This is because capitalism can be a mixed economy. In fact, most places referred to as capitalist are mixed economies. I had cited a series articles published in peer-reviewed, well-known academic journals that referred to “varieties of capitalism” that differ in their level of capital ownership concentration. But -- Vision Thing -- promptly deleted the only economic academic journals cited in this article on capitalism. It is now comprised of information sourced from 100-level principles texts and dictionary entries. The only journals cited now are the Journal of Historical Materialism and The Review of Metaphysics. There isn’t a single cite from an economics journal in here.

And your view on property rights is lost somewhere in your own mind. For you property rights are to be magically established and enforced purely by a market mechanism. Who’s to say you can’t own a kilo of methamphetamine or a 12 year old girl for that matter? There’s a supply and demand right? Hmmm, that must be property rights. And nobody is going to come steal your property either, right? Because if they did they wouldn’t be rewarded by market pricing, eh?

It’s sad, really. At face value this Wikipedia thing is a neat idea and I had high hopes, but now I see why it can never by as respected as a well-published, well-researched encyclopedia. Now I see that people like myself with access to academic journals and limited time will quickly learn that their well-researched work will be quickly erased by a neophyte with a principles textbook.MoralMoney (talk) 23:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

A) A mixed economy by definition is not pure capitalism but a mix of capitalism and government ownership and/or control of the means of production. The U.S. is a mixed economy, meaning it's not thoroughly capitalist. B) Why are you claiming that my position is that "property rights are to be magically established and enforced purely by a market mechanism." That's absurd. I've claimed no such thing. I said that in capitalism the government protects private property rights. I've been trying to explain to you that the government protecting private property rights in the means of production is not government ownership or control over the means of production. It's the opposite. It's private ownership and control of the means of production. Government PROTECTING your property rights is not the same thing as government CONTROLLING your property. It's the opposite; it's the government protecting your private ownership and control. That's what capitalism is, the private ownership and control of the means of production. C) Of course Wikipedia can never be "respected as a well-published, well-researched encyclopedia." I'm glad you're starting to grasp that at least. And everything anyone writes in it is eventually deleted by someone else. Why would you think otherwise? Nothing is permanent here and the reliability of any given statement is 50/50. Everybody knows that when they read Wikipedia articles. Introman (talk) 03:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Socialistic capitalism

Can a section be included on socialistic capitalism (saw term in time magazine, march 2009: 10 ideas changing the world right now, idea 9). Mention with social entrepreneurship —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.182.199.16 (talk • contribs) 16:47, 19 June 2009

There's no such thing as socialistic capitalism; the two are entirely incompatible. Moarhate (talk) 03:47, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree, if there truly existed two systems of production which would be the complete opposite of each other, then it would have to be capitalism and socialism. --Nabo0o (talk) 14:55, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Just because two systems seems to be opposites doesn't mean they can't work in tandem. An example of socialist capitalism would be the creation of a private charter corporation, such as a hospital or bank, designed for a specific goal by the government but still mediated by the demands of a market. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.113.134.52 (talk) 13:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, just because a government is fully or partly in control of a business doesn't make it socialistic. State capitalism is an example of where the government is in control, but only to pursue its own commercial goals, like a private business, and which many claim was the case in the soviet and many other "socialistic" countries. If a business or a workplace was actually driven in a socialistic manner, then the people who worked there should have had a direct democratic voice and control. Socialism is really about the economy, and is in my opinion as far away from capitalism as it is possible to get, after all, it was created to be an alternative to the suppression and wage war which the present system is generating.

However, I know that there exists some combinations between these two ideologies, and often they have gone bad. One case is the postal and health system in my country Norway, which politicians in the last 20 years have turned more and more private, while still remaining in full control.

An example of where they are partly in control is our energy and telecommunication corporations, which have gradually turned less interested in giving a good service to its users, and more interested in profit..... --Nabo0o (talk) 22:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Before creating the article it has to be shown that the term has a clear accepted meaning that is used in academic writing. The Four Deuces (talk) 00:41, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

look up france or euorpe if you want to see such an example. "social capitalism" is an oxymoron, and should not be included in this article because it is not entirely capitalism.Ref ward (talk) 17:13, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I don´t think there is any point in viewing this in absolutes, like "socialism is not compatible with capitalism" since the word socialism has become more and more used to describe regulation in capitalist systems. Even if this is false according to the classical definition of the word (government control of the means of production), it is becomming more and more accepted ("Obama is a socialist") and the time magazine article mentioned above may very well have used the word socialistic losely. The question becomes how the terms should be used in a wiki article.

83.255.169.48 (talk) 11:03, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

"Means of production" vs. "property", or other terms

Check out the means of production article and find that the only two ]] (talk) 16:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC) things referenced in it are someone writing about Marx, and... "Capital vol2 ch1", which I guess is another Marx reference, but don't hold me to that.

In fact, if you look the term "means of production" up on Google, you'll find that most definitions mention Marx.

This quite validly leads me to believe that stressing the use of this term destroys a neutral point of view of the article by making it read like Das Kapital. We should find a more neutral, less one-sided term to use. If Ayn Rand made up terms in her critique of socialism or communism, would you let an editor use those terms in the first sentence of the socialism or the communism article? I highly doubt it. Would you say that doing such makes the neutral point of view of these articles questionable? Probably.

We should find a different term to use; one that wasn't obviously made up by major historical figures (like Marx) to describe their perspectives. Until we arise to a reasonable conclusion (not one that just dismisses the point here), we should not take down the NPOV tag on the capitalism article.

I propose we use the term "property" because it doesn't lend a favorable or unfavorable view to any ideology. The meaning of the term is clear. It is applicable in the context that "means of production" is used early on in the article. It does not make the article read like a television advertisement for capitalism, nor does it come off like one of those propaganda cartoons from the Soviet Union. That's more than what we can say if we continue using the term "means of production".

If anybody has any criticism of this suggestion, or a tertiary option, go ahead and post them. Macai (talk) 05:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The problem with "property" rather than "means of production" is that property has been privately owned in other systems than capitalism, e.g. under feudalism and the ancient civilisations. We need a term that is specific to capitalism. W. Linesman (talk) 12:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The problem with "property" is that it's wrong. The private ownership of property in general isn't a defining feature of capitalism - all, or almost all, economic systems involve private property of some sort. As the article says, the defining sort of ownership in capitalism is ownership of capital; and not all property is capital. It's true that "means of production" is a term that is more often used by Marxists than anyone else, but I don't think it is essentially linked to Marx's critique of capitalism in a way that necessarily biases the article, and I'm not sure what a better alternative would be. We could just say "capital" (the term used by most non-Marxists as well as by Marxists), but readers may well not know what "capital" means, so I would favor an inclusion of some brief explanation of what "capital" is. I tried wikilinking "factors of production" under the text "property used in production," and would be interested to hear what people think of that. Part of the issue here is that the Marxist analysis of capitalism is incredibly influential on all those who have attempted to distinguish capitalism from other economic systems, so it may not be possible, or indeed appropriate, to avoid all Marxist-influenced terminology. VoluntarySlave (talk) 06:17, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, no, "property" is not wrong. At least, not according to a source already cited on the page. It's reference number three. Here's what it says: "Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned." So, yes. Capitalism, according to sources already cited is "an economic and social system in which" property is "privately controlled". Maybe you could suggest using "all property", but the term "property" is not, in itself, wrong, and I think use of the word "all" is unnecessary, as there can be varying degrees of capitalism. The pervasiveness of private property is a feature of capitalism, and I have the sources to back me up.

The above assertion is incorrect. Private property is exactly what enables capitalism; the right to own the product of your labor. Without this basic right, there can be no free trade. The `means of production' is a man's mind in Capitalism. Karl Marx used the term frequently, although not accurately, because Marx assumed the means of production were industrial tools rather than the mental capacity to utilize those tools for one's own benefit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moarhate (talk • contribs) 03:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

If you don't believe that using terms made up by Marx on the capitalism article biases it toward Marxism, would you find it biased toward capitalism if, hypothetically, if I used terms made up by Ayn Rand?

My interest is not in removing all Marxist terminology--however, I think the Marxist terminology and perspective should be kept in the "Marxian political economy" section in order to maintain a neutral point of view. Imagine if someone edited the communism article to make the first sentence "the abolishment of all private property rights"? While it is arguably true, it paints communism in a negative light right away and presents a capitalist point of view. Likewise, jumping straight into Marxian terminology in the first paragraph makes it very clear that whoever wrote that paragraph thinks in Marx's terms.

Factors of production could be used as well. Maybe both terms could be used. An example of how would be: "Capitalism is an economic and social system in which property (especially factors of production or capital) is privately controlled." I personally think this is a fair, honest sentence that expresses clearly what capitalism is more or less about. Macai (talk) 07:05, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd go along with that change. I'd prefer a "most" in there, but that's an old discussion that has a beard, and different to the one at hand.--Red Deathy (talk) 08:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Macai, you need a better source than the one you provided, Capitalism.org which is an Ayn Rand site. and therefore unacceptable for any WP article except about Ayn Rand. Incidentally "capitalism" is Marxist jargon too. The Four Deuces (talk) 12:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Here is the problem: to say that all property is privately owned is controversial. Most Americans would say the US is a capitalist country, but much property is owned by corporations, not private persons; many of these private corporations are public in the sense that ownership of the corporation itself is publically traded, rather than owned by a private person. Moreover, the US governmetn owns a lot of property. Now, some capitalists may also be anarchists and claim that no state can be capitalist, but this is just not the majority view. Now let's look at ownership of the means of production being owned by those people who also control capital. Even people who are opposed to capitalism or communism woudl agree with this. The means of production can be taken fairly literally - whatever instruments are used to produce something, this does not sound ideologically charged, and most capitalists I think would say that it is a good thing to concentrate ownership of the means of production in the hands of corporations that can hir wage laborers, direct re-investment, and so on. Marx it is true was critical of this, but you co not have to be critical of this to agree that it is characteristic of capitalism.

Of course, we run into another problem - why do we even call "capitalism" "capitalism?" Adam Smith didn't, I do not think Ricardo did. Wasn't Marx naming his study of this kind of economy "capital" a major reason why today we call it capitalism? If the fact that marx identified this system in terms of the role of capital within it, naming his book capital, is one reaon why we today call it capitalism, does this make capitalism a POV term? I don't think so ... Slrubenstein | Talk 12:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

To avoid the use of the term "capitalism" would marginalise Wiki as a credible source of information on this. Imagine the public's response if they keyed in the search term "capitalism" and got ... nothing! The term "capitalism" is widely used by mainstream supporters and critics of our contemporary economic system, so avoiding the term is not the issue. Let's focus on defining it properly. W. Linesman (talk) 12:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Not all property must be owned privately. There are varying degrees of capitalism. Likewise, not all the means of production need to be owned privately either. The U.S. government owns a lot of the "means of production", too, but it's still a considered capitalist nation. Also, while private or corporate ownership of the "means of production" may arguably be a feature of capitalism, it's not a key feature. Private or corporate ownership of all sorts of property is, on the other hand, a key feature of capitalism. Saying that capitalism is private control of the "means of production" is like saying that lions have fur on their legs in the first sentence of the "lions" article, as though having fur on their legs is the important part of being a lion, and having hair elsewhere is not.

I'm kind of making a double post here, but I think there's an important difference between "capitalism" and "means of production" which I explain below. Macai (talk) 14:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

This isn't a new source. It's a source that's already been cited many times. It's cited on Capitalism, Libertarianism, Criticisms of anarcho-capitalism, as well as several non English articles. This isn't my source; this is Wikipedia's source. Convenient that you want to get rid of it now.

Incidentally, "capitalism" was used by others before Marx, like William Makepeace Thackeray. I sincerely doubt you'll find others using the term "means of production" in the context Marx did before him. Let's also note that "capitalism" is a term used regularly by people that subscribe to ideologies other than Marxism and Marxism derivatives, unlike "means of production", which is rarely used by anybody other than those people. Ergo, "capitalism" is not just Marxist jargon, whereas "means of production" basically is just Marxist jargon.

But that's fine. Let's forget that already-established sources support my argument. I can cite The Compact Oxford English Dictionary, The Concise Encyclopedia Of Economics, Investor Words, and Business Dictionary. Any of those bother you?

But that's not really the issue here. The issue here is that by using a Marxist term to describe capitalism in the first sentence, you make it clear that the article is written from a Marxist perspective. This is supported further by the fact that the article that term links to discusses Marxist ideas more than any other. Let's say for argument's sake that Ayn Rand made up a term. Let's say that the term is "source of control". Let's say that Rand's definition of "source of control" is more or less "the person or organization that controls economic matters". Now, let's say you're on Wikipedia. You type in "communism" and the first thing you see is "Communism is a social and political ideology where the source of control is the state." You can click on "source of control" and you find yourself in an article. The article starts writing on and on about Ayn Rand and her ideas about the "source of control". You look into this term a little bit and you find that Ayn Rand made the idea up. Not only that, but very few people that think Ayn Rand's opinions are wrong use the term. In fact, let's make it worse (like in this example)--no self described communist gives a rat's ass what the source of control is. The idea of a source of control is basically irrelevant to the topic at hand. Likewise, when people use the term "capitalism" they are not singling out means of production--they're talking about all property.

Capitalism refers to private ownership of property in general, not just means of production. Whether you like it or not, Marx's definition of capitalism isn't automatically the correct one because Marx used it. Macai (talk) 14:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

If private property isn't means of production, it isn't capital - the OED definition of capitalism doesn't mention private property at all, for example. The problem is, that it's about a system based on capital - we could just private ownershiop of capital, but we'd have to explain at some point what capital is.--Red Deathy (talk) 15:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Here's a question. If corporations and individuals control the means of production, but the community, the people, the government, whatever you prefer to call it, owns the actual product, is it still capitalism? Maybe not in the most technical of senses according to Marxian economics, but if you let the government own the ends of production but not the means of production, you end up with basically the same scenario. This leads one to realize that capitalism covers more than just the means of production but the ends of it, too. The OED mentions private "control" (i.e., ownership) of industry and trade--not just production.

But I'd like to digress a little bit. So far, there's been a lot of defense of the use of the term "means of production", with, so far, absolutely no opposition to my suggestion for a change. That suggestion being: "Capitalism is an economic and social system in which property (especially factors of production or capital) is privately controlled."

If nobody has a problem with that wording, why not stop arguing about this "means of production" crap and use it? Macai (talk) 15:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

(out) Ayn Rand is not a reliable source and all references to her writings should be removed from all articles that are not about her and her writings. Thackeray's ironic passing use of the term capitalist (not capitalism) should not be interpreted as meaning that he invented the term capitalism and he did not use the term capitalist in its modern sense. It rarely appears in the writings of other Victorian authors, like Dickens and Trollope.

Under capitalism, not all property (or even sometimes most property) is privately controlled, while private control of property existed in some pre-capitalist societies, like ancient Rome. Any additions to the article must be supported by reliable sources.

The Four Deuces (talk) 16:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Ayn Rand isn't a reliable source on capitalism, as opposed to Karl Marx, who is the world's foremost authority, right?

Also, under capitalism not all of the "means of production" are necessarily privately controlled, either. Branches of the United States government, a nation considered rather capitalistic, control factories. The military in general comes to mind.

Finally, the sources I cited all state that the things which are privately controlled extend far beyond the "means of production". Do you object to any of these sources? Macai (talk) 16:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Concise on-line dictionaries are poor sources, you really need mainstream sources for economic theory. "The concise encyclopedia of economics" is also a poor source as it comes from the "Library of Economics and Liberty". Incidentally it begins: ""Capitalism,” a term of disparagement coined by socialists in the mid-nineteenth century...." which invalidates the Thackaray theory. No one is saying that Marx should be used as a source. You should read the reliable sources guidelines for advice in finding acceptable sources. The Four Deuces

You're imposing a different standard on me than you are on whoever wrote the first sentence on the communism article. The sources provided as evidence for that are 1) "marxists.org" (sounds a lot like "capitalism.org" to me), 2) a broken link to a Columbia Encyclopedia article, and 3) Encarta. So the kind of biased source you complained about with "capitalism.org" and completely broken links are okay, but concise encyclopedias and such like are not. That's not to mention the fact that Encarta itself also supports the property theory, since it says, in the "Characteristics of capitalism" section:

Government will be necessary only to protect society from foreign attack, uphold the rights of private property, and guarantee contracts.

What's this? The rights of private property? The sources I'm citing on this page are the sources I'm citing elsewhere. Are you saying that the sources already cited do not meet Wikipedia's reliable source guidelines?

Let's not forget that as of right now, the capitalism article's entire first paragraph doesn't have any sources at all. So sources which are already on Wikipedia elsewhere and have had little objection except in this one case, and primarily by you, with other sources of equal value to those, versus no sources at all. Which wins in this scenario? Macai (talk) 16:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The fact that poorly sourced or unsourced information appears in numerous Wikipedia articles does not mean that it is the standard to which it aspires. If you feel strongly about changing the lead there should be no problem in finding a reliable source that supports it. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:00, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

And I've done just that. So, then. What is your gripe, again? Macai (talk) 17:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

You have not provided any reliable sources. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I have. Macai (talk) 18:24, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

No, you have provided a lot of unacceptable sources. Economics is an academic subject with a wealth of literature published in peer-reviewed journals and by university and academic presses. None of your sources meet that standard. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I hope you realize that tertiary sources such as encyclopedias are perfectly acceptable as per the standards for things such as summaries, which is basically what I'm trying to edit here. Macai (talk) 18:41, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The lead goes beyond being an "overview or summary". It is an analysis and therefore requires reliable secondary sources. Incidentally concise dictionaries and think tank websites are not reliable sources in any case. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Hate to break it to you, but that's exactly what the lead is; a summary. Don't believe me? Let's see what the dictionary says.

a brief statement of the main points of something [1]

Since the brevity of something is relative, it's fair to compare the lead to the rest of the article. The lead is more brief than the rest of the article. Ergo, it is a summary. This is getting tiresome. Either you or someone else presents contradictory sources (things which say private property is not a key element of capitalism) of equal or superior reliability, or I'm going to just make the edit. Macai (talk) 19:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Anything added to this article should be supported by reliable sources. You may find it helpful to read to read about economics in mainstream sources before editing articles about economics. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:00, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

In case someone is too lazy to read the Wikipedia help on sources, here's an excerpt:

"Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources when available. However, some scholarly material may be outdated, superseded by more recent research, in competition with alternate theories, or controversial within the relevant field. Reliable non-academic sources may also be used, particularly material from reputable mainstream publications. The choice of appropriate sources depends on context and information should be clearly attributed where there are conflicting sources."

And there's a prohibition of using "extremist or fringe sources" (such as Ayn Rand material):

"Organizations and individuals that express views that are widely acknowledged by reliable sources as fringe, pseudo-academic,[4] or extremist may only be used as sources of information about those organisations or individuals."

Nubeli (talk) 01:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

A couple reasonable compromise options

This section is garbage. Capitalism is an economic and social system which asserts all property is privately owned, and can only be sold or traded to another individual with the owner's consent. Anything else would be a mixed economy, and therefore not capitalism. The only reason that Capitalism would be considered a social system at all is because it must include mutual respect for others' private property, and the consent to trade with other person(s). The rest of this discussion is garbage. There is no compromise on facts.Moarhate (talk) 03:57, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Since the current controversy is whether or not the sources I'm citing are unbiased enough to pass muster, I don't think we're going to come to an agreement. It has, in some regards devolved into "yes they are" versus "no they're not" debate. We're arriving at a dead end. For this reason, I've decided to propose two possible compromises, both of which I find reasonable.

We can:

• Leave the wording of the article alone, but place those "citation needed" tags on the various parts of the opening paragraph until sources that are neutral and reliable can be cited on the topic. These sources must meet the same standards you (The Four Deuces) believe mine do not.
• Formulate a combined wording--one which makes it clear that there is controversy over the essential meaning of the term "capitalism", and expresses both ideas of its basis. Examples of what I call combined wordings could include:
  • Capitalism is an economic and social system in which either the means of production or property in general is privately owned.
  • Capitalism is an economic and social system in which property (sometimes more specifically the means of production) is privately owned.
  • Capitalism refers to various economic and political systems which all involve private ownership, but diverge on what is actually owned; some say it is the means of production, while others property in general.

All supplied definitions are flawed. Correct definition would be "Capitalism is an economic system where all property is privately owned." Capitalism is not a social system except by virtue that people are forced to interact with each other to be successful in a capitalist system. Please don't use the American mixed economy as a basis for your definition of Capitalism, because Capitalism has not yet ever been implemented. 71.111.199.200 (talk) 18:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

"Means of Production" is a vague term at best, as absolutely nothing of value can be created without human input. If and when we do reach a technological singularity, the term will have more meaning. 71.111.199.200 (talk) 18:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I think either option is fair. I'm open and willing to listen to other compromises you might want to propose. Macai (talk) 21:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

We should not write a definition ourselves and cannot rely on political think tanks, dictionaries and on line encyclopedias. I did not actually work on the lead so it is probably best to wait for the editors who did to comment. (They had extensive discussion at the time.) If there is no response then I will set up an RfC. I would not want to recommend any sources myself as I do not have extensive knowledge in the subject.

However, in his book Capitalism,[2], George Reisman says "Capitalism is a social system based on private ownership of the means of production" (p. 19). (The book is available on Questia.) I would not recommend this book if more neutral sources are available but it shows that this definition is not restricted to Marxists. (Reisman was a follower of Mises, Hayek and Rand.)

The Four Deuces (talk) 22:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

My only issue with that source is that it is no more reliable than the Robert Hessen article I linked you to. Hessen also has a PhD in the same field.

You expressed disinterest in compromise option two, but what do you think of the first option, where we just put the "citation needed" tags on the opening paragraph? Macai (talk) 22:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The Hessen article does not define capitalism, and is not written to the same academic level as Capitalism. Incidentally in The Freeman, which is also not Marxist, Hessen received credit for criticisms of an earlier draft of the essay "From Marx to Mises", where Mises is paraphrased discussing the means of production.[3] Incidentally the term "right-wing" as used in the US comes from Marxists but no one seems to complain. I a would agree to tag the lead for now and see if we can get more opinions on this. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I see Hessen's article define capitalism. It says that "capitalism" is a misnomer for "economic liberalism" (or something of the sort), and then goes on to define "economic liberalism". This to me read as a definition for capitalism, since he explicitly said they were synonymous. I also don't see how Capital is written at a higher academic level, but I don't think it's appropriate to get into another argument.

The article you cited does use the term "means of production" multiple times, but they don't seem to be Mises' direct words. He could have used other terms to describe a similar idea. He might have been using that term since he was comparing capitalism to socialism, i.e., he was using Marxist terms in a case where Marxist terms were appropriate, as opposed to when socialism isn't a factor in the conversation and aren't relevant. I also think the source is right wing biased, since it decries communism as illegitimate. (This should tell you something, my being a rightist myself and calling this source out on being right-biased.) Despite these criticisms of the source, I don't really see a problem citing it. It appears professional, its content is well written, and I'm not under the impression that they're misrepresenting Mises' words. I wouldn't object to this source being cited, but that may be because I'm simply not anal about sources to the same extent you are. I don't mean this as an insult, just as an observation.

With that said, I'd like to point out that I made the revert-edit with the citation needed tags present, and that while I don't believe capitalism as a concept stresses the means of production quite how you do, I'm willing to give this article a rest. It was a pleasure. Goodbye for now. Macai (talk) 23:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

While I see little issue with the definition provided it may be an idea to not only consider Marx. There were other scholars that wrote about capitalism and had their own ideas as to how they defined capitalism. Rather than provide one definiton by Marx use one by Max Weber as well among ones already mentioned. There is nothing saying that you should be finite with a definition and more understanding is never a bad thing. Too many people think of Marx as soon the word Capitalism or Communism comes into the equation which is somewhat narrow sighted, no offence to anyone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.30.29.179 (talk) 11:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)