Jump to content

Talk:Capitalism/Archive 30

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25←Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30Archive 31Archive 32Archive 33

comparison to slavery

this is part of the far-left impact on Wiki. Slavery is opposed to Capitalism. Leftists always distort the facts It is frustrating to response to them. Communists are not "realiable" resource to talk about capitalism. It's like writing what the Nazis said about the US as criticism over the US. And i'm sick to argue about basic stuff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.138.239.112 (talk) 12:50, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Actually the United States had slavery until 1865, and it was widespread in the British and French Empires in the 19th century and was considered a property right. Certainly left-wing views are presented as are views across the political spectrum. If you don't like reading views that differ from yours, there are lots of websites that print only views with which you would agree. TFD (talk) 14:21, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Stop putting words in my mouth. I didn't talk about slavery in the US but the comparasion of Capitalism to slavery which is the opposite. Let alone forced labour in the USSR. The point is mispresentation of the capitalism which is part of the Left biased in Wikipedia. Communists are not reliable resource to "criticize" capitalism. Just like the nazis are not reliable resourse to "criticize" the US. The left biased in Wiki has gone too far. Again, why what the communists say is reliable resource about capitalism? and what about slavery in socialist countries? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.138.239.112 (talk) 15:04, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

How can capitalism be the opposite of slavery if slavery can be part of capitalism? This article btw is about capitalism not socialist countries hence there is no discussion of slavery in socialist countries or in ancient Greece or Roman or the Bible for that matter. TFD (talk) 15:09, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
I think the important point is that Wikipedia is not saying that capitalism is slavery, it is reporting what others have said on the subject. Wikipedia is not "far left" because it honestly reports the ideas of the Left. It also reports the ideas of the Right. I hear increasingly in the media that any publication that is not 100% in agreement with the Right is "biased" against the Right. This is a misuse of the word "biased". Rick Norwood (talk) 15:19, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

You twisted what I said, again. Distortion of the truth. Wikipedia doesn't criticize the left in the same rate as the right. right parties automatically called "extremes" where parties in the far-left doesn't. And yet you didn't answer the question to why communists are reliable source. You're changing the subject and distort what I said. You are obviously biased and not objective. Why do you consider communists as a reliable source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.138.239.137 (talk)

It reflects reliable sources, per weight, and does not attempt to provide equal space to all positions. So for example the "far left" theory of evolution is given greater weight than the right-wing theory of creation. That is because science textbooks support the theory of evolution and refute creationism. Whether or not someone is a Communist has no bearing on whether what they write is reliable. If an article is published in a peer-reviewed journal we accept it as reliable no matter who wrote it. TFD (talk) 16:42, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
It is you who is twisted. I just scanned the article for your complaint and there is a section which has wage labour as slavery as topic. Wage labour is not another term for Capitalism. Wage labour has been equated with slavery since at least classical times so it you who is evincing something, that thing which if it were completely absent, I take it you would be perceiving leftiness, i.e. support for your cherished if ill considered opinion. 98.4.124.117 (talk) 07:28, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
@TFD. Seriously wonky thinking in equating the theory of evolution with far left thinking-didn't the USSR spend a lot of effort on plant breeding which ignored evolution? That comment suggests that your weight judgement may not be neutral. Seriously, the article has an embarrassingly large number of sections which start with "Marxist analysis...." or an equivalent statement. Count them and weep.
Gravuritas (talk) 09:38, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

You say: "Communists are not reliable resource to "criticize" capitalism". OK. Then, we should delete all the criticism by capitalist scholars, capitalist organizations and capitalist mass media in communism related articles. emijrp (talk) 10:45, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I posted 4 sentences, and you manage misquote me completely. Cut out the propandistic bollocks. I said that Marxist analysis has undue weight in this article on capitalism, and I said nothing about RS. Reread what I said, and engage with the point, leave it alone, or make your own point. Here's a hint on your way to the promised land of reasonablle debate- if you enclose something in quote marks, it should be a quote.
Gravuritas (talk) 11:46, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
I replied to 77.138.239.112. --emijrp (talk) 11:55, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Sorry. Misunderstood the indenting. But I think my point deserves a response: some amount of Marxian analysis/ criticism of capitalism in the article is legitimate, but the current level,is too high. For a comparison, let's take the socialism article. How much of it is taken up by outright opponents of socialism?
Gravuritas (talk) 12:55, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Do you have any sources that could serve as a model for the weight that should be provided for different aspects of the topic? Here for example is a link to an article in Encyclopedia Britannica. Weight does not mean that Marxist views should be balanced with Ayn Rand. Many of the problems of capitalism identified by Marx were accepted by other observers - where they differed was in solutions. U.S. libertarians for example do not disagree that war and poverty exist, they disagree over the solution. TFD (talk) 16:37, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
A bit of a hunt around the net has not turned up anyone who can't be considered parti pris by either For or Against. Your Britannica ref, though short, seems to manage to give socialist criticism a prominent, but not dominant place, which seems fair to me. In the article at present, socialist, particularly Marxian critiques are dominant. I don't think we need further sources to see that this is undue weight. As mentioned above, try Socialism for a comparison, which has a plethora of intra-left theology and remarkably few counter-views. Admittedly capitalism is a real-world system and the criticisms are aspirational, whereas socialism is a pie-in-sky system and the criticisms are practical, but even so so the comparison should be felt as an acute embarrassment by the WP collective.
Gravuritas (talk) 18:17, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
There would be no point in refuting you, but I assure there is no such embarrassment. It is you who should feel chagrin at taking the implicit position that Capitalism, which is not even a thing as such until it is perceived as a specific stage of human development, is somehow beyond regard as such. It just so happens that the main defining essence of Socialism is its regard for this stage of development which it sees as preceding and leading inevitably to it (it Socialism the retraction of Capitalism as the basis of society). It's definitely true that you could join a group of partisans for received Capitalism and push the POV I think we can guess that you would do from your airing but you may want to check the evolution of this and related articles before doing so. In short, your complaint is spurious and ill informed, but not useless for didactic purpose. It is like complaining that the articles on Knowledge or Belief are dominated by epistemological perspectives. 98.4.124.117 (talk) 01:52, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
It's tempting to have a bit of fun with your unfashionable metaphysics, but I'll resist, just point out that "...not even a thing as such until it is perceived..." = If a tree falls in a forest. I understand that refutation is beyond you, but maybe you could unswallow your dictionary and make just one teensy-weensy little point that is relevant to any one of: my point; a preceding point in the thread; and, ideally, the actual topic of what should and shouldn't be in the article?
Gravuritas (talk) 07:59, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Responding to your tree in forest analogy. Before Marx, the thing was not called Capitalism. You can argue if it existed before the late 18th century but it certainly did exist before Marx, just not as "Capitalism". I am not yet at a point of being able to completely and effectively deal with someone like you but the standard elements, Rogerian unconditional positive regard, Wiki best faith, etc. are being observed. Hopefully you will understand if I don't let a dialog with you consume more time. 98.4.124.117 (talk) 08:26, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
It wasn't an analogy, old sport, it was a direct equivalence. I haven't checked, but assuming your assertion that Marx named capitalism, capitalism, is true, then the guy who coined Brexit gets to dominate the Brexit article? The Rome article is all about Romulus? (Or was it Remus?). Don't be silly. And, no, I don't understand- I would have thought that one well-made point would take less time than the para above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gravuritas (talk • contribs)

Oh excellent old bean! We're getting along just like Heckle and Jeckle aren't we? Also meant to say I am probably the author, via a named identity of some of the text you find objectionable, but not directly for this article, the text was moved here by others, which is the way things work here, the body of knowledge reflects the state of society. In society, Capitalism viewed from the outside, as a thing, necessarily involves an external perspective and as it happens that perspective has been deeply embedded in all of the social sciences for generations, since the mid 19th century. The arguments/analogy you are making should embarrass you intellectually if that is possible. 98.4.124.117 (talk) 14:17, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

The deep insights just keep on coming. Anything "viewed from the outside.." ALWAYS "necessarily involves an external perspective", unless you're a cross-eyed loon in (and out of) a Klein bottle. So what is this tautology supposed to prove? That the social sciences since the mid 19th century are "external to capitalism"? Oh sure: all social scientists spend most of their time tilling the earth in search of use-value and wouldn't be seen dead touching any filthy lucre. Rubbish. However, even accepting the discussion for a moment on your terms that WP capitalism is a "thing" that the cognoscenti in the social sciences have a unique insight into (from their external perspective!), then why does that mean that another "thing"- WP socialism (happily, easier worldwide to study from an external perspective, these days) is only stuffed full of squabbles about which version of the thing is best, whereas WP capitalism is stuffed full of how shite the whole thing is. For the record, it is of course entirely reasonable that there is discussion about capitalism's shortcomings in the article, but there is too much, and too much of it is Marxist/ian.
Gravuritas (talk) 21:49, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

If you want to make changes to the article, then you must provide sources. Other editors are not here to do the research and changes that you request. Arguments about the pros and cons of capitalism are not a suitable topic for this talk page. TFD (talk) 16:02, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

No, that's not the case. I am not discussing the pros and cons of capitalism, I am asserting that this article is unbalanced, and I've demonstrated that by comparison with Socialism. A WP article can be full of sourced material, and yet be unbalanced, as this one is: there is an overemphasis on Marxist analysis of, and criticism of, Capitalism. To create WP:NPOV in the article, there needs to be a wholesale weeding-out of the Marxist stuff, and that is down to the judgement of WP editors, from the RS available. Your request for a source demonstrating what a balanced article would look like was answered by your own link. I'm happy to start making changes along those lines: if there's any dissent that sourced material is being removed, I can refer to this thread in which nobody defended the status quo.
Gravuritas (talk) 06:16, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Socialism is not a good comparison. The article is about the political movement and obviously attention must be paid to the various views within it. You might want to compare it with liberalism which is the ideology most closely identified with capitalism which also pays attention to various views within it. Neutrality btw is not a matter of balancing pros and cons but reflecting how the topic is treated in mainstream sources. Can you point to an article in a textbook that treats the subject in a way you find acceptable? TFD (talk) 06:44, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
I might sympathise with your first sentence if we were talking word definitions, but wrt WP articles it's incorrect, according to the respective first sentences of the articles: Capitalism is an economic system ;Socialism is a range of economic and social systems.... (Though probably changing the first sentence in Capitalism to include "...a range of..' would make sense.) The blurring of the real world with socialist theoretics bedevils both articles, of course. Here's a few univ syllabi: US universities are more prone to putting stuff on-line than universities elsewhere:
http://studyofcapitalism.harvard.edu/teaching-resources
http://history-server.uoregon.edu/courses/syllabus/Pope608.pdf
https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/economics/14-72-capitalism-and-its-critics-fall-2013/Syllabus/
-and taking these three, Marx deserves a significant mention but not the dominant one he gets in multiple parts of this article.
Gravuritas (talk) 08:38, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Too much emphasis given to Marx.

Hello, I think the wiki page "Capitalism" is too much cluttered with Marxist writings, which has nothing to do with Capitalism except in criticizing it. Enough material can be added in the page dedicated to Marx rather than cluttering this page with material on Marx. Marx is not a right person from whom people must know about Capitalism since he was against Capitalism and all his writings are biased against Capitalism. It's very good to have opinions & materials on Capitalism which is unbiased. Hence I propose to trim down the coverage of Marx in this page. AbramRay (talk) 05:27, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Any negative views on the subject title "Capitalism" can be given sufficient space in the criticism section. Adding too much Marxian content in the Capitalism section to bring down the reputation of Capitalism & make it unpopular for the readers amounts to smearing and vandalism. AbramRay (talk) 05:43, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't see that any of the material about Marx that you removed criticized capitalism. It begins with Marx's view that capitalism "represented the most advanced form of social organization to date" and he mentioned that capitalists operate for profit while workers work for wages. What did you find smearing about and vandalistic about the views presented? TFD (talk) 07:22, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Marx developed his own version of economics and gave birth to Communist ideology which is totally opposite to Capitalism. It is well known and universal that Marx demonized Capitalism while creating his own socialist utopia in his book "The Communist Manifesto". Hence adding Marxist material in Capitalism page is acceptable to certain extent in the sense that it constitutes criticism & can be given sufficient space in criticism section. There are many other notable proponents of Capitalism such as Ludwig von mises who has provided much better understanding about Capitalism & whose writings can be added to this page. Giving undue importance to Marx in this page who constantly demonized Capitalism hence constitutes smearing & vandalism.AbramRay (talk) 19:36, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Can you explain what if any of the material attributed to Marx that you removed Von Mises would have disagreed with? TFD (talk) 20:58, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

"Well known and universal" is not evidence. If it is really well-known and universal that Marx's views are unimportant, or that Marx "demonized" capitalism, you should be able to cite a reliable source that says that. Rick Norwood (talk) 23:26, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Straw man, Rick. He didn't say 'unimportant', he referred to 'undue importance' which, given the prominence of Marxist though in this articles, is clearly not the same thing.
Gravuritas (talk) 08:47, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
BTW Marx does not create a socialist Utopia in the Communist Manifesto, he merely makes a number of short term demands, most of which the U.S. and other Western countries have subsequently adopted. TFD (talk) 12:42, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Capitalism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:34, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Capitalism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:58, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Capitalism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:01, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Request of article to be semi-protected.

This article should be semi-protected to prevent vandalism and good faith editing, as this article must have a neutral point of view.[1] Averagetennesseejoe (talk) 04:47, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

The reference is a example of why it should be protected. Averagetennesseejoe (talk) 04:47, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/813237315
This was not reverting vandalism. It might not be something you personally agree with, but it wasn't vandalism. We do not discourage good faith editing without a very good reason. This article does get a relatively high level of vandalism, but that's why it already has pending changes protection (Wikipedia:Pending changes). The vandalism included as a reference lasted less than a minute before it was automatically reverted by a bot, and was hidden from most readers' view for the brief time it was live. If you still want to request this more-drastic protection for some reason, Wikipedia:Requests for page protection is the proper venue. Grayfell (talk) 06:16, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Gravuritas's edit

Gravuritas recently removed a section that quoted Marx, giving as a reason that this theory of Marx is now proven incorrect. He also added an assertion that only "left-wing" commentators discuss "state capitalism". I would like to see evidence of these assertions. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:21, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Apologies for the brevity of the following: I'm semi off the grid at present. For the first part of your request, try 'Since capital only increases when it employs workers..'. Larf. Buy and sell something at the right times- shares, gold, property. Increased your capital? No, you can't have- or you must be imagining the absence of workers. For the second, I appreciate referencing WP is not good practice generally, but try State capitalism for starters. Count the lefties, and count the non-lefties.
Gravuritas (talk) 18:37, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
No, you have not increased your capital, you have liquidated it. Where are you getting your definition for capital? TFD (talk) 19:00, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Capital: Wealth in the form of money or other assets. Look it up. If 'capital' means something else in Marxist terminology, save it for the article on Marxism.
Gravuritas (talk) 19:08, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
According to A Dictionary of Economics, OUP, it is defined as "(1) Man-made material resource used or available for use in production, for example machinery. This is also referred to as physical capital. (2) Material or financial wealth accmulated by an individual or a company, that can be used to generate income."[1] The first definition is how it is normally used by economists beginning with Adam Smith and what Marx meant. TFD (talk) 19:46, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
So, let's run with the old fool's view for a moment. I own a machine that cost $1M, employ workers, and make widgets profitably. After 5 years I've got the machine and $1M in the bank. If the money is 'capital' then you've got to recognise the validity of my buy/sell remark. If you don't want to recognise the money as capital, then Marx's view fails because he's only recognising my capital as increasing when I buy another machine, which is nothing to do with whether or not I employ anybody. At the end of the five years, I've either got 2 machines that cost $1M, or I've got one machine and $1M- what's the difference? I think your first definition gives the game away- in referring to 'physical capital' it implies that there is such a thing as non-physical capital, e.g money.
In the modern economy, so much of what goes on is divorced from machinery- licensing deals, IP, intangible assets, fabless companies, etc that any view limited to physical assets can explain nothing.
Gravuritas (talk) 04:27, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
It does not matter whether Marx is right or wrong, but whether what he says reflects what other economists from Adam Smith to Milton Friedman say. It may be that they were all wrong and you have discovered a truth that all of them missed. But Wikipedia is not a place for speculation or frathouse discussions. TFD (talk) 08:05, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
I was trying to deal with the points as raised. So let's revert to 'Since capital only increases when it employs workers..' - are you asserting that this was Friedman's view? If so, do give me the reference.
Gravuritas (talk) 11:35, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

“Physical capital is the kind usually referred to in economic theory.”[1] Money is savings.Phmoreno (talk) 14:27, 19 December 2017 (UTC)


The paragraph that was deleted discussed ideas in a historical context: "The first recorded discussion of the reserve army of labour is in a manuscript written by Karl Marx:" The question of the sense in which the word "capitalism" is used is a minor part of it. Certainly, the relationship between capital and labor is a major topic in any discussion of capitalism. I'm going to restore the deleted paragraph. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:08, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Gravuritas, as I said this is not a frathouse discussion. If you want to make changes, then the onus is on you to present sources. I get it that you don't like Marx, although you appear to have little comprehension of his theories or that of other writers on economics. TFD (talk) 13:10, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

So, let's summarise.
  • In recent discussions on this page I've asserted that the capitalism article has an over-emphasis on Marxist analysis & criticism of capitalism. I met the request for sources on capitalism showing less Marxist emphasis, but you have not acknowledged that the balance of this article is therefore wrong. Your assertion that I'm not showing sources is false.
  • The Marx quote that I deleted is sourced, but so what? Unless it has support from across the economic spectrum, its inclusion is WP:UNDUE. But TFD refers to Friedman amongst others for support of that view, and then can't follow through.
  • I've pointed you at WP's own article to show that 'state capitalism' is largely a leftist epithet. No acknowledgement.
  • I've pointed you at the Socialism article for comparison with this article and your single-point attempt to rebut the comparison failed completely. No further attempt to deny the comparison, no acknowledgement of your error.
  • You want to make a point or pose a question in this discussion, fine. When I counter it, it's a 'frathouse discussion'.
As usual, editors interested in this page continue to love the Marxist analysis of capitalism. It's a poor advert for WP.
Gravuritas (talk) 15:01, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
I have replied to your comments and see no reason to continue this conversation. TFD (talk) 15:52, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Gravuritas: By essentially universal agreement, Karl Marx is one of the most influential economists of all times. All top ten lists I've seen, even those by conservatives, include Marx; I've never seen a list that didn't. You jump to the conclusion that people who object to removing some of the paragraphs on Marx love Marx or think Marx is right. Not necessarily. An article on astronomy would naturally mention Ptolemy even though Ptolemy was totally wrong, because of the influence he exerted for almost two thousand years. It would be a poor "advert" for WP to remove Marx because some Wikipedians disagree with him. Rick Norwood (talk) 16:26, 13 April 2017 (UTC

Marx was a major setback to economic theory and ought to be portrayed as such. He did provide a somewhat useful historical perspective, but even that is somewhat outdatedPhmoreno (talk) 04:06, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
@Rick Norwood. Sorry for late reply- I only noticed it when Phoremo made his addition. You are not taking my point. I am not arguing for Marx or left-wing analyses in general to disappear from the article on Capitalism: I am simply trying to create some balance in what overall seems to be a WP:UNDUE emphasis on Marx in this article currently. I jump to no conclusions: however, I do assert that an article on astronomy that over-emphasised Ptolemy would be an unbalanced article,
Gravuritas (talk) 04:35, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

There is a mode of discourse in which, when someone discusses something a person hates, they respond that unless you hate what they hate, you must love it. Example: "As usual, editors interested in this page continue to love the Marxist analysis of capitalism." I for one certainly do not "love" Marxist analysis. In fact, use of the word "love" seems out of place in discussing economics, or any other subject that depends on objective analysis. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:35, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Bjork, Gordon J. (1999). The Way It Worked and Why It Won’t: Structural Change and the Slowdown of U.S. Economic Growth. Westport, CT; London: Praeger. p. 25. ISBN 0-275-96532-5.

#Creativism critics- delete?

This is a big subject, and a big article. Does the tiny minority view of creativism deserve any space? I suggest not.

Gravuritas (talk) 20:19, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Gravuritas (talk) 20:19, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

bias

this page is Bias. On the communist page it just attacks attacks but here when there is a single attack they is 2 counter attacks. on the Criticism section. Leftwinguy92 (talk) 04:12, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Addition of Neoliberal populism section

An identical copy of this substantial new section has just been placed in at least 5 articles. I think that this is good work that needs to be placed somewhere but placing 5 identical copies in 5 articles seems like a bad idea. Probably we should revert and ask them to just put it it in the most relevant article. BTW I plan to do the same with this post in all of those articles.  :-) North8000 (talk) 00:02, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

capitalism as a REAL political movement.

Has anyone ever tried to implement such thing as capitalism in the real world??? Sotavento (talk) 20:13, 9 January 2018 (UTC)


No. Capitalism as defined by this article has never existed. The US, for example, has no examples of "privately owned means of production" since all corporations are owned by stockholders, which is the public. Only small businesses are privately owned, and when they grow they almost always go public. The closest case of privately held means of production would perhaps be a monarchy where the king owns everything, or a dictatorship where the dictator does. Certainly not in the US, which is about as far as one can get from that, since the public owns all the corporations. DigbyDalton (talk) 08:19, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

As a point of fact the giant Car Rental Company "Enterprise" is one example of a very large privately held company, it is owned by a family who is American. Seanhempseed (talk) 07:33, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Laurencedeclan edit

I hope someone with a degree in economics (my degree is in mathematics) will take a look at Laurencedeclan's major edit of this article. I will only mention one problem I have. He uses the word bourgeoisie to mean the class that controls the means of production, giving the following justification: "(According to Marx, the bourgeoisie are the class that controls the means of production; perhaps this wording is better." I have not read Marx, only read about him. But the dictionary meaning of "bourgeoise" is "a middle-class person". If the article must use the word with a different meaning from the common one, the sentence should say that a meaning given the word by Marx is being used, and give a reference. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:23, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

The term "middle class" has two meanings.[2] In English-speaking countries (including the U.S.) the term bourgeois means "the class traditionally intermediate between the aristocratic class and the laboring class," which is what Marx meant. In the United States, these people would more likely be referred to as upper class, while the term middle class usually refers to people who work for a living. TFD (talk) 16:04, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
I wikilinked the term "bourgeoisie" for the phrase "capitalist class" because the previous "class which must work for wages" is wikilinked to proletariat, which is a Marxist term used to describe the working class. In Marx's works, "bourgeoisie" refers to the class which controls the means of production, not the middle class. Given this is an economics article that refers significantly to Marx, it is only prudent to use his definition of the word. You can see this definition in our article on the word, specifically "Contemporarily, the terms 'bourgeoisie' and 'bourgeois' (noun) identify the ruling class in capitalist societies." and "In Marxist philosophy the bourgeoisie is the social class that came to own the means of production..." Laurencedeclan (talk) 02:50, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
But it is the middle class: the class that ranks between the aristocracy and working people. TFD (talk) 03:56, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Every dictionary I have looked at says "middle-class", and the standard usage in contemporary discussions reflects the dictionary meaning: the upper class owns the banks, the corporations, and in many countries also owns the media and the politicians. The middle class are small shopkeepers, who do not work for wages, but do not possess great amounts of capital. And the proletariat are the people who do work for wages. I think your use of "bourgeoisie" to described the major stockholders in corporations, who own the means of production, is apt to be misunderstood. The Carnagies and Rockefellers, the "captains of industry" are not considered bourgeoisie. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:23, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

I’d suggest that some difficulty is arising because ‘bourgeoisie’ is a dated term, with roots in town-dwelling and hence in the middle between land-owning aristocracy and agricultural & domestic workers. Traditionally, small shopkeepers would be described as petit bourgeouis/ lower middle class. None of this fits easily with current Western economies, so dunno which dictionary believes that banks are owned by the upper class. Outside some gangster economies, the banks are owned by shareholders e.g pension funds, or the state. In the UK & the parts of Europe with which I am familiar, ‘upper class’ is not normally defined economically, though it may well be in the US. If none of this complication matches the theory, then maybe the theory needs adapting.
Gravuritas (talk) 13:25, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
I agree. It does not literally mean middle class but the capitalist class which in France and most countries was considered the middle class. When Americans use the term bourgeois they use the same meaning (ie the capitalists) even if they consider them upper class. The U.S. of course has no aristocracy, a class of people who had formal legal rights and privileges, and looked down on people engaged in trade. Note that in England, capitalists are not considered upper class.
"The Middle Classes in Europe" begins with a brief discussion of the meaning of the terms "middle class" and bourgeois. Note it says that the petit bourgeoisie/lower middle class did not belong to the bourgeoisie/middle class proper.
I suppose the reason Marx (who wrote in German) and this article use a French loanword is that it has a specific meaning which is lost in translation.
No, it's because the first Communist writers were French and it was not a loanword for them. Marx came much later. See http://hyzercreek.com/communism.html DigbyDalton (talk) 11:54, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
Most banks historically were owned by individuals or families, which is reflected in their names, such as N M Rothschild & Sons, which is still family owned.
TFD (talk) 17:15, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
TFD, That has not been true for quite a while now, and it was no more the case for banks than for corporations in general. I don't think it is useful to deploy "bourgeoisie" in this article, except possibly if Marx's meaning and context are summarized. What's so much Marx doing in this article anyway? Do we have a flat earth section in Magellan's article? SPECIFICO talk 17:23, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
The discussion is about whether or not the term "capitalist class" should link to bourgeoisie, not whether or not America is an egalitarian state where the banks are owned by the people. If you want to discuss changes, then start a new section. If you have any sources for content that should be added or replace current content, then please do so. TFD (talk) 18:21, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Sweetheart, you are the one who claimed "most banks historically..." Which was also true of most oxen, most feather dusters, and most industrial corporations, such as Ford Motor Company, Hoover Electric Sweeper, Singer Sewing Machine, Schweppes Tonic Water, usw. SPECIFICO talk 10:47, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
@SPECIFICO: I agree. The word Marx appears 98 times in this article. Also used as citations on this page include "Marxists.org" and "Democratic Socialistic Perspective". I can't imagine the use of Ayn Rand as a source on the socialism article going down very well, so I fail to see why so much of this page includes material from radical communists and anti-capitalists. I understand that Marx practically coined the term capitalism and that his writings were very influential, but use of him as a source should keep in mind his personal views. This is one of the few articles I've seen that uses mostly critics as sources as opposed to neutral or supportive authors. Laurencedeclan (talk) 09:56, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Whether the bourgeoisie are the middle class or upper class or something else is irrelevant. The term is defined by Marx as those who own the means of production, and that is the context in which the term is used in this article. Laurencedeclan (talk) 09:18, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Using Marx's definition of bourgeoisie in this article only makes sense if the person reading this article is familiar with Marx. I doubt that many people these days have actually read Marx, and those who have are unlikely to turn to Wikipedia to learn about capitalism. Word usage in the English language Wikipedia should reflect the way in which the average English language reader is likely to understand the word. If you wanted to introduce Marx's terminology, or any other specialized terminology, you should have an introductory paragraph explaining the terminology. I see no reason to do that. Why not just drop the link, and rewrite to make the link unnecessary. After all, the article you link to defines bourgeoisie as "middle class", so it will not shed light on the subject under discussion, the ownership of the means of production. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:02, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to echo a general criticism about using terms defined by Marx to talk about capitalism. For one, Marx is not a good source for reasoning about economics. For two, Marx greatly concerned himself with criticizing capitalism, and a lot of the language he used was invented specifically for that purpose. For example, it's not my understanding that capitalism intrinsically has a notion of "capitalist class" or "working class" -- the class-based rhetoric Marx used to describe economic and social systems was his own. In other words, using Marx's words to describe capitalism is like using a flat-earther's words to describe geography. I feel it's inherently inappropriate to use language like "means of production", "capitalist class", "bourgoisie" etc. to communicate ideas about Capitalism, since they are loaded with Marx's point of view. --Maddata (talk) 15:05, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree. But one minor quibble. Isn't "means of production" a useful and neutral-as-possible term when describing the defining differences of political ideologies? North8000 (talk) 13:32, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
The problem is that Marx invented the concept of capitalism and therefore influenced all future economists whether they agreed with him or not. Marx actually was not anti-capitalist, but saw it as a stage in social development. I don't think that liberals and conservatives disagree with his assessment of the problems of capitalism but disagree about the solutions. Ironically, Marx did not invent the term bourgeois, it was a French word already in use. And even the most right-wing God-fearing American politicians use the term "middle class." TFD (talk) 18:02, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Corporate property as private property

information Note: A TL;DR is below. The clueful reason why you should revert your edit is because it is an undue and unsourced contentious addition to the lead sentence that is not supported by the sources. What follows is an explanation for why your addition to the lead sentence is problematic in the context of understanding the sentence itself and the subject it is summarizing. It is provided with the hope that you appreciate why I reverted you and not simply think I'm bludgeoning you with a cluebat to get my way.

Although I understand that it may not need to be brought to the talk page, DigbyDalton, I think it needs to be, anyway, since we are now at an impasse and seem to both consider this important enough to revert each other. I suspect some editors may sympathize with your position, as well, so I think this deserves a full account. In the meantime, I would appreciate it if you revert your addition for now. I won't, since your refusal to do so yourself suggests you will also revert my reversion, and I have no interest in an edit war (something I simply don't do). Instead, I am opting to provide a detailed explanation for my actions. For the record and the readers, I reverted the changes you made in the article lead and you restored your addition to the lead sentence including "corporate" as a distinct type of property preceding private property in the text.

You stated that this is not a debatable issue in that edit's summary, since corporations are "public by definition". By "public" in this context, I take you to mean it in the sense of a public company. If so, then you are using a different definition of "public" here than the one that is typically understood to contrast with private property. A public company (including corporations), indeed even a public-benefit corporation, is one whose stock ownership is bought and sold in a public financial market. It is nonetheless private property, however, and the stockholders are the private owners of that property. A public company is not one that is nominally owned and "controlled" by the public through a state actor, which is the case for "public property" (technically state property). Such companies are generally called state-owned enterprises or publicly owned companies.

The lead sentence is about property and how it is organized; property is a relationship between people on the basis of power, exclusion, and control. When it says that "[c]apitalism is an economic system based on private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit", this means, restated, that capitalism as an economic system is fundamentally defined by a system of social relations in which a certain group (a class of people) maintain private ownership over the means by which we produce and reproduce society and operate those means to accumulate capital and maximize profit. Corporations are economic entities defined by a certain group of people privately owning the entity and operating it as a for-profit enterprise. This is true regardless of whether it is a public company, so "public" in that sense does not contrast with the privation of private property. Rather, they are about different types of relations: the "public" of public companies is about the relationship of their stocks to a publicly accessible market for trade, whereas the "public" of public property is about the access allotted to the public by the state and the ownership the public has over that property through the state.

Beyond the fact that it seems to be an insertion wholly unsupported by any sources in the article, that is why I removed your addition to the lead sentence: it states something which I believe fundamentally misunderstands the entire subject and the definition provided in that lead sentence. As a result, you are adding a qualifier to the lead sentence that is at best redundant and at worst misleading based on a misinterpretation of "public" and "private" in that context. Hopefully, this rationale is clear to you now and you understand why I reverted your addition.

Relatedly, on the matter of the lead sentence itself: if anything, part of the issue is with its classic definition of being defined solely by "private property", which totally fails to account for state capitalism and other variants of capitalism. That is only understood to be included in the lead sentence if one already understands that state property is functionally the private property of the state as an entity and that the distinction between the two forms of property is a matter of state and not capital, but that is abstruse theory beyond the scope of a non-technical, unoriginal, and summarized encyclopedia.

I will not be available again for many hours, but I will respond as soon as I am if there is one to answer. Thank you for your time.

(TL;DR)  You are confusing publicly traded with publicly owned. Corporations are private property; they are owned by private stockholders and financed by private investors. You seem to fundamentally misunderstand this subject, or at the very least misunderstanding what "public" and "private" mean in the context of the lead sentence. Public corporations are privately owned and publicly traded legal entities. Adding "corporate" in the lead sentence is at best redundant, at worst misleading, and unsourced regardless. Please revert your edit. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 14:09, 24 August 2018 (UTC); edited slightly (as indicated above) at 01:12, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

  • Congratulations, you have just nullified the entire premise of socialism/communism, by giving a definition of capitalism that describes no country on earth, now or in the past. The US for example does not fit this definition, since the means of production is not privately owned, but held by the public through the stock market. Your feeble claim that corporations are publicly traded but privately owned, by private stockholders, fails every time the number of stocks sold by a corporation is greater than the entire population of the country in which it is traded. Lets' give an extreme example. Say ABCDE Corporation sells 320 million shares in the US where the population is that number. And say every citizen gets one share. Please tell me how this is a privately held corporation, if it is owned by every single person in that country. That would be the very definition of publicly owned. And tell me how this hypothetical example is very different from most corporations as they exist in reality. DigbyDalton (talk) 08:43, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
    Some prefatory comments: First, I want to say that I am sorry if my initial post above came across as at all condescending or demanding. That was not my intent at all, but after rereading it before this reply, I see how it might be interpreted that way. I should have been better at explaining my position and more succinctly; perhaps I should have omitted the non-P&G-based points altogether, which might have prevented this much longer and not-very-relevant discussion. Second, I want to note the minor correction I made to it above, which is documented and underlined, namely to change "wholly supported" to "wholly unsupported". Third, I apologize for not responding until now; I have been busy with a variety of on- and off-Wiki matters which have kept me from doing so. Fourth and finally, thank you for self-reverting like I suggested and opting to discuss this with me. I mean that.
    With that said, I do not see how the definitions I provided above—and which this article presently supports—at all "nullifie[s]" the entire premise of socialism and communism. I think the definitions I provided describe every country on Earth, especially when considering my statements about state capitalism. You are reiterating some of the same points I addressed above, which I explained as a conflation of different definitions of "public" and "private", which are from different very contexts in economics. The definitions provided above by me, and by this article, are the same definitions that Smith, Ricardo, and Marx basically supported, and which both heterodox and orthodox economics still support. The latter also supports the definitions you provided, except only in the context of incorporation and stock tradability.
    It's also at best a basic misunderstanding—if not altogether misleading—to compare the number of stock shares a company has to any population figures, both because the two are entirely unrelated to each other (there is nothing in principle preventing a hypothetic company from having hundreds of trillions of stock shares within a hypothetic country whose population is one) and because anyone with the simplest familiarity with financial assets and securities knows that a person can own more than one of them. That's why, for example, "since the late 1980s, about 80 percent of the value of the market has been held by the top 10 percent" (The Washington Post, 2 March 2018) and "[t]he top 10% of American households, as defined by total wealth, now own 84% of all stocks in 2016" (MONEY, 19 December 2017). That alone is a case in point of the irrelevance of population figures, both hypothetically and practically.
    Lastly, even in the specific example you provided, that is still not a publicly owned corporation in the means-of-production sense because the laws governing stock ownership in no way provide democratic empowerment. For example, stockholders are allotted one vote per share, not stockholder, assuming the pertinent laws and bylaws would even permit voting (non-voting shares exist), especially for such trivial stock ownership (minority shareholders may not be enfranchised and it may not matter if they are); voting usually occurs in locations that only those wealthy enough to afford the travel can reasonably reach; and shares can be bought and sold, which can quickly lead to stockholder consolidation while disenfranchising the former stockholder. Beyond that is the fact that it tells us nothing about the power structure of the enterprise more generally, particularly whether it has a board of directors and the extent to which that board is elected and autonomous from the wishes of the stockholders. The difference between that hypothetic company and literally every other company in existence is the simple fact that no national population in existence owns any company in that way (i.e., via 1 share per citizen). As stated above, the overwhelming majority of the stock market is owned a minority of people comprising the wealthiest part of society. When they pay for the first-class flights to vote 50,000 times or however many shares those major shareholders have, the legal limits for the buildings in which they do so are insufficient for the rest of the stockholders who never attend.
    At the very least, it seems you have strong opinions about this subject and that perspective is obviously true enough to you that you considered it important to insert what you did in the lead sentence of this article. However, it may be prudent for you to avoid editing these subjects due to that deeply held conviction of yours, especially given that it seems all at least one other editors thus far—as well as the entirety of this article (and its sources)—disputes or contradicts that position. Of course, you're free to continue editing these subjects at your discretion. This is not a threat nor warning nor anything of the sort; it's just a friendly suggestion. I hope you take it in stride. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 01:12, 13 September 2018 (UTC); edited slightly (as shown above) at 04:08, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
    As a minor addendum: Assuming I'm reading this correctly, my suggestion seems to not matter anyway, since you don't edit these subjects regularly and these appear to be your first edits in directly economics-related articles. Sorry about that, especially if that felt bitey! I still stand by my suggestion, but it doesn't seem to be an area of the encyclopedia that has earned your focus. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 02:12, 13 September 2018 (UTC); edited slightly at 02:16, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
late chiming in here, but I am strongly in favor of Nøkkenbuer's work. DigbyDalton's claims are entirely nonstandard in the economic and political economic literature, and therefore would violate both https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research. DigbyDalton is entitled to his opinion and welcome to publish it anywhere they like, but Wikipedia is supposed to present the accepted, standard, majority-consensus views of a subject where these exist. One can turn to virtually any Economics 101 textbook and find the idea that the means of production in capitalist countries are privately owned, even if ownership is shared with some members of the public (a relationship that is almost entirely voluntary in developed capitalist countries--that is, companies choose whether or not to issue public stock), and can even then be revoked nearly at will by a single private individual or small group buying as many voting shares in a corporation as they see fit. Many corporations remain entirely privately owned (that is, have no public shares of stock available). Others have public shares but certain executives and owners hold "controlling majorities" that give them almost complete power over company operations. This is nothing like public ownership which is only revocable through law or regulation and so on. Even here I'm starting to get into the weeds. This page should present the standard definition of ownership and private property used in standard accounts of capitalism and other economics systems, and it does. Thanks to Nøkkenbuer for indulging an objection & revert war that should not be taking place. Mr H3vnu83987 (talk) 20:35, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

This is mostly a matter of the context-based definition of the terms being used. IMO in the political science realm, something owned by publicly traded corporations certainly falls under and is covered by the term privately owned, again the definition of "privately" being in the political science context. A different context and different set of definitions applies when one is discussing divisions within the structure of corporations, e.g. privately held vs. publicly held/traded. IMO the latter definitions and context are not relevant to the current discussion for this article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:37, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Words can mean different things according to context. What are called "public schools" in England for example are called private schools in the U.S. TFD (talk) 16:45, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
  • The premise of communism is that it is an improvement over capitalism, where the means of production is owned by a small number of wealthy people. Communism seeks to improve this, by giving the means of production to all the people, not just the wealthy few. This fails when we see that the means of production in capitalism is already owned, not by a few rich, but by virtually everybody, via the stock market, where stocks are owned by anybody with a 401k or IRA or even a checking account because banks are all owned by stockholders. The entire premise of socialism/communism is completely wrong, since the means of production are already owned by "the people" DigbyDalton (talk) 22:29, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
    I agree with your philosophical argument against the meme cited by those proposing communism. But IMO, under the political science terminology which is relevant here, widespread private ownership of corporations by the public is still considered to be private ownership.  :-) Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:27, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
    I have largely addressed this comment in my reply above, but to briefly expand: Socialism and communism, like feudalism and slavery and so on, are about "private" and "public" both in the means-of-production senses and in much more philosophically basic senses that are far beyond the narrow confines of contemporary corporate law in capitalism. Trying to use the points made in this discussion to refute the "entire premise" of socialism and communism is not only incapable of success due to the specificity of those points and the multiplexity of those doctrines, but it's also veering firmly into off-topic and forum-like discussion. The discussion above is already dangerously close to, or already becoming, that and in large part because of my original attempt at explaining the non-P&G rationale for my reversion. Debating the merits of a given ideology and advocating for or against one are not what these talk pages are for, so let's not venture anywhere near that. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 01:39, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Article Evalutation

Edit history shows that the article is consistently updated.

The article has lots of detail about different kinds of capitalism and the history of the economic system.

There are many reliable references, which are easily found.

The article has both quality and quantity in its content.

The article attempts to be neutral by also including a section on the criticisms of the system.

I believe the article could be considered at worst a C class article, I would consider it a B class article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dtaylo78 (talk • contribs) 23:49, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

History of capitalism

Shouldn't this section start with where we have start of capitalism which is early renaissance in northern Italy and city states like Florence? Why does it open with Karl Marx opinion which is proven to be incorrect in later part of section?Sourcerery (talk) 14:47, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Capitalism#History begins by discussing the Renaissance and there is little mention of Marx in the section. Marx's comment that the capitalist era began in the 1500s is not inconsistent with the view that the origins of capitalism trace to the early Renaissance. TFD (talk) 15:32, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 It does when I repositioned the sentence as seen in View History. This sentence " Early Islam promulgated capitalist economic policies, which migrated to Europe through trade partners from cities such as Venice" should also be looked at. Venice was trading power in 12th century which is 5 centuries after start of Islam, which is not early Islam in my opinion. I would like to check that source but I don't have it sadly and it should be clarified what those capitalist economic policies are. I have nothing against Karl's comment but I don't think it belongs in history section. Renaissance starts in 14th century and ends in 17 so it is wrong.Sourcerery (talk) 15:55, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I was not able to find influence of Islam on capitalism. Please find it and clarify it in given sentence. No mention in History of capitalism either. Source given for that sentence is thesis, relatively recent-2014, so I don't know if it RS. On Amazon summary it has some dubious claims like one that University of Oxford is inspired and influenced by Madrasa. No mentions of that in anywhere, University of Oxford is good article. Could be biased source.Sourcerery (talk) 22:01, 22 March 2019 (UTC) -Deleting sentence, it's POV with no reliable source supporting it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sourcerery (talk • contribs) 13:34, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Public Benefit Corporations and B-Corps

I was surprised to find, after searching through the archives on this talk page, that nobody has ever brought up a discussion of public benefit corporations. Here's a primer: Public-benefit_corporation. Here's why I'm definitely not the best person to try to incorporate the issue, if it is ever decided by more neutral minds that it should be added: User:Seanhempseed

I am not here to promote my point of view. I am here to ask, doesn't the page on capitalism deserve a mention of different types of corporate structures such as "non-profit", "for-profit" and this new idea of "public benefit" perhaps based on "b-corps" that came out of Maryland in 2010. I put this to smarter minds than my own. Seanhempseed (talk) 07:30, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

There is some reference to different types of corporate organization in the article in the sections on mercantilism and the mixed market economy. TFD (talk) 18:04, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Stakeholder Capitalism used to be listed as a form of capitalism. It now points to Community capitalism. Bodysurfinyon (talk) 02:47, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

This is a good article about laissez-faire capitalism

It is a good article and should remain but some reference to the one flavour of capitalism it describes should be mentioned. What it is describing is exactly what Marx an Engels thought capitalism was. It has always been known that laissez-faire capitalismdoes not funtion and will cause the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer. Please try to include competitive market capitalism. Without anti trust enforcement, everything Engels and Marx talked about will come to pass. Not Good.Scottprovost (talk) 04:29, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Have you seen the Market section and the Concentration and centralisation section? The article already mentions what you are talking about. BernardoSulzbach (talk) 17:59, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Etymology

I want to add this. As i think it is relevant


In Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal American philosopher and Ayn Rand provided a moral and philosophical definition of capitalism referring to it as, "a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned." (1966)[1]

It's relevant to articles about Rand, but not this article due to weight. I note that by her definition there are no capitalist systems, since no where has all property been privately owned except maybe in absolute monarchies or dictatorships. TFD (talk) 23:43, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

But it is relevant just as much as Karl Marx's views are relevant.

In fact Ayn Rand's views are brought up in the Wikipedia article on capitalist Theory. Since her ideas are becoming more and more relevant today and people are speaking about these ideas more, it's at least important to have this is a definition of capitalism. So when an objectivist or someone who has an objectivist, influence uses the term you understand where they're coming from. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnthonyKluska (talk • contribs) 02:51, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

They're not gaining any traction in the academic community that determines the scope of the topic. In fact she's not even talking about the same topic. Academic sources treat capitalism as an economic system existing in most of the world today, maybe even everywhere, while Rand sees it as an ideal that exists nowhere. It comes under WP:FRINGE. TFD (talk) 05:14, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Rand, Ayn (1966). Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal. New American Library. ISBN 978-0-451-14795-0.

Intro Paragraph

the intro paragraph looks like this.

"Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit.Characteristics central to capitalism include private property, capital accumulation, wage labor, voluntary exchange, a price system and competitive markets.[5][6] In a capitalist market economy, decision-making and investments are determined by every owner of wealth, property or production ability in financial and capital markets, whereas prices and the distribution of goods and services are mainly determined by competition in goods and services markets"

There are 2 key problems with this definition:

1 many sources refer to capitalism as both a social or political system and an economic system. dictionary.cambridge.org gives mulitple definions many that include defining capitalism as a social or political system in addition to an economic one. Philosopher Ayn Rand described in exclusively in terms of social or political attributes. [1]

I think the definitions should include both the economic and socio-Political aspects so as to give broader understanding of the term.

The second key problem is that it defines Capitalism in terms of "means of production". Pro capitalist Philosopher do not talk in terms of mean of production. This was coined by Marx a critic of Capitalism. It is far more appropriate to use the term "property and simply link it to private property.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.225.38.30 (talk • contribs) 22:36, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

  • It is perfectly valid to talk about capitalism in terms of "means of production", and Marx being a critic of capitalism does not make it invalid or biased. Also, the means of production are not property, which is too generic, but capital goods. Ayn Rand is not even a valid source for this matter, as she mixed the categories of (her flavor of) liberalism and capitalism into one. So we have liberalism, which includes mainly political and civil rights, and capitalism, which is an economic system. Pinochet's Chile was capitalist, but contrary to liberalism (as most political and civil rights were suspended or violated). Also, it is not true that capitalism conforms a whole political system, even if it exerts an strong influence over the political system. Democracy is a political system, capitalism is not. If you hold a different view, then you are not using the scholar definition of capitalism.212.106.230.145 (talk) 16:26, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Role of Government section; mischaracterization

The first sentence reads, "In a capitalist system, the government does not prohibit private property or prevent individuals from working where they please."

Shouldn't this say "In a capitalist system, the government enforces private property claims and prevents individuals from working where they please."?

The double negative "not prohibit" is misleading. If the government did not vigorously enforce private property claims, private property would not exist. As for the second clause, this clause seems to be basically the opposite of the truth (see Enclosure: "Once enclosed, use of the land became restricted and available only to the owner, and it ceased to be common land for communal use."). Jimmymath (talk) 04:40, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

I think the sentence is clear. Under strict communism, ownership of private property is prohibited. Under capitalism, private property is not prohibited, though it can be taken by the government using eminent domain. Under strict communism, workers must work where they are told to work, on collective farms for example. Under capitalism, workers may accept any job they are offered.
However, I can see room for improvement to avoid a double negative in the first case and offer more clarity in the second case. How about: "In a capitalist economy, the rights of property owners are protected, and workers are free to accept or refuse any job they are offered." Rick Norwood (talk) 12:07, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
I didn't say that the sentence was unclear. I said it was misleading, a mischaracterization, incorrect. There is a lot to say about your caricature of communism, but that's not the matter at hand. This is the article on capitalism. "The rights of property owners are protected" is misleading in the same way as the version in the original sentence in question. The terms "protection" and "rights" here carry the connotation of value judgement and clearly belong to the lexicon of justification for capitalism rather than a description of it. The literal, descriptive version is what I wrote, "the government enforces private property claims". The second part of your proposal, "workers are free to accept or refuse any job they are offered" is closer to a literal description. However, there is one crucial omission: who offers the jobs. I would also quibble that the worker must accept at least 1 job. Jimmymath (talk) 07:08, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Your point about workers must accept at least one job omits the fact that roughly half of all Americans do not have a job (of course, you said workers, and I suppose by definition all workers have a job, but about 14 million workers are self-employed, so they work but do not "accept" a job, they just do a job). I'm going to "be bold". See what you think. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:01, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

It's good to be bold. I don't want to discourage that. However, sole proprietors and small business "owners" are really employed by the owners of the capital used to start their businesses. If they do not accept the terms of the investors and lenders, they can not work. That makes their arrangement an employment contract in function; they are not really "self-employed". The extremely exceptional cases of people who find a direct service niche requiring no startup capital are, by definition, doing their work outside of the capitalist economy. Jimmymath (talk) 04:34, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

I went back and signed the comment I made above. I respectfully disagree with your claim that the people who create startups are "employed" by the investors. There is a difference between an employee and someone who runs a business, whether they have outside investors or not. And I most strongly disagree that people who use their own capital to start a company are "outside of the capitalist economy". Rather, I think such people are the heart and soul of a capitalist economy. The world we live in today, where only a tiny percentage of the people have enough money to fund a new business, is more a plutocracy than a capitalist economy. I grew up in a world where there were millions of small mom-and-pop business. I think that world was a better example of "capitalism" than the world today. It was a world where a large number of people could save up enough capital to start a small business. Capitalism cannot exist in a world of monopoly. That's why we have anti-trust laws (now seldom enforced). Rick Norwood (talk) 13:01, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

People who own their own capital--enough to start a company that employs them--would be, exactly as you claim, squarely within the capitalist economy. Such people are simply private property owners already, capitalists. But owners of capital are smart enough to know that they must invest in other, more capable, more destitute people in order to make a profit. Even if the owner is capable enough himself, he rarely chooses the hustle over the alternative, leisure. As for your "heart and soul" people, those who create startups, also called "entrepreneurs", these are a completely distinct category. Entrepreneurship by definition requires that the entrepreneur lacks capital and the capital owner provides it instead, as an investor. So defined, entrepreneurs are indeed the heart and soul of the capitalist economy, and they are called "the workers" in much of the literature on capitalism. That term sounds odd to the contemporary audience, who are encouraged by the prevailing ideology to think of "the workers" as the other, the poor, and to think of themselves as the optimistic upwardly-mobile middle class. And I get where you're coming from. The mom-and-pop business economy, where everyone can afford everything, the town's stock is always full, everyone puts in a good-faith amount of old-fashioned hard work to contribute to the general prosperity and deserve its dividends--this is a very influential ideal. But you are incorrect that it is a better example of capitalism than the world today. Your claim to the contrary is a wish. It is a statement of the wish that capitalism were different from what it is. Let us instead call capitalism what it is (the appropriate task for this Wikipedia article), and wish for something better. Jimmymath (talk) 18:53, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

"Free-enterprise system" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Free-enterprise system. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. feminist (talk) 14:04, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

"Free-enterprise" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Free-enterprise. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. feminist (talk) 14:04, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

"Free enterprise system" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Free enterprise system. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. feminist (talk) 14:04, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

"Free enterprise economy" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Free enterprise economy. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. feminist (talk) 14:04, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

"Free enterprise (economics)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Free enterprise (economics). Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. feminist (talk) 14:04, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

"Free Enterprise" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Free Enterprise. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. feminist (talk) 14:05, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

"Capitalism (human)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Capitalism (human). Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. TheAwesomeHwyh 03:16, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Alan Greenspan and the Fed

I would like to add this: Economist Alan Greenspan was Chair of the Federal Reserve, and thus has a conflict of interest in supporting a nationalized currency market over free market banking.

A conflict of interest arises when one works somewhere and then advocates for that work. Alan Greenspan was Chair of Fed when he made a comment about stronger government controls being needed. This runs opposite to free market banking, which existed in the US before the creation of the federal reserve.

My edit has be undone several times by people suggesting that COI has to be demonstrated. It does not. (Asifwhale (talk) 01:28, 4 July 2020 (UTC))

I think we should mention when referring to Greenspan that he was an economist and former Chair of the Fed. We cannot assume that everyone knows who he is. We don't necessarily mention a conflict of interest unless what someone has said is challenged on that basis in reliable sources. But we should provide information about the speaker's background, which helps to establish reliability and weight. TFD (talk) 01:39, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Asifwhale, in addition to the several Wikipedia concerns (including those in the edit summaries)... There are a lot of different definitions of "conflict of interest" in different contexts, but I don't think any of them say that "works somewhere and then advocates for that work" per se is a conflict of interest. North8000 (talk) 02:46, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

talk, I appreciate that Asifwhale's phrasing is not the best. But readers do want to know who the person is that we are quoting. Generation Z for example may never of heard of Greenspan. Saying that he was an economist and former Fed Chair tells them that. TFD (talk) 04:25, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

From Nature publishing group on COI: “In the interests of transparency and to help readers to form their own judgements of potential bias, authors must declare any competing financial and/or non-financial interests in relation to the work described.” “For the purposes of this policy, competing interests are defined as financial and non-financial interests that could directly undermine, or be perceived to undermine, the objectivity, integrity and value of a publication, through a potential influence on the judgements and actions of authors with regard to objective data presentation, analysis and interpretation.” “Personal financial interests: Stocks or shares in companies that may gain or lose financially through publication...” An example: “Dr X's work has been funded by A. He has received compensation as a member of the scientific advisory board of B and owns stock in the company. He also has consulted for C and received compensation.” At the very least we should mention that he was Chair of the Fed. Noting that the Fed is part of centralized banking as opposed to free market banking is also important. It is about regulation versus laissez faire, which is relevant to this article. (Asifwhale (talk) 05:18, 4 July 2020 (UTC))

The problem with this is that Alan Greenspan was a friend of Ayn Rand and was strongly in favor of free-market banking. He has been criticized for not being sufficiently dogmatic in his support of free market banking, not for being opposed to it. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:28, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Asifwhale, I don't agree that you have supported that such is a COI, but I don't want to get in deep there. I didn't understand what you were advocating elsewhere. I'll all for putting any neutrally written factual information in. Characterizing it as a COI, a term with very strong "impropriety" common meaning not. And, in any event, with the common meaning being a serious charge, such as characterization would need extremely strong source per wp:BLP.North8000 (talk) 19:15, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Greenspan was friends with Rand and supported free market banking at one time. However, he worked for the Fed after writing about his support for free market banking. Because he was employed there, I consider it a COI to then advocate for expansion of the Fed. Which is what he is implying – that we need a greater role for the Fed. (Asifwhale (talk) 03:28, 7 July 2020 (UTC))

Stakeholder Capitalism used to be here and should still be here

Is there any way to find the history of the old Stakeholder Capitalism page? It seems very odd that a search of Wikipedia draws a blank. A web search of "Stakeholder Capitalism" turns up 231K hits and it was the darling of Davos 2020. It currently redirects to Stakeholder Theory. Any clues? Bodysurfinyon (talk) 05:47, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Why is "Supply and Demand" here?

The entire section is superfluous and irrelevant to the article. It seems like someone inserted their poor school essay(it is chock full of errors). There is already a "Supply and Demand" page. It shouldn't be here. Walrasiad (talk) 12:37, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Supply and demand is extremely relevant in regard of capitalism. Liberty5000 (talk) 12:03, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring

‎Per WP:STATUSQUO, I have restored the last stable version (01:24, 15 December 2020) from before the latest edit war. Any further attempts to edit war instead of discussing changes on talk page will be reported. See WP:TALKDONTREVERT and WP:BRD. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:08, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Just checking: does anyone object to this edit? It looks fine to me, but I am asking to avoid any edit warrior (C.J. Griffin has not edit warred) arguing "hey, he was allowed to put something back so why can't I?" --Guy Macon (talk) 22:45, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
No objection to this edit; it was added in the right place.---Avatar317(talk) 23:22, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Did the Industrial Revolution have adverse health effects?

Interesting question. Did the Industrial Revolution have adverse health effects? Of course, as always, some things got better and some things got worse, but what was the overall trend? This is an area where people are likely to make claims that are informed by bias, but we do have one good way of telling; did life expectancy increase or decrease during the industrial revolution?

See[3] Source:[4]

Also see: [5][6] --Guy Macon (talk) 16:00, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Life expectancy only started rising after the Industrial Revolution, however child mortality has decreased. The academic consensus is that the bulk of the population suffered severe reductions in their living standards. We also know that the Industrial Revolution did not lower food prices, and there is evidence of malnutrition and general decrease in the quality of people's diet. So, some things improved, some things got worse. BeŻet (talk) 16:28, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
This 2016 expert assessment seems to say that the academic literature points to mixed results in terms of living standards and health.[7] I'm not an expert on the topic. I can't adjudicate the debate. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:33, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Keep in mind that during the industrial revolution, most people continued to live on farms. TFD (talk) 16:51, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Also, income merely refers to the cash that comes into one's hands. While a worker might earn several times more than a cottager, most of that money would go toward food and lodging that a cottager would not need to pay for. So the worker would be worse off than the cottager. TFD (talk) 18:48, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Just a subtle reminder about WP:NOTAFORUM, so let's focus the discussion on improving specific areas of the article. Appreciate Guy Macon (talk · contribs) aggregating sources though. BeŻet (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

You use that particular club to beat innocent editors far too often. Knock it off. The above conversation is perfectly fine and may result in improvements to the article. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:03, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
I think you confused me with someone else. I can't remember the last time I referenced NOTAFORUM. Moreover, I expressed gratitude towards you, so maybe take a breather? BeŻet (talk) 17:32, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Can we please not conflate the Industrial RevolutionS with Capitalism? Maybe editors should familiarize themselves with the fact that after the 1917 revolution in Russia, it went through multiple 5 year plans of rapid Industrialization under COMMUNISM, as did China under Mao in the 1950's. This article is not about the effects of Industrialization. ---Avatar317(talk) 22:05, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

  1. ^ Rand, Ayn. Ayn Rand Lexicon http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/capitalism.html. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Capitalism/Archive_30&oldid=1237238782"