Talk:Capitalism/Archive 4

message: The key to the intro, I think, is to begin to mention those charachteristics of capitalism that all the political-economic currents agree on, those do exist. Then, proceed to touch on their particularities (so far as to lead us towards the more substantive discussion of their differences/similarities in the body). One problem that I see with RJII's approach is that s/he is placing rather severe restrictions on space; but as I mentioned to him/her elsewhere, we do need to be somewhat expansive in the intro. Because otherwise we can only devote enough space for the Wall Street Journal version, or the Monthly Review version, etc. (or, the parts from each that are acceptable by each, but that in itself would be grossly insufficient). I am hopeful that I can persuade RJII & others here to rethink the desirability of that approach for such a topic. But I agree with him that we cannot let the intro go on for paragraphs and paragraphs, that clearly would be excessive. We still have to attempt to be representative of (within and between) the political-economic continuum: the Left (revolutionary socialists), the Moderate Left (evolutionary socialists), the Moderate Right (Reform Liberals), and the Right ('Classical' and/or Neoliberals). The intro needs to end up leading-into the particularities, definitionally, with the fundamental universalities serving as a basis. El_C 08:03, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Key to the intro

message: I am tired of RJII telling me to "step out of the way" because I do not agree with him.  No editor should "step out of the way," not even RJII.  But the current introduction is the product of a consensus that took a long time to develop.  This fact does not mean that the introduction must not be changed -- of course it is open to improvement.  But if RJII thinks he can just change it to please his own idiosyncratic views, it is no surprise that several people raise objections.  My main objection all along has been that the points RJII wants to add should be added -- but in the body, not the introduction.  I am not trying to keep RJII's views out of the article.  I only want to make sure that they are put in in a way that complies with our policies.  No original research, and cite sources, are two important ones that RJII seems not to care about.  NPOV is the major policy he disregards (of course he claims that his view is the "common" one.  Almost everyone thinks their view is right.  But this is precisely what the NPOV policy is meant to protect us agains.  No one view can dominate a Wikipedia article.  Period.)  Finally, I think that given his obsession with a "definition" he should read Wikipedia: Wikipedia is not a dictionary as well. Slrubenstein   |  Talk  18:10, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You're the one that should read Wikipedia: Wikipedia is not a dictionary. It says in the first sentence of that article: "Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and an entry that consists of just a definition does not belong: But, an article can and should always begin with a good definition or a clear description of the topic." All I'm attempting to do is make this article conform to it says how an article should begin. You're the one trying to prevent it and insist on an intro that both lacks a defition and a semblance of clarity as to what capitalism, the system, is. I'm sorry if what's there took a "long time to develop" but maybe it took someone such as me who wasn't involved in the process to take an objective look at the intro and point out that it sucks. RJII 18:46, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: Ok, I've had it up to here with you. You're stooping so low as to say my efforts are "disingenuous." Like I said, either join the process of defining capitalism for the into or step aside. I'm done bickering with you. RJII 20:14, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: Did you not understand? I'm done dealing with you. RJII 21:10, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: RJII's Criticism

message: I reverted a recent change to the intro, because I have this question: which practices, necessary and sufficient for a "capitalist systm" to exist, were not institutionalized between the 16th and 19th centuries?  I can't think of any, which is why I reverted the "many of which."  "Many of which" would be true only if there was at least one practice essential to "capitalism" that was not institutionalized during this period. Slrubenstein   |  Talk  00:01, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, this particular paragraph is talking about practices, not "enduring realities of human nature" which I think is covered in the third bullet point.  It is a POV, and one many reject, but it should still be prepresented in the article.  To get back to institutionalized practices, you are pointing our features of mercantilism.  Now, some of these features are still of importance today.  Some of these features existed before capitalism.  But I would argue that they were not institutionalized in a way required by a capitalist system at that time.  But I do not want to quibble.  If your point is that trade and credit have existed for a long time, you are right.  I think the correct way to deal with this is to point out that capitalism is, taxonomically, one kind of market system (and thus shares features with other market systems), and historically, developed out of a market systm (and thus has some continuities with that earlier market system).  You may consider this formulation to be a POV you do not agree with.  In that case, I would again suggest that the presentation of these points of view are better left for the body of the article.  I hope that the current intro, which just says -- deliberately vaguely -- "many of which," is something people with opposing points of view (mine, yours, others) can agree with (thus maintaining NPOV). Slrubenstein   |  Talk  22:57, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  many of which 

message: How do you know if capitalism has been "institutionalized" unless you can define it? There has to be a definition with which to compare the state of affairs. The assertion that capitalism has been "institutionalized" reeks of POV. It doesn't belong in the intro as an unqualified given. I quote from Wikipedia: Wikipedia is not a dictionary, "an article can and should always begin with a good definition or a clear description of the topic." This is neither.  RJII 02:38, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As your own quote shows above, there is no requirement that the introduction should have a definition. So stop endlessly repeating that claim. What is POV about "institutionalized"? Even the ideal anarcho-capitalist society would have institutions. Everything more complex than primitivism will have institutions. And some would argue that even hunter-gatherers have institutions. Ultramarine 16:29, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Read what I said. My personal judgement that it should have a definition. The article I quoted above said it should have a "definition" or a "clear descrption." I commented that the intro as it stands is neither. Since it contained no definition, and my belief is that the intro is vague, my opinion is that it should be fixed. The way it should be fixed, in my opinion, is that it should define capitalism. Please read more carefully. Now, on to your point. It looks like you don't understand that either or didn't really read it. Let's see if I can break it down for you as well. I didn't say that the term "institutionalized" is POV. I said that stating that capitalism has been institutionalized reeks of POV if it is stated as an unqualified given. Other points of view assert the opposite --that it hasn't been institutionalized. Ayn Rand, for example has this POV in the book cited in this article called "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal". Just as it's POV to say that capitalism hasn't been institutionalized, it's POV to say it HAS  ..especially if there no definition of capitalism supplied. If there is no definition of capitalism then how is one to know if it has been institutionalized or not?  ...I'm not sure how to make my point any clearer. No offense, but I think you should just read more carefully. RJII 16:55, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You will have a hard time finding an authorative source who claims that capitalism has not been institutionalized already, at least to some degree. Many will of  course say that there has never been an ideal capitalist society, but not that no historial or current societes have some degree of capitalism. There is no consensus on the definition of capitalism, but there is a consensus that some degree of capitalism exists or has existed in society. Ultramarine 17:22, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Exactly. "There is a consensus that some DEGREE of capitalism exists or has existed." The intro as it stands now says the capitalism has been institutionalized. That's definitely not the same thing as saying that it has been institutionalized to a degree, or that some or many aspects have been institionalized. Now you see my objection. RJII 17:57, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: This is what the bullet said before I changed it: "* a system consisting of a set of economic practices that became institutionalized..." The article said that capitalism had been institutionalized. Don't try to make it look like I objected for no reason. As I said, I don't like to converse with you because I find you really unreasonable. Talk about "disingenuous." RJII 18:14, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: No, it did not say "certain practices" were institutionalized; it said that capitalism is a set of practices and that that set of practices had been institutionalized.  I edited it to indicate that that set of practices had not necessarily been institutionalized by saying "many of which had been institutionalized" ..that at least a SUBSET of that set of practices had been institutionalized. Again, this disingenuousness is why I don't like to deal with you. Our little exchange is over. RJII 18:39, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  First bullet point in intro should be deleted 

message: "Rv original research. Authorative sources do not agree as shown in the discussion. Your opinion is uninteresting. Cite your sources"
:What is your point? You want sources that say that various definitions of capitalism exist and that say what those definitions say?  That's ludicrous. The definitions themselves say what they say ..I'm just relaying them. What is it you want? RJII 16:16, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: How about a listing of the all definitions? From Rand, Wallenstein, de Soto, Marx, Keynesian and so on. Ultramarine 16:19, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  How many constitute "all"?  It's not the definitions that vary but simply the wording in almost all cases. There are two definitions of capitalism. This is obvious and common knowledge. If you weren't aware of it that's not my fault. There are many differently worded definitions of what an apple is but does that mean they are all different definitions? I mean REALLY...of course not. And should we refrain from describing what an apple is in Wikipedia because various sources have various "definitions"? Of course not. We know what the "definitions" of capitalism say. It doesn't constitute "original research" simply to relay the two typical definitions of capitalism. If you don't believe it, then search for definitions that do not fit into the archetypes I provided. I think you'll be hard pressed to find any from established sources and so called authorities that don't. And if you manage to find only one that doesn't count, because my edit said "typically." RJII 23:00, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  All of this is your personal interpretation of what is common for the different definitions. And that interpretation is original research. Why should your interpretation be in the introduction and not another one, for example one that says that property rights is the fundamental underlying principle in all the definitions? Ultramarine 23:21, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well it's my "personal interpretation" inasmuch as it's my interpretation of what the definitions of "apple" say that an apple is without having to list every definition of different wording I can find. I really think you need to lighten up when it comes to something so obvious when it comes to throwing around claims of "original research." Everybody knows that there are two definitions of capitalism --One that says it is the private ownership of capital, and all the others that go on to say how good and services are distributed and economic decisions made (privately rather by government). Duh! RJII 23:50, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  One of the most influential philosophers during the last century, Ayn Rand, define capitalism using property rights. The very influential economist DeSoto has similar thoughts. Why should your interpretation be more important than theirs? Have you published some widely cited material on this subject? Ultramarine 23:58, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Rand says "Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned." This is totally consistent with the broad definition I supplied. If you've read any of Rand's books, you would know that what she means by "recognition of individual rights, including property rights" is that it is a system that embraces a free market, meaning one where everyone is free to do what they wish with all that is theirs without being subject to coercion. A free market is one where all interaction is voluntary. So, if you want it say it in different words, what she is saying is essentially "Capitalism is a system where property is privately owned and all interactions between individuals take place in the context of a free market." It's the same thing as the other definitions...just different wording in order to accentuate certain ideas. If you can't see that, I don't know what to tell you. In response to your question about what I have published, I don't release personal information here, and I certainly wouldn't publish information on something as elementary as this. RJII 02:14, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: sources for assertion that there are various definitions of capitalism and noting what they say