Talk:Capitalism/Archive 23

message: There should be some information about Pope Benedict's recent criticism of capitalism in this article.  --PaladinWriter 17:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pope Benedict's recent criticism of Capitalism 

message: Request for comment WP:Rfc in a disagreement about the weight given to the inclusion of information about the ideas of P.R. Sarkar in the section on Critics of Capitalism in the article on Capitalism.01:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ABOUT THE FALSE RUMOURS BEING SPREAD BY ULTRAMARINE: The history of Sarkar and his Ananda Marga movement is controversial due to a campaign of vilification by corrupt authorities. Sarkar, who was a vocal critic of Communism and Capitalism, ran afoul of both the Marxist led government of Bengal and the oppressive government of Indira Gandhi. Both governments persecuted Sarkar and his followers. The 1982 massacre of 18 AM nuns and monks in Kalkota by a Marxist mob has become stuff of legend. The AM monks and nuns had for some years taken orphans of the streets and put them in schools run by the Ananda Marga Universal Relief Team (AMURT). For this they were accused of being "child stealers" by a mob incited by the leaders of the Marxist government of Bengal, which had become alarmed by the grass roots appeal of AM. The hypocrisy of the very same leaders is amazing, but they had up to that time easily tolerated orphaned children running naked, unprotected and hungry in the streets. These attacks have continued also in the adjacent Bihar region, with peaceful monks being hacked to death by sword wielding illiterate village mobs excited by marxist political organisers. Despite requests, the local government has seen fit to never give protection to the monks and nuns of AM, where they are most active, in the poorest and most destitute regions of India, battling poverty and ignorance at every step. Fortuantely, their good works are slowly changing the situation around, and the  official persecution and manipulations have been ruled illegal and stopped. In the 1970s, the federal government of Indira Gandhi made things worse for Sarkar by acting on trumped up murder charges on him and he was unjustly imprisoned for six years. Only during the Emergency (India) in 1978, did Sarkar get a fair trial and was released. In the meantime the Central Bureau of India had sent out information to other intelligence agencies in the West falsely accusing Sarkar and his followers of terrorism. Once such information gets circulated it is hard to eradicate. It is still being spread about this peaceful but vocal humanitarian group. This is the rough and tumble world of politics where visionaries try to make things better but collide with the interests of a selfish few who do anything to retain their grip on power and privilige. By the way, the social system of India is described as State capitalism. The distribution of wealth is the most unequal there in the world. Importantly, the information in the article concerns only the ideas of Sarkar with regard to the inherent nature and dynamic of Capitalism. Specifically, it adds insight into the transformation of industrial into financial capitalism and what system dynamics this may entail, the consequence of which is still unknown. Finally, the information about the religious rites of the hindu religion should be understood for what they are; to teach spiritual aspirtants to overcome fear. It is no more "weird" than the symbolic practice of Christians to "eat" the flesh of Jesus and "drink" his blood. I am not an adherent of AM or Sarkar, but know that this information notable and warrants inclusion, notwithstanding people that trade in unjust and unsubstantiated rumours of vilification about Sarkar and his adherents as a means to suppress it due to their inherent POV in the matter. Ofthe1780s 19:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Everything I have stated is sourced, your claims are not.Ultramarine 19:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Not everything that gets printed in the press is the truth. A lie that is sourced like that, is still a lie. The information I have shared has been documented but not everything exists on the net. I have followed this case for some time. Ofthe1780s 19:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In Wikipedia personal opinions and claims are not interesting. You need verifiable sources.Ultramarine 19:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

text: This is offered as background information, to rebut the false information spread by you. Again I would like to remind you to keep the focus on the information in the main article and not try to sidetrack that with unrelated information. Do you next want to talk about the intrigue surrounding the Pope and how that affects theories of catholics concerning Capitalism. For instance, was Pope John Paul I murdered? Who murdered the "Banker to God" and why? Who murdered the head of the Pope's bodyguards? etc. Ofthe1780s 20:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, in Wikipedia you need to use verifiable sources. Otherwise anyone can write anything. Sarkar claim to be a better alternative, so it is obviously intersting what his movement teaches and do in practice. Do you deny that these rituals described above are part of the movement?Ultramarine 20:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

text: What about the Pope? Why don't you go scoure the newspapers for sources on those stories? Ofthe1780s 20:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Extent of information on Sarkar

message: My account was blocked for 12 hours on the request of Ultramarine. The way he went about it needs to be flagged for other editors here, to warn them about his underhanded tactics and POV efforts.
* There were no wholesale reverts performed on my part, just minor modifications of text in the article. The number of minor or partial reverts was below the stated 3 per 24 hour period. One should not count editing of existing text as a revert if it does not change the text of others.
* Importantly, before the decision to block I had initiated conflict resolution process, first with WP:THIRD and then WP:Rfc as Good faith effort to resolve dispute by involving other editors.
* The WP:3RR was initiated by Ultramarine during a bi-lateral content dispute, i.e. involving only the two of us. An independent editor commented that he would not have blocked the account on the grounds of the revert warring that was seen. It was not pronounced enough to warrant such an extreme measure.
*  It is clear that Ultramarine has used this WP:3RR tool for political control; to apply pressure on myself as an editor in a content dispute.
* While my account was blocked, Ultramarine reverted the disputed edits and announced my blocked status on the talk page here as some sort of rationale for subsequent revert-edit activity by him of my insertions.
* While my account was blocked he then interfered with the WP:Rfc section which should not be altered, with an extreme characterisation, both inflammatory and wrong, of the information about Sarkar.
* The unmistakable conclusion emerges that Ultramarine is acting in violation of basic Wikipedia Good faith conduct. Ofthe1780s 18:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Two different administrators reviewed your editing and concluded that you had broken 3RR.Ultramarine 19:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the editor making the block has now changed his mind []. Ofthe1780s 22:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your description is misleading. I reported the 3RR violation when Ofthe1780s refused to allow me to add critical material or even insert a disputed template. Much later Ofthe1780s asked for outside opinions (all of which have been critical). Even later he was blocked, it took a very long time between report and block.Ultramarine 23:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

text:  Certainly, the editor making the block did so well after the  conflict resolution process had been initiated and discussed. My account was blocked when that process was well into the second stage WP:Rfc. This does not excuse your questionable tactics in a bi-lateral debate. You resorted to rules of technicality to finagle your POV agenda. Then you pretend to be judge of the appropriateness of a dispute where you are a hostile party. With behaviour like that, is it any wonder the world is filled with cynics? Ofthe1780s 23:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have no control over the exact time you were blocked, I made my report much earlier. I reported you when you refused to allow me to add critical material, while you yourself continued to add material, and even deleted a disputed template I added.Ultramarine 23:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

text:  You have twice asked for outside views regarding your material, and both have been negative. Ultramarine 23:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

text: As I explained to you, I removed the template as it was clear the claim you were questioning was valid. Your efforts were clearly motivated to make these ideas questionable, because you disagree with them. You were trying to force reality into the mold of your mind. That is not the criteria for information in Wikipedia. Don´t pretend to be "the victim" here, you are not. Your Talk page is full of statements by other editors to the fact that you are ...well read for yourself: [].  Ofthe1780s 23:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 1780s, continuing to attack Ultramarine does nothing to help your case.--Chaser - T 00:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

text: This matter has been discussed so that lessons can be drawn from it. It is over as far as I am concerned. Ofthe1780s 07:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This pointless bickering brings us no closer to a resolution of this issue. Ofthe1780s, do you have any other sources for your assertion that Sarkar is deserving of inclusion in a separate section of this article? And by the way, as a show of good faith, how about we close this section. I think the title at least is rather poisonous to a civil dialog.--Chaser - T 23:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.Ofthe1780s 23:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

text:  You have twice asked for outside views regarding your material, and both have been negative. Ultramarine 23:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The WP:Rfc requires more input. Moreover, I have not had time to check the references, but only have your claim these ideas are not referenced in the literature. I will do the research and present my findings here. Ofthe1780s 23:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Underhanded behaviour of [[User:Ultramarine|Ultramarine]]

message: I have protected the article until disputes over Capitalism#Sarkar.27s_criticism_and_solution can be resolved. This primarily appears to be a dispute between Ultramarine and Ofthe1780s, if anyone is counting heads. Given the amount of talk page text this dispute has already produced, I'm not overly hopeful, but at least we won't fill the history with any more conflict this way.--Chaser - T 19:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Protected

message: :To my mind this debate sounds like teh spat some while ago about Catholicism, if Sarkar is a religious critic of capitalism, he seems to join a long queue, maybe we could link to him under the para on religious critics as an example of a Hindu critic?  That would be proportionate and due weight (after all, he could then stand as an example of Hindu critique, and actually add balance).--Red Deathy 06:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good. There is a significant difference, however. It lies in the fact that Sarkar has outright modern theories of the ills of Capitalism (including the forms of exploitation), notably the Social cycle theory (Sarkar). He also offers a solution Progressive Utilisation Theory. As such he rivals Karl Marx, but differs in that Marx offered an economic analysis. By comparison, Sarkar offered an economic system, Prout. Sarkar's main adherent in the West is Dr. Ravi Batra, a Professor of Economics at Southern Methodist University, who has devoted his lifes work to expounding on these ideas in innumerable economic journals and over twentty books, two of which became bestsellers. His chief contribution may have been to be one of the first to note and analyse the implications of the historic shift from industrial to financial capitalism. The Catholic religion, or more correctly the Bible, is (understandably) much less specific on the nature of the problem of modern capitalism or what should be done to address it. What they do have in common, however, is that Sarkar and Batra are promoting a spiritiual way of life. The church essentially does the same, but as it has effectively been co-opted into the materialistic way of modern life, due to its membership being largely placed in western countries. The teachings of the church therefore now sound out moral guidelines to check the excesses. Sarkar promoted a change in lifestyle and approach to life, via a conscious focus on God. Sarkars adherents follow a yogic lifestyle, etc. Other adherents is the world famous peace sociologist Johan Galtung, who is a big fan of his ideas but not really a follower and Sohail Inayatullah, a leader in the area of futures studies and has written several books and many articles on Sarkar. There are many others, but less notable, I guess. Ofthe1780s 07:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid I don't see anything but warmed up social democracy, really, if we grant Sarkar a place we also have to grant social credit a place (which has a much betterdocumented history and evidence of a clear movement behind it), or Parecon, and sundry money cranks aside.  Smith, Marx, Keyne and Freidman can all be said to have influenced the world economy in very direct and measurable ways.  Anyway, I suggest otehr editors consider my suggestion.--Red Deathy 08:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

text:  Why rely on a quick summary highlighting similiarities or differences. Why not go the source. You could begin by checking out the links to his theory and solution. Ofthe1780s 08:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the third editor, not counting me, who has argued that the material should at best be drastically reduced.Ultramarine 09:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

text:  I agree with Red Deathy.  The current section gives Sarkar undue weight.  As the article stands now, he receives significantly more article space than Karl Marx, Frantz Fanon, Vladimir Lenin, Mao Zedong, Leon Trotsky Benjamin Tucker, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Mikhail Bakunin, Peter Kropotkin, Murray Bookchin, Rudolf Rocker, and Noam Chomsky combined.  I don't think anyone can legitimately argue his criticisms are more relevant or significant than the combined work of those listed above.  At most Sarkar should be appear by name among the list of religious critics. C thirty-three 14:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ofthe1780s, if I request unprotection, will you agree to a drastically pared down reference to Sarkar?--Chaser - T 15:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. I'll make a first pass at scaling it back to a few lines. Unless someone objects to that, we can also drop the reference to Sarkar in the introduction, remove the photo and include the information about him in the general critics section. Ofthe1780s 19:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is your proposed text? Ultramarine 19:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Postive Suggestion

message: The Indian philosopher P.R. Sarkar suggested Capitalism was a social formation run by an acquisitive elite that resulted in a progressive maldistribution of wealth, harming the disadvantaged sections of society. His proposed solution is Prout whereby the focus of social organisation is shifted from unstable investment to sustainable consumption. An adherent of Sarkar, bestselling author Dr. Ravi Batra is an early proponent of the the historic development shift of industrial to financial capitalism, emphasizing financial instability and social transformation. Ofthe1780s 20:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's still too long (no one else gets an entire paragraph). I suggest this: The Indian philosopher P.R. Sarkar also suggested that capitalism causes a progressive maldistribution of wealth, harming the disadvantaged sections of society. His proposed solution is Progressive Utilisation Theory (PROUT) whereby the focus of social organisation is shifted from unstable investment to sustainable consumption.--Chaser - T 20:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Agree with Chaser, however, I think the religious aspect should be mentioned. How about "The Indian philosopher P.R. Sarkar and founder of the Hindu Ananda Marga movement is another critic. His proposed solution is the Progressive Utilisation Theory" Batra is not notable, also mentioning him could be interpreted subtle advertising for his never-ending series of books with failed predicitons.Ultramarine 22:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, I don´t agree with your summary. In his 2005 book, "Greenspan's Fraud: How Two Decades of His Policies Have Undermined the Global Economy", Batra argues that fiat based monetary easing in past decades has kept the global financial bubble inflated. He is still of the firm conviction that Financial Capitalism is inherently flawed and that it will one day burst. His 2007 book, "The New Golden Age: The Coming Revolution against Political Corruption and Economic Chaos" is further testament to his conviction. You may consult on 90 of his books published in English, French, Japanese, etc. here []. He is notable for his insights and achievements notwithstanding the significant failures, perhaps dues also to his intellectual perserverance. Ofthe1780s 22:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Ultramarine's text sounds good, and hits all the salient points *for this article* interested readers can follow the links to find out about Sarkar & PROUT.  tehre are many original and hardworking economists living today, we can't mention them all, we have to look to whose work has had a *worldwide* audience and practical impact - I mean, we don't even give Smith and Ricardo their own sections much though they may warrant them.  Could Batra claim to have influence explicitly any government?--Red Deathy 07:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

text: You guys seem to have objections to what Batra has to say. That indicates a POV reason for your editorial suggestions concerning him. Batra has testified before a committee of the US Congress. He has been a frequent guest on all major US networks (NBC, CBS, CNN, MNBC, etc). He has been featured in most major news papers and magazines. He has been awarded the "Medal of the Italian Senate" for his accurate 1978 prediction of the downfall of Communism. There is a PROUT research insititute in Venesuela, where Hugo Chavez rules. Whether you agree or disagree with him, he is the epitomy of the "hardworking and original economist". Ofthe1780s 08:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article has no place for almost all of the Nobel prize winners in economics, so there is no reason to provide free advertisement to an author who has become rich by regularly making failed doomsday predictions.Ultramarine 08:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Just to be clear, this is an article about Capitalism and not economics. Unless said Nobel laureats offered original theories about the dynamics and validity of Capitalism they don´t deserve a place in this article. However, they would certainly deserve their own page and mention in an article on economics or their economic theory. Sarkar has made original theories in this regard and offered a solution to the ills of capitalism he perceived. Batra has innovated on those ideas. As such, they differ a lot from run of the mill economists who just rely of earlier theories on capitalism. Ofthe1780s 18:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ofthe1780s Per WP:ASSUME we haven't accused you of POV pushing, and by the same token I think you should accept out bona fides as very differently perspectived editors testing the material you want included.  In all good faith, I can't see a reason to give Sarkar more than a passing reference, nor Batra any reference that couldn't go to the lieks of Barrett Brown or the head of the Economics department at my university.  you've put your evidence and it isn't entirely convincing, I'm afraid.--Red Deathy 09:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: With all due respect, who has ever heard of Barrett Brown? Again, this is not an article about economics or economists, so run of the mill economists are not of interest here unless they have made an original contribution regarding capitalist dynamics. Please be clear on this point. Batra's failed predictions were considered an important test of the stability properties of the system. If the stability properties were as weak as he suggested, the continuation of this social formation would be in doubt. If anything, the system has shown itself to be very resilient. At the same time, financial leverage has multiplied almost of an exponential order. Many economists are becoming concerned about this. Batra is still convinced a big day of reckoning is ahead for the system. Will he be ultimately be rpoven right after having been so spectacularly wrong so far? Only time will tell. Still the issue he has developed, well before Hyman Minsky´s interesting book "Can It Happen Again?" is of penultimate importance for the future of Capitalism. If you still think the head of your economics department is as important for understanding modern capitalist dynamics as Batra is, then please share with us his name. I´m sure I'm not the only one to be quite interested to learn more about his or her ideas. Ofthe1780s 18:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: His point was that such economists shouldn't be included, but in any case there are significant overlaps between economics and capitalism. As to Batra, I think the appropriate time to include him in this article would be when his predictions prove correct, which hasn't happened yet.--Chaser - T 18:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Revised information about Sarkar

message: *Disagree that Sarkar should be given much prominence. The critique by the Pope - successive Popes actually - mentioned above is much more important to include. Sarkar is known to far fewer people than Marx or the Pope. Maybe that is unjust, but it is a fact and WP is not the place to correct injustices. Itsmejudith 15:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the fouth editor, not counting me, who has argued that the material should at best be drastically reduced. Ofthe1780s has asked for a third opinoin and a RfC. No other editors support him. Ofthe1780s will probably continue to argue for his belief forever. However, the page cannot stay protected forever. I suggest we consider the case closed and unprotect the page.Ultramarine 18:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Just to make sure I don't create any misimpressions, the purpose of the headcount was to get a gauge of opinion after people had already discussed things. We're still not voting on whether to include the reference.--Chaser - T 19:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response to RfC 

message: All the voting is evil stuff notwithstanding, I've just done a headcount. Ofthe1780s clearly favors a separate section for Sarkar. Those opposed include 
#Esurnir - "the subsection should obviously be removed as non relevant per WP:Undue weight, the information inside could be merged with the criticism section, or simply removed from this article"
#C33 - "At most Sarkar should be appear by name among the list of religious critics." (emphasis in original)
#Red Deathy - "Ultramarine's text sounds good, and hits all the salient points *for this article*" (emphasis in original)
#Itsmejudith - "Disagree that Sarkar should be given much prominence."
#Ultramarine, who proposes "The Indian philosopher P.R. Sarkar and founder of the Hindu Ananda Marga movement is another critic. His proposed solution is the Progressive Utilisation Theory".
#And myself, Chaser. By this diff, I indicate my agreement with Ultramarine's proposal.
I think we've argued this issue to death, and I don't see many people changing their minds to believe that there should be a section in this article for Sarkar (or mention of Batra, for that matter). I'm ready to ask for unprotection if 1780s will agree to end the discussion here and abide by the consensus that we have obtained on this discussion page.--Chaser - T 18:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to make sure I don't create any misimpressions, the purpose of the headcount was to get a gauge of opinion after people had already discussed things. We're still not voting on whether to include the reference.--Chaser - T 19:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Headcount

message: The reference formatting is messed up. I can't find out what is the root of it -- someone please fix. John Riemann Soong 15:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Foot-notes are now displayed again. --Schwalker 08:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  reference problem 

message: Can an administrator swap the actual revision to the one I made on a temp page.
The change is minor and it is made to replace the actual reference that a vandal completly messed up (without being seen for quite some time :-s) - Esurnir 20:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 20:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change to remove a sneeky vandalism 

message: I came here today to read about capitalism and I had to read 3 paragraphs of qualifications, like I was entering into a contract. The introduction is way to long. The intro should be 2 paragraphs at most. I will write a suggestion down here if no one changes it.Define the idea. List the perspectives. If absolutely necessary, have a paragraph for background so it is meaningful. I will offer a substitute here if no one corrects this.146.115.121.18 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment was added at 12:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction is too long 

message: "Means of production are mostly privately owned and operated for profit." This strikes me as confusing. Are means of production supposed to be operated for profit in order for a system to be considered capitalist, or is it just the general perception that people have of current existing systems that are considered capitalists? A.Z. 19:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, privately owned means of production that aren't used would not be capitalism, and a system run at a loss would not last long, so, yes, profit is an intrinsic and essential feature of capitalism.--Red Deathy 06:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Profit 

message: Could this be added: The End of Money  http://www.financialsense.com/fsu/editorials/martenson/2007/0108.html because we could easily eliminate money, & it already is almost eliminated with ATM & credit cards? Socialism20091011 (talk) 17:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The End of Money 

message: I've added Some to the first sentence in the section, until we can properly address the issues here. for starters, while some libertarian socialists may consider regulation a short-term fix for specific problems with capitalism, few if any consider regulation a preferred alternative; indeed, mutualists don't consider free markets the problem at all... Jacob Haller 00:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overgeneralizing about critics of capitalism 

message: Why is there such excessive archiving of this talk page?  I took a look at a few of them and it seems the talk page has gotten archived after every 5-10 or so discussions (specifically looking at 18, 19 and 20, but they all seem to be that short).  While I see the necessity of archiving, I hardly see why it's beneficial to archive after discussion of only two or three or even just 10 topics.  Most archives I've seen have been after 25 at the least and usually up to 75 topics.  Eventually there will be 100 archived pages here, and it doesn't help facilitate continued discussion of prior topics to archive everything so quickly.--Gloriamarie 23:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the problem is not the number of topics but the verbiage, this turns into a long talk page quite quickly, and so needs occaisionaly trimming...--Red Deathy 07:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Such "trimming" results in the obscuration previous discussion. They would be much more accessible if archived by topic instead of meaningless numbers.--Sum (talk) 02:57, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk page archives 

message: I will remove mention of Marx and Weber from introduction of the article since they are only theorist mentioned by name there, and that gives them undue weight in relation to other, equally or more important, theorists of capitalism. -- Vision Thing -- 18:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hallo Vision Thing, your removal of Marx's and Weber's names from the introduction does not improve the informative value. In fact, now the T.Parsons (1928/1929) sources are lost. If there are equally or more important theorists of capitalism, please mention there contributions, instead of deleting other content, thanks.--Schwalker 20:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For doing that we would need to mention almost all the theorist from the "Perspectives on the characteristics of capitalism" section and that would produce too much clatter in the intro. Parsons source was used for Weber, so it's not needed anymore. -- Vision Thing -- 12:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marx and Weber in the introduction 

message: A good general definition describes how people use, and have used, the word. A good technical definition describes how the author intends to use the word in the work, and clarifies the differences between this special-purpose definition and any general definitions. A definition is contested if people use the same word, in the same contexts, with very different meanings. The word "capitalism," used to describe an economic system (or mode of production), has at least two different, and often conflicting, meanings. At the very least, the article should distinguish between different senses of capitalism to avoid confusion. Jacob Haller 21:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All this confusion of a definition is caused by capitalism itself, which is slavery for wages & forces orphans to work or starve.  Plus we should have built only Towers (multi-use) connected to maglev Trains worldwide, so food, medicine, etc is free & no one starves.  Sundiii (talk) 23:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In "When Corporations Rule the World" Korten says (on pg. 241) that pure capitalism would be if one man owns all things & automates all the work, leaving all people (slaves) to starve, & I have to agree.  Sundiii (talk) 23:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What I mean by "contested definition"

message: Ultramarine's ditty on poverty is falsely sourced - i.e The sources do not attribute rising living standards in the third world to capitalism. They don't even mention it and Reason magazine is a partisan resource. More than weasel referencing --maxrspct ping me  14:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rising living standards in the 3rd world are largely a result of moving from socialism to capitalism, especially in India and China.  However, the section removed by User:max rspct doesn't really belong, as it is improperly sourced. Finding decent sources to show that the transition to capitalism has enormously improved living standards in those parts of the third world which have started on the transition should be easy. Argyriou (talk) 22:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Post hoc ergo propter hoc? Jacob Haller 23:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless the statisticians who compiled the statistics, or someone else in a verifiable sources, argued that the statistics indicate a causal relation, we cannot make such a claim or else we violate NOR. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 14:40, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand the WP:SYN policy.  The Reason piece makes the connection between capitalism and the improving QOL of the world identified by Kenny. THF 16:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. I have also added another source.Ultramarine 20:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ultra, can you readd your source in the footnotes?  The text you added was redundant with the text that was already there, and you didn't provide enough information for the reference for the footnote. Thx. THF 21:59, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not playing Argument Clinic.  You've already said that, and everyone disagrees with you, and just repeating it without adding new information is not helpful. THF 21:59, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not everyone. "Reason" is a notoriously partisan source. Jacob Haller 06:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is okay to use partisan sources as long as they are clearly identified as such. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 12:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Please do not delete sourced material. If you have sources for the above, it would be very good in the globalization article. Here space is limited.Ultramarine 20:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are in fact numerous problems, both conceptual and empirical, with this section. For the moment I will not explore all of the deficiencies. I will simply turn to the last paragraph which begins with the  empirical claim that "economic growth in the last half-century has been consistently strong." Well, what is this claim doing in a section on globalisation, who says so, and relative to what? The claim is only tenuously substantiated by an op-ed from a partisan source. []. A far superior source is Ha-Joon Chang of Cambridge University, one of the world's most cited development economists, who in an article in The Prospect from early July 2007 claims that: [quote] "the truth is that free traders make the lives of those whom they are trying to help more difficult. The evidence for this is everywhere. Despite adopting supposedly "good" policies, like liberal foreign trade and investment and strong patent protection, many developing countries have actually been performing rather badly over the last two and a half decades. The annual per capita growth rate of the developing world has halved in this period, compared to the "bad" old days of protectionism and government intervention in the 1960's and the 1970's. Even this modest rate has been achieved only because the average includes China and India- two fast-growing giants, which have gradually liberalised their economies but have resolutely refused to put on Thomas Friedman's golden straitjacket." [] "Friedman's golden straitjacket" refers to Thomas Friedman's summary of globalist policy prescription which is namely: privatisation, low inflation, reduction of government, budget balancing, trade liberalisation, deregulation of foreign investment and capital markets, currency convertability, corruption reduction and pension privatisation.BernardL 22:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An important reason for the good numbers durng the 60s and 70 were the boom in commodity prices. In the 80s and 90s these prices collapsed due overproduction stimulated by the high prices, which in turn decreased the economic growth in developing nations dependent on such exports. Worldwide growth has been very good in recent years. The world is expected to have an amazing 5.2% growth next year. Growth has been very good also in Africa during the 2000s.Ultramarine 18:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV in Globalization section 

message: The first link seems factual and neutral.
Capitalism.org
and
Why Do Intellectuals Oppose Capitalism? by Robert Nozick
are two webpages that have a right-wing ideological agenda promoting capitalism. Since there are no links that presents an alternative view, readers of the Capitalism article might get the impression that the article itself is ideologically biased.
Olofmbolsson 23:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This view is upheld by Hayek as well. All webpages that promote capitalism or socialism may be accused of having a "right-wing ideological agenda promoting capitalism" or a "left-wing idealogical agenda promoting socialism." Hayek demonstrated a noticeable bais by intellectuals in general towards socialism. To keep things neutral, such bais must be brought to light. The link should remain. Jcchat66 23:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Then please elaborate. Why does it not make sense? If you want to improve the article, offer suggestions for improvement and explain your opinions. Jcchat66 15:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason it does not make sense is that Hayek's view is itself a view.  I have no problem representing this view in the article, but (1) it must be presented as a view, not the truth and (2) we should include other views.  This is how we achieve neutrality.  When you say "such bias must be brought to light" it sounds as if you mean this article ought to acknowledge a particular truth.  That violates our policies, which are about verifiability not truth.  We do not bring "such bias" to light, we bring to light the fact that some people hold to a particular view that there is "such bias."  That makes sense. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 18:49, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I moved it to Critique of capitalism. -- Vision  Thing -- 10:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Can this Michael Parenti Youtube speech be added to External links? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJLaRhTKzw8&feature=related Stars4change (talk) 00:11, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: :'Prior to this, Karl Marx was critical of the "capitalist mode of production" but does not refer to "capitalism" in the sense of a comprehensive economic system.'
This is obviously absurd, defying both what Marx said and internal logic.--Jack Upland 08:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, quick search of Marx online find This quote in Capital I where he uses the word.  "These same rights remain in force both at the outset, when the product belongs to its producer, who, exchanging equivalent for equivalent, can enrich himself only by his own labour, and also in the period of capitalism, when social wealth becomes to an ever-increasing degree the property of those who are in a position to appropriate continually and ever afresh the unpaid labour of others." Kill it, kill it 'orribly...--Red Deathy 08:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marx 

message: The section on Smith omits his view that "sympathy" is a key human value and that much of his philosophy has been greatly misrepresented. The Gutenberg file on Smith has searchable text for "The Wealth of Nations," so that's a good place to start. More immediately, anarchist critiques like Chomsky's are useful: quoting at length, Smith was "pre-capitalist, a figure of the Enlightenment. What we would call capitalism he despised. People read snippets of Adam Smith, the few phrases they teach in school. Everybody reads the first paragraph of The Wealth of Nations where he talks about how wonderful the division of labor is. But not many people get to the point hundreds of pages later, where he says that division of labor will destroy human beings and turn people into creatures as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human being to be. ... He did give an argument for markets, but the argument was that under conditions of perfect liberty, markets will lead to perfect equality. That's the argument for them, because he thought that equality of condition (not just opportunity) is what you should be aiming at" (in Class Warfare [1995, with David Barsamian]). Another secondary source is Iain McLean's book Adam Smith, Radical and Egalitarian: An Interpretation for the 21st Century -- for which its publisher, Edinburgh University Press, says that Smith "was not [a] promoter of ruthless laissez-faire capitalism".Walla Walla 22:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adam Smith 

message: Hm.. Wouldn't be good to include something about theories of economy propagated by catholic scholastics like Thomas de Mercado, Domingo de Soto and others? You know, in XVI century? Theories about private ownership, banking, trdaing etc? Szopen 08:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless you can show that the authors have something to do with capitalism, no. If you can, yes. In themselves or in combination, private ownership, banking, and trading don't imply capitalism in any sense of the term. Jacob Haller 18:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  De Mercado, De Soto and other catholic theoreticians? 

message: If capitalism supposedly caused 147 million deaths as the article claims, how many have been caused by communism, socialism, feudalism, etc?  It seems the author uses this figure without proper context.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.162.0.41 (talk) 19:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where is that?  Was it deleted?  I would say it was far more than that even: count every car crash death, every war, every suicide, every crime, every person killed violently (hurricanes, tornadoes,  tsunamis, etc) because we should have built only Tower cities connected to maglev Trains to save lives & the earth.  Sundiii (talk) 23:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is The Black Book of Capitalism considered a credible source?  If so, why is there no citation provided for the reference, and why is it not listed in the sources at the bottom, with its author named, so that readers can assess the source for themselves? 68.54.160.137 (talk) 02:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see the article devoted to the book to find your answers. I detailled slightly the split of the 147 millions. People can judge by themselves the logics of making capitalisme responsible for slavery of World War II.. --Bombastus (talk) 10:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Both of those numbers are quite meaningless when compared directly, since the systems did not exist for the same length of time.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.188.235.58 (talk) 15:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question on the deaths "Caused by Capitalism" 

message: I added three sources under the Weberian political sociology section.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.204.95.10 (talk) 15:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added sources 

message: *Capitalism The Spontaneous "invisible hand" and "free market economics" in market economy must be merged into free market. I suggest the Criticisms from that article to be merged with this article. Singwaste. (talk) 05:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, Market economy#Spontaneous order or .22Invisible hand.22 and Market economy#Free market economy shall be merged into Free market. Capitalism#Criticisms of capitalism is already extensive. The Critisism from Noam Chomsky in Free market#Criticism isn't actually speaking of free markets bu of todays capitalistic system because he thinks what exists today is a free market(a result of the fussiness in terminology as explained thurally by, Definitional concerns in anarchist theory#The .22Zaxlebax.22 Problem). Free_market#Noam Chomsky can and ought to be moved to Critique of capitalism. Lord Metroid (talk) 16:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

text: The invisible hand should be moved to free market as stated above. Market economy is better to be a summary of market systems. I will take care of this. Lord Metroid (talk) 16:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Criticism of libertarianism like Criticism of socialism needs to stay because otherwise the lenght of the articles would become in violation to wikipedia's policies on article lenght. However I notices that unlike Socialism#Criticisms of socialism, Libertarianism does not have a abstract section of the main article, that needs to be added. The critique on the article Criticism of libertarianism are the common critique libertarianism recieves I don't see how it can possibly be moved to capitalism as libertarianism and capitalism is not the same concepts. Lord Metroid (talk) 16:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Criticism of libertarianism needs to remain.  Libertarianism and Capitalism are not the same thing.  While some of the criticism may sound similar, Libertarianism is a political theory that speaks to economic, social and political-function theory, whereas Capitalism is an economic-political theory that does not directly address issues like natural rights, social morality and freedom.  The two are remarkably different.  izaakb   ~talk ~contribs 02:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

text: As Capitalism#Criticisms_of_capitalism is so extensive and Market_economy#Criticism of market economy fits in my opinion better as an absrtact section in Capitalism instead of what is now. Lord Metroid (talk) 16:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I never heard of both these terms but they are in principle both the same concept the difference is that liberalism was used before the 19th century and libertarianism is the modern rewording of the principles. Economic libertarianism would fit nicely in laissez-faire#modern revival of laissez-faire theory and Economic liberalism in Laissez-faire#History of Laissez-faire. Lord Metroid (talk) 16:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

text: After are surgery on Market economy which will result in a cleanup of the article, I don't think we need to do much with it. Market economy is common term and concept and so needs to have an article on. Lord Metroid (talk) 16:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Please conduct these discussions on talk pages of relevant articles. -- Vision  Thing -- 22:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Went ahead and removed tag for this from Perspectives section, added discussion entry on the Merge From article which is obviously too big to merge in the § in question. 72.228.150.44 (talk) 23:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge from 

message: "She was the first person to morally justify capitalism with a new code of morality (Rational Selfishness)"   - I think this line needs to be taken out. How is rational selfishness a new code except under its own name? She is not the first obviously. --maxrspct ping me  21:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ayn Rand 

message: I noticed some contributors still have a problem knowing how to write a lead section.  If anybody knows how to surmise an intro, please do so.  Kransky (talk) 15:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the guideline, three to four paragraphs are customary when it comes to articles of this length. -- Vision  Thing -- 21:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Word length is a better measure of brevity.  A lead section should not get bogged down trying to be too descriptive, too prescriptive or critiquing its conventional definition.     You could just say:
*Capitalism generally refers to an economic and social system in which the means of production are predominantly privately-owned and operated for profit.  Investment, distribution, income, production, pricing and other economic activity are usually determined by the owners of these means of production according to their own self-interest.  Almost all countries in the world have adopted elements of capitalism in their economic systems.   Kransky (talk) 02:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Except that they are not privately held.  They are generally held by public corporations i.e. corporations with shars of ownership that are publically traded. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 20:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead section 

message: The article capitalist redirects to capitalism. Because of that, this article should mention what a capitalist is. The old article (before redirect) was . It was redirected in June 2005 with comment: redirect to capitalism article whose intro notes the usage of "capitalist", which is not true anymore. Kricke (talk) 22:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Do we even need an article for this?  Kransky (talk) 08:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe not, but this article should perhaps mention it? Kricke (talk) 09:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't exactly see the point of it. Do we have an article for socialist, individualist, marxist, communist and so fort? Do we mention in the articles what the name means? No, before we try to write an encyclopedia and not a dictionnary.. --Bombastus (talk) 12:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, but there is a difference between those you mention. All those words means advocates of the same ideology (a socialist is an advocate for socialism et.c), while "capitalst" does not, in its original meaning (i.e. a capitalist can be against capitalism as a political system). Kricke (talk) 15:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Somehow I don't think including the words "A capitalist is somebody who derives income from capital" will expand the frontiers of human knowledge.  Kransky (talk) 11:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It won't. No article on Wikipedia does, or should. That would be original research. Anyway, as it is now. Wikipedia implicitly is saying that Capitalist is someone who advocates capitalism. And that is wrong or atleast POV. But alright. I don't care. Kricke (talk) 12:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Kricke points us to a direction out of this debate when s/he brings up original research.  The opposite of original research is source-based research.  So what determines ehther Wiipedia has an article "capitalist," or even whether this article has a section, "capitalist," is simply this: is there a body of literature on capitalists?  I think the word may actually originate in a novel.  I can see an article called "capitalist that has a section on "capitalists in literature," I am sure there must be several articles and books by scholars of comparitive literature on the portrayal of capitalists in literature.  What aqbout real capitalists?  I do not know.  Social historians have published many studies on workers, but I do not know of any studies of capitalists.  But maybe there are, by social historians or economic historians.  It is also worth looking to see if there are any sociological studies of capitalists.  in short, if there are reliable notable sources, there is a place for it in Wikipedia. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 18:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is an enormous literature on individual businesspeople - some of which is scholarly. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing capitalist (as a person) definition 

message: Please place reviews in this section. Gary King (talk) 02:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This still needs some work before GA. Several paragraphs are missing citations, and there is an NPOV tag on one of the sections. These things will have to be fixed. Feel free to renominate once they are. Wrad (talk) 01:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good article nomination 

message: The best general discussion of the etymology and definition(s) of capitalism I have read lie in Volume II of French historian Fernand Braudel's "Civilization and Capitalism, Volume II, The Wheels of Commerce", pp.232-239.
Seems to me this might save a lot of confusion and add some valuable information to the discussion and debate.
Among other valuable insights, Braudel points out that Karl Marx never, in fact, used the word "capitalism", which does not appear anywhere before the twentieth century; not even in Max Weber's critique.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.94.44.70 (talk) 02:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fernand Braudel's Capitalism and Civilization, Volume II as a source 

message: The following was removed :
*Some labor historians and other scholars, such as Immanuel Wallerstein and Marcel van der Linden, have also argued that unfree labor — the use of a labor force comprised of slaves, indentured servants, criminal convicts, political prisoners and/or other coerced persons — is compatible with capitalist relations.
and twice replaced by an unsourced passage, without explanation. I have made basic copy edits to the new passage, but believe this to be the more solid piece of writing and research. JNW (talk) 01:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paragraph removed 

message: The wikipedia article begins with a statement that "capitalism refers to" which is not a definition.  Here is a better definition: "Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights. This includes property rights, in which property is privately owned.  Under capitalism the state is separated from economics (production and trade), as well as from religion. Capitalism is a system of political freedom."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Honeydinner (talk • contribs) 18:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No-ones replied, but I suppose - the current def. is hard fopught and well referenced, and close enough to being accurate - or at least broadly supported - to count.  Your suggested ref. is fundamentally inaccurate.--Red Deathy (talk) 12:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, Wikipedia is not a dictionary.  Dictionaries are about words, encyclopedia articles are about things that words refer to, in this case, it can be an idea or a social system.  When addressing complex matters, a definition would be a positively bad way to begin.  At best it would oversimplify, and at worst - as in Honeydinner's suggestion - it would forward one POV, thus violating NPOV.  There are many views of capitalism and they are presented in detail and in an NPOV way in the body of the article. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 13:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of capitalism weak 

message: Why is laissez faire capitalism only mention in a single sentence near the end of the article. It is a major branch of capitalism. It has its own article, but a mention earlier in this article would be nice.70.151.125.19 (talk) 15:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Laissez Faire 

message: Capitalism sucks, I think it should be included in the article. It is very notable subject and most everybody agrees that capitalism sucks to the bone. Viper55 (talk) 09:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits 

message: First coined by Naomi Klein in a April 14, 2005 The Nation article and later expanded into a 720 page book, The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism, released June 24, 2008.
http://www.naomiklein.org
"Disaster Capitalism" refers to economic policies instituted in the wake of disasters. Such disasters could be caused by political upheaval, war, natural disasters.
Although the main thrust of Klein's articles and book focuses on the Bush Administration and neo-conservatives (neocons) efforts, the term "Disaster Capitalism" is not new and can also be used to apply to liberal/progressive economic policies.
 
For example, Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal could be seen as an exercise in "Disaster Capitalism" due to the programs and reforms instituted in the wake of the Great Depression.
The "war on terror" is also an exercise in "Disaster Capitalism" with policies instituted to strengthen the military-industrial complex.
Also see:
"Confessions of an Economic Hit Man"
By John Perkins
"Whose Freedom? The Battle Over America's Most Important Idea"
By George Lakoff
MacInEnterprise (talk) 20:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disaster Capitalism 

message: Unlike state monopoly capitalism, monopoly capitalism is an economy dominated by oligopolistic corporations earning "supernormal" profits.
MacInEnterprise (talk) 00:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Monopoly Capitalism 

message: Ideally, capitalist systems are governed by the free price system set by the law of supply and demand rather than government regulation,[3]
That is stating opinion, not fact and should not be at the start of the article. Pricing systems are more complicated than the law of supply and demand.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.26.140.115 (talk) 00:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation 3, beginning of article 

message: I know it is an importnt facet of Marxian theory of capitlism that capital is mobile, and that it is way more mobile today than in Marx's time. this is not an idea limited to Marx; I think any ecoomist today acknowledges the importance of "liquidity" in markets.  Can anyone suggest a few short, well-respected, and accessible sources that goes over this, both in theory and in today's economy?  thanks, Slrubenstein   |  Talk 00:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  question 

message: While laissez-faire includes both minarchism and anarchism, the link to Anarcho-capitalism for "unrestrained capitalism" is more accurate than one to the Laissez-faire article, as the former abolishes the state entirely while the latter generally seeks to retain it in some minimal form. JLMadrigal (talk) 03:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Examine the source. It's not referring to anarcho-captialism. When most people refer to unrestrained capitalism they're not referring to anarcho-capitalism. They're just referring to laissez-faire capitalism. Dropperada (talk) 22:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

text: Anarcho-capitalism is a political position, favoring the abolition of the state; unrestrained capitalism is an economic position, favoring a lack of state intervention in the economy. It's not obvious that unrestrained capitalism requires abolishing the state, indeed, I think a lot of people would argue that capitalism of any form, unrestrained or not, requires a state; this is a matter of debate. So, I think equating unrestrained capitalism and anarcho-capitalism is misleading. VoluntarySlave (talk) 22:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Unrestrained Capitalism" 

message: I removed this stuff because it looks like OR - it is not specifically about capitalism. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 18:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  indices of economic freedom 

message: Under the "Criticism" header, second paragraph, the article notes that capitalism has been criticized by "anarchists including [...] Noam Chomsky, Naomi Klein, and others." 
Can anyone show that Noam Chomsky and Naomi Klein are actually "anarchists" in the sense of the Wikipedia definition of anarchism: "Anarchism is a political philosophy encompassing theories and attitudes which support the elimination of all compulsory government, i.e. the state."
If anything, Chomsky and Klein seem to support more state intervention in capitalism, not less. This would definitely make them something other than anarchists. I would like to think that the Wikipedia authors would know the difference between a social critic and an anarchist. Please fix this mistake, before I have to.
Jreans (talk) 00:58, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Chomsky is certainly an anarchist, as you can see from his Wikipedia page; though he does support some state intervention as a short-term measure, his general position is the standard anarchist one of opposition to both capitalism and the state. However, Klein isn't an anarchist; she calls herself a democratic socialist, by which she means she supports some kind of mixed economy . We could mention her in the subsequent sentence on social democracy, although it would be odd if Klein were the only social democrat mentioned by name; if anyone wants to add a list of notable social democrats, that might be a useful addition.VoluntarySlave (talk) 01:49, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anarchists? 

message: The recent reverts (  ) here are not requisites, as several sources exist for the claim that the term originated from the economist named Karl Marx. 
Authentic, authoritative sources exist that claims the fact. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, capitalism was first used by novelist William Makepeace Thackeray in 1854, by which he meant having ownership of capital. In 1867, Proudhon used the term "capitalist" to refer to owners of capital, and Marx and Engels refer capitalism to the capitalist mode of production (kapitalistische Produktionsform) and in Das Kapital to "Kapitalist", "capitalist" (meaning a private owner of capital). Saunders, Peter (1995). Capitalism. University of Minnesota Press. p. 1 Singwaste (talk) 16:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Excuse, but Proudhon has died 1865. As he could used the term "capitalist" in 1867? Klip game (talk) 17:47, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Without a citation we can't say, but it may have been in something published posthumously. --causa sui talk 19:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

text: I think it would clarify many things if the article distinguished between "capitalism" as a set of beliefs about the economy, and "capitalist mode of production" which forwards the diea of a capitalist system that can be analyzed objectively. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 19:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalism coined by Karl Marx 

message: Due to this contradiction, I removed some statements:
:Mercantilism declined in Great Britain in the mid-18th century, when a new group of economic theorists, led by David Hume and Adam Smith, challenged fundamental mercantilist doctrines as the belief that the amount of the world’s wealth remained constant and that a state could only increase its wealth at the expense of another state. However, in more undeveloped economies, such as Prussia and Russia, with their much younger manufacturing bases, mercantilism continued to find favor after other states had turned to newer doctrines.
:The mid-18th century gave rise to industrial (bourgeois) capitalism, made possible by the accumulation of vast amounts of capital under the merchant phase of capitalism and its investment in machinery. Industrial capitalism, which Marx dated from the last third of the 18th century, marked the development of the factory system of manufacturing, characterized by a complex division of labor between and within work process and the routinization of work tasks; and finally established the global domination of the capitalist mode of production.  In the midst of this newly developing concept of division of labor came exploitation of labor on a much larger scale than was ever seen before.Fulcher, James. Capitalism. 1st ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004.
:During the resulting Industrial Revolution, the industrialist replaced the merchant as a dominant actor in the capitalist system and effected the decline of the traditional handicraft skills of artisans, guilds, and journeymen. Also during this period, capitalism marked the transformation of relations between the British landowning gentry and peasants, giving rise to the production of cash crops for the market rather than for subsistence on a feudal manor. The surplus generated by the rise of commercial agriculture encouraged increased mechanization of agriculture and the rise of the bourgeoisie.
:The rise of industrial capitalism was also associated with the decline of mercantilism. Mid- to late-nineteenth-century Britain is widely regarded as the classic case of industrial (bourgeois) capitalism. Capitalism gained favor over mercantilism in Britain in the 1840s with the repeal of the Corn Laws and the Navigation Acts. In line with the teachings of the classical political economists, led by Adam Smith and David Ricardo, Britain embraced liberalism, encouraging free competition for all classes, and eliminating barriers to the development of a market economy.
#The highlighted bold text is redundant.
#The "Capitalism gained favor over mercantilism in Britain in the 1840s" is directly contradictory to the above three statements that capitalism gained in favor over mercantilism in Britain in the late 18th century. I have removed this. Singwaste (talk) 06:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not know who believes that capitalism gained favor over mercantilism in 1840, but this is not a contradiction, it is a lack of clarity.  What we have here is either a distinction between capitalism as a system, which was well-established in the late 1700s, and capitalism as an ideology or philosophy, which may not have achieved dominance until the early 1800s.  Or we may just have a difference of point of view.  Marx certainly thinks capitalism was dominant by the late 1700s, I think Weber believes this as well.  Maybe some others think it happened in 1840.  The solution is not to delete one point of view, but to more clearly distinguish the two points of view.   Other wise we violate NPOV. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 15:46, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

text: OK, I will improve the article by suggesting authors along with the start of capitalism.Singwaste (talk) 17:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

text: Your edits are great, but they are full of spelling errors and sometimes poorly written. I am fixing your typos. Singwaste (talk) 17:28, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradictory section 

message: There is no true distinction between laissez-faire and anarcho-capitalism. Both would like the market to be left alone by the state. A fairer distinction would be between the Chicago and Austrian schools, that is, between minarchism and anarcho-capitalism. Since this dispute is covered in its own article, it may be referenced and linked. Even neoconservatives pay lip service to minarchism. JLMadrigal (talk) 14:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: According to whom?  Your source? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 15:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Look up laissez-faire in a source. By normal definition, it doesn't mean zero state involvement. It means minimal involvement. Many Heads (talk) 15:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

text: It is perfectly appropriate to ask an editor who has added, or proposes to add, content to provide a source.  This is simple compliance with our WP:V and WP:NOR policies. I did not propose to introduce this new material, JLMadrigal did.  SO I am asking for her source. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 17:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I meant to address that to JLMadrigal. Many Heads (talk) 18:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

text: oh ... thank for explaining!  Slrubenstein   |  Talk 19:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

text: Isn't that Ad Ignorantiam? I believe since it has historically been defined as two schools that you have to provide sources to the contrary Soxwon (talk) 15:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

text: It is also like arguing that because "goose berries" has the word "goose" in it, the berries must therefore taste like geese and you need to provide a source to provide otherwise.  Interpreting a translation of a term to mean anything violates WP:NOR.  Any argument or interpretation requires a source.  Period. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 16:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

text: Again, according to whom?  Who said this? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 03:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Laissez-faire vs. Anarcho-capitalism? 

message: "Many Heads" has now reverted reference to preChristian Icelandic law, which lasted for a millenium, and was an instance of a government of chieftains that protected society and nothing else. How could that not be relevant? Isn't this the goal of "laissez-faire" as currently defined in the article? JLMadrigal (talk) 13:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The article never uses the term "Laissez-faire" and it is not talking about a capitalist economy; it is not relevant to this article, and the way you use it violates NOR.  The article is not about ancient Iceland, by the way, but medieval Iceland.  The article is primarily an argument about private enforcement of law, i.e. enforcement, not the policies enforced.  So it definitely does not belong in this article.  Does it belong in any Wikipedia article?  I am not sure it is a reliable source - it is published by the university in which the author teachers, not a peer-reviewed publication.  I question whether it is a reliable source and whether it is a significant view; the author teaches in a law school which at best means he has some expertise over the US legal system, and his degrees are all in physics.  He seems to have no credentials or training in history or anthropology (which explain some fallacious statements he makes), the two disciplines that focus most on the study of non-modern states.  Is his POV mainstream, minority, or fringe?  What do real scholars of Icelandic history think of his work?  What do real economic historians think?  Legal anthropologists or sociologists? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 15:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Laissez-faire" government in ancient Iceland 

message: I'm sure that this has been done to death, but I have an objection to the first sentence of the intro.
:Capitalism is an economic system in which wealth, and the means of producing wealth, are privately owned and controlled rather than publicly or state-owned and controlled.[1]
It seems that this introduces a false dilemma. That is, the tendency (especially by capitalists) is to contrast capitalism as the only alternative to state control of capital, as if every economic and political philosophy exists on a continuum between totalitarian government and laissez-faire capitalism. Therefore everything after "rather" introduces complexity that is unnecessary to the definition. I propose that this sentence should be simplified:
:Capitalism is an economic system in which wealth, and the means of producing wealth, are privately owned and controlled.[1]
--causa sui talk 19:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really see the problem, there are shades of gray in between and they are acknowledged later on in the article. The last part of the statement helps clarify what 'private' is referring to. Soxwon (talk) 20:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: My problem is with the notion of "shades of gray between" because I deny the "between". We do not have a linear continuum between two poles, and the representation that we do introduces vagueness in a way that isn't helpful to the definition. If we want to clarify private, we can either wikilink private property or explain the concept in detail later. The most important point, though, is that I don't see support for this claim in the citation, which is unacceptable. --causa sui talk 21:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

text: Easy way to solve that. Just add "or a mixture thereof." Scam-Wow (talk) 22:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that would be an acceptable compromise because it still assumes a one-variable division and still isn't supported by the citation. --causa sui talk 22:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It is supported by the citiation. If capitalism is privately controlled means of production, then the only alternative is publicly controlled. If it's a mixture of public and private control, then it's not private control, but a mixture. Mixed public/private control is not private control.  These are the only alternatives to private control. Scam-Wow (talk) 22:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If by "publicly controlled" you mean "state controlled" then autonomists, libertarian socialists, council communists, and anarcho-syndicalists (just to name a few) all disagree with you. These are a few short examples of alternate theories with their own ideas about how capital should be controlled and managed that fit neither private ownership nor state control. The black and white distinction between "public and private" as if capital must, by definition, be either in the hand of private property owners or state bureaucracy is manifestly false. --causa sui talk 23:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It says "publicly or state controlled." That's there exactly to encompass both state and libertarian socialism. I was using the term "publicly controlled" to mean both. Scam-Wow (talk) 23:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that public and state owned covers it all and really it's fine the way it is. The definition at the beginning gives the basic premise of capitalism and helps clarify by showing the alternative. From there we can go into any number of mixed economies, but they are always a mixture of the definition already given. Soxwon (talk) 00:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, so when do capitalism, public controlled, state controlled, or a combination of the two not apply, and is it relevant enough to warrant changing the definition? The only one that really doesn't seem to get covered is Libertarian Socialism, which by its very definition, couldn't fit and doesn't really warrant mentioning. We're talking about capitalism and trying to provide a distinction.  Soxwon (talk) 05:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

text: "Public ownership" does not necessarily mean state control. It means owned by the public in common. That's libertarian socialism. Either resources are owned privately, or by all of society either directly or through the state. There are no other alternatives. Would you rather it say "common ownership"? Either way, the sentence would mean the same thing. I changed "publicly" to "commonly-owned by society." Does this communicate better? Scam-Wow (talk) 19:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think common ownership is the same thing, I think public is better. Soxwon (talk) 04:07, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: After looking over some sources I see you're right that some don't use the two terms synonymously. So we can just add "common" as an alternative. Scam-Wow (talk) 22:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That works, looks good.  Soxwon (talk) 22:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of capitalism 

message: I added a neoliberalism section in the history of capitalism because it is an important movement. I also posted this on  and  but they didn't reply.
:I would like to point out that 71.175.40.210 did not add a section, but changed the name of a section without adding or changing any other content. My reply can be found herefor anyone who is interested. Dougofborg (talk) 05:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add Neoliberalism Link 

message: Alright, my link: shows laissez-faire to allow for total freedom of business and the gov't interfering only in the areas of basic liberties and property. That's a bit more general than just supply and demand. Soxwon (talk) 15:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Regardless of what anything says, it does not seem appropriate to replace a scholarly reference with a dictionary definition. Cosmic Latte (talk) 16:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

text: The statement you put in the article is "is a policy of governmental non-interference in economic affairs and the competitive process beyond minimal protection of liberties and property rights." That's absolutely backwards, and it's not what your source says. Laissez-faire is a policy of MAXIMUM protection of liberty and property rights through the minimization of regulation of people and property. My source, says ""Laissez-faire is both an economic doctrine and the policies which actually enforce it. The basic principle is that the welfare of both the community and individuals is best served when markets for goods, capital, land, labour, and so on are left to the free play of supply and demand, and when the state interferes as little as possible, in both the economic and social sphere." François, Crouzet. The Victorian Economy. Routledge, 1982. p. 105 Scam-Wow (talk) 16:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't "backwords," according to the Merriam-Webster's dictionary, which I think is a reliable source Soxwon (talk) 20:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Merriam-Webster doesn't say that property is minimally protected. Maybe you need to read it closer. In laissez-faire property is protected to the maximum, not the minimum, because it means the government is not controlling how you use your property. Less regulation of private property equates to more private property rights. Minimal protection of private property equates to more transgressions against private property. Scam-Wow (talk) 21:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

text: Even a capitalist state nominally minimizes interference in the market. Many such small-government states have existed. What has arguably not existed is anarcho-capitalism, in which the unmolested market itself serves as the governor - without help or hindrance from the state (subsidies, blackened markets, and immunities). When Austrian economists and other proponents of pure capitalism refer to it as an unknown ideal, they distance themselves from the minarchists (state capitalists). The article needs to make the distinction between state capitalism and pure capitalism. Any so-called "distinction" between small government and "minimal" government is meaningless. Let them be. JLMadrigal (talk) 03:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Most Austrian economists are minarchists. Ayn Rand refered to capitalism as an "unknown ideal" and she was a minarchist. When most sources are referring to "pure capitalism" they're not referring to anarcho-capitalism but laissez-faire. The "unknown ideal" most have in mind is not anarcho-capitalism. Scam-Wow (talk) 04:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Dictionaries are good sources for spellings and etymologies, and pronunciation.  They are not very good sources on meaning, because they favor the colloquial.  But encyclopedias are supposed to be compendia of knowledge, and we should privilege scholarly research.  Dictionaries are of little use to us.  Besides, aren't these dictionaries on-line?  That being the case we can ignore them - anyone who can access Wikipedia can also access an on-line dictionary to confirm the spelling etc.  We should be making available on-line scholarship that is not already available on-line, right?  I mean, isn't this common sense?  Now, my understanding is that laissez faire is not a type of capitalism but a policy concerning tariffs and the regulation of international trade popular in some capitalist societies.  If we are talking about no government interference internally, I think most people call that policy "market fundamentalism."  These are two different kinds of policies addressing different issues (even if they draw water from the same well).  Also, we need to distinguish between policies versus forms of capitalism. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 15:45, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "Market fundamentalism" is not an actual position, any more than "Christian fanaticism", "God-hating atheism", "bleeding-heart liberalism", or "eat-the-poor conservatism" are actual positions. Rather, these are slurs that someone uses to insult someone else's position. Nobody describes themselves as a "market fundamentalist". --FOo (talk) 16:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Laissez-faire 

message: I'm adding the following important links which explain why most Americans never heard the words Socialism, Communism or Capitalism so they could decide for themselves which they would prefer.  They are: Red scare and McCarthyism.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stars4change (talk • contribs) 06:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding links 

message: :I was just reading a section on globalization in the Capitalism article and was wondering if the Capitalism article can be on lockdown like the Communism article. This is because the tone of the globalization section of the article appears to have communist biases and in addition the definition at the beginning is a wealth-centric definition versus being focused on the fact that capitalism is a system of free enterprise and entrepreneurship that is focused on risk taking, here's Merriam-Webster's definition of capitalism that is free to peruse (read carefully) at their web site www.m-w.com at the link http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Capitalism. I'll have to find more evidence later when I have more time to make further arguments of why the Capitalism page should be on lockdown. Finally, an encyclopedia article should be as objective as possible, but for the sake of the Capitalism article more should be explained as to why most nations of the world have adopted Capitalism or a Capitalist Mixed Economy in the 21st century versus an economy that is foundationally Socialist or Communist. Please add further to this discussion.65.110.146.154 (talk) 03:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem to have misunderstood the purpose of page protection. It exists to prevent vandalism and edit warring, not...um--what exactly do you suppose it would accomplish here? Of course you're welcome to discuss potential problems/changes here or to edit the article yourself--be bold if you think you can improve the article--but I don't see what page protection would do at this point. Cosmic Latte (talk) 04:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Communism page is on lockdown, can the Capitalism page be on lockdown too? 

message: The comment have been moved to the Capitalism template discussion, since the capitalism logo is actually on the capitalism template and not this page. Go argue there: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Capitalism#Capitalism_logo. Nubeli (talk) 05:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalism logo