Talk:Capitalism/Archive 7

message: Copied from User talk:Taxman (note: I asked Taxman's opinion because he has degrees in economics and the mathematics of finance)
Taxman, I wonder whether you have any time to look in on Talk:Capitalism. There's a dispute (and revert war) regarding the introduction and what it should say. One editor feels that the current introduction states or implies that capitalism has been "implemented," and that this is POV. I'm not in a position to judge the merits of the argument, and can only ask for authoritative sources for the claim that capitalism has not been "implemented" (by which I take it he means it has never existed in a pure form). Do you know whether this is a tiny-minority view of the kind that should not be referred to in the introduction? Or if it is a mainstream view, can you refer us to an authoritative, academic source?  If you don't have time, however, that's fine, I understand. Best, SlimVirgin 19:28, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
:Certainly not my area of specialty. But I do think that is a relatively uncontroversial view. Regulation causes markets not to be free, so pure capitalism has not been implemented on a large scale. Neither has pure much of anything else political so that distinction is rather esoteric. Therefore those who would define capitalism only as pure capitalism are just being pedantic. I couldn't make heads or tails of where you would want this on the talk page so I'll leave it here for you. - Taxman 00:42, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
::I don't know of anyone who would only refer to an economy as capitalism is it was "pure" unless anarcho-capitalists. Most of those who say modern economies are not properly labeled capitalism say that because they think it's not even relatively close enough to be called capitalism. Chomsky for example, "There's nothing remotely like capitalism in existence." Also, Rand "What we have today is not a capitalist society, but a mixed economy." (I provide these two examples since they are on opposite sides of the fence politically, for sake of NPOV. And these two are very noteable, especially Rand who was many adherents of her philosophy). Again, usually the objections to calling the modern economies capitalism is not because they're not "pure." And, it is not uncommon to call the modern economies mixed economies", a mixture of capitalism and socialism (or central planning). RJII 14:36, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: How about an example for just how mainstream that view is: "The United States is a mixed economy based on capitalism." That's not from some radical philosopher but from the McGraw Hill Online Learning Center.   RJII 15:16, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Whether capitalism has ever been "implemented"

message: A relatively pure/idealistic definition of capitalism such as the anarcho's might choose, should be allowed to dominate if not monopolize the introduction, just as the ideal does at Communism and Anarchy.  It is a basic lack of courtesy that has allowed this controversy to continue.  Pet peeves and historical interpretations should not have to be in the intro. --Silverback 13:24, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not the minarchist or marxist pure/idealistic definiton? Ultramarine 14:36, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Anarcho-capitalitsts should not get their definition by force'' '''by rather by courtesy''' 

message: Strange that they locked the page. I thought a general consensus was starting to materialize --that we were going to provide the most common mainstream definition, rather than POV push. RJII 14:26, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea with page lock. As you refuse to consider any sources that do not fit perfectly with the anarcho-capitalist definition, and ignore sources like Encyclopedia Britanica or Alan Greenspan, page protection is good. Note that an arbitration case regarding RJII's use of citations is now open. Ultramarine 14:32, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ultramarine, don't start with your lies again about me pushing anarcho-capitalism. The record is plain to see that you are the one that has been mentioning "anarch-capitalism" and "anarchy" explicity, and I have been consistently deleted it. You are a disingenous individual and I resent your intentional misrepresentation of me. (Clear to anyone who does a search for "anarcho" on the Talk page). I don't think that anarcho-capitalism should be mentioned, nor should a special definition be tailored for anarcho-capitalists. The most NPOV way I know is to provide the "typical" or "maintream" definition. I've said this consistently. Keep it up and I'll bring an arbration case against you for consistently lying to damage another user. This is unjustified. RJII 14:43, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: What does that have to do with anything? That's not this article but the anarcho-capitalism article where I was trying to explain anarcho-capitalism. I was pointing out that anarcho-capitalists don't use a Marxist definition of capitalism. RJII 14:54, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And your are in arbitration for among other things refusing to provide sources for this "Marxist" defintion. Ultramarine 14:56, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You and your buddy are involved in the arbitration thing. Another attempt to misrepresent and harass me. RJII 15:08, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: page lock

message: I fail to see how "exploitation of labourers" could be part of any serious definition of capitalism. As far as I know, only Communists employ such a definition. This should be made clear. As it is now, it just looks like "exploitation" is a neutrally accepted view adopted by most people - which it is most definetely not! The question of exploitation could be explained and treated in the criticism section, but should not be included in the definition. Luis rib 19:20, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: But why should the communist definition be exluded? Or the anarcho-capitalist? The intro only state "some combination" not "all of the following". Ultramarine 19:22, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Because of this sentence:  Nevertheless, virtually all definitions of capitalism describe a system composed of some combination of the following conditions. Exploitation of workers is certainly not part of virtually all definitions. Luis rib 19:26, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: Right, "exploitation" is a criticism of capitalism, but apparently it's not part of definitions out there. Besides, definitions themselves, to be good, reliable definitions should be NPOV. I don't think "exploitation" is an NPOV term since in this case it would refer to an "unjust" use of people. RJII 19:28, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Exploitation is part of some definitions. And there is certainly no consensus on some essentials which are part of all definitions. Either remove the intro completely or allow listing of the essential parts of all definitions, not only the pro-capitalist ones. Ultramarine 19:33, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please cite a reputable definition of capitalism that says exploitation is a condition. RJII 19:40, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: This is hearsay. What are David Harvey's words. This may be a criticism of capitalism rather than a definition. RJII 19:52, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: Again, may be hearsay. What are Wolf's words and are they a definition of capitalism or a criticism? RJII 19:52, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: Strangely, I always believed that capitalism was the system that actually allowed workers also to own capital, should they wish and have the means to do so. The last source also seems quite biased to me. Not to mention that none of those definitions uses the word exploitation. Luis rib 19:49, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The first one does. I am not an proponent of either anarcho-capitalism or marxism but these schools are certainly influential. So their essentials should be listed, not only those of ordinary pro-capitalists. Ultramarine 19:53, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Its not because their biased view is influential (is it really? it seems to me that marxism doesn't have a broad appeal in the population) that it should get the seal of respectability and neutrality by wikipedia. By all means, mention it later on in the article (actually, I find this whole article already rather POV, in the pro-marxist sense), but not in the definition. Luis rib 19:57, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If we are going to define capitalism then that definition should be NPOV. The sources we reference should be regarded by consensus as NPOV as well. The NPOV sources for definitions are some of the major dictionaries out there. Merriam-Webster, for example --commonly regarded as a generally NPOV source. We can't just pick any definition that some college professor (such as David Harvey) happens to make up and put out on the net. We wouldn't be doing our job. And, "exploitation" is not an NPOV term. RJII 20:03, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Some would argue that MW is the product of an american capitalist company and is not NPOV. Why should Communist dictionaries and scholars be excluded? There are still several states that embrace Communism and Communist parties are inflential in many nations. And the definitiona above are cited and in one case an exact reference is given. Ultramarine 20:12, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I guess it comes down to what the consensus is of what definitions are NPOV and which aren't, as well as what sources for definitions are widely-regarded as NPOV and which aren't. But if college professor happens to define capitalism as "exploitation" it's irrelevant. RJII 20:15, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I didn't have any college professor that included exploitation of workers in any definition of capitalism. Luis rib 20:25, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes you do. David Harvey is Professor of Geography at The Johns Hopkins University. RJII 20:31, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I meant that I personally didn't have any professor like that. But what you say explains it all: what does a professor of geography have to do with economics, for god's sake? I could as well ask a finance professor to comment on Shostakovich's Leningrad symphony. Luis rib 21:27, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh, sorry. I thought you were Ultramarine. But, yes. RJII 21:31, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text:  Be glad for that :). But some theorists definitions are important and widely used by other scholars. And the "Dictionary of Critical Sociology" is an example of how capitalism is thought of in much of the Marxist literature. Ultramarine 20:29, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  All the capitalism stuff in there is from a guy named "Cobb." Who is he? RJII 20:45, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: Blah, blah. RJII 18:17, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Exploitation of workers

message: What is contradictory in there? RJII 21:37, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: some contradictory

message: Now that the intro question seems to have been resolved, could we discuss the distribution of wealth paragraph, which makes lots of assertions that seem wrong to me? In particular: where is the source for this sentence: Typically between 0.5% and 1% of people own more than half of productive capacity, if not half of all wealth? Where are the various studies? Luis rib 12:16, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is probably exaggerated, but wealth inequality is high all over the world, probably most probably most in Latin America which is not particularly capitalist. But search for wealth or income inequality in Google scholar and papers that show that in the US the top 1% own 30% of all wealth are easily found. I do not have the time now to find a recent, good summary. Ultramarine 20:16, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Distribution of wealth

message: I put "labor" back in the first paragraph.  There is no doubt that in capitalist economies labor is a commodity -- economists talk about labor markets all the time, and all big business have offices of "human resources." Slrubenstein   |  Talk  21:17, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no doubt???? I see you never had a single economics class in your life! Labour is definetely not considered as a capital good! Wages are supposed to be determined by markets, yes, but that does not mean at all that the labourers are bought! They just sell a service. The distinct feature of labour is exactly that it cannot be owned by anyone. And if you look at big businesses: none of them has labour on their accunts - exactly because labour is not an asset you can own. I'll therefore revert it back. Luis rib 21:21, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: (not a comment on the above) Luis rib, I haven't forgotten about you, I will return to respond to your comment at length soon (right now, I'm off to attend this Chinese function). El_C 21:41, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: no prob. please take your time Luis rib 21:42, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  labor 

message: As can been seen in definitions of capitalism, there are numerous and sometimes contradictory definitions by different authorities. In the introduction to this article there has been numerous attempts to construct a new definition. These are all original research. Saying that the new definition reflect "most" of the authoritative definitions is inevitable subject to POV regarding which definitions to include and thus original research. There can be only two solutions:
1: No definition, just a statement referring to definitions of capitalism.
2: A summary allowing all the elements from authoritative definitions published elsewhere. Ultramarine 14:47, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no possible way to list every interpretation of capitalism out there, nor should we. We should focus on the "typical" definition or description of capitalism. I maintain that the typical is that which reflects what is found in modern popular dictionaries. The best dictionaries out there conduct thorough research to find the most typical usage of terms. All we have to do is put those definitions in our own words. And, as long as it's labeled as "typical" it's a true statement. Sure, some personal judgement comes in in regard to what is typical but there is no way of avoiding some judgement on such things. That doesn't constitute being "POV." I think you're going overboard with that. POV would be claiming that capitalism is good or bad, or presenting it as such. RJII 14:57, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  There have been numerous edit wars with no resolution in sight. For example, the current attempt excludes mentioning strong property rights, by many economists today considered the most important element, and that it followed Feodalism, probably considered important by every significant theorist. And dictionaries are not more important than theorists or papers, the theorists and papers are often the source for the definition of the dictionaries. No one would would consider MW to be more important than mathematical papers regarding definitions in mathematics, for example. Ultramarine 15:06, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: A distillation of the pure meaning of capitalism is not original research, it is more of a summary.  The intro should present the aspects of capitalism that capitalists are willing to defend and that opponents of capitalism must meet in the field of ideas and  not a strawman for non-capitalists to attack.--Silverback 15:23, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: A "distillation of the pure meaning of capitalism" is certainly original research and would be an immediate Nobel prize if correct. Ultramarine 15:26, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please give reference for this extrapolation of no original research policy.--Silverback 18:05, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research and the definition of Capitalism 

message: As can been seen in definitions of capitalism, there are numerous and sometimes contradictory definitions by different authorities. In the introduction to this article there has been numerous attempts to construct a new definition. These are all original research. Saying that the new definition reflect "most" of the authoritative definitions is inevitable subject to POV regarding which definitions to include and thus original research. There is no agreement on this among economists and other scientists. This is an active area of research and and a correct solution would be an immediate Nobel prize. So it is preposterous that anyone here should write a new definition. There can be only two solutions (as is also shown by relentless edit wars regarding this new defintion):
1: No definition, just a statement referring to definitions of capitalism.
2: A summary allowing all the elements from authoritative definitions published elsewhere. Ultramarine 14:47, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Should the same apply in articles about Nazism, Torture and Child pornography? I have never seen this "friendly" introduction policy. Ultramarine 16:34, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research and the definition of Capitalism