Talk:Capitalism/Archive 5

message: I have created a new page, definitions of capitalism. There we have the space to quote the many different definitions of capitalism.
:Ok, but that doesn't fix the problem with the intro. RJII 18:18, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I see little problems. What do you propose? That only your definition(s) should be in intro? Ultramarine 18:22, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Note also that the collegiate dictionary quote is more recent than your quote and is thus not a subset Ultramarine 18:23, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  You already know what I propose. Two definitions. One that defines capitalism as involving a free market, and another that satisfies those who define it has having nothing to do with a free market (this conception of prevalent enough that it needs to be taken care of). If it's not me there's going to be others that have this objection. Why not take care of it?  It's easy enough. RJII 18:33, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: But this sorting is original research. Or do you actually have a source which supports this taxonomy of the defitions? Ultramarine 18:38, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's not "original research." This is not a matter of "original research." Looking up a definition is secondary research. The definition is common enough that it should be there along with the other common definition that you insist on being there. My reasoning may be my own, but my reasoning isn't going to be in there. Putting in another common definition of capitalism to supplement the first does not constitute "original research." How is it original research to put "my" definition in there, but not original research to put "your" definition in there? RJII 18:58, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: If your reasoning is without external sources then it is original research. You have a point about the description also being original reserach. However, it is not a definition and thus a far weaker statement and there seems to be a general consensus, something not true of the definitions. I propose that we try to agree on a common desription and leave the definitions to the new page. Alternatively, remove all descriptions and definitions from the introduction and simply state that there is no consensus on a definition and that the article will desribe various aspects of capitalism. Ultramarine 19:02, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's my opinion that capitalism, the economic system, should be defined/described on the intro. I provided an "external source" of another common definition of capitalism, therefore it is not original research (How many times does something have to be drilled into your head before you get it?). That conception is what I'd like to see reflected as an alternative definition/description. You are wrong to say there is a "general consensus" on the definition/description in the intro. Many people do not define, describe, or conceive of capitalism as involving a free market. You are plainly POV pushing. I find it contemptible. Moreoever, your claims of "original research" are obviously a smokescreen. You know damned well that providing a description of capitalism as referenced from external sources is not "original research." And, you know damned well that what I want to put in the intro is not "original research." I tire of your disingenousness. RJII 19:22, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: So how about removing all descriptions and definitions from the introduction? I see this as the only alternative if we cannot agree on a weak description. Ultramarine 19:27, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: I think the introduction is quite good now. But I see no reason and no need why just some of the many definitions should be included. Ultramarine 19:24, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: Read everything in the section called "A Sincere Attempt" above to understand the problem with that. By the way, I ever said "most people" but "many people." Read the above section please --particularly the bottom 2/3 of it. Also read everything in this section. RJII 00:22, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: What are you talking about? My intention is not on getting anarcho-capitalism represented --I even deleted the mention of it the first time you put it there. You're the one that put it back. My intention is making sure that a definition that is compatible with a marxist or similar conception of capitalism is there. It is POV to only present the pro-capitalist definition that says capitalism involves a free market. That definition is incompatible with the conception of capitalism that many have. An alternative definition must be presented if you are going to present that one. That alternative is one that says it is system where capital is privately owned, and has absolutely nothing to do with a "free market." You have not been out much if you're not aware that those who oppose capitalism have a different definition. If you think all this time I've been trying to get anarcho-capitalism in the article, then you need to lay off the bottle. Obviously you haven't been cognizant of anything I've been saying about all day. Go back and read everything in the section above and this section. Good grief. RJII 00:58, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a single Marxist has protested. The practices section is very compatible with the view of most Communists. Furthermore, there is no opposition between a free market and private ownership, you have shown no source that claimed this. That they do not mention this in the same sentance is not the same thing. Ultramarine 01:04, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm protesting. If you think that Marxists think that capitalism is a free market have you ever taken the time to read the Marxist Critique of Capitalism in this very article? Capitalism is not a free market to Marxists but an unfree one, rife with coercion and exploitation. A free market is one that has no coercion. To describe capitalism as a free market is so obviously POV to anyone who understands the critique of capitalism. Stop pushing your pro-capitalist POV. RJII 01:13, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Most marxists do not mind using the word "free market". Ultramarine 01:20, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes they do. RJII 01:44, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  They dislike the "free market". But they can use it in their critique. The word "free" is not a value judgement, as you seem to think, but refer to unchecked market forces. Ultramarine 01:56, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  A free market is one where there is no coercion influencing decisions in the marketplace. It's not that they dislike free-markets but that the conception of free-markets used by capitalists is not truly a free market since private property exists by coercion. RJII 02:00, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: No surprise there. RJII 17:14, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not admiting that Marxists don't define capitalism as private ownership of capital. I was saying that it's no surprise that you "have no idea what RJII is talking about." That's it. RJII 19:53, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That flawed logic is why I'm not surprised that you don't understand what I say. I make myself clear. And, the last thing I want to do is get involved in a protracted discourse when the other person is oblivious to the meaning of anything I say. I've made my points. Read this talk page for more information. RJII 20:11, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Listing of definions of Capitalism 

message: Congratulations Ultramarine. You just violated the three revert rule. You reverted four times. RJII 18:41, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Ultramarine and three revert rule

message: The third bullet point is covered by the second isn't it?
By the way, I have to say, the organization and theme of the intro looks like it was devised by a schizophrenic with ADHD. It's abysmal. Yet, somehow a few individuals on here vigilantly guard it as if it's something of value. It's garbage. RJII 17:44, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You refuse to take seriously or respond to anyone's attempt to explain to you why no one here supports your changes.  Now you resort to personal attacks.  You have shown no regard for three fundamental policies, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Cite sources.  Now you show that you have no respect for Wikipedia:No personal attacks.  If you disagree with everyone else here, try convincing us through reasoned arguments, not insults. Slrubenstein   |  Talk  17:53, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: See talk. I've given more than enough reasons to show that the intro is garbage.RJII 17:54, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: Ideologies and theories are different things. Slrubenstein   |  Talk  18:00, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: 3rd bullet point in intro redundant

message: "Capitalism has been defined in different, sometimes competing, ways (see definitions of capitalism). Generally, it refers to one or more of the following:"  <--This gives the impression that the descriptions in the bullet points are competing with each other, but they're not. They are altogether different ways of using the word "capitalism." If there were two bullets offering different definition s of capitalism as a system then it would make sense. But as it stands one bullet refers to the system of capitalism, and other two refer to a belief or advocacy of the system. Why I need to be spell this out is beyond me. The intro is obviously incoherent. RJII 18:07, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Wrong again.  The word "generally" implies that what follows is true for most if not all definitions of capitalism.  Even if they are competeing or on conflict, they may nevertheless share various elements (this is common -- that two ideas may be in competition or conflict does not at all imply that they have nothing in common -- on the contrary...)  By the way, does your shift in attention to the first sentence mean that you won't provide the specific citation for Thackery, or for the "marxist" definition of capitalism? Slrubenstein   |  Talk  18:37, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: To be expected. That went totally over your head. And no, I'm not going to spell it out to you in any more detail. RJII 18:39, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please avoid ad hominem. Cite your sources adequately. Ultramarine 18:55, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Cite sources to say that the intro sentence makes no sense? What? RJII 19:03, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: I've provided multiple sources many times. But, apparently, if they conflict with your POV, they're not sources. RJII 19:49, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: First sentence of intro makes no sense in context of the rest of the intro

message: When looking at the latest edit by RJII  it is obvious that he/she is uninterested in reflecting many of the definitions of capitalism in the intro. He/she generally avoids citing sources for his statements adequately, refuses to explain the edits, and uses hominem attacks. Is it time for arbitration? Ultramarine 19:24, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, let's call you into arbitration. No matter how much explaining is done and no matter how many sources are cited, you are intent at keeping the status-quo in the intro, as far as content and bad, incoherent, writing. RJII 19:29, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "no matter how many sources are cited?"  Really?  And how many sources have you provided citations for? Slrubenstein   |  Talk  19:53, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: See Talk. RJII 20:02, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: Many changes have been made in the intro in order to appease you. You still seem determined to change the intro radically to your own definition. Most seem to agree on the general form of the current introduction, although the details may still be debated. Note that while your where banned for breaking the 3 revert rule there was little change. Ultramarine 20:07, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, most don't agree that the intro is good. Many people have argued otherwise here. It's just that they don't want to engage in an edit war because they know you and rubenstein stand guard 24/7 to revert changes and keep the intro as vague, uninformative, and incoherent as possible. Note that you broke the 3 revert rule and were banned. That happened because I reported you and it was found I had as well. Don't think I won't report you again. RJII 20:28, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arbitration? 

message: I removed this sentence:
:The first use of the word "capitalism" in English is by Thackeray in 1854, by which he meant having ownership of capital. 
because it is unverifiable.  Let's have a proper citation, and a fuller paraphrase, if not an actual quote. Slrubenstein   |  Talk  23:01, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I am familiar with The Newcomes.  The reason I took out this passage is because I wasn't sure and thought that perhaps this was referring to something else Thackeray wrote.  It is the first known use of the word "capitalism" and as such I do not object to including it in the article, but it has to be identified.  Also it should be presented as the first usage, not the first definition (as the second clause suggests).  He does not actually define the word.  And I am not sure if "ownership of capital" is what Thackeray meant!  My recollection is that de Florac uses his "capital" to buy shares of ownership in some company.  In this context, "capital" seems to refer to money, not ownership of a corporation.  Slrubenstein   |  Talk  16:49, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thackeray 

message: What does this mean?: "virtually all definitions of capitalism include, or are based [on] theories [that] may be a part of schools of thought advocating a different system than capitalism." ??? RJII 14:54, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not the actual text. Note that capitalism is defined and used in various descriptions and theories by both supporters and opponents. Ultramarine 15:34, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is the actual text. I just joined the intro sentence to the second paragraph so it can be clearly seen what is being said. You are saying that all definitions of capitalist "include, or are based on elements" of "one or more" of those three paragraphs. One of those paragraphs says "schools of thought advocating a different system than capitalism." If all definitions of capitalism "includes, or [is] based" on THAT paragraph, what does that mean???? Definitions of capitalism are based on elements of schools of thought that advocate something other than capitalism?? Huh? Now, if you can't explain that then of course you could always say that the intro sentence says "one or more" and that that paragraph doesn't necessarily apply, but then why have it there? There intro is so bizarre that it defies even describing here what's it's trying to say. There is something fundamentally wrong with the "logic." You've got it set in stone for yourself that the intro is going to be 3 paragraphs and the intro sentence says something about "one or more" and it just doesn't work. It needs a radical change. It's not that I'm a person of low intelligence and that I just don't understand it ..I'm actually somewhat intelligent and can read very well. And I have to say, this intro looks like it was written by third grader who can't get his thoughts together. I doesn't make sense without wild intellectual manipulations and stretches. It's horrible. RJII 16:01, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro

message: RJII added this to the introduction.  Some people believe this, some people do not.  It is better handled in the body of the article.  The purpose of the intro is to accomodate all views, not to promote one view. Slrubenstein   |  Talk  17:23, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is better handled in the intro. The intro definition is biased. RJII 17:30, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  labor is exploited 

message: RJII just made a change and wrote in the edit summary "Thackeray and Marx."  He then added "private ownership of capital."  RJII, in what book and page number does Thackeray say this?  In what book and page number does Marx say this? Slrubenstein   |  Talk  17:50, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Dude, as I said above, there is nothing in these sources that says "capitalism is defined as the ownership of capital." It's a given. It's common knowledge..it's how the term is used. Why is this new to you? A capitalist is one who owns capital, and capitalism is, as the Oxford English Dictionary says: "The condition of possessing capital" Don't you get it? There is an economic system called capitalism, and then there is just "the condition of possessing capital"...capitalism. What planet are you on? RJII 21:48, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  RJII's lack of sources