Talk:Capitalism/Archive 15

message: In particular, pasting the entire (mostly unrelated) article on the Index of Economic Freedom into this talk page, in multiple copies, is completely pointless.  That article already exists, and all the editors here are aware it exists.  It concerns a different topic than this article. 
There's a remark by Wittgenstein about being shocked by a news story, and buying multiple copies of the newpaper to verify that it's really true.  Ludwig figured out what was wrong with that methodology: perhaps we could learn from him. LotLE×talk 03:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use talk for actual discussion 

message: * Now the article has been cleaned from all modern pro-capitalist arguments so that the Marxist POV should not have any troublesome counter-arguments.
* This has been followed by archiving or deletion of all the ongoing talk page discussions about this.
* Here is some of the material that is obviously so dangerous that the readers should not be allowed to see it even on talk pages.Ultramarine 03:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Large scale deletions and violations of npov 

message: I am returning this from the archive, because I don't believe the discussion is over:
I think we had this discussion a while back, though that may have been Crotalus Horridus (or however that's spelled). It's unclear what you mean about how those use-rights are specified, but if you're talking about e.g., some kind of open field system, then that would be a kind of public, or collective ownership, not private ownership. Hence, not capitalism. MrVoluntarist 15:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My point exactly - not capitalism, but means of production are still privately owned. It sounds like for you at least the fact that land, specifically, is considered a means of production and is privately owned is crucial to capitalism. I do not argue this. But if this is a key factor, then perhaps the article needs a section on debates over ownership of land and the historical pricess by which it became a commodity (or whatever word you prefer, to describe something that is bought and sold as well as used). Slrubenstein | Talk 15:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you don't have the right to sell a thing or give it to someone else, then you don't own it. Ownership entails a right to dispose of a thing as one wishes. Land was not owned by private individuals in feudalism because they didn't have the right to trade their real estate amongst each other. Just like if the law prohibited you from selling your own labor, then you wouldn't own yourself. You might own yourself morally in that case but not legally. The state would own you. If there are any means of production communistically owned, then like MrVoluntarist says, it wouldn't be part of capitalism. A free society allows anyone to establish any type of economic system they want. It just so happens that in free societies, the overwhelming majority of people choose to engage in capitalism. Some in the U.S., like some hippies, choose communism and set up their communes out in the country. They operate in a communist system within the free society. They're not part of the capitalist system. C-Liberal 19:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Right, private ownership of the means of production is not sufficient for capitalism. You have to have a laissez-faire economic environment as well, which is to say that the markets decides how to allocated goods, services, and income and the prices for these things instead of the government. In other words a free market. Private ownership of the means of production but with the state making those decisions would be a command economy. And anything in between would be a mixed economy. C-Liberal 15:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think there was ever a changing in the meaning of ownership. I don't think the tenants were ever regard to "own" the land they were working. C-Liberal 01:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Someone over at the [State capitalism] page has highlighted a contradiction between this article and that one, namely the definition of capitalism: Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production are privately owned, and capital is invested in the production, distribution and other trade of goods and services for profit. - obviously the point in bold is the point of contention between state capitalist theorists and others generally, but I'll just state here (without making any change) that I think the part in bold is superflous - for example at the least you could have two states which own their means of production trading as if private firms in a capitalistic way.  If you have production for exchange then you have capitalism - just because someone (a Sovnarkom planner) tells you who to sell to doesn't stop it being a sale.  Anyway, I'll trya nd clarify this at the state cap page...--Red Deathy 07:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  private property 

message: Why are the disputed tags immediately deleted? Please discuss the points mentioned in "Large scale deletions and violations of npov" and "Criticisms of capitalism section" above.Ultramarine 14:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletions of disputed tags 

message: I again ask why all sourced pro-capitalist arguments are deleted? Please explain why even this short paragarph is deleted: .Ultramarine 18:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cut the WP:POINT stuff out! I'm with you, as far as it goes, in thinking the IEF (short) paragraph "criticizing" the criticism section is sufficiently harmless to retain.  But removing the entire section to "get even" with an (anonymous) editor who removed your pet paragraph is a really gross violation of wikiquette. LotLE×talk 19:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion of pro-capitalist arguments 

message: For an example/discussion, take a look at Wikipedia talk:Footnotes/Mixed citations and footnotes.  Wikipedia:Harvard referencing also discusses this (and points to the example).  Generally, what I'd like for this fairly academic-tone article is to use named-inline references to book sources that are simply cited without further comment; but use footnotes for elaborations/clarifications of points made in the text.  Such footnotes might include cases where different sources are provided and contrasted in some way, but the contrast would disrupt the flow of the main text.  Mostly we're there; I'd like to convert a few more book links to citation list form.
If anyone cares very much, we can convert the simple parenthetical Harvard citations to the templatized {ref_harvard} form.  That has the minimal advantage of letting you jump to the bottom of the page, where the source is detailed.  But I tend to feel the template has as many pitfalls as benefits (mostly, it's easy to get the fields wrong: for example, a slight spelling problem in the simple inline form doesn't prevent reader identification; it does prevent the links from working though). LotLE×talk 19:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the information. I'm still learning much of the technical aspects of wiki. I kinda like the idea of mixed references, but I can see the problems too: such as mixing footnotes with references. I prefer the the Harvard parenthetical citations, but I also like the idea of being able to jump down to the details and back again. Is there any way with wiki to accomplish that? What do others know about such an feature and how dow they feel about it. --Cplot 19:53, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As well as the examples I mention above, you might want to look at Template talk:Ref_harvard itself.  For a robust academic article that I worked on to put Harvard referencing in place (and was FA and front-page), see Retreat of glaciers since 1850. LotLE×talk 21:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mixed citations 

message: Unfortunately, this edit  is seriously incorrect and violates npov. Marginalism is primarily a neoclassical concept, not something that belongs only to the fringe Austrian school. It violates npov to delete how mainstream economists explain the profit of capitalists and instead have many paragraphs about the LTV which almost no economists believe in anymore.Ultramarine 00:46, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to point out that the LTV was originally developed by pro-capitalists (as part of classical economics) before being adopted by Marxists. Surely it cannot be considered an inherently anti-capitalist theory. -- Nikodemos 13:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Austrian school, marginalism, and the value of capitalists 

message: Whoever is writing the definition doesn't know what capitalism is. You can't define capitalism without noting that it's the private sector that decides where capital is going to be invested, what goods are going to be produced, and how they are going to be distributed and priced rather than the state making these decisions. Capitalism is not simply private ownership of the means of production. It's a market economy, which means that it's not a planned economy. C-Liberal 01:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, a capitalist economy is a market economy, but not every market economy is necessarily capitalist. And there are (theoretical) economic systems that are neither centrally planned nor market-based. -- Nikodemos 12:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Though I've long since ceased trying to get my fellow editors to recognize this and include it in articles, the key to understanding capitalism is a particular sort of free market: freedom in the market for enterprise equity or debt. --Christofurio 13:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A capitalist economy is not necessarily a market economy. We should not draft an intro with a definition that is so restrictive that it cannot be applied to all economies that have been described by economic historians as capitalist, including mercantism and the political economy of the European fascist regimes. 172 | Talk 19:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All you examples satisfy the simple test I just mentioned: all had a free market in enterprise equity and debt. They had, in other words, arrangements for the purchase and sale of stocks and bonds. That is the best defining feature of capitalism. --Christofurio 15:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A market cannot exist without private property, since market relations are based on it. And Nazi Germany was a socialist economy since the estate controled everything (prices and profits were only prices and profits in name they did not exist in reality).--RafaelG 16:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Were stocks and bonds for sale on the exchanges? --Christofurio 19:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Trading stocks and bonds on an exchange is by no means necessary to have a capitalist economy. After all, only an extremely small amount of companies are even listed on a stock exchange! In most countries, small and medium enterprises (SMEs) generate most of a country's GDP; in general these SMEs are not listed anywhere. Furthermore, the majority of companies is incorporated (in Europe at least) under regimes such as LLCs or partnerships - i.e. they do not even issue stock and their ownership cannot be traded. Indeed, even some of the largest companies are unlisted: IKEA is organised as a Dutch foundation; Rolex as a Swiss foundation; KPMG, PwC and other audit companies are organised as partnerships; Migros (the biggest Swiss supermarket chain) is even organised as a cooperative company. Concerning bonds: most of the debt that exists in the world has not been issued in the form of tradable bonds - so the same argument could be made for those. Therefore, trading shares and bonds is by no means necessary to have a capitalist economy. Luis rib 17:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Surely Capitalism is a society in which the dominant economic activity is governed by capital - which if I recall my Smith is defined as a good/factor of production which is employed in producing goods for sale with a view to returning to its original form in increased magnitude.  (i.e. investing money to make goods for sale in order to have more money at the end - theoretically you could have some sort of capitalist barter economy, perhaps).  That being so it doesn't matter who owns the capital or in what form so long as capital is employed.  I'll just add a rider, though, that technically state property is private property belonging to the government as an incorporated person.--Red Deathy 08:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Market economy

message: As an excercise, I read through the article to compile a list of what the various schools see as the characteristics that define capitalism. There's certainly no concensus to reach, but I thought the leading material could at least summarize those characteristics and show the diversity of meanings ascribed to the term "capitalism". Though not a surprise, the almost all share the idea that markets are a feature of capitalism. However, beyond that there are many different disagreements that I think should be reflected briefly in the lead section. For example, it could be argued that certain strands of neoclassical thought view only markets (which they see as ubiquitous even without commodities; as in household negotiations). For this view capitalism is eternal: always has been and always will. This contrasts with most of the other views presented that view markets as only one of the characteristics of capitalism and therefore see capitalism as arising in recent centuries. Some other features that should probably be included in the leading material are: profit motive, drive to accumulate (growth), the issue of whether capitalism is characteristic of private enterprises only or whether it might also include state run or state sponsored enterprises (like USSR and fascist states) or what institutions need to be separated from the state (like banking, etc.); credit/finance systems; and perhaps the Marxian ascribed characteristic of the division between those who control access to means of production and those who don't. Finally, the Weberian view of the importance of bureaucracy should be reflected in the lead section in my view. This would help draw out those important characteristics of capitalism elaborated on in the rest of the article. This way a casual reader could get the digest version without reading any further. Any thoughts? --Cplot 04:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the note Lulu posted on your talk page: I believe that the lead as it exists now ... is in pretty good shape .... It's not necessarily the best thing possible, but it seems good enough that we should work for stasis, not for radical rewrite. Keeping the intro relatively simple and circumscribed, as it seems to be stabilizing now, I think leaves it less prone to abuse by POV warriors. 172 | Talk 06:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Moreover, including all the concepts Cplot mentions above (as well as a brief into to its history, which is needed) is... well, that's the whole article, isn't it?  At the least such ideas would push the lead far longer than WP:LEAD suggests.  A lead is just there to pique reader interest (and generally summarize the topic), the rest of the article is where the details are. LotLE×talk 07:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead section 

message: What is the deal with the S-protect?  I see some of the comments that you have been leaving on each others pages, and I guess you think that some of us are sock-puppets.  I can't speak for everyone else, but there is probably another explanation for all of the new accounts, and it might have something to do with 172's complete friggin rewrite.  I guess my 96 hours are almost up, I'll find something else to work on until then.  --Todd 08:24, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's just a way of monopolizing control over the article by the old guard. It's not justified at all. Anything to keep fresh blood and new perspectives out I guess. Typical. It goes against the spirit of Wikipedia though. C-Liberal 19:17, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: S-protect?  wtf?!?

message: I think we've reached consensus that this sentence is acceptable in the lead.  Looking at it again, I actually start to like it affirmatively, not just as "not harmful".  On reflection, I think there genuinely are some readers for whom this would be clarifcation:
:Capitalism, during the last century, has often been contrasted with planned economies.
However, in further highlighting along the same line, I think the point VisionThing and some others have been trying to get about the use of "mixed economy" as a comparison/contrast is also worthwhile, if kept to very minimal form.  This is just slightly longer (not counting the citation, but citations are good), but does both things:
:Sometimes contrasted with planned economies, most developed countries of the last century are usually regarded as capitalist, but are also often called mixed economiesCase, Karl E., Fair, Ray C., Principles of Macroeconomics, Chapter 22 Globalization, Prentice Hall (2004) due to government ownership and regulation of production, trade, commerce, taxation, money-supply, and physical infrastructure.
LotLE×talk 03:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The time frame indicated is "the last century", so that's not just 2006.  But different experts use the phrase "mixed economy" in different ways, sometimes as a type of capitalism, sometimes as a contrast with it.  I don't think we have to decide on a country-by-country year-by-year basis what's "in" and what's "out".  But the terms "planned economy" and "mixed economy" are ones a fair number of readers might know about, and the general idea that capitalism is contrasted with PE, and slightly-contrasted with ME, is worth noting concisely.  The particular word "most" is generally a placeholder for a range of opinion; if you can find an equally short way of indicating the general direction, I'm not attached to the exact words. LotLE×talk 01:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, for some reason I missed the part framing the sentence in terms of "the last century." My eyes are getting worse and worse all the time. 172 | Talk 09:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mixed economy 

message: I think it would be easier to deal with this issue if we distinguished between capitalism as an ideology and capitalism as a historically specific set of institutions (both of which have been studied by social scientists and historians). Slrubenstein   |  Talk 12:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When I was working on the rewrite I thought about working that distinction into the structure of the article, creating a section on ideology. However, I had trepidations about doing so, assuming the section would easily magnet for followers of fringe movements like the last article, which was heavily POVed by Randroids on the right and anarchists on the left. 172 | Talk 20:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I certainly have sympathies on both sides of the Slrubenstein/172 discussion above.  I think a third issue is that institutions and ideologies are not nearly so easily pulled apart as just saying it suggests.  Is and ought are terribly entangled in real life.  Take for example my recent bete noir of some editors trying to define capitalism as government not making any decisions about production/exchange/etc.  That's a perfectly well-known strong libertarian positiion (ideology) on how things ought to be... but at the same time, a lot of libertarians (of stronger or weaker stripes) have been involved in deciding government policy for several centuries.  While nowhere has achieved (or suffered) the strong version that some editors were sticking into the lead, what has actually happened economically unquestionably reflects centuries of ideological inclinations to do things in certain ways (by people in positions to make decisions). LotLE×talk 00:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

text: In general, I'm supportive of Slrubenstein's idea of adding more coverage of "ideologies of capitalism", subject to the obvious concerns with maintaining NPOV, verifiability, and perhaps especially undue weight.  The theorist we present so far are mostly from the perspective of trying to understand what capitalism is (which is obviously germane and central), but a bit more on the influential folks who have opined on what it should be is worth adding in.  There are bits and pieces both under the analysts and under the "criticism" section, but maybe it can be presented more systematically (perhaps a section called "ideologies" that subsumes "criticisms" and "legal frameworks" from the current version). LotLE×talk 17:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like Lulu's idea of creating an "idelogies" section that subsumes "criticisms" and "state and legal frameworks." Neverthless, I still fear that some editors will stop by this article insisting that we start treating their minor figures as if they were major figures (of course, we've already seen a lot of this in recent weeks)... How would an "ideologies" section be organized? By subsections on 19th century conservatism, liberalism, socialism, communism, etc.? Chronologically? By region? 172 | Talk 17:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Re: We can distinguish between Marx's explanation of how capitalism works versus why he thinks it harms people and is doomed to fail. Exactly. I was trying to make that distinction earlier, putting the former in the Marxian political economy section under theories of capitalism and the latter in the "criticisms" section... I like the idea of listing the ideologies in order of their emergence. Still, in doing so, we should clarify the distinction between the new section we'll be drafting and the existing "history" section... As for the fringe theories, your advice is sound. I suppose we'll also just have to hope for the best. 172 | Talk 19:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to chime in on a narrow point: I think a chronology of ideologies is much better than trying to arrange them on a left-right axis (or any other axis). LotLE×talk 19:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Me too. By the way, in case I wasn't clear earlier, I was never proposing such an axis. I'm not much of a fan at all of such ahistorical axes anyway. 172 | Talk 20:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Given length constraints, I think we should avoid overcategorizing place+time trends in ideologies.  Especially since the history of capitalism has largely been one of center vs. periphery rather than specific regional distinctions.  I think something like three or four general time periods would be about the right main division, maybe: "Pre-19th C", "19th C", "20th C".  Within that, a clause or sentence can contextualize a given thinker.  E.g.: "Meanwhile, writing in the context of American slave-ownership, Frederick Douglass propounded..."  Each such section about "trends in ideology" might have 3-5 paragraphs, I think. LotLE×talk 14:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ideology and history 

message: Why are you removing this link from external links section 172? This article is talking about Austrian school of economics and its views on capitalism so it has every right to be included here. -- Vision Thing -- 21:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the page is not specifically on capitalism (what it is and how it works), unlike the three encyclopedia articles on capitalism already under the external links. The word "capitalism" is not even mentioned once in the page you've linked. The word "capitalist" is mentioned exactly one time. Now, you could go ahead and link another mises.org page if, for example, it contained an entry describing what capitalism is and how it works or how it helps people. In doing so, you should then balance that link with sites advocating different approaches to understanding economics (neoclassical economics, neo-Keynesian economics, neo-Marxism, etc.). 172 | Talk 21:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the page is specifically on capitalism (what it is, how it works and what is not working) from the Austrian point of view. Did you tried to read the articles on the front page? Also, on the right under Literature and All subjects there are various articles and books categorized. Most of the subjects are about capitalist economics. Anyway, I added and marixist's link for balance. As for the other schools, you can freely add their links too. -- Vision Thing -- 17:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The addition of the Marxist link made things worse. Both links are not specifically relevant to a general entry on what capitalism is. Please to not place any random link related to economic thought in the links. 172 | Talk 23:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

text: The main point is not about "balance", it's simply that Wikipedia articles are not link farms.  I'm sure that mises.org (or maxists.org) have some articles that are vaguely relevant to "what is capitalism?"... but we don't have a goal of finding links to every one of the 50 million URLs that are vaguely on-topic.  Only resources either specifically cited or used as general reference material should be linked, and very sparingly on the latter category. LotLE×talk 00:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there an offical policy on what should be linked? -- Vision Thing -- 19:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A good guideline to look at is Wikipedia:External links.  But also stuff in WP:CITE and scattered various places also addresses this.  There are certainly a lot of guidelines on WP, not all entirely consistent with each other.  But if you've read things like FAC nominations and Peer Reviews, you start to get a sense of what the most experienced editors find the relevant level of linking.  As a rule, a lot more WP articles overlink than underlink now: think about whether a resource is so relevant that a print publication like EB or academic reference books would also mention it.  If the answer is a clear "No", that probably is a good clue about what we should do (no, our content is not identical to EB; but it's a reasonable heuristic). LotLE×talk 20:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:External links under "What should be linked to" says: "On articles with multiple points of view, a link to prominent sites dedicated to each, with a detailed explanation of each link.". This is an article that deals with multiple points of view and Mises.org is a prominent site dedicated to Austrian School so there is no reason not to add it. -- Vision Thing -- 12:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The link must be more than vaguely relevant to the topic. The external links section in this article is not a link farm for any random group advocating a particular economic ideology. 172 | Talk 05:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

text: It isn't vaguely relevant to the topic. It's a link to the prominent site dedicated to the Austrian view on capitalism. -- Vision Thing -- 19:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to [http://www.mises.org Mises.org] 

message: Someone added this digressive footnote to the lead that claimed that some scholars argue Roman economy was capitalist.  As a general matter, the point is both too narrow and too heterodox to be appropriate for the lead.  In my edit comment removing it, I stated that it might be possible to mention later in the article.  However, after following the provided link: <http://sshi.stanford.edu/Seminars/Papers/classics/temin.pdf>, I noticed that the cited article does not itself even make that claim.  Instead the article discusses the "market economy" of Rome.  For that to mean the same thing as "capitalist" is to follow one specific line of thinking on what capitalism is, one which is not majority, let alone consensus.  In any case, the author of the paper does not himself draw the specific equivalence of market=capitalism, not mention the words "capitalism" or "capitalist" anywhere in the article. So that boils down to some contentious original research, several steps removed from marginal sources. LotLE×talk 03:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roman digression 

message: Right, I've been being bold and making changes I think correct in removing an unnecessary part of the lead section, it suffices to say that it is capital (I take umbrage at being asked to stop, I scrupulously go by the principle of 3 reversions and will back down then, but please do allow me to make my case).  Capital remains capital no matter who owns it - a state owned corporation is still investing capital and so long as it doesn't use taxes to subsidy itself it usually still makes profits and turns over its capital.  I realise that is contentious, perhaps, but it's, Shirley, better to leave out parts of defs. that are contentious.  basically, I'm trying to remove a contradiction with the state capitalism page, there are otehrways, but this one seemed quickest.  I don't think I'm adding anything fallacious, nor detracting from the article ("Capitalism is also usually considered to involve the right of individuals and groups of individuals acting as "legal persons" (or corporations) to trade in a free market." makes a similar point in the same paragraph).--Red Deathy 12:37, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm happier with mostly privately owned (still not quite accurate IMNSHO - and still unnecessary, as in inessential to the definition of capitalism).  Perhaps to try and deal with my main problem, at the end of the paragraphg, after the bit about contrast with planned economy we could give a nod of some sort to the state capitalist theory, as in 'some writers, though, maintain that the planned economies of the Soviet Union etc. were in fact something called state capitalism.' which might resolve the contradiction.  I'll insert something like that tomorrow unless strenuous objections are heard.--Red Deathy 10:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Those state capitalist theorists are minor enough in the scheme of theorization that the nod really does not belong in the lead.  Such a mention would be perfectly fine in the "History" section, or possibly under the "Marxist political economy" section (next to those "tendencies" folks).  The problem with your edits, Red Deathy, was that they claimed an centrally essential role for capital as the mechanism of production: that may be true, but it's not what most thinkers have emphasized; most have focused on private ownership of means of production.  The predominant identification is in Smith and Ricardo, its in Keynes and Sraffa, its in Weber.  In fact, the private ownership thing is central in Marx, the role of capital as such is more of a "derived consequence" for him.  About the only folks who have the "pure capital" theory are the moneterists in the Chicago School (not even most neo-classicals). LotLE×talk 14:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not so sure about Marx, certainly, I'd have to go back look at Smith.  For Marx the theory of commodity fetishism meant that the private capitalist is just a representative of the capital, which has taken on an almost autonomous role in its own right.  After all, MoP only becomes capital when it enters into a specific set of social relations (for Marx at least and by my memory implicitly in Smith).  Anyway, like I said, I'll accept a climb down (unless I can check a couple of source and come back)....--Red Deathy 14:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, I checked wealth of nations - and the chapter on revenues of for the state does include sections on state run businesses, which are described as 'mercantilist' (and given Smith was writing from before the coining of the term capitalist, it does seem to be synonymous with that description).  What seems to be more important than ownership (as in who owns) seems to be the change of ownership, and the existence of the market combined with capitalistic production.--Red Deathy 08:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Sounds like original research to me.  You are suggesting a different word than almost all historical thinkers use, on the grounds you feel its a better analysis. LotLE×talk 14:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I would disagree it's original research in as much as the wording of wikipedia is down to the editors in order to explain  the verifiable facts we are presenting, and in the previous comment I made I demonstrated that perhaps some of the writers you cited don't necessarilly hold to that word in quite the way you seem to suggest they adhere to it.  If you extend the principle of no OR to the extent that we cannot use our own wording to describe the subject we may as well give in and simply cut and paste public domain articles from elsewhere.  It can't be OR if it isn't proposing any new facts or interpretations. After all, if we stuck with the adaemics terminology often in many other fields that would mean we wouldn't be able to translate physics, say, concepts to the common reader Finally, I have published sources which state do state more or less what I was trying to convey.  So, I'd rather if you disagree with the connotation or for whatever otehr reason you don't think it would be a good change,say so, but don't pull up irrelevent policies --Red Deathy 14:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you look at definitions of capitalism you will see that even the Marxist definition says "in particular private ownership of the means of production". -- Vision Thing -- 18:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Vision Thing's reference here is quite germane.  Notice that almost every single other source uses the specific phrase "private ownership of means of prodcution", or some very close paraphrase of that.  No single one of the external sources uses "separate ownership ..." (indeed, I don't even really know what that would mean). LotLE×talk 20:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: [] The Marxist quotes don't really support that.  I think separately certainly captures the spirit and meaning of such sources as Wealth of nations (which admits state enterprises as possible capitalist concerns, albeit ones not run well for moral hazzard reasons).  It goes to the essence of the fact that things have to be owned separately by different people/groups.  However, take such entities as the Church of England, a private none state agency, which does not have a property qualification for membership, but which owns capital - do the firms it owns cease to be capitalist?  Anyway, I accept your principled disagreement so won't try the change, otehrs can just read this exchange and make their own mind up later.--Red Deathy 08:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean like: Encyclopedia of Marxism: "The socio-economic system where social relations are based on commodities for exchange, in particular private ownership of the means of production and on the exploitation of wage labour. ? Or, e.g.: In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.? LotLE×talk 13:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, I wouldn't take a textbook called the Encylopedia of marxism as a neutral source at the best of times, the Bolsheviks had a dog in this fight in as much as they could claim to have abolished private property (at least legal titles, the state remained the private property of the bolshevik party, in effect, though).  You'll see my link was to the Marxist writers further down (I've corrected it).  M&E did adjust their theory (particularly E) after the rise of the joint stock company, whcih is, after all, commonly owned by the shareholders...ISTR that line is from the manifesto, which predates most of their serious economic work--Red Deathy 07:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Maybe.  But the two things are closely interrelated.  I guess it boils down to whether Marx considered the slave society of the antebellum US south to be "capitalist" (since labor-power was not a commodity there, rather laborers were). LotLE×talk 17:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He often referred to the Southern Slave-hodlers as semi-aristocratic, ISTR, I'll have a run through his civil war writings and get back t'ya.--Red Deathy 07:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead section ("separately") 

message: Even though Marx had faulty reasoning and incorrect conclusions, it should at least be mentioned on the talk page that the section is being deleted. It is being restored until it passes through the talk page. JBogdan 00:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Someone removed Marx section

message: I removed the Marx section and I'm not a vandal. I removed it because there's no good reason for it to be there. This is specifically an article on capitalism. What does Karl Marx have to do with capitalism? Why not have a Betty Crocker on capitalism section? Or maybe a Daffy Duck on capitalism? KingWen€ŸØãç 08:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not trying to be mean, but how can you not see what Marx has to do with capitalism? He is a well-known philosopher who's main body of work dealt with economics--especially capitalism and alternatives to it. Daffy Duck and Betty Crocker never articulated any beliefs about capitalism as far as I know. The Ungovernable Force 08:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, they probably didn't. My question is why is it necessary to have to listen to someone's beliefs about capitalism? This is an article about capitalism. Who cares what Karl Marx had to say about it? As a matter of fact, just the insertion of what somebody had to say about it, especially someone who proposed alternatives to it, is pov pushing. Wikipedia is an encycopedia not a blog where people air their feelings about topics. So let's just stick to the topic -- capitalism. KingWen€ŸØãç 08:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then you should have deleted the entire "perspectives" section. That section is devoted to puting forth notable perspectives that have been taken on capitalism and it's nature. If you or I had gone and put our perspectives on capitalism in the article, then yes, it should have been removed, but Marx's analysis of capitalism is very notable. The fact that he rejected it doesn't matter. That section doesn't even present it as negative or postive, it merely presents Marx's description of capitalism. It has just as much place there as the others. The Ungovernable Force 08:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with ungovernable Force, Marx is relevent not least for  definingand theorisng capitalism, but also in terms of the effort put into his refutation by other leading economists - the fact is that what capitalism is is itself a highly contested subject, and simply citing some promenant models avoids POV arguments.  We might as well remove Adam Smith because  his model of capitalism bears little resemblence to modern corporate capitalism.--Red Deathy 09:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's hard to read much sincerity in the deletion, which very notably did not delete the quite similar sections on Smith/Ricardo, Weber, Austrian School, Keynes, etc., all of whom—just like Marx—articulated theoretical descriptions to try to answer the questin "What is Capitalism?" LotLE×talk 15:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, the real issue is that KingWen was really Thewolfstar/Lingeron/who knows how many other socks they have. They know the policy and really don't care. Ungovernable ForceThe Wiki Kitchen! 06:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: That was me

message: The introduction says "The term also refers to several theories [citation needed] that developed in the context of the Industrial Revolution and the Cold War meant to explain, justify, or critique the private ownership of capital, to explain the operation of such markets, and to guide the application or elimination of government regulation of property and markets." That doesn't make sense. Capitalism is a system, not a theory. Writings about capitalism are not themselves referred to as capitalism.  Please give a cite for the claim that the word "capitalism" refers to theories. DTC 23:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you claim that capitalism refers to a system.  This system is made up of observable things, but claims that these things cohere into a system are simply claims, i.e a theory. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 01:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Theories are not called "capitalism." Theorists theorize about the system called capitalism. The theories themselves aren't called capitalism. DTC 02:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I would say that capitalism refers both to an ideology,l and to a set of practices and institutions that that ideology concerns itself with. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 15:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Capitalism refers to several theories? What?

message: Should this topic have a portal? I'm working on the Cold War Portal, and there's a Communism Portal, but not one for Capitalism?
Hires an editor 21:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure; Capitalism seems to be an economic system, not a political system. Would be found under  economics. Dullfig 22:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, It seems to me that pure capitalism, laisez-faire capitalism, requires that the government not involve itself at all in the economy, so that would mean that politics and economy don't mix. In Eurpean economies, where the government has its "tentacles" in everything, then in that case politics and economy would mix, but that is only because of the nature of European politics, not because of the nature of economy. -- Dullfig 22:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Way wrong, I'm afraid, Dullfig. In the case of a minimal government, that doesn't regulate working conditions, wages, prices, pollution or the like ... we can't really say that this is a case where "politics and economy don't mix." They are still one and the same. There is a continuing (political) decision to refrain from the regulation of working conditions, wages, prices, pollution or the like. This is a political fact looked at in one way, an economic fact looked at in another. They are two names for the same thing -- differing sciences, but not differing sets of facts. --Christofurio 03:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: So, should there be a portal for capitalism, whatever it is? Political or economic, Capitalism has been the designation for the American system, as opposed to Socialism as practiced in Europe. It has been used as a counterpoint to communism in particlar during the Cold War. I just think it should have a portal, that's all. In fact, a portal might be a good place to hi-lite some of the differences between the political/economic/whatever things people seem to think it is. Hires an editor 20:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Portal 

message: Any true capitalist would never call it usury. What does exist is loans at very high interest rates. But with so many other alternatives, the only reason one would take out a loan at such high interest rates, is that your situation prevents you from getting a regular loan. The person making the loan is taking a gamble by loaning money to someone that is such a high risk. Shouldn't he get a higher return on investment because of the higher risk? And the person taking the loan is not being coerced into taking the loan, right? I feel the term usury is POV, because it implies that what the person loaning the money at high interest is doing something wrong. So only critics of capitalism would use such a term. -- Dullfig 23:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, yeah, it's sort of negative, but there is nothing inherently pov about linking to articles that criticize capitalism. We try to remain neutral, which means presenting both sides, positive and negative, supporters and critics. Ungovernable ForceThe Wiki Kitchen! 23:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Technically, any lending of money for interest is usurious - Islamic lending (and perhaps it's woth finding a way to link Islamic banking in somehere) lends money on a joint ownership basis, for example.  Likewise, anyone who sells a skill, talent or ability for money is a prostitute and anyone who writes for a living is a pornographer - int etymology grand?--Red Deathy 07:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Usury doesn't have a direct connection with capitalism, it existed in other systems too (eg. feudalism). -- Vision Thing -- 16:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Usury

message: And as I mentioned above I am still not vonfinced that the infant mortality and life expectation is the best example for the benefits of globalization. If this are the only benefits than globalization is a overestimated concept. The paper  compares first with third world contries which makes everything very hard to compare. Also no contry changed from capitalism to comunism without revolution or heavy econmical crisis, which makes it hard to compare the changes and thei influence on the two variables. There must be better examples how about politicak freedom and globalization or armed conflicts and globalization or what ever.--Stone 08:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Infant Mortality

message: Perhaps a way out of this debate about Catholicism would be to admit different strands of religious critique, i.s. Islamic criticques of Capitalism?  methodists? ("The Labour Party owes more to mjethodism than to Marxism" Harold Wilson), Dalai Lama?  AFAICS the current version (Lulu's)of the Catholicism bit is still fairly non-notable and still doesn't amount to a criticism of capitalism.--Red Deathy 13:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a passing mention now of some protestant critics: Shakers, Luddites, etc., but without belaboring it the way the Catholic paragraph does (even in my less belabored edits).  Actually, the Islamic issue is a good point, given that Muslims take the OT prohibition on usury much more seriously than do the xtians (well, some of them do; but enough to call it a "religious critique"). LotLE×talk 13:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed the paragraph to one about various religious belifs and capitalism. Why was only one mentioned before? 72.139.119.165 01:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religious criticism