Talk:Capitalism/Archive 20

message: Actually, I mislike using other encylopedias as citation sources, kind of a metadata issue - so I've been looking for journal articles on the matter, I think I've found a reasonable source...
Title:               Meanings of Capitalism
Author(s):           Frederic C. Lane
Source:              The Journal of Economic History, Vol. 29, No. 1, 
The Tasks of Economic History. (Mar., 1969), pp. 5-12.
Stable URL: 
It identifies three key features of capitlism (paraphrasing slightly) - Capital, Labour and Markets - anyone else want/able to take a look at see if it could inform or alter our activities here...?--Red Deathy 17:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, we're not going to let your cherrypick sources to wedge in your fringe "sole proprietors aren't part of capitalism" POV.  Please, stop adding the bit about wage labor.  I will call over an admin if necessary. MrVoluntarist 17:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, read the source, I picked up about ten on a trawl through Jstore.  I've got a citation so it's not original research, I can't and won't add it again today, but waged labour is a key difference that is abswent from the legalistic def. that Bostonion has been pushing.--Red Deathy 17:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So?  You need more than just a few sources.  It had to be representative of what most sources say.  I can grab ten Marxist journals and take the ones I like -- that wouldn't make it encyclopedic. It's not in any of the mainstream dictionaries.  The part about wage labor should only be mentioned in one of the sections below, where it describes the relevance of capitalism to the various philsophical systems.  MrVoluntarist 17:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article hardly looks like a Marxist source, I didn't cherry pick it, it pretty much jumped out of a brief citation search - i'd welcome any other sources that come from reputable places.  teh part about wage labour could come straight from Adam Smith and his discussions about capital, so it's hardly a Marxist point.  That said, I think we need to go beyond popular dictionaries to slightly more reliable material, because otherwise we're paraphrasing a paraphrase...--Red Deathy 17:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't say it was a Marxist source; I was just showing how you can cherrypick sources on this.  The problem is, I have never heard *any* reference to so-called "wage labor" (which is harder to define than you might think) except in obscure, highly technical discussions, or from radical leftists.  It's just not what "capitalism" means to most people.  Now, if you want to say that as a historical matter, most economies described as "capitalism" have significant numbers of people deriving income from "wage labor", that's pretty uncontroversial.  The question is whether that is a defining feature, and to most people, no, it isn't.  Just the opposite -- any trend toward more people starting their own businesses is described in the media as capitalistic.  Or, what if most people not owning their businesses were migrant, independent contractors that changed jobs frequently?  Again, I don't see how that makes it "less capitalistic".  The "wage labor" differentiation should be confined to a later part of the article, which talks about the different conceptions, not included uptop as if that part is uncontroversial. MrVoluntarist 18:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, I wouldn't want to cherrypick, I'd like to debate and refine and find reliable critical sources we can site and build a consensus around.  Most people wouldn't consider a jobbing plumber to be a capitalist, conceptually they'd think large employer - I'd hazard.   However, it isn't our job to report what people already think, but report the truth in an accessible language, which is slightly different.  If you prefer, market in labour covers the same concept adequately.  I'll try and review the citations I dug up (when I find some time) and report back, they're mostly historical development of capitalism articles.--Red Deathy 08:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure I was clear.  The question is not whether an independent migrant contractor is a capitalist, but whether he counts as a wage laborer.  As for reporting the truth, remember that the standard is verifiability, not truth.  Finally, if you want to reduce the mention in the intro to saying there's a "market for labor", then I don't understand the point.  There are markets for lots and lots of things in capitalism, why single out labor?  MrVoluntarist 14:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I was addressing the point of whether people see self employment as capitalist.  Yes, tehre is a grey area where you have defacto employees who are self employed largely for tax reasons, etc.  The significance is that whereas many things were for sale under feudalism, chattel slavery and tribal economies, labour wasn't one of them, it is an historical novelty (largely speaking).--Red Deathy 14:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I don't think it's a "gray area" so much as "there is no serious distinction".  If you're rich, it's a client, and if you're poor, it's a boss.  Same thing.  As for the historical novelty (come on, let's pronounce those h's! a historical), what?  The last 500 years in the West is a historical novelty?  And don't forget that labor was bought at least as far back as Rome.  The term "salary" comes from the "salt" used to hire Roman soldiers.  Plus, even under feudalism and slavery, people were still hired for odd jobs when they could get away with it, sometimes routinely.  In the American South, it was common for a slaveholder to manumit a slave on the condition that he pay an "income tax" to the former master, essentially "renting out" the slave".  There was never a  time when labor couldn't be hired. MrVoluntarist 15:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the distinction comes when an 'And carry out otehr reasonable management instructions' clause gets added to the contract, if you're gonna be like that (it's on mine).  yes, tehre has always been a small possibility of buying labour power, but generally it was marginal and notpart of a systemaic labour market - up until the nineteenth century servants could be beaten for leaving their master.  I've never pronounced an Haitch in my life, bloody Yorkshire an proud...:) --Red Deathy 15:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Useful citation

message: Of course they are not outside capitalism, but most owner proprietors nowadays are subsidiary to the power of big capitalist firms - a small shop keeper is largely dependent upon the economic activity of massive warehouses; small logger firms are de facto subsidiaries of massive timber mills, etc.  teh dominant economic force is capital employing waged labour. Capitalism is about employing waged labour - that's the key difference between ancient rome (where waged labour, save for the army, was largely absent) and modern capitalism.  The point is, there is a differennce between capitalis, a whole system of society, and capitalists.  A co-op isn't a cpaitalist concern, but it operates within capitalism...--Red Deathy 17:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Employment is likely in capitalism because people are free to buy and sell whatever they want, including their own labor. But that's not a part of the definition of capitalism. Improper Bostonian 17:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Without someone to work on the capital it's kind of useless - it's no coincidence that capitalism came aboutafter lifting the restrictions on the number of employees and when workers were freed from the land.  Smith dedicates a large chunk of his description of what we now call capital to the way in which it suports labour, and the rise of capitalism is teh rise of waged labour in the world - you cannot have capitalism without a labour market--Red Deathy 18:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From the U.S. State Department article on Small Business Structure in the United States: "Most businesses are sole proprietorships -- that is, they are owned and operated by a single person. In a sole proprietorship, the owner is entirely responsible for the business's success or failure."  If "wage labor" is essential to capitalism, then we would have to say that most of the business sector in the U.S. is not a part of the capitalist system. Improper Bostonian 18:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, as I note above, they are part of the capitalist system, but that firms that employ waged labour are more decisive and make up the proponderance of the economy (and small business have employees as well, tha knowest).  It's a question os what is the hegemonic economic activity, no economy is totally uniform...--Red Deathy 18:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not true. Sole proprieterships make up the preponderance of the economy in the U.S. Improper Bostonian 18:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

text: "About three quarters of all U.S. business firms have no payroll." As of 2002, the number of firms in the U.S. with no employees is 17,646,062. The number of firms with employees is 5,696,759. Of the ones that do have employees, most of those have only 1 to 4 employees.  Improper Bostonian 18:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite - One ExxonMobile, how many thousands of proprietor owned petrol stations?  One GM, how many proprietor owned car showrooms?  One UnhiLever, how many shops selling washpowder? etc.  The hegemonic activity is that of the mass production wage labouring sector - and of course, capitalism is a worldwide system, so all those kids in Pakistan sewing footballs for sale in Asda need to be counted as an integral part of the US or UK economies.--Red Deathy 08:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Wage labor" is not part of the definition of capitalism. Capitalism is a sufficient condition for employment, but employment is not a necessary condition for captialism. Capitalism at the most fundamental level is private ownership of the means of production. Three quarters of all businesses in the U.S. are private ownership of the means of production that have no employees other than self-employed operators of those means of production. Improper Bostonian 20:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Besides, human-power (used to be called manpower :-) is the most basic "means of production", and is owned by the individual worker, who decides whom to sell it to. So in a way, workers are indeed a part of Capitalism. Dullfig 21:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

text: You could have private ownership of MoP without having capitalism, you can have small hodler atrtisan economies which would not be capitalistic, the labour market and the employment of labour power is the defining feature that goes beyond that to create capitalism.--Red Deathy 08:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be capitalism. Capitalism is defined by private means of production and goods and services that trade in a free market. Improper Bostonian 03:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Owner proprietors