Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting.
Capitalism was one of the good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Capitalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Capitalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
First Paragraph Contains Incorrect Sentence?
"In a capitalist economy, the parties to a transaction nominally determine the prices at which assets, goods, and services are exchanged."
Does this mean that any economy with minimum wage laws is not capitalist because the parties to the transaction do not determine the price at which the labor, a service, is sold? If so wouldn't that imply that there are virtually no capitalist countries, including some of the most prominent examples (e.g. USA)? This sentence seems specific to the "free market capitalism" section, and should be moved there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 20:43, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
There are no countries that are "pure" capitalist, but almost all countries are capitalist to a greater or lesser degree. The key word in the sentence you quote is "nominally". There are always exceptions. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:54, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
In that case I think "nominally" should be changed to "normally" or "typically", as the word nominally doesn't actually make sense given your interpretation. According to Merriam-Webster , nominally means "existing as something in name only; not actual or real; very small in amount". None of those definitions indicate the interpretation that you are suggesting, that *usually* prices are determined by the parties. Instead, nominally is likely to lead to the confusing interpretation that "nominal prices"  are set by the parties (which is not a meaningful distinction because by setting nominal prices at a specific time one also sets real prices). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 16:16, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
I agree. By the way, sign your comments with four tildes. Rick Norwood (talk) 17:05, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
In the last sentence of the introduction, it is mentioned that "crony capitalism" is considered normal by Marxian economics, but "aberrant" by "certain advocates of capitalsim." Who are these advocates? Can a source be named? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 22:53, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Your point is well-taken. FYI: new posts should go at the bottom of the pages; that's where Wikipedians look for them. Also, sign your posts with four tildes. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:47, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Bloated introduction that deviates from subject matter
The current iteration of the lead paragraphs are bloated with unnecessary material that go off on tangents about taxation, defenses about specific ideologies within capitalism (Ayn Rand, Welfare economics et al.) and make controversial claims about the "defeat of communism", all of which have little to do with the definition of capitalism. These subjects belong in a section in the article dedicated to the various ideologies in support of capitalism.
The information on Schumpeter is incorrect or taken out of context, and referring to contemporary Western Europe as followers of a "socialist ideology" is extremely biased and inaccurate.
The lead should focus on a definition of capitalism, a brief overview of the different major forms of capitalism, and a brief mentioning of its etymology and multiple uses of the term by different groups. -Battlecry 09:57, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
whoever the idiot is that keeps putting this bit in about ayn rand in the damn intro about how what she said about capitalism "did not stand up to logical or historical scrutiny" and then gives one random citation for it, just stop. does not belong here. - anyonymous — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 06:04, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Without commenting on the biases of the lead, I agree with Battlecry that the lead is too long, contains overly specific information (ie specific economists' names and positions) that belongs in subsections instead. Dialectric (talk) 15:47, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
At this point the lead is about 40% shorter than it was, and the removals have taken the more POV interpretive bits about Schumpeter, Rand, etc. At five paragraphs the lead is a bit longer than usual, but the article as a whole is over 9600 words, so it isn't disproportionate. So I'm thinking the "lead too long" tag could come off. Any objections? --RL0919 (talk) 17:59, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
I think Battlecry's 3rd paragraph still pertains to the lede. An improved introduction is still needed. Is there a template that is more focused on composition rather than the "too long" one? – S. Rich (talk) 18:09, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
I slapped it on, so I'll whisk it off. Nice going, folks! --Technopat (talk) 18:11, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Recently there's been some addition & removal of Ayn Rand related material. This material is inappropriate for the lede as it adds to the bloat. Whatever Rand material is appropriate should be added to the text first, and then summarized in the lede (if appropriate). – S. Rich (talk) 19:49, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
I can't figure out where is a good place for it in the body of the article, but it really should not go in the lede. (BTW, at the moment I'm about to move the very last lede paragraph (about taxes) into its own subsection.) – S. Rich (talk) 20:04, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Following up on Ayn Rand, did she really have much to contribute to the theory of capitalism? If not, then she should be left out of this article. (Exposition of her thoughts in this area might be expanded upon in her article.) – S. Rich (talk) 20:47, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
As the quote says, she contributed both popularization and a moral defense. MilesMoney (talk) 20:54, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps her views can be put in the "Advocacy" section. But did her popularization or moral defense really have a significant impact? I don't know one way or the other. – S. Rich (talk) 21:00, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
She's legitimized naked capitalism and has had a huge political influence. There'd be no American Tea Party without her. MilesMoney (talk) 21:10, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Her work is often cited by Paul Ryan, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, not to mention Ron Johnson -- the new generation stars of the American Congress. It would be hard to overstate her influence as a rallying point for the emerging wave of American libertarians. In fact, she has surpassed the previous icons Reagan and Rothbard in popular significance. SPECIFICOtalk 21:34, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Rothbard who? Reagan is still a touchstone for American conservatives, but he's not so much an influence as a trophy; he represents the moment that the conservatives took your country back and held onto it. MilesMoney (talk) 21:39, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Two words: "Jean" "Chretien". SPECIFICOtalk 21:41, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Hey, don't look at me! I'm not responsible for Chrétien. MilesMoney (talk) 21:46, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
In addition to placement (which as of this writing seems to be resolved), there is another problem with this passage. There is a "source" cited for it that does not mention capitalism at all or discuss the nature of Rand's advocacy for it. Given that the text pronounces a specific POV, it should not only have a true source cited, the POV should be attributed in-text. --RL0919 (talk) 21:59, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Again, back to the question that pertains to the article. Did Rand contribute to theory involving capitalism? If so, how? And what RS is there to show these contributions? And even if her work is cited by others, so what? Are the new stars saying "I/we support capitalism because Ayn Rand wrote about it?" Even with RS, mention of her as a popularizer and defender of capitalism seems tangential. Perhaps more about her efforts in this regard could be put in Criticism of capitalism. I still don't see how it fits here. – S. Rich (talk) 22:37, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Rand should not be mentioned in the lead. The U.S. was already capitalist, support for capitalism is a core liberal value, and the concept had already received acceptance by the mid 19th century. Right-wing groups in the U.S. typically support capitalism and draw their inspiration from American historical figures, such as the Founding Fathers, rather than from atheist Europeans. Reagan's policies developed out of Hayek and Friedman, who in turn drew on 19th century liberalism. TFD (talk) 23:59, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
TFD, Hello. I smiled after reading your comment. I don't believe that Reagan ever read Hayek and certainly not early Milton Friedman. He may not have read Rand either, but his sponsors sure did. However I agree with you that her influence was not the primary inspiration for the first wave of reaction against the Trustbusters, Labor laws and the New Deal in the US. Nevertheless her influence is greater today with the current wave and is growing. Or it was until last month at any rate. SPECIFICOtalk 00:05, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Does anyone have the paragraph or so from the cited source? MilesMoney (talk) 00:17, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
The entire paper is available online. --RL0919 (talk) 00:21, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
SPECIFICO, hello. Were you smiling as you figured out how to misrepresent me? I did not say Reagan read Hayek etc., I said his "policies developed out of Hayek" etc. Do you understand that presidents may support policies devised by other people whose sources they have never read? In any case, what relevance does this have? The U.S. was capitalist before Reagan and continues to be capitalist after him. TFD (talk) 06:57, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi TFD. Sorry you feel I misunderstood you. Perhaps some further clarification or explanation of your view would be helpful. SPECIFICOtalk 12:18, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
TFD, the US was indeed capitalist before Reagan, but Reagan represents a huge shift to a more conservative brand of capitalism, one which forced even his opponents to endorse the virtues of the free market. Likewise, the US was capitalist before Rand, but it didn't have the aggressively righteous ideology to justify the capitalism and wash away any guilt for the casualties. Remember "greed is good"? MilesMoney (talk) 12:56, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ This discussion is veering way off-topic. E.g., we should be asking "how do we improve the article with material from Ayn Rand" (if at all)? "Did she contribute to theory of capitalism?" "Did she have influence on the spread of capitalism?" Information in this regard may improve the article, and whatever is provided needs RS. So far I've seen nothing that helps the article in this regard so the Ayn Rand material should be omitted. – S. Rich (talk) 13:45, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
This is a discussion about which people are relevant to the article. Unfortunately, the questions you ask are irrelevant. For example, contributing to the theory of capitalism isn't a necessary criterion for inclusion, although it may be sufficient. MilesMoney (talk) 13:48, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
I brought up the topic in discussion because I had removed the mention of Rand from the lede. Looking at the Robert Bass article, I cannot find where he talks about capitalism, laissez-faire, Reagan, Hayek, Frieman, etc. So how do we say AR attempted a "positive moral defense of laissez-faire capitalism"? – S. Rich (talk) 14:07, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
I agree that the current citation isn't good for this, but good sources are easy to find. You could start with these peer reviewed works from academic publishers:
Burns, Jennifer (2006). "Godless Capitalism: Ayn Rand and the Conservative Movement". In Lichtenstein, Nelson (ed.). American Capitalism: Social Thought and Political Economy in the Twentieth Century. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. ISBN978-0-8122-3923-2.
Thomas, William (2003). "Ayn Rand: Radical for Capitalism". In Frost, Bryan-Paul & Sikkenga, Jeffrey (eds.). History of American Political Thought. Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books. ISBN0-7391-0623-6.
Younkins, Edward W. (2005). Philosophers of Capitalism: Menger, Mises, Rand, and Beyond. Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books. ISBN0-7391-1076-4. OCLC59147844.
Those would all support the straightforward statement of her defense of capitalism. For criticisms of its validity you could turn to something like this source, which says Rand's approach has "obvious flaws" (p. 132):
Finn, Daniel (2006). The Moral Ecology of Markets: Assessing Claims about Markets and Justice. New York: Cambridge University Press. ISBN978-0-521-67799-8.
I'll stop with that, but finding even more shouldn't be difficult. --RL0919 (talk) 15:16, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
I updated the section myself. I used the first two sources I listed as citations for Rand's position. For the reaction, I turned to Ayn Rand Nation by Gary Weiss. It summarized the situation (that her ideas are widely rejected but still have influence in some places), rather than repeating the details of individual reactions, which seems appropriate given that this is an article about capitalism and not about Rand or her ideas. --RL0919 (talk) 16:12, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Looks good to me (but what do I know?). Big improvement on what she said and who's listening and on where her influence has been felt. I do not think mention of her limited influence belongs in the lede. – S. Rich (talk) 16:24, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Given the broad scope of the article, we probably shouldn't be mentioning any individual people in the lead, except perhaps briefly mentioning Marx and Engels to discuss the origin of the term. --RL0919 (talk) 16:32, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
The purpose of this section seems not to be a discussion of the general relationship between taxation and capitalism but rather to argue in favor of a low tax rate, by only mentioning two countries, the US and Singapore, and emphasizing their relatievely low taxes, praising Singapore as "an extremely wealthy developed country with a commitment to low taxes and small government" while removing any mention of the current US economic woes. Maybe the whole section should go until someone has the time an expertese to write a better one.Rick Norwood (talk) 12:56, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
The whole section seems to be a synthesis of tax information from primary sources that is connected to "Laissez-faire economics" with no source at all. I'd say delete the entire subsection as original research. --RL0919 (talk) 14:22, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't oppose its removal. MilesMoney (talk) 14:40, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
I am in agreement with RL019. The taxation section is not relevant to describing capitalism, but it might merit some discussion in a subsection focusing on specific fiscal policies adopted within capitalist economies. -Battlecry 23:06, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
I would take it out. Is there any literature that specifically connects taxation with capitalism? TFD (talk) 06:00, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
I removed the section a few days ago as there was no clear justification for keeping it. An argument could be made for a section covering taxation, but If someone were to write on the subject, they would have to start over, as the content that was there was not usable. Dialectric (talk) 13:35, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
I find it incredible that Ayn Rand & her book "Atlas Shrugged" are mentioned here.....or anywhere else! It was fiction & incredibly stupid! That "invisible city" was stupid, & most people (capitalists) actually think that all happened! Delete her please! PT10999 (talk) 04:55, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Ayn Rand was recently removed from the article lead. Her inclusion under the 'Advocacy for capitalism' section does seem warranted, because whatever opinion one has of her work, she is notable for her writings as an advocate of capitalism, and authored nonfiction including 'Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal'.Dialectric (talk) 13:47, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
A recent edit added that capitalism is a "theory". Capitalism is an economic system with various different theories supporting it. An example of a theory in support of capitalism would be neoclassical microeconomic theory (an economic theory suggesting competitive capitalism is efficient) or lassiez-faire (an ideology justifying free-market capitalism). But as far as I know, "capitalism" is not a theory in and of itself, it is an observed economic system. -Battlecry 05:06, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
The sources do not say theory and therefore it should be removed. While I think it is correct to call it a theory, it is misleading because it implies that it is a prescriptive rather than descriptive theory. TFD (talk) 05:59, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
There do exist prescriptive theories of capitalism, but you're right that we probably shouldn't call capitalism itself a theory. MilesMoney (talk) 06:04, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Appears as if the editor is equating (surplus) value exclusively with profit when s/he writes "labor is the source of all value, and thus of profit"
Surplus-value, is not the same thing as profit; surplus-value can take the particular form of profit as well as rent and interest: “Rent, interest, and industrial profit are only different names for different parts of the surplus value of the commodity, or the unpaid labour enclosed in it, and they are equally derived from this source and from this source alone. (Value, Price, and Profit, XI. “The Different Parts into which Surplus Value is Decomposed”) In other words, all profits derive from surplus value but not all surplus value can end up as profits. The second important distinction between surplus-value and profit is that profit is the mask behind which bourgeoisie conceals the exploitation (or the utilization of another person or group) involved in the extraction of surplus value: “Surplus value, however, necessarily assumes the form of profit in the bourgeois mind — and this is not just a way of looking at things. (Marx’s Economic Manuscripts of 1861-63; Capital and Profit, “Surplus Value and Profit” V33, MECW, p. 70) and that “the capitalist knows nothing of the essence of capital, and surplus value exists in his consciousness only in the form of profit, a converted form of surplus value, which is completely abstracted from the relations under which it originates and by which it is conditioned. (Ibid.)