Talk:Capitalism

Private ownership shouldn't be a defining feature of an encyclopedic entry on capitalism

I say this because most capitalist ventures (today) are owned by global corporations which are (at least functionally) quasi-states themselves. Corporations can even be argued to be internally communistic, which again, undermines the idea that capitalism today is somehow defined by private ownership. Instead, it might be more helpful to define it as an economic system driven and organized around profit/capital, since this is the actual defining feature of capitalistic systems. I mean, the sign of a healthy capitalist economy is the GDP which is, in fact, nothing more than profit on a large scale. A major concern of economics majors is not who owns what or if things are primarily privately owned. In fact, if you talk to a Kynesian, they'll not only tell you that governments are central figure in the economy as regulator but also participant. The only reason to define capitalism by private ownership is for reasons of political bias.76.7.208.79 (talk) 14:32, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Sloppy thinking writ large. First sentence is plain wrong: most capitalistic ventures are single traders or micro-companies. Second sentence is up there in lala land, unless 'communistic' is intended to mean 'dictatorial', which might begin to rescue the sentence but then the rest of the paragraph falls apart even more. I think the 'economics majors' provides a clue. Get a job. Or just work harder on the economics.

Gravuritas (talk) 16:04, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Surplus value and profit

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.)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.68.252 (talk • contribs) 08:15, 3 December 2013

Synthesis

Why on earth would people add fantasy and synthesis, for "balance"? I realise there are many ranters who feel that "wage slavery" is at the core of capitalism, or even that the word "employment" is a capitalist invention, but the more reliable sources don't say things like that. Please, this article is not a venue for people to complain about capitalism or right great wrongs. And we certainly won't get "balance" by adding even more Marxist content to an article already dominated by Marxism. bobrayner (talk) 13:56, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I see that, instead of addressing the problem or discussing it, Rick Norwood has added the policy violations back into the article whilst complaining that other editors must talk rather than revert. That is bad. Stop it. bobrayner (talk) 18:42, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Since you mention me by name, let me point out that I haven't added one word about Marxism to the article that I can recall. It isn't a subject that interests me all that much. What I have done is revert deletions of referenced material. I would have acted in the same way if a Marxist had deleted the many pro-capitalist references in the article. And, as I've pointed out, the article is not "dominated by Marxism". Rick Norwood (talk) 22:06, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Rewrite confusion

The introduction to this article has been completely rewritten since the last time I read it. Capitalism is an economic model based on the accumulation of capital. Now the introduction confuses it with a free market economy - and they are NOT the same thing.---Puff (talk) 15:39, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm trying to understand your comment. I don't see anywhere in the introduction that it says capitalism only exists in a free market. It does say that capitalism only exists when there is some private ownership of the means of production, but that seems consistent with my understanding. If the state owned everything, could we talk about capital accumulation? Please explain what change you would like to see. Or be bold and make a change and see what happens. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:55, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I'd suggest capitalism is an economic "system" that is and has existed, in a number of variants, and it is not an economic "model". If it's a model then it is whatever some economists define it to be; if it's a system then it is whatever is/ has been out there. The real world experience is that it doesn't exist without (some) degree of free markets. I think Midas might be an early example of "accumulation of capital" that was not capitalist and did not involve any free markets.

Gravuritas (talk) 16:25, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Capitalism Wikiproject

There is something wrong with the capitalism wikiproject in this talk page, it doesn't display article assessment.Lbertolotti (talk) 17:04, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Capitalism Definition :

Hello, I want to add the Definition of "Capitalism" in the wikipedia page, which I consider the best possible definition for the term after years of study on the subject. The Definition is given by an author named Ayn Rand. Who is best known for her free market ideas and who developed a philosophy she called "Objectivism" which states that Capitalism is the only moral social system and has given volumes of proof for the claim. The definition is as follows :-

Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned.

The recognition of individual rights entails the banishment of physical force from human relationships: basically, rights can be violated only by means of force. In a capitalist society, no man or group may initiate the use of physical force against others. The only function of the government, in such a society, is the task of protecting man’s rights, i.e., the task of protecting him from physical force; the government acts as the agent of man’s right of self-defense, and may use force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use; thus the government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of force under objective control.

--- Ayn Rand, “What Is Capitalism?” Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, 19

Role of Government in a Capitalist state :- The proper functions of a government fall into three broad categories, all of them involving the issues of physical force and the protection of men’s rights: 1. The Police:- to protect men from criminals. 2. The Armed services:- to protect men from foreign invaders. 3. The Law courts:- to settle disputes among men according to objective laws.

--- Ayn Rand, "Nature of Government", Virtue of selfishness.

Kindly let me know if anyone has any concerns regarding the definition. Arjun1491 (talk) 17:12, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

The trouble with this definition is that a) only about 10% of economists agree with it and that b) under this definition there has never been a capitalist system, so that capitalism becomes a purely theoretical construct which has never existed in the real world. Rick Norwood (talk) 22:20, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

You have made 2 points claiming some trouble in the definition. I will be answering both of it. But first I will give brief explanation of, 1. What is a concept? (Since we are defining the concept "Capitalism") and 2. What is the Definition of a concept?

1. Concept : A concept is a mental integration of two or more units which are isolated according to a specific characteristic(s) and united by a specific definition.

For example : Tables, for instance, are first differentiated from chairs, beds and other objects by means of the characteristic of shape, which is an attribute possessed by all the objects involved. Then, their particular kind of shape is set as the distinguishing characteristic of tables - i.e. a certain category of geometrical measurements of shape is specified. Then, within that category, the particular measurements of individual table-shapes are omitted. And finally the concept "Table" is formed.

2. Definition : A definition is a statement that identifies the nature of the units subsumed under a concept. It is often said that definition state the meaning of words. This is true, but it is not exact. A word is merely a visual-auditory symbol used to represent a concept; a word has no meaning other than that of the concept it symbolizes, and the meaning of a concept consists of its units. It is not words, but concepts that man defines - by specifying their referents.

For example : In the definition of "Table" - ("An item of furniture, consisting of a flat, level surface and supports, intended to support other, smaller objects"), the specified shape is the differentia, which distinguishes tables from the other entities belonging to the same genus: furniture. In the definition of "Man" (A rational animal), "rational" is the differentia, "animal" is the genus.

After the above brief explanation of Concept and its definition, now I will address your two concerns regarding the definition of the concept "Capitalism". Your points are :

a) "only about 10% of economists agree with it :-

My answer : - "Austrian school of Economics" is the leading thought of Economics which states that Capitalism is the only proper social system geared to fulfill man's needs and create maximum wealth in the society. It is a social system that recognises “All rational action is in the first place individual action. Only the individual thinks. Only the individual reasons. Only the individual acts.” ― Ludwig von Mises; and therefore upholds Individual rights. Notable economists of this school of thought are Ludwig von Mises, Carl Menger, Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk, Friedrich von Wieser, Friedrich Hayek and many more. This school of economics upholds free market / Capitalism.

The antipode of this school of thought is Keynesian economics developed by "John maynard keynes" who propose government intervention in the economy, i.e who propose socialism. And of course Marxism and any other economic theories that propose state control of economy is complete opposite of Capitalism.

Therefore the differentia among these two socio-political systems is the "Role of state in the economy".

And I do not agree that only 10% of the economists agree with this definition. It's not a concern if they lean towards Capitalism or Socialism for us to define the concept of Capitalism.

b) under this definition there has never been a capitalist system, so that capitalism becomes a purely theoretical construct which has never existed in the real world.

My answer:-

There are 2 types of concepts: 1. Concepts that identify concrete reality. ex: Earth, table, trees, water, Nation, society, culture, etc... 2. Concepts that are purely imaginary and do not identify concrete reality. ex: Fairy, Angles, God, Devil, Unicorn, heaven, hell etc...

And under the concepts that identify concrete reality there are 2 types, a. Concepts that identify the "actual". ex : Earth, Galaxy, water etc... b. Concepts that identify the "potential". ex : Aeroplane had never existed before twentieth century. But the Concept known as "Aeroplane" was present even before it was invented by Wright brothers. Its definition included "a powered flying vehicle with fixed wings and a weight greater than that of the air it displaces." "Aeroplane" was a concept which was "Potential" and later after its invention, it became "Actual".

Likewise the "Communist state" in its purest form never existed in real world. But when people ask what is "Communism" ? we can still define the term and give them the answer. Just because it was a theoretical construct that never existed in real world, does not mean we do not have a proper definition for the term.

This concludes my answer to your questions. Kindly let me know if you have any other concerns regarding the definition of the term "Capitalism". Arjun1491 (talk) 08:45, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I think the editors here can be trusted to understand words, and do not need a lecture on semantics. Moving on to your points about your proposed definitions.

Few economists are libertarians. From: The American Journal of Economics and Sociology. "Abstract. People often suppose or imply that free-market economists constitute a significant portion of all economists. We surveyed American Economic Association members and asked their views on 18 specific forms of government activism. We find that about 8 percent of AEA members can be considered supporters of free-market principles, and that less than 3 percent may be called strong supporters. The data are broken down by voting behavior (Democratic or Republican). Even the average Republican AEA member is “middle-of-the-road,” not free-market. We offer several possible explanations of the apparent difference between actual and attributed views." See: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1536-7150.2007.00513.x/abstract.

Few scholars of capitalism would agree that it is desirable that "all property is privately owned". Almost all would except public buildings, military bases, and roads (at least in cities). Most would make exceptions for the high seas, the air, Antarctica, and the moon. A majority would make exceptions for highways, schools, bridges, canals, and parks.

Austrian school economists are not followers of Ayn Rand. The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies often claims that the Austrian school agrees with Rand, but mainstream Austrian school economics journals seldom mention Rand. Of the economists you mention above, for example, Rand called Hayek a "God damned fool", an "example of our most pernicious enemy", and a "total complete visious bastard".

Rick Norwood (talk) 12:45, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

What is required here is thinking in terms of principles. In principle, State control of economy (No matter how much the degree of the control, little or total) it is known as Socialism. In contrast the system where there is separation of state and economy (Just like separation of state and religion) , where state does not interfere in the economy is known as Capitalism. The main differential factor is "Role of the state in the economy". If it is state controlled , it is Socialism, if it is not controlled by the state, it is known as Capitalism.

I am not here to discuss the merits or demerits of Capitalism, and I am least bothered of your personal preferences. Neither I am trying to convince you that Capitalism is the only moral system possible (Which it is and in which I truly believe).We are not here to argue and build an ideal system for people to live in. It does not matter how many people approve of the system and what their numbers are. Even if all the people in the world become socialists, still it does not alter the fact that Capitalism means a system where state does not interfere in economy and its definition is as I mentioned in the first passage. Arjun1491 (talk) 13:56, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia uses standard definitions, not the specialized definitions of Objectivism. To give an example from my own specialty, Wikipedia defines a field as an area of land used for agricultural purposes, not as a commutative division ring. The latter is field (mathematics). I suppose we might have an article on capitalism (Objectivism) if you could convince people it was notable. Rick Norwood (talk) 11:32, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Rick Norwood. And Von Mises begins the first chapter of his book Bureaucracy by saying "Capitalism or market economy is that system of social cöoperation and division of labor that is based on private ownership of the means of production."[1] TFD (talk) 12:21, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Agree also. No consensus for this change. Abierma3 (talk) 16:07, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

No consensus ? Very well. In this Capitalism article we have volumes of definitions and interpretations of Capitalism given by Karl Marx. Those passages are :

Reserve army of labour, As a mode of production, Defining structural criteria, Comparison to slavery, Capital accumulation, Concentration and centralisation, The rate of accumulation, The circuit of capital accumulation from production, Simple and expanded reproduction, Capital accumulation as social relation, Marxian and Leninist analysis, Criticism, Marxian responses etc... We can even see Karl marx image and links to his Communist economic principles. All through the article we can see : Karl marx said this, Karl marx said that, according to Marx, etc...

1. Even a 1st grade child knows that Karl Marx is Anti-Capitalist and enemy of Capitalism. Why is his interpretation and definition of Capitalism is considered as "Standard" and why Ayn Rand's definition and interpretation which is pro-Capitalism is not accepted ?

2. What is the Criteria to consider the definition of Capitalism as "Standard" ? Is the definition and interpretation by a person who is anti-capitalist, spews hatered towards capitalism and is a socialist, the criteria to consider his writings as "Standard" ?

3. Is being pro-capitalism a criteria to reject that persons definition and interpretation of Capitalism ?

4. I can draw a best analogy for this situation. It is like When one has an article about God, the Devil's definition and interpretation of God is more readily accepted and is considered "Standard" , but the Priest's interpretation, who is God worshiper, is outrightly rejected considering his views as "Specialized" !!!

5. In the present article of Capitalism, it is glaringly evident that it has been smeared by communist propaganda denouncing Capitalism. The great leftist editors here, rejecting any interpretations of it by someone who gives a positive view of Capitalism and even a neutral definition by a person who is pro-capitalism.

6. Without Capitalism , there would have been no scientific and industrial revolution and all the technological progress such as, telephone, electric bulb, Aeroplane, computer, cell phones, internet, Google etc.. are the products of Capitalism. Wikipedia would never have existed if not for Capitalism. And this very product of capitalism is being used to spew venom on it. If the society turns left, towards socialism, the collapse to totalitarianism and rise of dictatorship is imminent and the first thing to be curbed is free speech, hence there will be no Wikipedia for you guys to edit. By knowingly or unknowingly (I don't know which is more concerning) you editors here are leading America and the world slowly towards socialist dictatorships such as North Korea, former Soviet Russia, Communist Cambodia under pol pot, Mao's Red china, etc.. which butchered hundreds of millions of people. People look up to Wikipedia for some alternative to the destruction of socialism and what they see here is again socialist propaganda !!!

I hope you people understand the gravity of the situation involved. Arjun1491 (talk) 12:02, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

The discussion here is whether Ayn Rand is a major economist. That view is fringe. Ayn Rand is a novelist. The question of Marx is entirely different, and I tend to agree with you that Marx is overemphasized in this article, though I note that he is not mentioned in the lead. This source lists the top ten most influential economists of all time: http://www.thecompleteuniversityguide.co.uk/courses/economics/the-ten-most-influential-economists-of-all-time/ Number One is Adam Smith, but Karl Marx is number Two. What I suggest, if you think this article places too much emphasis on Marx, is to make a modest edit, removing a few mentions of Marx that seem to you to be undue emphasis, and see what happens. It may get reverted, but then you can defend that particular edit in Talk, and the discussion will be more focused. It may not be reverted, in which case you can move on to other instances you think over-emphasize Marx. Please note, however, that a statement of Marx's influential views does not denote approval of those views. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:12, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

As you said I have removed overemphasis given to marx. And I will be expanding the section in "Counter criticism - Ayn Rand" The section exclusively given for Ms.Rand's ideas. Arjun1491 (talk) 12:54, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

I have reverted as there is no consensus to add this material.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 13:47, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

There can be a consensus only among rational men. I quit. Arjun1491 (talk) 14:09, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

I've noticed a tendency among followers of Ayn Rand to assume and assert that they and only they are rational. It is not so. The ultimate test of rationality is the ability to prove an original mathematical theorem. I've proved (admittedly minor) theorems. Have you? Now, leaving aside your final shot across our bows, I'll take a look at your edit, and see if I agree with you or with Griffin, or somewhere in between. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:12, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Arjun1491, your edit was extreme and you know it. Instead of making modest changes, you blanked entire sections. Also, for someone to claim a fact is "undisputed" when it is disputed shows a serious lack of rationality. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:16, 5 July 2015 (UTC)