Talk:Capitalism

Archives

/archive 1 • /archive 2 • /archive 3 • /archive 4 • /archive 5 • /archive 6 • /archive 7 • /archive 8 • /archive 9 • /archive 10 • /archive 11 • /archive 12 • /archive 13 • /Archive 14 • /Archive 15 • /archive 16 • /archive 17 • /archive 18 • /archive 19 • /archive 20 • /archive 21 • /archive 22 • /Archive 23 • /Archive 24 • /Archive 25 • /archive 26 • /archive 27 • /archive 28 • /archive 29 • /archive 30 • /archive 31 • /archive 32 • /Archive 33 • /Archive 34

Introduction is too long

I came here today to read about capitalism and I had to read 3 paragraphs of qualifications, like I was entering into a contract. The introduction is way to long. The intro should be 2 paragraphs at most. I will write a suggestion down here if no one changes it.Define the idea. List the perspectives. If absolutely necessary, have a paragraph for background so it is meaningful. I will offer a substitute here if no one corrects this.146.115.121.18 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 12:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I second that. The whole article is WAAAAAAY too long. Very wordy with a lot of extra information that could easily be cut out. I tried to read the article and almost went cross-eyed. Really needs to be trimmed down. Supergoalie1617 (talk) 00:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Expenses

Capitalism is just about expenses. Those who claim we don't need it also wish that we had perpetual motion or free energy. All this discussion of profit misses the point. "At whose expense?" is the central issue. In capitalism, the buyer uses the seller's capital "at the buyer's expense". Sure, this creates profit, but only because the seller doesn't have an associated expense. Now, if we could somehow violate the laws of physics and have no expenses, then we would have utopia. "Capital" is simply just anything that is not an expense. Now, if we want to go and make all energy "free" by voting for it....well, we can see what kind of problem this would cause...who gets how much?...this is what capitalism's role is today. When we want to run a society/world where expenses is not the main focus, well....it will certainly look different from today's world....those of us around today will likely not see it.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.208.207 (talk) 17:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Um, no; Capitalism is a theory about who is best suited to control a society's capital. Capital is wealth (i.e., valuable stuff) that can be employed to create more wealth. Capitalism is the idea that big-ticket capital—factories, machine tools, combine harvesters, etc.—should be managed (i.e., owned) by people who have proven their worth by successfully competing against other capitalists in a free marketplace.

Of course, it only works so long as the marketplace is free. Absolute Laissez-faire capitalism converges toward a set of tightly controlled, interlocking monopolies; and when control of those monopolies passes from the original capitalists through generations of their increasingly degenerate spawn, then the benefit to society may be called into question. 71.253.4.98 (talk) 00:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Really? And when has a coercive monopoly ever come into being under free markets? Examples please ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.251.120.3 (talk) 08:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

When has there ever been free markets? Examples please. Free Markets are a utopian fantasy, and there is no reason at all to believe that free markets would lead to the kind of miraculous wonders that we see described here. CABlankenship (talk) 07:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)C.Blankenship, 19 November 2008

Profit

"Means of production are mostly privately owned and operated for profit." This strikes me as confusing. Are means of production supposed to be operated for profit in order for a system to be considered capitalist, or is it just the general perception that people have of current existing systems that are considered capitalists? A.Z. 19:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, privately owned means of production that aren't used would not be capitalism, and a system run at a loss would not last long, so, yes, profit is an intrinsic and essential feature of capitalism.--Red Deathy 06:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

M&Ms says....but Mr Deathy, I think you have missed this persons point. In any economic system any means of production has to be run at a profit - if not, the result is you are fired, or even worse, death. Whether for money or to reap benefit in kind to cover the cost (effort and time of creating a fishing rod for example) of making/bartering/purchasing the good people attempt to make a profit (in general). Or are you saying that monetary currency will only be used in a capitalist economy and that ONLY a surplus of monetary currency (after cost is deducted) can be considered profit? If so then unfortunatley we cannot 'profit' from argueing this point.

The End of Money

Could this be added: The End of Money http://www.financialsense.com/fsu/editorials/martenson/2007/0108.html because we could easily eliminate money, & it already is almost eliminated with ATM & credit cards? Socialism20091011 (talk) 17:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Citation #40

I took the liberty of reading the citation that supposedly validates capitalism's effect on health care, working hours etc. I could find no evidence that this citation directly addresses the benefits it claims. In the interest of fairness, it was only a cursory read. Would someone please point me to the part of the text were health care, working hours, child-labor etc are specifically mentioned as being alleviated or helped by capitalism. Using Firefox's word search feature the words 'children' and 'health' are mentioned but once and only in relation to establishing the definition of "standard of living." In my opinion, this citation and the passage it claims to support should be removed entirely.

The fundamental mistake is missing that the employers have to compete for the employees (so long as we avoid slavery and serdom and guilds and other pre-capitalist institutions). Thus, an employer cannot pay arbitrarily low wages since the workers would just leave for another employer. Long-term, only rising productivity can increase wages.[1] (I will quote Mises.org on this since I cannot rapidly find another online source):

Didn’t workers in the past have to work very long hours? Certainly. There is no doubt that by today’s standards, people in the nineteenth century did indeed work an exhausting schedule. But, again, when output per worker is miserably low, then a supply of consumer goods that most people consider adequate requires people to work correspondingly long hours to produce them all. That, and not the wickedness of big business—as the typical textbook relates the matter, with dreary predictability—accounts for the low standard of living and long hours of work that existed in the past. As the productivity of labor increases, and with it the level of real wages, people can begin to opt for additional leisure rather than continue to work the long hours of the past. Without the need for any legislation whatever, a situation will eventually arise in which employers find offering correspondingly fewer hours to be in their own economic interest, and will offer them without the need for government coercion. If someone who once worked 80 hours per week now wishes to work only 60 (that is, three-fourths as many hours), and is willing to accept a wage less than three-fourths that of his previous wage as a premium on the leisure he will now enjoy, it makes perfect sense for his employer to offer these terms.

To the extent that maximum-hours legislation corresponded with people’s desire to work fewer hours, it was superfluous, since such an outcome would have come about by means of the process just described. But to the extent that such legislation was economically premature, forcing fewer hours on workers who needed the wages of their longer hours in order to maintain what they considered an adequate standard of living, it harmed the very people it was allegedly intended to help.

A similar analysis can also shed light on the problem of child labor, the source of a great deal of uninformed moralizing. Far from a product of the Industrial Revolution, child labor has existed since the beginning of time. When the productivity of labor is hopelessly low, parents naturally think of children as economic actors who can contribute to the well-being of their families. Without their children’s participation in the family’s work, the entire household could suffer terrible privation. This is a fact of life in poor, low-productivity societies that no "progressive" legislation can wish away.[2]

Another source:

It is commonly supposed that in order to cope with rising competition from the Third World and increasingly efficient machinery, we in the United States and Western Europe must work harder and put in longer and longer hours. Actually, the time we spend working has diminished, as rising prosperity resulting from growth has enabled us to earn the same pay by doing less work—if we want to. Compared with our parents’ generation, most of today’s workers go to work later, come home earlier, have longer lunch and coffee breaks, longer vacations, and more public holidays. In the U.S., working hours today are only about half of what they were a hundred years ago, and have diminished by about 10 percent just since 1973—a reduction equaling 23 days per year. On average, American workers have acquired five extra years of waking leisure time since 1973.

We start working progressively later in life, and retire earlier. Calculated over his lifetime, a Western worker in 1870 had only two hours off for each hour worked. By 1950 that figure had doubled to four hours off. Today it has doubled again to about eight hours off for each hour worked. Economic development, closely linked to an expansion of trade that has enabled us to specialize, makes it possible for us to reduce our working hours sharply even as we raise our material living standard.[3]

Ultramarine 08:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I think a shorter way to see it is that unions are a part of market forces.--Red Deathy 08:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

"To the extent that maximum-hours legislation corresponded with people’s desire to work fewer hours, it was superfluous, since such an outcome would have come about by means of the process just described."

'...Since such an outcome would have come about by means of the process...'

That's nothing more than pure speculation. In other words: 'The way it did happen doesn't matter because it would've happened the way I described it anyhow' - this is otherwise known as revisionist history. It's pointless to cite sources that describe how something would've come out rather than how it did. Shorter hours\child labor etc. came about because of union activity - activities that were opposed by capitalist forces. Perhaps capitalism would've succeeded in doing what populist movement achieved, but it didn't, so it's moot. Historically speaking, it happened because of movements and eventual legislation, not because of competition. While I'm not arguing that capitalism hasn't increased certain aspects of our livelihood, I strenuously object to linking what clearly occurred through unionization to capitalism in general. That's dangerous, and misleading. I'd like those references related to shorter hours and child\elderly labor removed. Thousands have died, shed blood, fighting for those causes across the globe, please don't dishonor them by erasing their fight. T.C. Craig 16:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Pro-capitalists certainly argue that capitalism is responsible for these benefits, as shown in the quotes above. Marx claims without evidence that capitalism is exploitative, it is his "speculation". If including this, we should include the opposite view.Ultramarine 16:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Without evidence? What a slap in the face to every worker that's ever voted and/or died for higher wages and better conditions. Are you contending that a nine-year-old in a 1890's factory wasn't being exploited? I suppose thousands of people, over many generations, have gotten it all wrong since the industrial revolution?

"pro-capitalists" can argue that capitalism is responsible for all those benefits, but it wasn't. It may have turned out that way, eventually. But, historically speaking, these benefits came about only because of demands, strikes, and whatnot. That's all I'm contending. T.C. Craig 16:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Read Barro and refs therein. The decrease in working hours that started during the industrial revolution is predicted by free market theories and the trend existed even before coercive labor unions began foisting certain regulations on the market.JoeCarson 16:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

You're really missing my point. Perhaps I'm not explaining it clearly. We will never know if market forces would've increased wages or decreased hours because unionization preempted these forces. That's the history. There may or may not have been a trend, but those trends do not matter. Generations of people didn't feel like waiting around for the market to do what they could do themselves. We will never know if such benefits would've occurred if left to market mechanisms. It just didn't happen that way. Regardless if capitalism predicted shorter hours (and do we really have shorter hours? Do we really have higher wages/purchasing power? That is still being hotly debated...) the fact is that unionization, and not market mechanisms, decreased hours. Capitalism may have predicted benefits, but those benefits did not come about in the way capitalism explained it, that's what I'm contesting. T.C. Craig 16:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

"...Even before coercive labor unions began foisting certain regulations on the market."

That sentence proves my point beautifully. Indeed, it was regulation, and not market forces, that effected the changes we are now debating. Please remove those references. T.C. Craig 17:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I am glad I was able to prove your point, considering you have not been able to do so yourself. Let me translate for you from between the lines. The fact that working hours were decreasing and hourly wages were increasing before the labor market became as coercive as it currently is means the mechanism could not have been the unions. Proponents of liberal capitalism recognize it was the market that lead to these benefits. Changes after the unions managed to get more power from Washington cannot be attributed to unions alone.JoeCarson 17:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course proponents of liberal capitalism would say that, that's what proponents do. Furthermore, the causal link you're trying to make is tentative at best. Not enough time had passed before unions entered the picture to accurately gauge if such a trend was sustainable, or just a blip - if the trend even occurred at all. Essentially, these authors are taking data that occurred over a hundred or more years ago and projecting that trend up to this point in time, and then saying that any union involvement was simply erroneous and not worth considering. Though, being a student at an "elite" university, it makes sense that you'd prefer to take those viewpoints that bolster your position in the hierarchy of America. T.C. Craig 17:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so what's the problem with expressing the views of proponents in the "proponents of capitalism section". We're moving away from the issue here. I believe the proponents are right, you believe they are wrong. Our beliefs are irrelevant here. Only the views of the proponents are important. The proponents of capitalism view it as the cause of better working conditions, shorter hours, higher pay, etc. The section expresses the views of proponents, it does not evaluate them. BTW, this student at an elite university is the child of 3rd world immigrants and was born into what is considered poverty in this country. Luckily, capitalism does not enforce strict hierarchies and has allowed me to move up in social class. I will begin my career at 6 figures, while my parents barely reach that now after decades in the labor force. JoeCarson 17:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your "elite" status: It's easy to say that behind the privacy of a computer. However, it was a bit Ad Hominum for me to say, and pointless. I'll leave it alone. You raised a good issue regarding the "proponents" section, regardless of how misleading it really is. T.C. Craig 17:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC) 17:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Never worse than top 20 on international rankings. Never worse than top 10 on national rankings. GRE above 1500. JoeCarson 17:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Big deal. As our conversation implies, statistics can never explain anything beyond what has chosen to be counted, and the methods used to do so. T.C. Craig 19:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

To recap, even if unions were responsible, unions are not ipso facto anti-capitalist, and have been seen by many critics of capitalism as simply a part of the machienry of capitalism, a means to aid market forces - after all, the motto of the Durham miners was "When eggs are scarce, eggs are dear - when men are scarce men ought to be dear". Trade unions were a significant part of capitalist development. American capitalism grew precisely because skilled labour was scarce and expensive - 'Capitalists' may not have liked it, but then capitalists don't like other capitalists neither. There are plenty of criticisms in the critics section, I think this is a just point to retain in the proponents section.--Red Deathy 07:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Exactly right, Red. In the context of a quite different discussion, I was once asked whether I considered collective bargaining a market mechanism. I answered in two steps: Collective bargaining is, by definition, bargaining. Bargaining is, again by definition, a market mechanism.

Sometimes I'm so good I scare myself. --Christofurio 23:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Overgeneralizing about critics of capitalism

I've added Some to the first sentence in the section, until we can properly address the issues here. for starters, while some libertarian socialists may consider regulation a short-term fix for specific problems with capitalism, few if any consider regulation a preferred alternative; indeed, mutualists don't consider free markets the problem at all... Jacob Haller 00:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

1. Few if any libertarian socialists consider regulation a remedy for the problems of capitalism.

That statement ("Few if any...") is nonsensical. Isn't it clear that a "libertarian socialist" would consider "libertarian socialism" to be the remedy for the problems of capitalism? I think the underlying problem is that, within the libertarian capitalist ideology, socialism is conceived of as "regulation." The idea of a form of society other than market capitalism is barred from that thought system. :-/ So you will see a lot of people equating socialism with regulation; regulation is called socialism in order to denigrate it as evil, and socialism is called regulation in order to assign some meaning to a term which is not understood. —Jemmy_tc 09:31, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Talk page archives

Why is there such excessive archiving of this talk page? I took a look at a few of them and it seems the talk page has gotten archived after every 5-10 or so discussions (specifically looking at 18, 19 and 20, but they all seem to be that short). While I see the necessity of archiving, I hardly see why it's beneficial to archive after discussion of only two or three or even just 10 topics. Most archives I've seen have been after 25 at the least and usually up to 75 topics. Eventually there will be 100 archived pages here, and it doesn't help facilitate continued discussion of prior topics to archive everything so quickly.--Gloriamarie 23:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the problem is not the number of topics but the verbiage, this turns into a long talk page quite quickly, and so needs occaisionaly trimming...--Red Deathy 07:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Such "trimming" results in the obscuration previous discussion. They would be much more accessible if archived by topic instead of meaningless numbers.--Sum (talk) 02:57, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Marx and Weber in the introduction

I will remove mention of Marx and Weber from introduction of the article since they are only theorist mentioned by name there, and that gives them undue weight in relation to other, equally or more important, theorists of capitalism. -- Vision Thing -- 18:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Hallo Vision Thing, your removal of Marx's and Weber's names from the introduction does not improve the informative value. In fact, now the T.Parsons (1928/1929) sources are lost. If there are equally or more important theorists of capitalism, please mention there contributions, instead of deleting other content, thanks.--Schwalker 20:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

For doing that we would need to mention almost all the theorist from the "Perspectives on the characteristics of capitalism" section and that would produce too much clatter in the intro. Parsons source was used for Weber, so it's not needed anymore. -- Vision Thing -- 12:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Capitalism as a sociological phenomenon, as a historical phenomenon and form of society, is not accepted by the POV-warring capitalists who wish to define it as the political theory they have come here to promote. —Jemmy_tc 09:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

removal of Bolivar

Vision Thing's removal is inconsistent with its explanation. It is POV in the same way the whole of the rest of the paragraph propagating the view that capitalism==democracy is POV. I am therefore restoring it, as well as the Marx and Weber information. Vision Thing has been consistently removing anti-capitalist views from articles. -- infinity0 12:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Vision Thing, please explain your remove of this instead of reverting me. -- infinity0 12:45, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Just for the reference, I removed the unsourced claim that Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela is distinctively democratic regime. -- Vision Thing -- 12:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

If you disagree with the precise wording, why don't you reword it. If you think it is lacking in sources, why don't you add them? You have done both of these actions to sentences which espouse your own capitalistic viewpoint, why do you not do the same for alternative viewpoints? -- infinity0 12:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Because the view that Venezuela is distinctively democratic regime is held by a fringe minority and talking about it here, in the article about capitalism, would give undue weight to it. -- Vision Thing -- 13:49, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Why is this a "fringe" minority? Liekwise, how is the view that "capitalism==democracy" equally "not" a fringe minority to justify it being included? -- infinity0 14:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Venezuela is certainly democratic on the surface, but Chavez behaves in an authoritarian manner and the fairness of the referendum is questionable.JoeCarson 23:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I removed Venezuela es "ostensibly democratic". According to independent sources such as the Bertelsmann Transformation Index 2008, Venezuela's current democracy is "strongly defective". A bad example of an "ostensibly democratic" system. This article is about Capitalism, not Venezuela. Insisting on portraying the current Venezuelan system as "ostensibly democratic" without citing any serious independent study that confirms such a statement is POV. If you like the Venezuelan system and its anticapitalism that's fine, but portraying it as "ostensibly democratic" without any proof is just propaganda that has no place in a serious encyclopedic article, especially one that has nothing to do with Venezuela. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.37.192.70 (talk) 17:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The USA is also a defective democracy, but we call it a democracy. Removing Venezuela is POV pushing. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

First of all, Venezuela is currently a capitalist country. The government wants to move to socialism, but it has not happened yet and no one knows if it will ever happen. In fact, the proposal to transform Venezuela into a socialist state was rejected in a referendum. Independent sources have stated that the current Venezuelan democracy is not just defective, but "strongly defective". Venezuela has large private companies, stock exchange, private property of many means of production, and many other characteristics of capitalism. The government would like to change that, but that is only what the current government wants, not what currently exists. Saying that Venezuela is "ostensibly democratic" and "anticapitalist" is not only POV, but just plain wrong because it is neither. In addition, Venezuelan democracy was originally introduced by governments that were not anticapitalist at all.

Trying to justify adding Venezuela by saying that USA democracy is defective is wrong. That only entitles you to say that USA is not "ostensibly democratic". To prove that adding that "Venezuela is anticapitalist and ostensibly democratic" is NPOV you need to find independent reliable references for both statementsUser:vegetasaiyajin

The point of the mention of Venezuela in this section, though, isn't to argue that it is democratic (FWIW, I think the view that Venezuela isn't democratic is held by a tiny fringe consisting predominantly of the US state department). Rather, the point here is to report an argument apparently made by some that Venezuela is an example of an anti-capitalist democracy. So we don't need sources that say Venezuela is a democracy, but we do need someone to whom we can attribute this argument about democratic anti-capitalist states; the same goes whether Venezuela is mentioned in this context or not. VoluntarySlave (talk) 18:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

You should not confuse Venezuela with Chavez. Venezuela is a capitalist country that has a socialist president. The fact that Chavez is anticapitalist does not mean that the Venezuelan state is. The current Venezuelan State as defined by its constitution is far from being anticapitalist. In practice, it is a capitalist country that according to some is democratic and according to others is not so democratic. I have no problem with you saying Venezuela is a democracy, but to qualify it as "ostensibly" democratic you need a reliable source, because many independent studies contradict that argument. To say that Venezuela is anticapitalist just because Chavez is fighting capitalism in the country is just plain wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vegetasaiyajin

I think you may not have understood my comment, sorry if I didn't make myself clear. The article doesn't say that Venezuela is a democratic anti-capitalist country; the article says that some people have put forward Venezuela as an example of a democratic anti-capitalist country. If we can attribute that view to somebody or some people (and that person is reasonably notable, or those people are reasonably numerous), it can stay in the article whether or not it's true. If, on the other hand, we can't find someone making the argument put forward in the article, the whole sentence, not just the bit about Venezuela, should be taken out of the article.VoluntarySlave (talk) 21:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Now I understand your intention. However, when the article says "It has been observed that ...", it sounds a little more like it is a fact rather than an opinion. An opinion which, by the way, contradicts what the Venezuelan constitution says.

In principle, it is important to distinguish between the state (e.g. the constitution) and the government or current regime (e.g. Chavez). According to the Venezuelan government's website, according to Article 274 Venezuela is a democracy [4]. According to the governments objectives, one objective is to go "beyond" capitalism [5]; the government is explicitly dedicated to socialism [6]. As long as we say it is a democratic state with a socialist government, we should be fine. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you. Being a democracy with a government dedicated to socialism is not the same as declaring the "Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela" as an anticapitalist republic, especially when that dedication to socialism was rejected by Venezuelans in a referendum. The references you added help clarify this User:Vegetasaiyajin.

Regarding my criticizing the use of the expression "ostensibly democratic", I now accept that I was wrong. The reason is that the word "ostensible" has a different meaning in Spanish. After seeing its meaning in an English dictionary I agree that it is actually the best term to use.User:Vegetasaiyajin

What does democracy have to do with capitalism anyway? If the economy is controlled by capitalists, then what would it matter if every other aspect of society were ruled by a dictator with an iron fist. It would still be capitalism. China is turning into a capitalist economy right before our eyes, but do you see any democracy there? 71.253.4.98 (talk) 01:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Contested definitions

There has bever been agreement that a free market would produce capitalism or that capitalism requires a free market. Many socialist theorists, most notably Proudhon, argued that a free market would undermine capitalism and tend towards socialism (in his Philosophy of Misery, or System of Economic Contradictions, in 1846/47, and in his General Idea of the Revolution in the 19th Century, in 1851). Jacob Haller 20:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you can base a definition for an encyclopedia article on some obscure theorist like that. Besides, regardless of what a free market would lead to, if it led to something other than private ownership of the means of production then it wouldn't be capitalism. Capitalism has private ownership of the means of production and and a free market which means that supply and demand resolve themselves instead of the government trying to adjust supply and demand through central command and control.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Proudhon is hardly obscure (and Bastiat isn't obscure either and he made some similar remarks about the behavior of markets). Anyway, that definition doesn't work:

• It excludes actually-existing capitalism (which doesn't include free markets)
• It includes several socialist/anticapitalist proposals (such as mutualism, which includes both free markets and private ownership of the means of production). Jacob Haller 03:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by "actually-existing capitalism"?? There is no pure capitalist system in existence that I'm aware of. The academic term for what we have today are "mixed economies" which have a combination of free markets, controlled markets, privately-owned enterprises, state-owned enterprises, etc. For example in the U.S. there is a free market in bread production and distribution but there is not a free market in wages due to minimum wages laws. There is free enterprise such as bakeries but there is also state owned enterprises like the Post Office. Therefore the U.S. economy is mixed. I looked at the "mutualism" article and it looks to me like a non-profit system. The definition in this article says that the means of production are operated for profit. If the means of production are privately owned and operated for a profit and the government doesn't regulate supply and demand (free markets) then that is capitalism. I don't see a problem with the definition. Human capital 16:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I mean the economic system which has been known as "capitalism," "the capitalist system," or equivalent terms in other languages since the mid-19th century. Capitalism has never involved free markets. From the 19th century to the present, socialists have debates whether the characteristic features of capitalism (profit, rent, and interest on capital, and the separation of capital from labor) could survive in a free market. Proudhon said that they could not survive in a free market, and Marx said that they could.

For the record, mutualism isn't opposed to short-term entepreneurial profits. Even Proudhon discusses how commerce creates value; mutualist theory regards this as a form of labor. It is opposed to state-privileged monopoly profits, and it has historically expected other profits to fall towards zero. Jacob Haller 18:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Capitalism has never involved free markets? What are you talking about. Capitalism is defined by free markets. As I pointed out above, even in the U.S. mixed economy there is a free market in bread. The governemnt does not dictate production, distribution, or prices. That's what a free market is. I agree with Blues Runner above that Proudhon is too obscure to matter here. He is an extreme fringe theoretician. But even if you accepted Proudhon's misguided opinion that profit couldn't survive in a free market, then what resulted wouldn't be capitalism. To be capitalism there has to be profit and a free market at the same time. That's how it's defined. You also deleted by entry that I gave a source for which said that most economies today are mixed as that therefore the term "capitalism" is not descriptive of economies operating today. Human capital 18:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

State-privileged monopoly profits? What? If the government protects a monopoly from competition that's not capitalism. Nobody considers the U.S. Post Office to be a capitalist enterprise. Human capital 19:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand Haller's objection. Look up capitalism. It's defined like it is in the introduction.

1. Mixed economies are not free-market economies.
2. "Capitalism" has historically meant certain mixed economies, not free-market economies.

What I mean by "contested definition"

A good general definition describes how people use, and have used, the word. A good technical definition describes how the author intends to use the word in the work, and clarifies the differences between this special-purpose definition and any general definitions. A definition is contested if people use the same word, in the same contexts, with very different meanings. The word "capitalism," used to describe an economic system (or mode of production), has at least two different, and often conflicting, meanings. At the very least, the article should distinguish between different senses of capitalism to avoid confusion. Jacob Haller 21:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

All this confusion of a definition is caused by capitalism itself, which is slavery for wages & forces orphans to work or starve. Plus we should have built only Towers (multi-use) connected to maglev Trains worldwide, so food, medicine, etc is free & no one starves. Sundiii (talk) 23:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

In "When Corporations Rule the World" Korten says (on pg. 241) that pure capitalism would be if one man owns all things & automates all the work, leaving all people (slaves) to starve, & I have to agree. Sundiii (talk) 23:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Other Definitions

And here are some other definitions of "capitalism" (previously quoted on Talk:Anti-capitalism and Talk:Agorism): Jacob Haller 20:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Proudhon, Pierre Joseph, Philosophy of Misery:

Capital, Mastership, Privilege, Monopoly, Loaning, Credit, Property, etc.,--such are, in economic language, the various names of I know not what, but which is otherwise called Power, Authority, Sovereignty, Written Law, Revelation, Religion, God in short, cause and principle of all our miseries and all our crimes, and who, the more we try to define him, the more eludes us.

To defend usury they have pretended that capital was productive, and they have changed a metaphor into a reality. The anti-proprietary socialists have had no difficulty in overturning their sophistry; and through this controversy the theory of capital has fallen into such disfavor that today, in the minds of the people, CAPITALIST and IDLER are synonymous terms.

• Proudhon, Pierre Joseph, 1851, General Idea of the Revolution in the Nineteenth Century, fourth study, commenting on Rousseau:

After having trifled with his readers thus for a long time, after having drawn up the Code of Capitalist and Mercantile Tyranny, under the deceptive title of Social Contract, the Genevese charlatan deduces the necessity of a lower class, of the subordination of labor, of a dictatorship and of the Inquisition.

• fifth study:

Finally, its adversaries, the capitalistic, theologically [?] usurious, governmental, partisans of the status quo [?], all those indeed who live less by labour than by prejudice and privilege.

Let this course of reduction, for however small an amount, once be entered upon, and continued as slowly as you like, faster or more slowly makes no difference; then, I assert, the social tendency in all that concerns the price of money and discount, throughout the whole territory of the Republic, will be immediately changed, ipso facto, and that this simple change will cause the Country to pass from the present capitalistic and governmental system to a revolutionary system.

• sixth study

The school of Say, sold out to English and native capitalism, the chief focus of counter-revolution next to the Jesuits, has for ten years past seemed to exist only to protect and applaud the execrable work of the monopolists of money and necessaries, deepening more and more the obscurity of a science naturally difficult and full of complications.

• Greene, William B., Communism-Capitalism-Socialism equates Capitalism with Plutocracy.
• Bakunin, Mikhail, 1867, Marxism, Freedom, and the State:

The masses, without distinction of degree of culture, religious beliefs, country and speech, had understood the language of the International when it spoke to them of their poverty, their sufferings and their slavery under the yoke of Capitalism and exploiting private ownership; they understood it when it demonstrated to them the necessity of uniting their efforts in a great solid, common struggle.

• Bakunin, Mikhail, 1869, The Policy of the International defines capitalism as the rule of the bourgeoisie:

And that poverty --- which is the common lot of the worker --- in all parts of the world --- is a consequence of the present economic organization of society, and especially of the enslavement of labour --- i.e. the proletariat --- under the yoke of capitalism --- i.e the bourgeoisie?

• Spies, August, testimony:

While capitalism expropriates the masses for the benefit of the privileged class; while capitalism is, that school of economics which teaches how one can live upon the labor (i.e., property) of the other; socialism teaches how all may possess property, and further teaches that every man must work honestly for his own living, and not be playing the 'respectable board of trade man,' or any other highly (?) respectable business man or banker, such as appeared here as talesman in the jurors' box, with the fixed opinion that we ought to be hanged.

Anarchism does not mean bloodshed; does riot mean robbery, arson, etc. These monstrosities are, on the contrary, the characteristic features of capitalism. Anarchism means peace and tranquility to all. Anarchism, or socialism, means the reorganization of society upon scientific principles and the abolition of causes which produce vice and crime. Capitalism first produces these social diseases and then seeks to cure them by punishment.

• Fischer, Adolph, testimony:

Capitalism now is speedily attaining its most extreme character, that is, it is develop into monopolism. Wealth concentrates itself more and more in a few hands and the misery and poverty of the great mass of people is consequently enlarging in the same degree. The rich got richer and the poor poorer. Like the ruling classes in the eighteenth century, so the same classes at the eve of the nineteenth century are deaf to the complaints and warnings of the disinherited, and blind to the misery and degradation which surround their luxuriously outfitted palaces.

• Parsons, Albert, testimony:

In other words, his wages represent the bare necessities of his existence, and the unpaidfor or 'surplus' portion of his labor product constitutes the vast superabundant wealth of the non-producing or capitalist class. That is the capitalist system. It is the capitalist system that creates these classes, and it is these classes that produces this conflict.

The capitalist system originated in the forcible seizure of natural opportunities and rights by a few, and converting these things into special privileges, which have since become vested rights formally entrenched behind the bulwarks of statute law and government.

• Parsons, Albert, 1887, Anarchism: Its Philosophy and Scientific Basis, chapter 2 "Capitalism: Its Development in the Unites States, continued:"

Political parties, no longer divided in interest upon property questions, all legislation was centered upon a development of the resources of the country. To this end vast tracts of goverment land, amounting to many million acres, equalling in extent seven states the size of Illinois were donated as subsidies to the projectors of railways. The national debt, incurred to prosecute the rebellion, and amounting to three billion dollars was capitalized, by creating interest upon the bonds. Hundreds of millions were given as bonuses to proposed railways, steamship lines, etc. A protective tariff law was enacted which for the past twenty years has Imposed a tax upon the people amounting to one billion dollars annually. A National Banking system was established which gave control of finance to a banking monopoly. By means of these and other laws capitalist combinations, monopolies syndicates, and trusts were created and fostered, until they obtained absolute control of the principle avenues of industry, commerce and trade. Arbitrary prices are fixed by these combinations and the consumers--mainly the poor--are compelled by their necessities to pay whatever price is exacted. Thus during the past twenty-five years,--since the abolition of the chattel-slave labor system--twenty-five thousand millionaires have been created, who by their combinations control and virtually own the fifty billion dollars estimate wealth of the United States, while on the other hand twenty million wage workers have been created whose poverty forces them into a ceaseless competition with each other for opportunity to earn the bare necessities of existence.

• Corna & Klemensic, 1905, Resolution #20 at the Founding Convention of the Industrial Worlds of the World (fifth day):

In view of the fact that the present form of capitalism is increasing organized violence to perpetuate the spirit of despotism to predominate in this republic...

• Bourne, Randolph, 1918, The State:

But except for these occasional menaces, business, that is to say, aggressive expansionist capitalism, had nearly forty years in which to direct the American republic as a private preserve, or laboratory, experimenting, developing, wasting, subjugating, to its heart’s content, in the midst of a vast somnolence of complacency such as has never been seen and contrast strangely with the spiritual dissent and constructive revolutionary thought which went on at the same time in England and the Continent.

• Bookchin, Murray, 1971, Listen, Marxist!:

Writing in the middle years of the nineteenth century, Marx could not be expected to grasp the full consequences of his insights into the centralization of capital and the development of technology. He could not be expected to foresee that capitalism would develop not only from mercantilism into the dominant industrial form of his day--from state-aided trading monopolies into highly competitive industrial units--but further, that with the centralization of capital, capitalism returns to its mercantilist origins on a higher level of development and reassumes the state-aided monopolistic form.

• Dolgoff, Sam, 1971, Relevance of Anarchism is Modern Society:

The bourgeois reformers have yet to learn that as long as these reforms are tied to the state or to capitalism, which connotes the monopoly of political economic power, decentralism and federalism will remain a fraud...

What is the point of the above? Your sources are obscure radical anarchists. Unless you can present something more mainstream, it's not really relevant. Fringe views should really only be represented as fringe views. Human capital 23:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:NPOV.

I had originally compiled this list for anarchism-related topics and saw no reason to add non-anarchist authors to the list. It's not supposed to be a representative sample, it's only supposed to demonstrate than another definition exists, and has long existed. Jacob Haller 00:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the above list is the "alternative radical" defiinition. See WP:N. This would certainly help expand the article.Smallman12q (talk) 01:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Mostly private

If there is a state run post office, say, in a country, and everythign else is private, that does not mean that the economic system ceases to be capitalist. likewise, the para on mixed economies is hugely POV, since many commentators consider mixed economies to be a species of capitalism - it strikes me as a pandering to the sort of view that defines capitalism solely against state ownership (however legitimate that view is, it certainly isn't the only one).--Red Deathy 11:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you referring to this part of the intro? "Because most economies today are mixed economies, "capitalism" is too broad to be descriptive.[3][4] due to containing both private-owned and state-owned enterprises, or that combines elements of capitalism and socialism, or a mix of market economy and command economy characteristics." Other than some wording issues, that part is accurate. It makes as much sense to describe an evenly mixed economy as capitalist as it does to call it socialist.JoeCarson 12:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the question is, which prdominates - there was free amrket activity in "actually existing socialism" (what I would call state capitalism, but I have to give a little here and there so I can take a little), they were still "socialist" (in fact, as some have recently point out the arch-capitalist UK has a greater state sector in some regions than some "communist" states had). Anyway, this all came up at the Socialism talk page, I quote: "According to the textbook Comparative Economics in a Transforming World Economy (Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press, 2004), the planned market economies of Sweden, Japan, and France were "varieties of advanced market capitalism," not forms of socialism." That's at least one text that contradicts the cited text in the article. IMNSHO defining capitalism as 'not state owned' is harmful, wrong and ignorant, but thats by the by, it's also circular and prevents seeing the way in which states assist markets as well.--Red Deathy 13:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

"defining capitalism as 'not state owned' is harmful, wrong and ignorant" you say? That shows how little you know. Essential to capitalism is private ownership of the means of production which is essential to all definitions of capitalism in sources. If an economy has some minimal government ownership then it's a capitalist-mixed economy, meaning it's mostly capitalism but not pure capitalism. The private ownership would be the capitalist part while the state ownership part would be the non-capitalist part. Human capital 15:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

My main problem with that definition is that it is basing capitalism's definition on the owner, not the type ofownership - I've read models of capitalism where it is considered possible to have no personal owners, say, a world in which state industries competed with each other as massive corporations - I put more emphasis on the market aspects than on the legal title. thus a world in which, say, French state industries could be sold to the American state would be as much capitalistic as if private persons were doing it--Red Deathy 16:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

You're talking about "state capitalism" I assume. "State capitalism" is not "capitalism" which is why "state" is prepended to the term. "State capitalism" is pretty heterodox term. I think Trotsky even said that the advantage of the term is that "nobody knows what it means." Human capital 16:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Partly, although co-operative capitalism in which everything is owned by co-operatives is also possible - they'd be owned by their members but not in the same manner as modern shareholders do - or by public chartered corporations - the point I'd emphasise is production with a view to sell for profit, but I accept the consensus def. because I value a stable lead over continual revision. A red car is still a car, state capitalism is as much capitalism as laissez faire capitalism is, they are just variatioons on the capitalistic theme. --Red Deathy 16:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure we can get anywhere here. What classical liberals call capitalism, leftists qualify as liberal or laissez-faire capitalism. What liberals call mixed economies or corporatism, leftists call state capitalism. The liberal position is that socialism = state ownership of the means of production. Whether that ownership is merely de facto or de jure is irrelevant. Thus, many classical liberals see HMOs in the US as being fundamentally socialist institutions. HMOs are given special privileges by the government and subsidized with money misappropriated from the people. The socialist would call this state capitalism because HMOs are nominally private and seek profits.

Perhaps we should mention that proponents of capitalism tend to be supportive of (capitalism = economic liberalism), while opponents tend to oppose (capitalism = for profit).JoeCarson 17:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Red Deathy you deleted something that had a source, which was the statement that pure capitalism has never existed. It is from a mainstream economics textbook. Human capital 17:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Verifiability is a necessary but not sufficient reason for inclusion, without much effort I could find sources to claim the contrary, and as a comment it is tendentially POV (arguing in effect that capitalism is something other than it is). Like I said, I'll happilly bow to any third party on this (although if the point is restored, i'd prefer to see it reworded, it kind of stuck out as it was, copy editeed a touch). On Joe's points, we need to accomodate or remain judiciously silent. Anyway, I still like the OED's definition that capitalism is a system that promotes the existence of capitalists, it gets round all sorts of fenangles. But the point remains, that for many commentators a mixed economy is capitalist and capitalism is compatable with some state ownership of wealth.--Red Deathy 07:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Human capital. Just qualify it as laissez-faire capitalism. Complete economic liberalism has never existed and I'm sure that is what the econ text was getting at. When mainstream economists say capitalism, they mean the same thing as classical liberals. JoeCarson 10:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Fine, but if it is restored, could it be more substantial - what does pure capitalism mean? that teh obnly human relationships are market based? Mothers selling food to their children? No sex without payment - what is pure capitalism? lets not forget, also, that it is not just an economic term, it is also sociological...--Red Deathy 11:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't a link to laissez-faire or economic liberalism be sufficient?JoeCarson 12:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

A pure capitalists an economy is one that exactly fits the definition of capitalism. There is no such economy, just like there is no pure communist economy. Many reference works note that this. For example here's Encyclopedia Americana: "Even among economies classifed as capitalistic there may be considerable variation from the conditions taht characterize pure capitalism. The contemporary economy of the United States, which is regarded as an outstanding example of modern capitalism, is a mixed rather than a pure capitalist economy." It says in that article that an economy that is pure capitalist would not only have all the means of production privately owned but also free from government control and regulation. Human capital 00:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

In other words, you're arging from "the" definition, which is why other definitions matter. A good definition describes how words are used, either in one context, or generally, and "Capitalism" is often used to describe mixed economies. Joe Carson's suggestion (about pro- and anti-capitalist uses of the term) is a definite improvement, but "for profit" poses problems for systems which distinguish different kinds or sources of profit. Jacob Haller 02:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The lead

Am I the only one to think the lead is far too long? I would like to see only the first paragraph left above the table of contents. The other articles in the lead are really discussions of various aspects or limitations of capitalism, or the scope of capitalist theory - distinctions that should be in the article, but not the lead VisitorTalk 00:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The lead says the term "capitalism is too broad to be constructive" but then talks about a pure capitalism, implying that there is a definitive essence of capitalism - this strikes me as contradictory. As to pure capitalism, there are sufficient comentators who claim that capitalism could not exist without state support to make the idea of a stateless pure capitalism highly disputable. Again, I ask, how far does privatisation have to go to become pure? Until there are no otehr than market relations? the basic fact is that capitalism is the hegemonic mode of production at the minute, and even state enterprises are subject to capialistic relations. Laissez Faire is as much capitalism as anarcho capitalism, crony capitalism (and state capitalism : if you accept the term). I also reckon that talking of "bits of socialism" is a bit dubious, since socialism is a system of society, not nationalisation or government regulation, though these may be things advocated by socialists. I suggest we need to keep the lead clean and tight, and can save fenangling over such issues till further down the article--Red Deathy 07:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Crony capitalism = state capitalism = socialism. When government is successful in behavior that only the rightful owner of x is allowed, government is effectively the owner of x. State capitalism is as much capitalism as Wednesday is Friday. Capitalism is the dominant form of production because no other system produces as much utility, but capitalism is certainly not dominant in the area of property rights. Governments have misappropriated the property rights of billions of people, they just haven't put much of that property to productive uses. Only anti-capitalists hold the belief that capitalism cannot exist without coercive relations. Pro-capitalists and objective commentators understand that pure capitalism is by definition free of coercive relations, even if a state does exist. Those who fixate on the private part of capitalism do not understand it. Liberalism is at the heart of capitalism. Charities and cooperatives are 100% compatible with a capitalist economy, as long as they are voluntary. JoeCarson 12:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you'll find plenty of pro capitalists consider the state essential, if only to define property rights; and plenty of pro-capitalists believe in state regulation, as a means of securing capitalism's existence - but of course, if you define state interference as anti-capitalist your argument becomes circular and impossible to refute...--Red Deathy 12:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

A coercive state is incompatible with capitalism, not just any arbitrary state. A homeowner's association is an example of a non-coercive state.JoeCarson 15:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

It doens't say "capitalism is too broad to be constructive." It says "capitalism is too broad to be descriptive." It's saying when people use the term "capitalism" loosely to describe various economies, it's not describing much because they use it to apply to economies that vary greatly. Human capital 15:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

It's essential to capitalism that the means of production are privately owned. If the means of production are owned by the state, that's socialism by all mainstream definitions. Human capital 16:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

No it's not. See Talk:Socialism. Mercantilism and Fascism are generally considered capitalist, and they involve tight state control if not ownership. The cooperative movement, participatory economics, anarcho-collectivism, anarcho-communism, mutualism, and syndicalism are generally considered socialist, and they involve little or no state control. Jacob Haller 20:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Mercantilism and fascism are not state ownership of the means of production, so I don't know how your point is relevant. But I think you're wrong that mercantilism and fascism are considered capitalist by most commentators since capitalism is generally free market. Capitalism, as an economic system, is considered an alternative to mercantilism. And I didn't say socialism has to be state ownership. I said that if that state owns the means of production then that's a form of socialism, by mainstream definitions. Human capital 20:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Mercantilism and especially fascism would be prime examples of mixed economies and no one would dispute that. Human capital 20:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations is supposed to be a paradigm of capitalist theory, and it's a refutation of mercantilism. Capitalism and mercantilism are not the same the thing. "The Marxist cannot distinguish between what is commonly referred to as capitalism, or a system of free trade, and mercantilism, or a system in which the operation of the market is impeded by extensive government restrictions for the benefit of the ruling group. It is important to realize that it is not simply that the Marxist does not distinguish between capitalism and mercantilism. It is that the Marxist paradigm quite literally renders him incapable of making such a distinction." [7] Human capital 20:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

What does Marx have to do with this?

People use the term "capitalism" to describe at least two very different phenomena (1) the presently-existing system, and/or an economic system characterized by capital profits, rent, and interest, and (2) the free market, including price signals, entepreneural profit, private ownership, and competition. It's an important distinction, and some socialist opponents of the presently-existing system have been advocates of free markets, with all the above characteristics. It is massive bias to impose Misesian redefinitions of capitalism and socialism on the rest of us. It is NPOV to note rival meanings of the same term and distinguish between them. Jacob Haller 00:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Nobody is imposing a "Misesian redefinition of capitalism." The mainstream definition of capitalism is what's in the intro right now. Not only does Mises accept it but so does everyone else in the mainstream. Capitalism is defined as a system of private ownership for profit in a largely unregulated market. No socialist advocates this. It's ludicrous that you would suggest that. If you have some other definition of capitalism that's fine, but it's not mainstream and hardly anyone accepts it so don't represent it as such. Human capital 04:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why you keep bringing up "the presently-existing system." What presently existing system? Where? What country? An economic system has to have a stable definition. The definition can't be continually changed to reflect the "presently existing system." Human capital 04:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

When most people talk about capitalism, they mean the economic system which emerged in the western world in the early 19th century, and which has existed in the western world, and spread through the rest of the world since that time. This is how most people use the word, and people have used this word (or equivalents like "the capitalist system") in the same or similar senses since the mid-19th-century, long before anyone equated capitalism with markets.

You state, of free markets, that "no socialist advocates this." There are definite elements of this in the Ricardoan school, and full-blown free-market models in mutualist and individualist anarchist socialism, in the individualist-syndicalist synthesis of Dyer Lum, and so on. Of course we can debate the exact meaning of "ownership for profit" 'till the sun goas down. Jacob Haller 06:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I call the U.S. a generally capitalist system, but I also know that it's not pure capitalism. There are characteristics present in the U.S. economy that are not considered part of the characteristics of capitalism, such as government regulation of wages, government ownership of some enterprises, some centralized economic planning including government-directed investment, and some protectionism. There is no serious person who would deny that the U.S. is mixed rather than purely capitalistic. There are capitalist elements and non-capitalist elements. You say that capitalism is "the economic system which emerged in the western world in the early 19th century, and which has existed in the western world." That's a really odd statement. There are a number of economic systems that have "emerged" in the western world. Each country has its own unique system. So to say that there are all simply "capitalism" is absurd. They're all mixed, some closer to pure capitalism than others. And I state again, no socialist advocates private ownership of the means of production operated for profit in the context of free markets. Human capital 15:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, yes, it's "descriptive" not "constructive" but you see my point that this jars with an idea of an essential definition. The definitions of capitalism I read in sociological and historical circles, btw, make no mention of an absence of regulation, they define it as the emergence of marketisation of relations. Many mainstream commentators would include regulation in any notion of capitalism.--Red Deathy 06:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Non-coercive regulation is fine. Industries often regulate themselves because of public demand. JoeCarson 10:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course is the abscense of regulation. If the government is not allowing the market to set price and production levels but is dictating them as in North Korea, that's not capitalism. Human capital 15:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying that, say, Health and safety legislation is anti-capitalist and it's very existence means that a system becomes mixed? Or could it be that capitalists themselves want regulation in some quarters in order to enable markets - after all, half the work of the EU is standardising standards so that a single market can be created...--Red Deathy 08:56, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

No of course not. We're talking about regulations on supply and demand, not health and safety regulations. In a capitalist system businesses decide how much they're going to produce, what they're going to produce, and are free to set their own pricing of goods and labor which is itself based on unregulated supply and demand. If central economic planning starts coming in (government deciding what's going to be produced, pricing of goods and labor, etc) that's when it starts becoming mixed. Human capital 16:44, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

POV in Globalization section

Ultramarine's ditty on poverty is falsely sourced - i.e The sources do not attribute rising living standards in the third world to capitalism. They don't even mention it and Reason magazine is a partisan resource. More than weasel referencing --maxrspct ping me 14:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok .. no discussion? then - see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Economy, trade, and companies for RFC on that section. -- maxrspct ping me 15:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Rising living standards in the 3rd world are largely a result of moving from socialism to capitalism, especially in India and China. However, the section removed by User:max rspct doesn't really belong, as it is improperly sourced. Finding decent sources to show that the transition to capitalism has enormously improved living standards in those parts of the third world which have started on the transition should be easy. Argyriou (talk) 22:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Post hoc ergo propter hoc? Jacob Haller 23:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Here from the RFC. Reason satisfies WP:RS and WP:V, especially since the cite is merely recounting widely available statistics. (Moreover, Reason is nonpartisan, and far less biased than many other sources cited in this article.) As for the material, it's no more POV than the mention of allegations of growing income inequality. Perhaps the whole "Globalization" section should be deleted, but if it's to be included, then NPOV requires all points of view--including the point of view that globalization has improved living standards--should be included. The controversial passage could use a little clean-up, but the article as a whole suffers from a distinct lack of WFTE. THF 06:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Unless the statisticians who compiled the statistics, or someone else in a verifiable sources, argued that the statistics indicate a causal relation, we cannot make such a claim or else we violate NOR. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:40, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I understand the WP:SYN policy. The Reason piece makes the connection between capitalism and the improving QOL of the world identified by Kenny. THF 16:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree. I have also added another source.Ultramarine 20:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Ultra, can you readd your source in the footnotes? The text you added was redundant with the text that was already there, and you didn't provide enough information for the reference for the footnote. Thx. THF 21:59, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

'Reason' is a bias/partisan source. The section is detached from rest of article. The first 2 works don't even mention capitalism or free markets.. so how can they support paragraphs that should be in the support section. A meadering editorial. Huh? -- maxrspct ping me 21:04, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not playing Argument Clinic. You've already said that, and everyone disagrees with you, and just repeating it without adding new information is not helpful. THF 21:59, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Not everyone. "Reason" is a notoriously partisan source. Jacob Haller 06:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

User:TedFrank (THF), please be civil. Every time to talk to me you are extremely uncivil, do not have an answer or remedy and you make provocative accusations. Please collaborate over the article. maxrspct ping me 09:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

It is okay to use partisan sources as long as they are clearly identified as such. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I suggest we rewrite the whole article in conjunction with the globalization(?) section. Including the following issues and related arguments:

• Whether globalization is anything new and what form it has taken.
• Social changes, poverty, defintions of poverty and standard of living.
• Capitalism, oppportunity and social class.
• Free trade issues and international politics

All with the relevent viewpoints, sourced and written to give the reader a fair overview of capitalism, its associated social and societal issues and economic systems across the globe. I see there is little on free trade, banks, work, microcredit, legacies and/or continuation of empire and anthropological approaches. Absent is computerization, the internet and web trade, legislation outside free trade agreements. General business issues and business landscapes or comparisons. Demographics? Nothing on reciprocity, history and pre-capitalist form of culture or capitalism in South America (Argentina for exp), and those areas where capitalism has had no problems with dictatorial regimes, genocide, exploitation and corruption. All sourced with indictors whether they are partisan.. from Reason magazine to labour institutes.--maxrspct ping me 16:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Please do not delete sourced material. If you have sources for the above, it would be very good in the globalization article. Here space is limited.Ultramarine 20:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

There are in fact numerous problems, both conceptual and empirical, with this section. For the moment I will not explore all of the deficiencies. I will simply turn to the last paragraph which begins with the empirical claim that "economic growth in the last half-century has been consistently strong." Well, what is this claim doing in a section on globalisation, who says so, and relative to what? The claim is only tenuously substantiated by an op-ed from a partisan source. [[8]]. A far superior source is Ha-Joon Chang of Cambridge University, one of the world's most cited development economists, who in an article in The Prospect from early July 2007 claims that: [quote] "the truth is that free traders make the lives of those whom they are trying to help more difficult. The evidence for this is everywhere. Despite adopting supposedly "good" policies, like liberal foreign trade and investment and strong patent protection, many developing countries have actually been performing rather badly over the last two and a half decades. The annual per capita growth rate of the developing world has halved in this period, compared to the "bad" old days of protectionism and government intervention in the 1960's and the 1970's. Even this modest rate has been achieved only because the average includes China and India- two fast-growing giants, which have gradually liberalised their economies but have resolutely refused to put on Thomas Friedman's golden straitjacket." [[9]] "Friedman's golden straitjacket" refers to Thomas Friedman's summary of globalist policy prescription which is namely: privatisation, low inflation, reduction of government, budget balancing, trade liberalisation, deregulation of foreign investment and capital markets, currency convertability, corruption reduction and pension privatisation.BernardL 22:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

An important reason for the good numbers durng the 60s and 70 were the boom in commodity prices. In the 80s and 90s these prices collapsed due overproduction stimulated by the high prices, which in turn decreased the economic growth in developing nations dependent on such exports. Worldwide growth has been very good in recent years. The world is expected to have an amazing 5.2% growth next year.[10] Growth has been very good also in Africa during the 2000s.[11]Ultramarine 18:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm passing through doing POV tag cleanup. It seems to me that you all have reached a fair consensus on this matter, and while I'm not an expert it reads well to me. I won't delete the POV tag, but I would suggest that one of you editors do, if you all feel comfortable with it. For one thing the "good article" status of this topic is on pause partly because of the tag. Be bold..Jjdon (talk) 21:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I was checking out the POV tags as well and I also feel that this discussion has been completed and that the NPOV warning should be removed.Rs148004 (talk) 06:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

External links

The first link seems factual and neutral.

Capitalism.org

and

Why Do Intellectuals Oppose Capitalism? by Robert Nozick

are two webpages that have a right-wing ideological agenda promoting capitalism. Since there are no links that presents an alternative view, readers of the Capitalism article might get the impression that the article itself is ideologically biased.

Olofmbolsson 23:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

This view is upheld by Hayek as well. All webpages that promote capitalism or socialism may be accused of having a "right-wing ideological agenda promoting capitalism" or a "left-wing idealogical agenda promoting socialism." Hayek demonstrated a noticeable bais by intellectuals in general towards socialism. To keep things neutral, such bais must be brought to light. The link should remain. Jcchat66 23:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

"To keep things neutral, such bais must be brought to light." -- this argument makes no sense at all! It is a complete obfuscation. Olofmbolsson 23:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Then please elaborate. Why does it not make sense? If you want to improve the article, offer suggestions for improvement and explain your opinions. Jcchat66 15:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The reason it does not make sense is that Hayek's view is itself a view. I have no problem representing this view in the article, but (1) it must be presented as a view, not the truth and (2) we should include other views. This is how we achieve neutrality. When you say "such bias must be brought to light" it sounds as if you mean this article ought to acknowledge a particular truth. That violates our policies, which are about verifiability not truth. We do not bring "such bias" to light, we bring to light the fact that some people hold to a particular view that there is "such bias." That makes sense. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:49, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

What if we could add “USA should have built massive 100-story Tower cities connected to maglev Trains, NOT cars, weapons, small buildings”? That destroys capitalism. See? Sundiii (talk) 18:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I deleted this external link because it gives no information on capitalism in general and only about 1 person's view on specifically intellectuals' views on capitalism which would only be appropriate on an article about Intellectuals and Capitalism per Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided13. This on top of the POV issues mentioned above. Munci (talk) 11:40, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I moved it to Critique of capitalism. -- Vision Thing -- 10:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

This has a lot of good quotes about eliminating money but I don't know if it could be added: http://666ismoney.com/MoneyQuotes.html Is it acceptable for External Links? Stars4change (talk) 21:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Can this Michael Parenti Youtube speech be added to External links? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJLaRhTKzw8&feature=related Stars4change (talk) 00:11, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Can this Noam Chomsky Youtube speech be added in External Links? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFxYyXGMfZM&NR=1 Stars4change (talk) 00:13, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Marx

'Prior to this, Karl Marx was critical of the "capitalist mode of production" but does not refer to "capitalism" in the sense of a comprehensive economic system.'

This is obviously absurd, defying both what Marx said and internal logic.--Jack Upland 08:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, quick search of Marx online find This quote in Capital I where he uses the word. "These same rights remain in force both at the outset, when the product belongs to its producer, who, exchanging equivalent for equivalent, can enrich himself only by his own labour, and also in the period of capitalism, when social wealth becomes to an ever-increasing degree the property of those who are in a position to appropriate continually and ever afresh the unpaid labour of others." Kill it, kill it 'orribly...--Red Deathy 08:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Adam Smith

The section on Smith omits his view that "sympathy" is a key human value and that much of his philosophy has been greatly misrepresented. The Gutenberg file on Smith has searchable text for "The Wealth of Nations," so that's a good place to start. More immediately, anarchist critiques like Chomsky's are useful: quoting at length, Smith was "pre-capitalist, a figure of the Enlightenment. What we would call capitalism he despised. People read snippets of Adam Smith, the few phrases they teach in school. Everybody reads the first paragraph of The Wealth of Nations where he talks about how wonderful the division of labor is. But not many people get to the point hundreds of pages later, where he says that division of labor will destroy human beings and turn people into creatures as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human being to be. ... He did give an argument for markets, but the argument was that under conditions of perfect liberty, markets will lead to perfect equality. That's the argument for them, because he thought that equality of condition (not just opportunity) is what you should be aiming at" (in Class Warfare [1995, with David Barsamian]). Another secondary source is Iain McLean's book Adam Smith, Radical and Egalitarian: An Interpretation for the 21st Century -- for which its publisher, Edinburgh University Press, says that Smith "was not [a] promoter of ruthless laissez-faire capitalism".Walla Walla 22:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)Walla Walla 06:57, 9 October 2007 (EST)

I know it may be a bit late to ask you but could you supply a reference for Adam Smith despising Capitalism? And also the division of labour; where he feels it will turn us all into stupid creatures? Also what the hell are you talking about Markets for like they can be stopped? Can you define a market for me? Its crap like this that allows the "Capitalism" article to survive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.147.100 (talk) 11:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

De Mercado, De Soto and other catholic theoreticians?

Hm.. Wouldn't be good to include something about theories of economy propagated by catholic scholastics like Thomas de Mercado, Domingo de Soto and others? You know, in XVI century? Theories about private ownership, banking, trdaing etc? Szopen 08:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Unless you can show that the authors have something to do with capitalism, no. If you can, yes. In themselves or in combination, private ownership, banking, and trading don't imply capitalism in any sense of the term. Jacob Haller 18:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Question on the deaths "Caused by Capitalism"

If capitalism supposedly caused 147 million deaths as the article claims, how many have been caused by communism, socialism, feudalism, etc? It seems the author uses this figure without proper context. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.162.0.41 (talk) 19:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Where is that? Was it deleted? I would say it was far more than that even: count every car crash death, every war, every suicide, every crime, every person killed violently (hurricanes, tornadoes, tsunamis, etc) because we should have built only Tower cities connected to maglev Trains to save lives & the earth. Sundiii (talk) 23:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Is The Black Book of Capitalism considered a credible source? If so, why is there no citation provided for the reference, and why is it not listed in the sources at the bottom, with its author named, so that readers can assess the source for themselves? 68.54.160.137 (talk) 02:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Please see the article devoted to the book to find your answers. I detailled slightly the split of the 147 millions. People can judge by themselves the logics of making capitalisme responsible for slavery of World War II.. --Bombastus (talk) 10:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Both of those numbers are quite meaningless when compared directly, since the systems did not exist for the same length of time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.188.235.58 (talk) 15:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Added sources

I added three sources under the Weberian political sociology section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.204.95.10 (talk) 15:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Merge from

• Capitalism The Spontaneous "invisible hand" and "free market economics" in market economy must be merged into free market. I suggest the Criticisms from that article to be merged with this article. Singwaste. (talk) 05:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, Market economy#Spontaneous order or .22Invisible hand.22 and Market economy#Free market economy shall be merged into Free market. Capitalism#Criticisms of capitalism is already extensive. The Critisism from Noam Chomsky in Free market#Criticism isn't actually speaking of free markets bu of todays capitalistic system because he thinks what exists today is a free market(a result of the fussiness in terminology as explained thurally by, Definitional concerns in anarchist theory#The .22Zaxlebax.22 Problem). Free_market#Noam Chomsky can and ought to be moved to Critique of capitalism. Lord Metroid (talk) 16:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• Free market This is a theoretic article, but in the article market economy, the "invisible hand" is theory, which should be merge into this article. The "free market economics" section in that article is basically equivalent to this article. We have duplicate sections such as "economic freedom" and "communist comparisons". We have Adam Smith. We also have the same criticism should moved to criticism of capitalism. We already have the practical economics article: laissez-faire. Singwaste (talk) 05:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The invisible hand should be moved to free market as stated above. Market economy is better to be a summary of market systems. I will take care of this. Lord Metroid (talk) 16:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• Criticism of libertarianism some should moved to Critique of capitalism. Singwaste (talk) 05:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of libertarianism like Criticism of socialism needs to stay because otherwise the lenght of the articles would become in violation to wikipedia's policies on article lenght. However I notices that unlike Socialism#Criticisms of socialism, Libertarianism does not have a abstract section of the main article, that needs to be added. The critique on the article Criticism of libertarianism are the common critique libertarianism recieves I don't see how it can possibly be moved to capitalism as libertarianism and capitalism is not the same concepts. Lord Metroid (talk) 16:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of libertarianism needs to remain. Libertarianism and Capitalism are not the same thing. While some of the criticism may sound similar, Libertarianism is a political theory that speaks to economic, social and political-function theory, whereas Capitalism is an economic-political theory that does not directly address issues like natural rights, social morality and freedom. The two are remarkably different. izaakb ~talk ~contribs 02:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• Criticism of capitalism should be merged from critics sections from these articles Singwaste. (talk) 05:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

As Capitalism#Criticisms_of_capitalism is so extensive and Market_economy#Criticism of market economy fits in my opinion better as an absrtact section in Capitalism instead of what is now. Lord Metroid (talk) 16:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• Laissez-faire Should be merged from economic libertarianism and economic liberalism Singwaste. (talk) 05:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
• Economic liberalism Should be moved to laissez-faire Singwaste. (talk) 05:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
• Economic libertarianism No such phrase, move to laissez-faire Singwaste. (talk) 05:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I never heard of both these terms but they are in principle both the same concept the difference is that liberalism was used before the 19th century and libertarianism is the modern rewording of the principles. Economic libertarianism would fit nicely in laissez-faire#modern revival of laissez-faire theory and Economic liberalism in Laissez-faire#History of Laissez-faire. Lord Metroid (talk) 16:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• Market economy moved to laissez-faire and merged from economlc liberlism Economic liberalism and criticism section to capitalism. Singwaste (talk) 05:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

After are surgery on Market economy which will result in a cleanup of the article, I don't think we need to do much with it. Market economy is common term and concept and so needs to have an article on. Lord Metroid (talk) 16:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Please conduct these discussions on talk pages of relevant articles. -- Vision Thing -- 22:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• History of capitalist theory merge proposed in 2008-09, if no support for that (article already fairly long) remove the tag.

Went ahead and removed tag for this from Perspectives section, added discussion entry on the Merge From article which is obviously too big to merge in the § in question. 72.228.150.44 (talk) 23:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Ayn Rand

"She was the first person to morally justify capitalism with a new code of morality (Rational Selfishness)" - I think this line needs to be taken out. How is rational selfishness a new code except under its own name? She is not the first obviously. --maxrspct ping me 21:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Someone Else Says: Also was'nt Adam Smith (1778) the classical economist to talk about the self-interest of people in the distribution of wealth, guided by the invisible hand? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.147.100 (talk) 14:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Adam Smith was more of a philosopher than an economist. His more famous work The Wealth of Nations built upon and included a system of morals from his earlier work The Theory of Moral Sentiments. She was certainly not the "first person to endow capitalism with a new code of morality" nor will she be the last. -AmericanPi April 9, 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.103.200 (talk) 02:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Lead section

I noticed some contributors still have a problem knowing how to write a lead section. If anybody knows how to surmise an intro, please do so. Kransky (talk) 15:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

According to the guideline, three to four paragraphs are customary when it comes to articles of this length. -- Vision Thing -- 21:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Word length is a better measure of brevity. A lead section should not get bogged down trying to be too descriptive, too prescriptive or critiquing its conventional definition. You could just say:

• Capitalism generally refers to an economic and social system in which the means of production are predominantly privately-owned and operated for profit. Investment, distribution, income, production, pricing and other economic activity are usually determined by the owners of these means of production according to their own self-interest. Almost all countries in the world have adopted elements of capitalism in their economic systems. Kransky (talk) 02:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Except that they are not privately held. They are generally held by public corporations i.e. corporations with shars of ownership that are publically traded. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Missing capitalist (as a person) definition

The article capitalist redirects to capitalism. Because of that, this article should mention what a capitalist is. The old article (before redirect) was [12]. It was redirected in June 2005 with comment: redirect to capitalism article whose intro notes the usage of "capitalist", which is not true anymore. Kricke (talk) 22:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Do we even need an article for this? Kransky (talk) 08:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe not, but this article should perhaps mention it? Kricke (talk) 09:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't exactly see the point of it. Do we have an article for socialist, individualist, marxist, communist and so fort? Do we mention in the articles what the name means? No, before we try to write an encyclopedia and not a dictionnary.. --Bombastus (talk) 12:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, but there is a difference between those you mention. All those words means advocates of the same ideology (a socialist is an advocate for socialism et.c), while "capitalst" does not, in its original meaning (i.e. a capitalist can be against capitalism as a political system). Kricke (talk) 15:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Somehow I don't think including the words "A capitalist is somebody who derives income from capital" will expand the frontiers of human knowledge. Kransky (talk) 11:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

It won't. No article on Wikipedia does, or should. That would be original research. Anyway, as it is now. Wikipedia implicitly is saying that Capitalist is someone who advocates capitalism. And that is wrong or atleast POV. But alright. I don't care. Kricke (talk) 12:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I think Kricke points us to a direction out of this debate when s/he brings up original research. The opposite of original research is source-based research. So what determines ehther Wiipedia has an article "capitalist," or even whether this article has a section, "capitalist," is simply this: is there a body of literature on capitalists? I think the word may actually originate in a novel. I can see an article called "capitalist that has a section on "capitalists in literature," I am sure there must be several articles and books by scholars of comparitive literature on the portrayal of capitalists in literature. What aqbout real capitalists? I do not know. Social historians have published many studies on workers, but I do not know of any studies of capitalists. But maybe there are, by social historians or economic historians. It is also worth looking to see if there are any sociological studies of capitalists. in short, if there are reliable notable sources, there is a place for it in Wikipedia. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

There is an enormous literature on individual businesspeople - some of which is scholarly. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Kricke, you are correct in that the original pejorative meaning of the word capitalist, minted by William Thackeray in the 1850s and refined in Marx "Das Kapital" in the 1860s as "one who owns working capital" held that meaning exclusively until recently, and typically used in this meaning in communist & socialist countries by official establishments should be mentioned in this article. But today the word has been used by so many people to mean "someone who supports capitalism", especially among scientists that it has come to mean that too. I support that the original meaning should be mentioned in the article since much of the original literature would be incomprehensible without this fact. DanielDemaret (talk) 02:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC) I changed my mind a bit. It need not be in this article. The redirect should be corrected instead to be a disambiguation, since the redirect today is misleading. DanielDemaret (talk) 02:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Good article nomination

Please place reviews in this section. Gary King (talk) 02:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

This still needs some work before GA. Several paragraphs are missing citations, and there is an NPOV tag on one of the sections. These things will have to be fixed. Feel free to renominate once they are. Wrad (talk) 01:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Fernand Braudel's Capitalism and Civilization, Volume II as a source

The best general discussion of the etymology and definition(s) of capitalism I have read lie in Volume II of French historian Fernand Braudel's "Civilization and Capitalism, Volume II, The Wheels of Commerce", pp.232-239.

Seems to me this might save a lot of confusion and add some valuable information to the discussion and debate.

Among other valuable insights, Braudel points out that Karl Marx never, in fact, used the word "capitalism", which does not appear anywhere before the twentieth century; not even in Max Weber's critique. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.94.44.70 (talk) 02:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Paragraph removed

The following was removed :

• Some labor historians and other scholars, such as Immanuel Wallerstein and Marcel van der Linden, have also argued that unfree labor — the use of a labor force comprised of slaves, indentured servants, criminal convicts, political prisoners and/or other coerced persons — is compatible with capitalist relations.

and twice replaced by an unsourced passage, without explanation. I have made basic copy edits to the new passage, but believe this to be the more solid piece of writing and research. JNW (talk) 01:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I've restored the above paragraph to the article, and left the newer version as well. JNW (talk) 01:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

More Neocon Vandalism? Twice now Vision Thing has removed from the criticisms section of the Wiki entry on Capitalism one particular contribution to the debate about the acceptability to capitalism of unfree labor. The reference in question is a book by Brass, Towards a Comparative Political Economy of Unfree Labor, a text published in 1999 consisting of articles appearing throughout the 1980s. Even the least bright member of humanity will appreciate that, in chronological terms this text precedes that on the same subject by Marcel van der Linden, published in 2003. Either the latter also goes, or both van der Linden and Brass stay. I am posting this on your website, where it is one of many similar objections to interventions by you in areas where your competence to do so is – how shall I say this – not of the greatest. 8 April 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.103.64 (talk) 18:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Definition of capitalism weak

The wikipedia article begins with a statement that "capitalism refers to" which is not a definition. Here is a better definition: "Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights. This includes property rights, in which property is privately owned. Under capitalism the state is separated from economics (production and trade), as well as from religion. Capitalism is a system of political freedom." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Honeydinner (talk • contribs) 18:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

No-ones replied, but I suppose - the current def. is hard fopught and well referenced, and close enough to being accurate - or at least broadly supported - to count. Your suggested ref. is fundamentally inaccurate.--Red Deathy (talk) 12:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Dictionaries are about words, encyclopedia articles are about things that words refer to, in this case, it can be an idea or a social system. When addressing complex matters, a definition would be a positively bad way to begin. At best it would oversimplify, and at worst - as in Honeydinner's suggestion - it would forward one POV, thus violating NPOV. There are many views of capitalism and they are presented in detail and in an NPOV way in the body of the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)67.77.231.18 (talk) 05:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Laissez Faire

Why is laissez faire capitalism only mention in a single sentence near the end of the article. It is a major branch of capitalism. It has its own article, but a mention earlier in this article would be nice.70.151.125.19 (talk) 15:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)Arbiter099

Edits

Capitalism sucks, I think it should be included in the article. It is very notable subject and most everybody agrees that capitalism sucks to the bone. Viper55 (talk) 09:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Capitalism is a political system, and therefore different people have different views on if it's good or bad. To write that it sucks is not very smart, since it is an opinion. Also, most people does not think that capitalism sucks, so why would that be in the article (you would probably want to write that without any source, right?). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.235.22.76 (talk) 16:08, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

'M'&Ms says: Since this section says edits I would like to address something. In the first paragraph the time private property is defined as not ownd or controlled by the state. True, property cannot be private if it is owned by the state but this is insufficient as a definition.

What needs to be added is a reference to Commonon Law. Under Common Law 'everybody' (I'm using the term within reason here) owned the resource. However, it was not state owned. What private property means is that 'the bundle of use rights' is centralised with one or a few individuals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.147.100 (talk) 10:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

EDIT

Everybody knows that Capitalism sucks, and is the evil of the world...... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.176.98.187 (talk) 23:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Whats the alternative and is it plausible? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.147.100 (talk) 11:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The alternative in 5 words: all people own all things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stars4change (talk • contribs) 06:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Disaster Capitalism

First coined by Naomi Klein in a April 14, 2005 The Nation article and later expanded into a 720 page book, The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism, released June 24, 2008.

http://www.naomiklein.org

"Disaster Capitalism" refers to economic policies instituted in the wake of disasters. Such disasters could be caused by political upheaval, war, natural disasters.

Although the main thrust of Klein's articles and book focuses on the Bush Administration and neo-conservatives (neocons) efforts, the term "Disaster Capitalism" is not new and can also be used to apply to liberal/progressive economic policies.

For example, Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal could be seen as an exercise in "Disaster Capitalism" due to the programs and reforms instituted in the wake of the Great Depression.

The "war on terror" is also an exercise in "Disaster Capitalism" with policies instituted to strengthen the military-industrial complex.

Also see:

"Confessions of an Economic Hit Man" By John Perkins

"Whose Freedom? The Battle Over America's Most Important Idea" By George Lakoff

MacInEnterprise (talk) 20:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Seems to be a catch-phrase coined by the Author to convey, what he/she thinks to be, a phenomenon that can be isolated and define seperate from other economic phenomena. However, unlike e.g. "efficiency wage" it does not have a track record and could be forgotten about. Why are you writing about this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.147.100 (talk) 11:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Monopoly Capitalism

Unlike state monopoly capitalism, monopoly capitalism is an economy dominated by oligopolistic corporations earning "supernormal" profits.

MacInEnterprise (talk) 00:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Is it not "oligopolistic capitalism" then? Or just oligopoly as we say in economics. Or perhaps you just meant 'Monopolistic competition? A monopoly means one seller; so cannot refer to oligopoly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.147.100 (talk) 11:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

THE DEVIL IN EGYPT AS JACOBITE CAPITALISM:... here it happened again, on the cusp, just when you thought a neo had userpered the beholder terrorism is in jabbawocky affection, there becomes a philistein obligation to censor 'it seems' what is translation ; that is to say that "each time you know they have to - they [somehow] know they don't" ;; in this way as it is a box of choclate liquours from lucifer - people are twice shy of in a way, it is realised that 'no this time' is winning :: only - no it isn't is gaining where it is realised more productively that such ^sticks in the mud^ are more than what they seem, so || but then you realise - that they think they are right to stop production on this terminus beleiving it to be counter-productive on their islands -mmm,, in that case is it why,, because the most difficult thing to prove or realise is that they are based fundamentally on the fact that we are evolving into a more peaceful human being is why they are climate changelings... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.249.118 (talk) 12:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Citation 3, beginning of article

Ideally, capitalist systems are governed by the free price system set by the law of supply and demand rather than government regulation,[3]

That is stating opinion, not fact and should not be at the start of the article. Pricing systems are more complicated than the law of supply and demand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.26.140.115 (talk) 00:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

question

I know it is an importnt facet of Marxian theory of capitlism that capital is mobile, and that it is way more mobile today than in Marx's time. this is not an idea limited to Marx; I think any ecoomist today acknowledges the importance of "liquidity" in markets. Can anyone suggest a few short, well-respected, and accessible sources that goes over this, both in theory and in today's economy? thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 00:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Look up De Soto; The Mystery of Capital. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.147.100 (talk) 11:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

"Unrestrained Capitalism"

While laissez-faire includes both minarchism and anarchism, the link to Anarcho-capitalism for "unrestrained capitalism" is more accurate than one to the Laissez-faire article, as the former abolishes the state entirely while the latter generally seeks to retain it in some minimal form. JLMadrigal (talk) 03:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Examine the source. It's not referring to anarcho-captialism. When most people refer to unrestrained capitalism they're not referring to anarcho-capitalism. They're just referring to laissez-faire capitalism. Dropperada (talk) 22:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalism is a political position, favoring the abolition of the state; unrestrained capitalism is an economic position, favoring a lack of state intervention in the economy. It's not obvious that unrestrained capitalism requires abolishing the state, indeed, I think a lot of people would argue that capitalism of any form, unrestrained or not, requires a state; this is a matter of debate. So, I think equating unrestrained capitalism and anarcho-capitalism is misleading. VoluntarySlave (talk) 22:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

indices of economic freedom

I removed this stuff because it looks like OR - it is not specifically about capitalism. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

overview

There should be a section at the start that has just the main points about capitalism —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.101.29.208 (talk) 19:47, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you. the problem is, there are so many views of capitalism, and even definitions, that it is really hard to comply with our NPOV policy AND be concise in the introduction. We really have tried our best.

A long time ago I helped craft this, but now banned user user:RJII deleted it repeatedly. I am not sure whether other people who watch this page would wish to resurrect it but here it is just in case people are curious:

Capitalism generally refers to

• a combination of economic practices that became institutionalized in Europe between the 16th and 19th centuries. Exactly which historic and current practices are considered part of "capitalism" varies among users of the term. Ways in which this period differed from earlier ones include the prevalence of wage labor, the private ownership of capital including land, relatively freer trade (but see mercantilism), and the enforcement by the state of private property rights rather than feudal obligations.

• competing (and contentious) theories that developed in the 19th century, in the context of the industrial revolution, and 20th century, in the context of the Cold War, meant to justify 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.

• and beliefs about the advantages of such practices.

Well, that was my best effort (of course, others worked on it - it was more or less stable for over a year before it was deleted). Slrubenstein | Talk 22:37, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I must say I am amazed by this definition: it is concise, neutral, accurate, and complete. I suppose though it is far too neutral to be accepted by the POV warring majority. —Jemmy_tc 09:10, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Anarchists?

Under the "Criticism" header, second paragraph, the article notes that capitalism has been criticized by "anarchists including [...] Noam Chomsky, Naomi Klein, and others."

Can anyone show that Noam Chomsky and Naomi Klein are actually "anarchists" in the sense of the Wikipedia definition of anarchism: "Anarchism is a political philosophy encompassing theories and attitudes which support the elimination of all compulsory government, i.e. the state."

If anything, Chomsky and Klein seem to support more state intervention in capitalism, not less. This would definitely make them something other than anarchists. I would like to think that the Wikipedia authors would know the difference between a social critic and an anarchist. Please fix this mistake, before I have to.

Jreans (talk) 00:58, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Chomsky is certainly an anarchist, as you can see from his Wikipedia page; though he does support some state intervention as a short-term measure, his general position is the standard anarchist one of opposition to both capitalism and the state. However, Klein isn't an anarchist; she calls herself a democratic socialist, by which she means she supports some kind of mixed economy [13]. We could mention her in the subsequent sentence on social democracy, although it would be odd if Klein were the only social democrat mentioned by name; if anyone wants to add a list of notable social democrats, that might be a useful addition.VoluntarySlave (talk) 01:49, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I hope everyone here realizes that when anarchists, marxists, sociologists, etc., talk about "capitalism" they mean something completely different than what is the subject of this article. Roughly, it is the form of society in which everywhere you go and everything you do, you are on or using someone's private property, and that is why he can tell you what to do (with a realistic threat of violence if you disobey). This is distinguished from other forms of society, in which the threat of violence takes some form other than property, such as class or racial status (aristocracies, castes, "colonialism," etc.), familial or kinship power structures ("patriarchy" or the complex particularistic social structures of primitive societies) or integration of an entire society into an explicit command structure (military societies like Sparta, Prussia; bureaucratic-totalitarian societies like USSR, fascism). N.B.: it has nothing to do with "laissez faire" economics, but rather sociological power structure. In many historical societies, interpersonal power is largely unattached to property; these are not sociologically capitalist societies. In all sociologically capitalist societies, interpersonal power takes forms other than property (for example, the USA has had a racial underclass with a distinct social status for a very long time: first slavery, then apartheid; yet even in this case, segregation was implemented and justified in the form of and in the terms of private property); for this reason, there is no such thing as "pure" capitalism. —Jemmy_tc 09:05, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Capitalism coined by Karl Marx

The recent reverts ([14] [15] [16]) here are not requisites, as several sources exist for the claim that the term originated from the economist named Karl Marx.

Authentic, authoritative sources exist that claims the fact. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, capitalism was first used by novelist William Makepeace Thackeray in 1854, by which he meant having ownership of capital. In 1867, Proudhon used the term "capitalist" to refer to owners of capital, and Marx and Engels refer capitalism to the capitalist mode of production (kapitalistische Produktionsform) and in Das Kapital to "Kapitalist", "capitalist" (meaning a private owner of capital). Saunders, Peter (1995). Capitalism. University of Minnesota Press. p. 1 Singwaste (talk) 16:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Excuse, but Proudhon has died 1865. As he could used the term "capitalist" in 1867? Klip game (talk) 17:47, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Without a citation we can't say, but it may have been in something published posthumously. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 19:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it would clarify many things if the article distinguished between "capitalism" as a set of beliefs about the economy, and "capitalist mode of production" which forwards the diea of a capitalist system that can be analyzed objectively. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Removal of debates on the merits of capitalism

PS. I have removed some sections from this talk page, because they were completely irrelevant to the article, or long dead and worthless. I hope nobody finds that somehow inappropriate. There is still way too much; signal to noise ratio on this talk page is quite bad. Reader, I implore you, be bold: cull the wheat from the chaff; do not let worthless discussion fill up the page out of some general principle that nothing should be deleted, but judge each discussion by its potential to improve the article. Moreover, do not allow a long, fruitless discussion to remain merely because it provides context to some single valuable comment. There is much more danger of good discussion being lost in a barrage of inanity (or being completely discouraged by it), than of any permanent loss due to overambitious pruning. The change I am making will naturally lead to a huge and worthless ideological debate unless action is taken to stop it. —Jemmy_tc 10:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Please don't delete material from the discussion page unless it's completely inappropriate. I haven't checked all the removals, but the section discussing Bolivar which you erased most recently was about improving the article, so regardless of what you think of the quality of the discussion, it should stay. When a discussion page gets too long, material can be moved to an an archive (like this). I'll try to restore the lost material. CRETOG8(t/c) 14:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I think I got all your comments back in--please double-check, and I'm sorry if I goofed and missed something CRETOG8(t/c) 14:16, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

The Bolivar discussion had degenerated into a debate about whether Chavez is a dictator. That indeed is "completely inappropriate." Those little warning sign templates about not turning the talk page into a forum to debate capitalism are not working. (Note that the template does say such material will be deleted.) You have reverted all my deletions without giving any consideration to them individually. As far as I am concerned, adding material without specifically verifying its content is equivalent to deleting material randomly. It amounts to deleting whatever other material is drowned in the noise; it means that that material will lose readers. And really, the Bolivar discussion was terrible. If there is a living issue about Bolivar and the article, it can be brought back up; a blank page is more promising for that than what was there.

I would like to point out that I did read each deleted section individually before deciding to delete it, but apparently you added every section back at once without reading. In a sense you reverted my reading; you destroyed the value created by that reading, value which I attempted to share by deleting. In other words, I was saving future editors some of the chore of reading (and weeding) through this talk page; but you re-created that chore for them. My changes are informed and highly specific. Your wholesale revert, on the other hand, is randomly destructive. So I'm going to unrevert, just once, after which I will completely give up on this page. Still, I ask that if you object to any of my deletions, please re-add only the specific material to which you object.

Please do not make changes which you have not specifically examined! —Jemmy_tc 00:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I examined enough to see that some of the material you removed was focused on improving the article. That's enough that I didn't feel the need to examine more closely. While this talk page shouldn't degenerate into a debate forum, that's more a prospective than retrospective matter--better to leave the fluff with the well-intended efforts at improvement than throw it all out. Deleting that stuff is counter to talk page guidelines. Again, I've tried to restore the material you removed while leaving in the recent conversations. That's quite a nuisance, so I'd rather not have to keep doing it. CRETOG8(t/c) 06:05, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

You say, "I examined enough to see that some of the material you removed was focused on improving the article." This is exactly my point. You reverted all of the changes because you disagreed with some of the changes. In doing this you are making reversions without even knowing what you are doing. —Jemmy_tc 14:29, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

The introduction will be replaced

The introduction to this article defines capitalism under the presupposition that nothing but either markets or "central planning" can exist, or has ever existed, as characterizing economic production. This is an ideological attempt to erase history. The introduction to this paragraph asserts -- implicitly -- that there was no such thing as feudalism or serfdom. It asserts that there have been no hunter-gatherers or societies directing production through slavery or caste. It takes for granted that production can universally be described in terms of "investments, distribution, income, and pricing." It fails to recognize that production can, has, and does take forms completely other than exchange.

I am sure whoever wrote it merely lacks the historical perspective in which to understand that "capitalism" is not merely the opposite of "communism," but nevertheless the the current introduction is the repetition of an ideological lie that McCarthyism injected into the American school system in the 1950s -- and which of course is alive and well in today's ideological justifications of capitalism. But this is not a neutral point of view, or even an informed point of view, so it has no place here.

I cannot merely remove the implicit assertions which are present, without leaving the introduction incoherent. For this reason I will replace it with the careful and complete definition I see posted elsewhere on this talk page, even though it will break the flow of the article (and probably provoke some people to anger, and lead to an edit war...). —Jemmy_tc 10:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Capitalism is the actual existing system, existing from the early nineteenth century until now. Before capitalism, mercantilism lasted from the sixteenth century to the eighteenth century. Feudalism, which preceeded mercantilism, was built by aristocrats after the collapse of the Roman Empire. The Roman Empire, however, did not have a capitalistic economy, it had a market economy. So the unique features of the Roman Empire express the differences of capitalism and the free market.

The main features of the capitalistic economy, in contrast to the free market, is its prevalence of wage labor and the cartelization of capital by the state. The capitalistic economy requires state intervention in some infrastructural projects to remain functional. The American System has a basic tenet that the state should must have the obligation protect infrastructural industries. After the Reconstruction era of the United States, major industries including the telecommunication, oil, steel, railroad, transportation, and the rest of the "robber barons" are privileged by capitalist concentration. This is known as the Gilded Age.

Jemmy has got the correct knowledge that capitalism should be defined as the actual existing system beginning form the nineteenth century. If the current system is not capitalism, then what should we call the current system as? The whole article rests on the presumption that the current system is capitalism. Defining capitalism as a "purely" free market is inconsistent to the usage of the term in the rest of this article.

Everybody knows that the current system is mixed. There is no pure capitalism nor pure socialism. What does exist around the world are variations upon capitalism and variations upon socialism. Capitalist and socialist aspects are intermingled in all economies. If you want an article about "the current system," then maybe you could create an article called "the current system." No? This article is not supposed to be about "the current system." What is the current system? Which country are you even talking about? Jadabocho (talk) 17:18, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

It is certainly not the case that "everybody knows that the current system is mixed." That is the point. The very idea of a "mixed system" with a "capitalist essence" defined as laissez-faire economic policy (and the introduction into it of "socialist impurities" defined by no more than exception to the capitalist essence) is an ideological construct, a creature of political divisions which place capitalism and socialism opposite one another on a spectrum (and always to promote capitalism, since the view implies a total ignorance of socialism as defined by socialists). That is most certainly not a neutral point of view. It is an ideological point of view; furthermore, it is an historically ignorant point of view. At best (and at the cost of some accuracy) it can be called a simplification for historically ignorant audiences; less charitably, an intentional distortion which conveniently removes history from view. In either case it owes its existence to use for political advocacy. It has no place in an encyclopedia except to be described as an ideology -- as the introduction I inserted does. —Jemmy_tc 15:10, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Contradictory section

Due to this contradiction, I removed some statements:

Mercantilism declined in Great Britain in the mid-18th century, when a new group of economic theorists, led by David Hume and Adam Smith, challenged fundamental mercantilist doctrines as the belief that the amount of the world’s wealth remained constant and that a state could only increase its wealth at the expense of another state. However, in more undeveloped economies, such as Prussia and Russia, with their much younger manufacturing bases, mercantilism continued to find favor after other states had turned to newer doctrines.

The mid-18th century gave rise to industrial (bourgeois) capitalism, made possible by the accumulation of vast amounts of capital under the merchant phase of capitalism and its investment in machinery. Industrial capitalism, which Marx dated from the last third of the 18th century, marked the development of the factory system of manufacturing, characterized by a complex division of labor between and within work process and the routinization of work tasks; and finally established the global domination of the capitalist mode of production. In the midst of this newly developing concept of division of labor came exploitation of labor on a much larger scale than was ever seen before.

During the resulting Industrial Revolution, the industrialist replaced the merchant as a dominant actor in the capitalist system and effected the decline of the traditional handicraft skills of artisans, guilds, and journeymen. Also during this period, capitalism marked the transformation of relations between the British landowning gentry and peasants, giving rise to the production of cash crops for the market rather than for subsistence on a feudal manor. The surplus generated by the rise of commercial agriculture encouraged increased mechanization of agriculture and the rise of the bourgeoisie.

The rise of industrial capitalism was also associated with the decline of mercantilism. Mid- to late-nineteenth-century Britain is widely regarded as the classic case of industrial (bourgeois) capitalism. Capitalism gained favor over mercantilism in Britain in the 1840s with the repeal of the Corn Laws and the Navigation Acts. In line with the teachings of the classical political economists, led by Adam Smith and David Ricardo, Britain embraced liberalism, encouraging free competition for all classes, and eliminating barriers to the development of a market economy.

1. The highlighted bold text is redundant.
2. The "Capitalism gained favor over mercantilism in Britain in the 1840s" is directly contradictory to the above three statements that capitalism gained in favor over mercantilism in Britain in the late 18th century. I have removed this. Singwaste (talk) 06:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I do not know who believes that capitalism gained favor over mercantilism in 1840, but this is not a contradiction, it is a lack of clarity. What we have here is either a distinction between capitalism as a system, which was well-established in the late 1700s, and capitalism as an ideology or philosophy, which may not have achieved dominance until the early 1800s. Or we may just have a difference of point of view. Marx certainly thinks capitalism was dominant by the late 1700s, I think Weber believes this as well. Maybe some others think it happened in 1840. The solution is not to delete one point of view, but to more clearly distinguish the two points of view. Other wise we violate NPOV. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:46, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, I will improve the article by suggesting authors along with the start of capitalism.Singwaste (talk) 17:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Your edits are great, but they are full of spelling errors and sometimes poorly written. I am fixing your typos. Singwaste (talk) 17:28, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Sory about that - and thanks! Slrubenstein | Talk 18:15, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Laissez-faire vs. Anarcho-capitalism?

There is no true distinction between laissez-faire and anarcho-capitalism. Both would like the market to be left alone by the state. A fairer distinction would be between the Chicago and Austrian schools, that is, between minarchism and anarcho-capitalism. Since this dispute is covered in its own article, it may be referenced and linked. Even neoconservatives pay lip service to minarchism. JLMadrigal (talk) 14:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

According to whom? Your source? Slrubenstein | Talk 15:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Look up laissez-faire in a source. By normal definition, it doesn't mean zero state involvement. It means minimal involvement. Many Heads (talk) 15:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

It is perfectly appropriate to ask an editor who has added, or proposes to add, content to provide a source. This is simple compliance with our WP:V and WP:NOR policies. I did not propose to introduce this new material, JLMadrigal did. SO I am asking for her source. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant to address that to JLMadrigal. Many Heads (talk) 18:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

oh ... thank for explaining! Slrubenstein | Talk 19:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

None of the cited sources in the article claimed that a laissez-faire society requires a state. Since the word merely means "leave be", the burden of proof falls to those who wish to support such a claim. JLMadrigal (talk) 05:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Isn't that Ad Ignorantiam? I believe since it has historically been defined as two schools that you have to provide sources to the contrary Soxwon (talk) 15:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

It is also like arguing that because "goose berries" has the word "goose" in it, the berries must therefore taste like geese and you need to provide a source to provide otherwise. Interpreting a translation of a term to mean anything violates WP:NOR. Any argument or interpretation requires a source. Period. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, laissez-faire is a philosophy that implies that people and businesses should be left alone. Anarcho-capitalism falls into this category. JLMadrigal (talk) 02:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, according to whom? Who said this? Slrubenstein | Talk 03:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

"Laissez-faire" government in ancient Iceland

"Many Heads" has now reverted reference to preChristian Icelandic law, which lasted for a millenium, and was an instance of a government of chieftains that protected society and nothing else. How could that not be relevant? Isn't this the goal of "laissez-faire" as currently defined in the article? JLMadrigal (talk) 13:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The article never uses the term "Laissez-faire" and it is not talking about a capitalist economy; it is not relevant to this article, and the way you use it violates NOR. The article is not about ancient Iceland, by the way, but medieval Iceland. The article is primarily an argument about private enforcement of law, i.e. enforcement, not the policies enforced. So it definitely does not belong in this article. Does it belong in any Wikipedia article? I am not sure it is a reliable source - it is published by the university in which the author teachers, not a peer-reviewed publication. I question whether it is a reliable source and whether it is a significant view; the author teaches in a law school which at best means he has some expertise over the US legal system, and his degrees are all in physics. He seems to have no credentials or training in history or anthropology (which explain some fallacious statements he makes), the two disciplines that focus most on the study of non-modern states. Is his POV mainstream, minority, or fringe? What do real scholars of Icelandic history think of his work? What do real economic historians think? Legal anthropologists or sociologists? Slrubenstein | Talk 15:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Definition of capitalism

I'm sure that this has been done to death, but I have an objection to the first sentence of the intro.

Capitalism is an economic system in which wealth, and the means of producing wealth, are privately owned and controlled rather than publicly or state-owned and controlled.[1]

It seems that this introduces a false dilemma. That is, the tendency (especially by capitalists) is to contrast capitalism as the only alternative to state control of capital, as if every economic and political philosophy exists on a continuum between totalitarian government and laissez-faire capitalism. Therefore everything after "rather" introduces complexity that is unnecessary to the definition. I propose that this sentence should be simplified:

Capitalism is an economic system in which wealth, and the means of producing wealth, are privately owned and controlled.[1]

--Ryan Delaney ^talk 19:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't really see the problem, there are shades of gray in between and they are acknowledged later on in the article. The last part of the statement helps clarify what 'private' is referring to. Soxwon (talk) 20:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

My problem is with the notion of "shades of gray between" because I deny the "between". We do not have a linear continuum between two poles, and the representation that we do introduces vagueness in a way that isn't helpful to the definition. If we want to clarify private, we can either wikilink private property or explain the concept in detail later. The most important point, though, is that I don't see support for this claim in the citation, which is unacceptable. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 21:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I do not see a problem with your proposal. That said, I thought the definition of capitalism is "a system where people are free from social constraint or law to sell their labor." Slrubenstein | Talk 20:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Easy way to solve that. Just add "or a mixture thereof." Scam-Wow (talk) 22:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that would be an acceptable compromise because it still assumes a one-variable division and still isn't supported by the citation. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 22:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

It is supported by the citiation. If capitalism is privately controlled means of production, then the only alternative is publicly controlled. If it's a mixture of public and private control, then it's not private control, but a mixture. Mixed public/private control is not private control. These are the only alternatives to private control. Scam-Wow (talk) 22:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

If by "publicly controlled" you mean "state controlled" then autonomists, libertarian socialists, council communists, and anarcho-syndicalists (just to name a few) all disagree with you. These are a few short examples of alternate theories with their own ideas about how capital should be controlled and managed that fit neither private ownership nor state control. The black and white distinction between "public and private" as if capital must, by definition, be either in the hand of private property owners or state bureaucracy is manifestly false. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 23:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

It says "publicly or state controlled." That's there exactly to encompass both state and libertarian socialism. I was using the term "publicly controlled" to mean both. Scam-Wow (talk) 23:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that public and state owned covers it all and really it's fine the way it is. The definition at the beginning gives the basic premise of capitalism and helps clarify by showing the alternative. From there we can go into any number of mixed economies, but they are always a mixture of the definition already given. Soxwon (talk) 00:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• It is not correct that they are always a mixture. Please read the articles I wikilinked. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 04:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so when do capitalism, public controlled, state controlled, or a combination of the two not apply, and is it relevant enough to warrant changing the definition? The only one that really doesn't seem to get covered is Libertarian Socialism, which by its very definition, couldn't fit and doesn't really warrant mentioning. We're talking about capitalism and trying to provide a distinction. Soxwon (talk) 05:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• All the others are also examples of non-state and non-private ownership of capital. We do not get to make editorial judgments about which ones "warrant mentioning". The citation does not support the claim being made. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 19:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

"Public ownership" does not necessarily mean state control. It means owned by the public in common. That's libertarian socialism. Either resources are owned privately, or by all of society either directly or through the state. There are no other alternatives. Would you rather it say "common ownership"? Either way, the sentence would mean the same thing. I changed "publicly" to "commonly-owned by society." Does this communicate better? Scam-Wow (talk) 19:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think common ownership is the same thing, I think public is better. Soxwon (talk) 04:07, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

After looking over some sources I see you're right that some don't use the two terms synonymously. So we can just add "common" as an alternative. Scam-Wow (talk) 22:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

That works, looks good. Soxwon (talk) 22:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Add Neoliberalism Link

I added a neoliberalism section in the history of capitalism because it is an important movement. I also posted this on [17] and [18] but they didn't reply.

I would like to point out that 71.175.40.210 did not add a section, but changed the name of a section without adding or changing any other content. My reply can be found herefor anyone who is interested. Dougofborg (talk) 05:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Laissez-faire

Alright, my link:[19] shows laissez-faire to allow for total freedom of business and the gov't interfering only in the areas of basic liberties and property. That's a bit more general than just supply and demand. Soxwon (talk) 15:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of what anything says, it does not seem appropriate to replace a scholarly reference with a dictionary definition. Cosmic Latte (talk) 16:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The statement you put in the article is "is a policy of governmental non-interference in economic affairs and the competitive process beyond minimal protection of liberties and property rights." That's absolutely backwards, and it's not what your source says. Laissez-faire is a policy of MAXIMUM protection of liberty and property rights through the minimization of regulation of people and property. My source, says ""Laissez-faire is both an economic doctrine and the policies which actually enforce it. The basic principle is that the welfare of both the community and individuals is best served when markets for goods, capital, land, labour, and so on are left to the free play of supply and demand, and when the state interferes as little as possible, in both the economic and social sphere." François, Crouzet. The Victorian Economy. Routledge, 1982. p. 105 Scam-Wow (talk) 16:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

It isn't "backwords," according to the Merriam-Webster's dictionary, which I think is a reliable source Soxwon (talk) 20:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster doesn't say that property is minimally protected. Maybe you need to read it closer. In laissez-faire property is protected to the maximum, not the minimum, because it means the government is not controlling how you use your property. Less regulation of private property equates to more private property rights. Minimal protection of private property equates to more transgressions against private property. Scam-Wow (talk) 21:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Even a capitalist state nominally minimizes interference in the market. Many such small-government states have existed. What has arguably not existed is anarcho-capitalism, in which the unmolested market itself serves as the governor - without help or hindrance from the state (subsidies, blackened markets, and immunities). When Austrian economists and other proponents of pure capitalism refer to it as an unknown ideal, they distance themselves from the minarchists (state capitalists). The article needs to make the distinction between state capitalism and pure capitalism. Any so-called "distinction" between small government and "minimal" government is meaningless. Let them be. JLMadrigal (talk) 03:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Most Austrian economists are minarchists. Ayn Rand refered to capitalism as an "unknown ideal" and she was a minarchist. When most sources are referring to "pure capitalism" they're not referring to anarcho-capitalism but laissez-faire. The "unknown ideal" most have in mind is not anarcho-capitalism. Scam-Wow (talk) 04:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Dictionaries are good sources for spellings and etymologies, and pronunciation. They are not very good sources on meaning, because they favor the colloquial. But encyclopedias are supposed to be compendia of knowledge, and we should privilege scholarly research. Dictionaries are of little use to us. Besides, aren't these dictionaries on-line? That being the case we can ignore them - anyone who can access Wikipedia can also access an on-line dictionary to confirm the spelling etc. We should be making available on-line scholarship that is not already available on-line, right? I mean, isn't this common sense? Now, my understanding is that laissez faire is not a type of capitalism but a policy concerning tariffs and the regulation of international trade popular in some capitalist societies. If we are talking about no government interference internally, I think most people call that policy "market fundamentalism." These are two different kinds of policies addressing different issues (even if they draw water from the same well). Also, we need to distinguish between policies versus forms of capitalism. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:45, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

"Market fundamentalism" is not an actual position, any more than "Christian fanaticism", "God-hating atheism", "bleeding-heart liberalism", or "eat-the-poor conservatism" are actual positions. Rather, these are slurs that someone uses to insult someone else's position. Nobody describes themselves as a "market fundamentalist". --FOo (talk) 16:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

asdfjkl;asdfjkl;

lkjfdsa;lkjfdsa

kirey towler

Adding links

I'm adding the following important links which explain why most Americans never heard the words Socialism, Communism or Capitalism so they could decide for themselves which they would prefer. They are: Red scare and McCarthyism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stars4change (talk • contribs) 06:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The Communism page is on lockdown, can the Capitalism page be on lockdown too?

 I was just reading a section on globalization in the Capitalism article and was wondering if the Capitalism article can be on lockdown like the Communism article. This is because the tone of the globalization section of the article appears to have communist biases and in addition the definition at the beginning is a wealth-centric definition versus being focused on the fact that capitalism is a system of free enterprise and entrepreneurship that is focused on risk taking, here's Merriam-Webster's definition of capitalism that is free to peruse (read carefully) at their web site www.m-w.com at the link http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Capitalism. I'll have to find more evidence later when I have more time to make further arguments of why the Capitalism page should be on lockdown. Finally, an encyclopedia article should be as objective as possible, but for the sake of the Capitalism article more should be explained as to why most nations of the world have adopted Capitalism or a Capitalist Mixed Economy in the 21st century versus an economy that is foundationally Socialist or Communist. Please add further to this discussion.65.110.146.154 (talk) 03:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)