Talk:Capitalism

Capitalism logo

The comment have been moved to the Capitalism template discussion, since the capitalism logo is actually on the capitalism template and not this page. Go argue there: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Capitalism#Capitalism_logo. Nubeli (talk) 05:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Socialistic capitalism

Can a section be included on socialistic capitalism (saw term in time magazine, march 2009: 10 ideas changing the world right now, idea 9). Mention with social entrepreneurship —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.182.199.16 (talk • contribs) 16:47, 19 June 2009

There's no such thing as socialistic capitalism; the two are entirely incompatible. Moarhate (talk) 03:47, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree, if there truly existed two systems of production which would be the complete opposite of each other, then it would have to be capitalism and socialism. --Nabo0o (talk) 14:55, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Just because two systems seems to be opposites doesn't mean they can't work in tandem. An example of socialist capitalism would be the creation of a private charter corporation, such as a hospital or bank, designed for a specific goal by the government but still mediated by the demands of a market. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.113.134.52 (talk) 13:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, just because a government is fully or partly in control of a business doesn't make it socialistic. State capitalism is an example of where the government is in control, but only to pursue its own commercial goals, like a private business, and which many claim was the case in the soviet and many other "socialistic" countries. If a business or a workplace was actually driven in a socialistic manner, then the people who worked there should have had a direct democratic voice and control. Socialism is really about the economy, and is in my opinion as far away from capitalism as it is possible to get, after all, it was created to be an alternative to the suppression and wage war which the present system is generating.

However, I know that there exists some combinations between these two ideologies, and often they have gone bad. One case is the postal and health system in my country Norway, which politicians in the last 20 years have turned more and more private, while still remaining in full control.

An example of where they are partly in control is our energy and telecommunication corporations, which have gradually turned less interested in giving a good service to its users, and more interested in profit..... --Nabo0o (talk) 22:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Before creating the article it has to be shown that the term has a clear accepted meaning that is used in academic writing. The Four Deuces (talk) 00:41, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

look up france or euorpe if you want to see such an example. "social capitalism" is an oxymoron, and should not be included in this article because it is not entirely capitalism.Ref ward (talk) 17:13, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I don´t think there is any point in viewing this in absolutes, like "socialism is not compatible with capitalism" since the word socialism has become more and more used to describe regulation in capitalist systems. Even if this is false according to the classical definition of the word (government control of the means of production), it is becomming more and more accepted ("Obama is a socialist") and the time magazine article mentioned above may very well have used the word socialistic losely. The question becomes how the terms should be used in a wiki article.

83.255.169.48 (talk) 11:03, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

"Means of production" vs. "property", or other terms

Check out the means of production article and find that the only two ]] (talk) 16:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC) things referenced in it are someone writing about Marx, and... "Capital vol2 ch1", which I guess is another Marx reference, but don't hold me to that.

In fact, if you look the term "means of production" up on Google, you'll find that most definitions mention Marx.

This quite validly leads me to believe that stressing the use of this term destroys a neutral point of view of the article by making it read like Das Kapital. We should find a more neutral, less one-sided term to use. If Ayn Rand made up terms in her critique of socialism or communism, would you let an editor use those terms in the first sentence of the socialism or the communism article? I highly doubt it. Would you say that doing such makes the neutral point of view of these articles questionable? Probably.

We should find a different term to use; one that wasn't obviously made up by major historical figures (like Marx) to describe their perspectives. Until we arise to a reasonable conclusion (not one that just dismisses the point here), we should not take down the NPOV tag on the capitalism article.

I propose we use the term "property" because it doesn't lend a favorable or unfavorable view to any ideology. The meaning of the term is clear. It is applicable in the context that "means of production" is used early on in the article. It does not make the article read like a television advertisement for capitalism, nor does it come off like one of those propaganda cartoons from the Soviet Union. That's more than what we can say if we continue using the term "means of production".

If anybody has any criticism of this suggestion, or a tertiary option, go ahead and post them. Macai (talk) 05:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The problem with "property" rather than "means of production" is that property has been privately owned in other systems than capitalism, e.g. under feudalism and the ancient civilisations. We need a term that is specific to capitalism. W. Linesman (talk) 12:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The problem with "property" is that it's wrong. The private ownership of property in general isn't a defining feature of capitalism - all, or almost all, economic systems involve private property of some sort. As the article says, the defining sort of ownership in capitalism is ownership of capital; and not all property is capital. It's true that "means of production" is a term that is more often used by Marxists than anyone else, but I don't think it is essentially linked to Marx's critique of capitalism in a way that necessarily biases the article, and I'm not sure what a better alternative would be. We could just say "capital" (the term used by most non-Marxists as well as by Marxists), but readers may well not know what "capital" means, so I would favor an inclusion of some brief explanation of what "capital" is. I tried wikilinking "factors of production" under the text "property used in production," and would be interested to hear what people think of that. Part of the issue here is that the Marxist analysis of capitalism is incredibly influential on all those who have attempted to distinguish capitalism from other economic systems, so it may not be possible, or indeed appropriate, to avoid all Marxist-influenced terminology. VoluntarySlave (talk) 06:17, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, no, "property" is not wrong. At least, not according to a source already cited on the page. It's reference number three. Here's what it says: "Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned." So, yes. Capitalism, according to sources already cited is "an economic and social system in which" property is "privately controlled". Maybe you could suggest using "all property", but the term "property" is not, in itself, wrong, and I think use of the word "all" is unnecessary, as there can be varying degrees of capitalism. The pervasiveness of private property is a feature of capitalism, and I have the sources to back me up.

The above assertion is incorrect. Private property is exactly what enables capitalism; the right to own the product of your labor. Without this basic right, there can be no free trade. The `means of production' is a man's mind in Capitalism. Karl Marx used the term frequently, although not accurately, because Marx assumed the means of production were industrial tools rather than the mental capacity to utilize those tools for one's own benefit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moarhate (talk • contribs) 03:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

If you don't believe that using terms made up by Marx on the capitalism article biases it toward Marxism, would you find it biased toward capitalism if, hypothetically, if I used terms made up by Ayn Rand?

My interest is not in removing all Marxist terminology--however, I think the Marxist terminology and perspective should be kept in the "Marxian political economy" section in order to maintain a neutral point of view. Imagine if someone edited the communism article to make the first sentence "the abolishment of all private property rights"? While it is arguably true, it paints communism in a negative light right away and presents a capitalist point of view. Likewise, jumping straight into Marxian terminology in the first paragraph makes it very clear that whoever wrote that paragraph thinks in Marx's terms.

Factors of production could be used as well. Maybe both terms could be used. An example of how would be: "Capitalism is an economic and social system in which property (especially factors of production or capital) is privately controlled." I personally think this is a fair, honest sentence that expresses clearly what capitalism is more or less about. Macai (talk) 07:05, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd go along with that change. I'd prefer a "most" in there, but that's an old discussion that has a beard, and different to the one at hand.--Red Deathy (talk) 08:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Macai, you need a better source than the one you provided, Capitalism.org which is an Ayn Rand site. and therefore unacceptable for any WP article except about Ayn Rand. Incidentally "capitalism" is Marxist jargon too. The Four Deuces (talk) 12:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Here is the problem: to say that all property is privately owned is controversial. Most Americans would say the US is a capitalist country, but much property is owned by corporations, not private persons; many of these private corporations are public in the sense that ownership of the corporation itself is publically traded, rather than owned by a private person. Moreover, the US governmetn owns a lot of property. Now, some capitalists may also be anarchists and claim that no state can be capitalist, but this is just not the majority view. Now let's look at ownership of the means of production being owned by those people who also control capital. Even people who are opposed to capitalism or communism woudl agree with this. The means of production can be taken fairly literally - whatever instruments are used to produce something, this does not sound ideologically charged, and most capitalists I think would say that it is a good thing to concentrate ownership of the means of production in the hands of corporations that can hir wage laborers, direct re-investment, and so on. Marx it is true was critical of this, but you co not have to be critical of this to agree that it is characteristic of capitalism.

Of course, we run into another problem - why do we even call "capitalism" "capitalism?" Adam Smith didn't, I do not think Ricardo did. Wasn't Marx naming his study of this kind of economy "capital" a major reason why today we call it capitalism? If the fact that marx identified this system in terms of the role of capital within it, naming his book capital, is one reaon why we today call it capitalism, does this make capitalism a POV term? I don't think so ... Slrubenstein | Talk 12:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

To avoid the use of the term "capitalism" would marginalise Wiki as a credible source of information on this. Imagine the public's response if they keyed in the search term "capitalism" and got ... nothing! The term "capitalism" is widely used by mainstream supporters and critics of our contemporary economic system, so avoiding the term is not the issue. Let's focus on defining it properly. W. Linesman (talk) 12:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Not all property must be owned privately. There are varying degrees of capitalism. Likewise, not all the means of production need to be owned privately either. The U.S. government owns a lot of the "means of production", too, but it's still a considered capitalist nation. Also, while private or corporate ownership of the "means of production" may arguably be a feature of capitalism, it's not a key feature. Private or corporate ownership of all sorts of property is, on the other hand, a key feature of capitalism. Saying that capitalism is private control of the "means of production" is like saying that lions have fur on their legs in the first sentence of the "lions" article, as though having fur on their legs is the important part of being a lion, and having hair elsewhere is not.

I'm kind of making a double post here, but I think there's an important difference between "capitalism" and "means of production" which I explain below. Macai (talk) 14:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

This isn't a new source. It's a source that's already been cited many times. It's cited on Capitalism, Libertarianism, Criticisms of anarcho-capitalism, as well as several non English articles. This isn't my source; this is Wikipedia's source. Convenient that you want to get rid of it now.

Incidentally, "capitalism" was used by others before Marx, like William Makepeace Thackeray. I sincerely doubt you'll find others using the term "means of production" in the context Marx did before him. Let's also note that "capitalism" is a term used regularly by people that subscribe to ideologies other than Marxism and Marxism derivatives, unlike "means of production", which is rarely used by anybody other than those people. Ergo, "capitalism" is not just Marxist jargon, whereas "means of production" basically is just Marxist jargon.

But that's fine. Let's forget that already-established sources support my argument. I can cite The Compact Oxford English Dictionary, The Concise Encyclopedia Of Economics, Investor Words, and Business Dictionary. Any of those bother you?

But that's not really the issue here. The issue here is that by using a Marxist term to describe capitalism in the first sentence, you make it clear that the article is written from a Marxist perspective. This is supported further by the fact that the article that term links to discusses Marxist ideas more than any other. Let's say for argument's sake that Ayn Rand made up a term. Let's say that the term is "source of control". Let's say that Rand's definition of "source of control" is more or less "the person or organization that controls economic matters". Now, let's say you're on Wikipedia. You type in "communism" and the first thing you see is "Communism is a social and political ideology where the source of control is the state." You can click on "source of control" and you find yourself in an article. The article starts writing on and on about Ayn Rand and her ideas about the "source of control". You look into this term a little bit and you find that Ayn Rand made the idea up. Not only that, but very few people that think Ayn Rand's opinions are wrong use the term. In fact, let's make it worse (like in this example)--no self described communist gives a rat's ass what the source of control is. The idea of a source of control is basically irrelevant to the topic at hand. Likewise, when people use the term "capitalism" they are not singling out means of production--they're talking about all property.

Capitalism refers to private ownership of property in general, not just means of production. Whether you like it or not, Marx's definition of capitalism isn't automatically the correct one because Marx used it. Macai (talk) 14:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

If private property isn't means of production, it isn't capital - the OED definition of capitalism doesn't mention private property at all, for example. The problem is, that it's about a system based on capital - we could just private ownershiop of capital, but we'd have to explain at some point what capital is.--Red Deathy (talk) 15:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Here's a question. If corporations and individuals control the means of production, but the community, the people, the government, whatever you prefer to call it, owns the actual product, is it still capitalism? Maybe not in the most technical of senses according to Marxian economics, but if you let the government own the ends of production but not the means of production, you end up with basically the same scenario. This leads one to realize that capitalism covers more than just the means of production but the ends of it, too. The OED mentions private "control" (i.e., ownership) of industry and trade--not just production.

But I'd like to digress a little bit. So far, there's been a lot of defense of the use of the term "means of production", with, so far, absolutely no opposition to my suggestion for a change. That suggestion being: "Capitalism is an economic and social system in which property (especially factors of production or capital) is privately controlled."

If nobody has a problem with that wording, why not stop arguing about this "means of production" crap and use it? Macai (talk) 15:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

(out) Ayn Rand is not a reliable source and all references to her writings should be removed from all articles that are not about her and her writings. Thackeray's ironic passing use of the term capitalist (not capitalism) should not be interpreted as meaning that he invented the term capitalism and he did not use the term capitalist in its modern sense. It rarely appears in the writings of other Victorian authors, like Dickens and Trollope.

Under capitalism, not all property (or even sometimes most property) is privately controlled, while private control of property existed in some pre-capitalist societies, like ancient Rome. Any additions to the article must be supported by reliable sources.

The Four Deuces (talk) 16:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Ayn Rand isn't a reliable source on capitalism, as opposed to Karl Marx, who is the world's foremost authority, right?

Also, under capitalism not all of the "means of production" are necessarily privately controlled, either. Branches of the United States government, a nation considered rather capitalistic, control factories. The military in general comes to mind.

Finally, the sources I cited all state that the things which are privately controlled extend far beyond the "means of production". Do you object to any of these sources? Macai (talk) 16:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Concise on-line dictionaries are poor sources, you really need mainstream sources for economic theory. "The concise encyclopedia of economics" is also a poor source as it comes from the "Library of Economics and Liberty". Incidentally it begins: ""Capitalism,” a term of disparagement coined by socialists in the mid-nineteenth century...." which invalidates the Thackaray theory. No one is saying that Marx should be used as a source. You should read the reliable sources guidelines for advice in finding acceptable sources. The Four Deuces

You're imposing a different standard on me than you are on whoever wrote the first sentence on the communism article. The sources provided as evidence for that are 1) "marxists.org" (sounds a lot like "capitalism.org" to me), 2) a broken link to a Columbia Encyclopedia article, and 3) Encarta. So the kind of biased source you complained about with "capitalism.org" and completely broken links are okay, but concise encyclopedias and such like are not. That's not to mention the fact that Encarta itself also supports the property theory, since it says, in the "Characteristics of capitalism" section:

Government will be necessary only to protect society from foreign attack, uphold the rights of private property, and guarantee contracts.

What's this? The rights of private property? The sources I'm citing on this page are the sources I'm citing elsewhere. Are you saying that the sources already cited do not meet Wikipedia's reliable source guidelines?

Let's not forget that as of right now, the capitalism article's entire first paragraph doesn't have any sources at all. So sources which are already on Wikipedia elsewhere and have had little objection except in this one case, and primarily by you, with other sources of equal value to those, versus no sources at all. Which wins in this scenario? Macai (talk) 16:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The fact that poorly sourced or unsourced information appears in numerous Wikipedia articles does not mean that it is the standard to which it aspires. If you feel strongly about changing the lead there should be no problem in finding a reliable source that supports it. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:00, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

And I've done just that. So, then. What is your gripe, again? Macai (talk) 17:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

You have not provided any reliable sources. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I have. Macai (talk) 18:24, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

No, you have provided a lot of unacceptable sources. Economics is an academic subject with a wealth of literature published in peer-reviewed journals and by university and academic presses. None of your sources meet that standard. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I hope you realize that tertiary sources such as encyclopedias are perfectly acceptable as per the standards for things such as summaries, which is basically what I'm trying to edit here. Macai (talk) 18:41, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The lead goes beyond being an "overview or summary". It is an analysis and therefore requires reliable secondary sources. Incidentally concise dictionaries and think tank websites are not reliable sources in any case. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Hate to break it to you, but that's exactly what the lead is; a summary. Don't believe me? Let's see what the dictionary says.

a brief statement of the main points of something [1]

Since the brevity of something is relative, it's fair to compare the lead to the rest of the article. The lead is more brief than the rest of the article. Ergo, it is a summary. This is getting tiresome. Either you or someone else presents contradictory sources (things which say private property is not a key element of capitalism) of equal or superior reliability, or I'm going to just make the edit. Macai (talk) 19:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Anything added to this article should be supported by reliable sources. You may find it helpful to read to read about economics in mainstream sources before editing articles about economics. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:00, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

In case someone is too lazy to read the Wikipedia help on sources, here's an excerpt:

"Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources when available. However, some scholarly material may be outdated, superseded by more recent research, in competition with alternate theories, or controversial within the relevant field. Reliable non-academic sources may also be used, particularly material from reputable mainstream publications. The choice of appropriate sources depends on context and information should be clearly attributed where there are conflicting sources."

And there's a prohibition of using "extremist or fringe sources" (such as Ayn Rand material):

"Organizations and individuals that express views that are widely acknowledged by reliable sources as fringe, pseudo-academic,[4] or extremist may only be used as sources of information about those organisations or individuals."

Nubeli (talk) 01:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

A couple reasonable compromise options

This section is garbage. Capitalism is an economic and social system which asserts all property is privately owned, and can only be sold or traded to another individual with the owner's consent. Anything else would be a mixed economy, and therefore not capitalism. The only reason that Capitalism would be considered a social system at all is because it must include mutual respect for others' private property, and the consent to trade with other person(s). The rest of this discussion is garbage. There is no compromise on facts.Moarhate (talk) 03:57, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Since the current controversy is whether or not the sources I'm citing are unbiased enough to pass muster, I don't think we're going to come to an agreement. It has, in some regards devolved into "yes they are" versus "no they're not" debate. We're arriving at a dead end. For this reason, I've decided to propose two possible compromises, both of which I find reasonable.

We can:

• Leave the wording of the article alone, but place those "citation needed" tags on the various parts of the opening paragraph until sources that are neutral and reliable can be cited on the topic. These sources must meet the same standards you (The Four Deuces) believe mine do not.
• Formulate a combined wording--one which makes it clear that there is controversy over the essential meaning of the term "capitalism", and expresses both ideas of its basis. Examples of what I call combined wordings could include:
  • Capitalism is an economic and social system in which either the means of production or property in general is privately owned.
  • Capitalism is an economic and social system in which property (sometimes more specifically the means of production) is privately owned.
  • Capitalism refers to various economic and political systems which all involve private ownership, but diverge on what is actually owned; some say it is the means of production, while others property in general.

All supplied definitions are flawed. Correct definition would be "Capitalism is an economic system where all property is privately owned." Capitalism is not a social system except by virtue that people are forced to interact with each other to be successful in a capitalist system. Please don't use the American mixed economy as a basis for your definition of Capitalism, because Capitalism has not yet ever been implemented. 71.111.199.200 (talk) 18:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

"Means of Production" is a vague term at best, as absolutely nothing of value can be created without human input. If and when we do reach a technological singularity, the term will have more meaning. 71.111.199.200 (talk) 18:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I think either option is fair. I'm open and willing to listen to other compromises you might want to propose. Macai (talk) 21:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

We should not write a definition ourselves and cannot rely on political think tanks, dictionaries and on line encyclopedias. I did not actually work on the lead so it is probably best to wait for the editors who did to comment. (They had extensive discussion at the time.) If there is no response then I will set up an RfC. I would not want to recommend any sources myself as I do not have extensive knowledge in the subject.

However, in his book Capitalism,[1], George Reisman says "Capitalism is a social system based on private ownership of the means of production" (p. 19). (The book is available on Questia.) I would not recommend this book if more neutral sources are available but it shows that this definition is not restricted to Marxists. (Reisman was a follower of Mises, Hayek and Rand.)

The Four Deuces (talk) 22:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

My only issue with that source is that it is no more reliable than the Robert Hessen article I linked you to. Hessen also has a PhD in the same field.

You expressed disinterest in compromise option two, but what do you think of the first option, where we just put the "citation needed" tags on the opening paragraph? Macai (talk) 22:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The Hessen article does not define capitalism, and is not written to the same academic level as Capitalism. Incidentally in The Freeman, which is also not Marxist, Hessen received credit for criticisms of an earlier draft of the essay "From Marx to Mises", where Mises is paraphrased discussing the means of production.[2] Incidentally the term "right-wing" as used in the US comes from Marxists but no one seems to complain. I a would agree to tag the lead for now and see if we can get more opinions on this. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I see Hessen's article define capitalism. It says that "capitalism" is a misnomer for "economic liberalism" (or something of the sort), and then goes on to define "economic liberalism". This to me read as a definition for capitalism, since he explicitly said they were synonymous. I also don't see how Capital is written at a higher academic level, but I don't think it's appropriate to get into another argument.

The article you cited does use the term "means of production" multiple times, but they don't seem to be Mises' direct words. He could have used other terms to describe a similar idea. He might have been using that term since he was comparing capitalism to socialism, i.e., he was using Marxist terms in a case where Marxist terms were appropriate, as opposed to when socialism isn't a factor in the conversation and aren't relevant. I also think the source is right wing biased, since it decries communism as illegitimate. (This should tell you something, my being a rightist myself and calling this source out on being right-biased.) Despite these criticisms of the source, I don't really see a problem citing it. It appears professional, its content is well written, and I'm not under the impression that they're misrepresenting Mises' words. I wouldn't object to this source being cited, but that may be because I'm simply not anal about sources to the same extent you are. I don't mean this as an insult, just as an observation.

With that said, I'd like to point out that I made the revert-edit with the citation needed tags present, and that while I don't believe capitalism as a concept stresses the means of production quite how you do, I'm willing to give this article a rest. It was a pleasure. Goodbye for now. Macai (talk) 23:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

While I see little issue with the definition provided it may be an idea to not only consider Marx. There were other scholars that wrote about capitalism and had their own ideas as to how they defined capitalism. Rather than provide one definiton by Marx use one by Max Weber as well among ones already mentioned. There is nothing saying that you should be finite with a definition and more understanding is never a bad thing. Too many people think of Marx as soon the word Capitalism or Communism comes into the equation which is somewhat narrow sighted, no offence to anyone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.30.29.179 (talk) 11:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Competitive capitalism

An editor has added the following statement to the lead: "More broadly, capitalism is a system that facilitates voluntary exchange".[3] The source given is "Excerpts from Milton Friedman, Capitalism and Freedom (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962), Chapter 1, "The Relation Between Economic Freedom and Political Freedom," pp. 7-17".[4] The source states, "A working model of a society organized through voluntary exchange is a free private enterprise exchange economy -- what we have been calling competitive capitalism". Friedman was describing a type of capitalism, viz., "competitive capitalism" not all capitalism. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

What type of capitalism worthy of the name does not incorporate "free private enterprise"? Friedman was using "competitive capitalism" as a synonym for free markets throughout the book, as distinguished from the 'capitalism' which purports to be such but which actually is largely intertwined with the state. --TheFix63 (talk) 00:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Fascist Italy and Fascist Spain, Germany at various times in the last 100 years, Japan before World Wars I and II, tzarist Russia in the decades before World War I. The Four Deuces (talk) 00:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

In all of those societies government could and did step in to take command of private industries that were not acting in accord with the "interests" of the state, and introduced extensive measures to "protect" domestic industries from foreign competition.--TheFix63 (talk) 00:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

What is your point? They were all capitalist. The Four Deuces (talk) 00:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The "means of production" were not privately controlled. Nor was the capital, property, factors of production, or whatever else you want to call it this time. They were government controlled. So, no, they were not capitalist. Macai (talk) 00:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

(out)Here's the full paragraph from Friedman which you will find if you follow the source of the disputed edit:

History suggests only that capitalism is a necessary condition for political freedom. Clearly it is not a sufficient condition. Fascist Italy and Fascist Spain, Germany at various times in the last seventy years, Japan before World Wars I and II, tzarist Russia in the decades before World War I -- are all societies that cannot conceivably be described as politically free. Yet, in each, private enterprise was the dominant form of economic organization. It is therefore clearly possible to have economic arrangements that are fundamentally capitalist and political arrangements that are not free.[5]

Friedman is not equating all capitalism with "a society organized through voluntary exchange", which is why he uses the term "competitive capitalism". Clearly the edit misrepresents the source. This problem would be avoided if editors would read the sources they use. The Four Deuces (talk) 01:19, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Where does it explicitly say that these nations were capitalist? If he can't use "competitive capitalism" interchangeably with "capitalism", then you can't use "free enterprise" interchangeably with "capitalism". Please also note that he is talking about political freedom, not to be confused with economic freedom. The context does not support your perspective. Regardless, why do you jump on literally every edit that doesn't stink of Marx and try to veto it? It's a little suspicious. Macai (talk) 01:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Under any reasonable reading of the paragraph I just quoted, Friedman is saying that fascist states were capitalist. By the way, George Reisman and Friedman, and their influences Mises, Hayek and Rand, were not Marxists, and in any case would remind you that I you are the one insisting on inserting them into the article. The Four Deuces (talk) 02:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

To be perfectly honest, I don't really care if this particular passage gets to stay on the article. But I have noticed a pattern where you jump on anything not Marxist as an edit. I mean, seriously, you actually objected to changed the term "means of production" with something more viable and neutral, essentially on the basis that the sources I cited weren't the Harvard University Press, when the alternative was to leave a document as-is with no sources at all. Seriously. Why choose no sourcing at all with blatant point of view description over neutral description with dictionaries and encyclopedias as a source? To be perfectly honest, I could have just edited the capitalism article to say that capitalism is a political ideology which advocates more cow bell, and it would have held exactly as much weight in terms of sourcing as the one presently there. Macai (talk) 02:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

There was extensive discussion on the lead as you can see in the archives. I do not know why sources were not given. However, I think you may be over-reacting to the term "means of production". I do not remember much criticism of it for its Marxist origins, although it appears to be accepted by Keynsian and monetarist economists. I will write to the editors involved in the discussion to see if they can provide sources. You can check my contributions to see if I left anyone out. The Four Deuces (talk) 03:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Sources in the Introduction

There do not appear to be any reliable sources in the lead. I am writing to editors who recently discussed the lead and request that they assist in ensuring the lead is adequately sourced. The Four Deuces (talk) 03:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Just flicking through the nearest book I could find on our shelves - Capitalism: an ethnographic approach / Daniel Miller (by an Anthropologist, I should add) - this book notes the multiplicity of the definitions capitalism; notes that the term itself largely occurs within Marxist/Leftists rhetorical discourses; observes a tendency to conflation with "markets" which it disputes; and observes that neo-classical economics comes nearest to an abstract "pure" definition of the term. The nearest definition it gives to "pure capitalism" seems to be: 'The underlying principle[...] that a free market will be the most efficient mechanism for producing the maximum quantity of goods at the cheapest possible price, and therefore increasing world weath. ...[C]ommodities should be free to circulate without distortion, backed by financial institutions in which the value of local monies gives tha true reflection of the [position of that economy.' that's not bad as far as it goes, and is a bit cribbed from the contextual flow, but may be useful for a cite.--Red Deathy (talk) 08:51, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I like the way you're thinking. I have a good number of text books at home here, too. The title of the book is "Economics: Principles, Problems, and Policies". It's written by "Campbell R. McConnell", and "Stanley L. Brue". A family member had to get this book for an economics course she was taking. Here's how it describes capitalism on page 33:

The private ownership of resources and the use of markets and prices to coordinate and direct economic activity characterize the market system, or capitalism.

It later clarifies that some capitalist nations do actually get involved in the economy, just not to the point that they are the primary driving forces in that economy. This source supports the idea that there is a focus on private property in the concept of capitalism. Macai (talk) 11:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Miller is certainly an authority. Among anthropologists so is Eric Wolf; a guy named Ritzer is one of the best sociologists writing on the topic. The Brue textbook is one of the most authoritative, if you want an economist's point of view. It would be good to include a historian, Eric Hobsbawm has written extensively on the matter. However, my view is that the introduction ought not to have sources. I think it is bad practice as well as ugly. The introduction should introduce the article as a whole. It should not introduce anything that is not already in the body. It is the body that should provide detailed discussions with citations. The only question is: does the introduction accurately introduce the rest of the article. Too often people put a lot of effort into sourcing an introduction as a way of avoiding confronting problems in the body of the article. And if the body of the article is fine and properly sourced, then an introduction that introduces that body is fine and does not need citations as they are all in the body. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I had helped craft the lead (except for the last line: "However, since prior economic systems featured all these elements to some degree..." which is just confusing). WP:LEADCITE advices that the lead should be general and summarize the article, but it also says that if something is controversial then proper citations may be needed. From WP:LEAD:

The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject should be established in the first sentence of the lead, if possible.

I don't think the definition is particularly controversial among experts, but if need be let's get some sources. Just about every expert can agree that a defining feature of capitalism is the private control of capital - and by capital, most experts are referring to the means of production. I propose we switch the order so it reads "... in which capital (also known as the means of production) is privately controlled...". I will make the change and someone can always edit if they don't like it. We probably won't find a single source for citation but can reference a few that support the lead.

I want to emphatically say that just because the topic is "capitalism" doesn't automatically mean that economists have the final word. In fact, many economists have an ahistorical, aseptic view that does a disservice. I second including historians such as Hobsbawm or Bruedel. Nubeli (talk) 00:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I want to emphatically say that the reason that it's so hard to get a definition for capitalism around here is because of the lack of ahistorical viewpoint. We can have a history of capitalism section but seriously, we just need a succinct one sentence definition which describes what it means, not where it came from, who came up with the word and what they thought about it. capitalism is just private ownership coupled with private trade. If i sell something on ebay it's very much part of capitalism but you can't put that into the scope of means of production and labor markets so those things shouldn't be in the definition. "The private ownership of resources and the use of markets and prices to coordinate and direct economic activity characterize the market system, or capitalism." comes closest to hitting the nail on the head.--Pachang (talk) 23:49, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Then you don't understand the concept of ahistorical - ahistorical means you need a good grasp of the whole subject and do not artificially cut yourself off from the progression. Neoclassical economists have worked backwards from an ideal world to explain all of history rather than look at the real facts on the ground. What it reveals is idealistic thinking, grounded in nothing. Nubeli (talk) 06:15, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Ahistorical just means without historical perspective. Why are we brining neoclassical economists into this? There's no need to. Just like there is no need to have "means of production" in the base definition of capitalism in the introduction of this wiki page. If you want to analyze ahistorical thinking over the years, of course you can talk about neoclassical economists and if you want to analyze thinking on capitalism over the years of course you talk about means of production. Just not in the first sentence of the main wiki page which is just meant to be a simple definition free from history and personal perspective. --Pachang (talk) 14:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Icon

The icon being used for capitalism is silly. Why a star? Why a dollar sign? A more meaningful symbol would relate to one of the defining characteristics of capitalism -- some of which are mentioned in the lead. My suggestion would be a handshake in reference to voluntary exchange and transactions. HyperCapitalist (talk) 04:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The template is used for many articles and hundreds of user pages. I don't think that this is the correct talk page for changing it. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:53, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Really, a handshake?! This seems to be a typical response of the Rand supporters hanging around, who wish to eliminate all other perspectives from the article. I'm no huge supporter of the icon, but at least it is recognizable to many - the dollar sign is indeed a defining mark of capitalism. Nubeli (talk) 00:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

isn't the dollar sign a more of a defining mark of any society that uses paper money and coins?--Pachang (talk) 23:34, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

It could also refer to Freemasonry. The Four Deuces (talk) 00:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that the dollar sign is most fitting. There's no other system known to man that can generate wealth like Capitalism can; it's a perfect match. Moarhate (talk) 03:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Try Feudalism (Proto-Capitalism)128.2.51.144 (talk) 20:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

(Insert obligatory Marxist bitching about unequal distribution of said wealth here) Soxwon (talk) 14:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing that obligates us to have any icon at all for the sidebar navigation box. It is reasonable to use symbols in such boxes when the subject has a widely recognized symbol (such as the 'A' for anarchism). But if there is no agreed-upon symbol, then the box should not have one. This is the case for the sidebar boxes about libertarianism, liberalism and individualism. --RL0919 (talk) 14:56, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

labor markets

I deleted the dependent clause that ended the first paragraph, solely because it is redundant. If labor is traded on a market, then of course it has a price and the price of labor is its wage. Now, I consider the rise of the labor market defining of capitalism and have no problem singling it out. However, if we are to single it out, then the earlier part of the sentence (which lists labor as one of many goods traded on a market) needs to be rewritten. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

M&Ms asks:Why do you consider the rise of a labour market to be "defining of capitalism"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.209.74.201 (talk) 16:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

FAQ

Can we get a FAQ at the top to make sure people know that the Black Book of Capitalism is not a reliable soure? I bring this up b/c there was an attempt to reinsert it yet again and this has been a recurring trend. Soxwon (talk) 20:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree the introduction to the Black Book of Capitalism is not RS, although some of the articles in it may be RS if they have been printed in academic journals. Incidentally the Black Book of Communism, which is not RS either, is used as a major source for dozens of articles. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I've not read the latter, I just know that the tally of 100 million deaths is impossibly high... Soxwon (talk) 20:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Seventy million people were killed in two world wars. Add to that people killed in other wars and through famine and poverty and you easily reach that number. (I am not defending the theory just explaining it.) The second book claims that Communism killed 100 million. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I know how they got it, I've read portions of it. At any rate, should we make the FAQ or not? Soxwon (talk) 21:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

(out) Probably not practicle. Editors who insert the claim probably do not check the FAQ. We actually started a mediation on reliable sources for all economics articles but unfortunately that was abandoned.[6] You might want to discuss the issue on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Economics. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Resolving the Editorial Conflict

This topic need not be a "highly sensitive" one.
Here is a perspective of the root cause of the conflict among the editors of this entry, and, two proposed solutions.

CAUSE OF THE CONFLICT

The root of the editorial conflict stems from the facts that:

1. Karl Marx was the first to use "Capitalism" in reference to an economic system in his book, Das Kapital, published in 1867, long after the USA implemented their Free Market system.

2. Capitalism (as defined by Marx) is when Capital (ie. those who control it) hires Labor (the wage-laborers) to produce products that are sold in the marketplace for profit.
Capitalism is one way to organize Capital and Labor in the marketplace – there are also other ways, cooperatives, for example.

3. Free Enterprise is when government establishes a free market and plays referee and lets all the various ways of organizing Capital and Labor duke it out on a level playing field.

4. The term Capitalism has been adopted erroneously by "AdamSmithists" as a synonym for "Free Enterprise".
(They are not the same thing -- it's like calling the soda pop isle at the grocery store "the Coke Isle").

5. So, the Free Enterprisers get upset when the Marxists argue with them about the definition of Capitalism, because in their mind, they're thinking "Free Enterprise".

IDEAL SOLUTION

Since Marx essentially coined the term, his definition should rule.
The Free Marketiers should pick or coin another –ism. (How about Freedomism? Freemarketism?)

REALISTIC SOLUTION

Since almost all AdamSmithists in the world think "Capitalism" refers to Free Enterprise,
and since changing all their minds might take a month or two…
a more realistic solution would be to:
1. Make Marx's definition primary in the article,

2. Include an alternative definition written by the AdamSmithists with links to "Free Enterprise".

3. Remove the Wikipedia redirect to Capitalism from Free Enterprise and let the Free Marketiers flesh it out.
This solution will defuse the conflict -- the Marxists can control the primary definition, the AdamSmithists, the secondary.

FreedomWorks! (talk) 05:56, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

In a word, bullshit. Free Enterprise is more closely associated with capitalism than with any other economic system. Your "realistic solution" would violate NPOV and would disregard the hundreds of debates already on this subject. Soxwon (talk) 18:34, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter who coined the term, when people use the word capitalism are not describing the same thing that marx described in his definition. They are describing a characteristic society where people produce and trade products (things of value) freely without government intervention. In this society labour is a thing of value/product as well. To say that we shouldn't call this capitalism and should coin another term that should be universally accepted around the world with the authority we have as internet kids on wikipedia is ridiculous. Marx's definition of what he saw as "capitalism" isn't helpful to a wikipedia article. We need a definition that is clear and succinct and even more importantly is not tied to any time, intellectual movement or philosopher but is a definition that will last forever. A base 1+1 = 2 definition. Here is my funk & wagnalls new world encyclopedia definition: Economic system in which private individuals and business firms carry on the production and exchange of goods and services though a complex network of prices and markets. Not a bad start in my opinion. --Pachang (talk) 23:25, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

In a word, one-sided. My proposal was intended to help resolve the conflict (via accommodation) between "people who use the word capitalism [to describe] the same thing that marx described in his definition" and those who do not. You're arguments feed the conflict, rather than work to resolve it by ignoring the existence and legitimacy of other widespread uses. Your statement would be more accurate if it were altered to say, "Free Enterprise is more closely associated with capitalism in the minds of most Brits and Americans than with any other economic system". To a large portion of the rest of the world, Marx's definition is very relevant. Wikipedia has a global reach -- should its definitions be ethnocentric, reflecting the nationality of its founder, or, should they reflect all common uses of a particular term? Besides, why should one current widespread use of capitalism "last forever" rather than the original one or even another current widespread usage? -- FreedomWorks! (talk) 16:10, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Please cite reliable sources that state that Marx's is the most widespread amongst scholars and in the general mainstream and we can state such. Otherwise you're pushing a POV. Soxwon (talk) 16:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

"most widespread"? Not my point. What I'm trying to communicate is that the idea that capitalism = the free market is an Anglo-centric POV. There is another POV (equally worthy of attention on Wikipedia) which is widely held in Germany, for example (and I suspect in Russia and China). Erich Weede, professor of sociology at the University of Bonn, in his book, "Wirtschaft, Staat und Gesellschaft: zur Soziologie der kapitalistischen" in a footnote on page 9, states (in German), "While in Germany the concept of the [free] market economy has become the preferred characterization [ie. label] for western economic systems, the Americans (like the classical German [economists] Weber and Sombart) prefer to use the term 'capitalism'". More succinctly put, German scholars in general prefer to refer to Western economic systems as "market economies" rather than "capitalism", like the Americans do.
   We may also find it instructive to note how prominent Marx's concepts are on the German wiki's page for Capitalism (the very large 2nd paragraph discusses Marx's definition of capitalism and its defining impact on the meaning of the term). Note also how the section on Marx's contribution is substantially larger than Adam Smith's. See: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kapitalismus .
   I have illustrated above, via a reliable source, that Soxwon's statement, "Free Enterprise is more closely associated with capitalism than with any other economic system" is true in America, but not Germany, where they prefer "Marktwirtschaft" (Market Economy). If I had the time (and language skills), I suspect I would easily find similar statements from Russian and Chinese scholars as their economies were based for decades on Marx's criticism of Capitalism.
   - FreedomWorks! (talk) 07:32, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree, to make "free enterprise" synpnymous with capitalism would be a distortion. Also its clear that Marx analysis of the subject (which has been hugely influential in shaping world history) has been grossly neglected. 41.132.178.180 (talk) 18:21, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Bruce Scott

I'm sorry, but why is he mentioned in the lede above oh, Adam Smith, Karl Marx, Murray Rothbard, or any of the other thinkers that have tackled this subject. Soxwon (talk) 18:37, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Management

"Individuals engage in the economy as consumers, labourers, and investors." What about managers? Unfree (talk) 02:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

management is a type of labour --202.20.67.223 (talk) 14:41, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, consuming implies buying. What about selling? Unfree (talk) 02:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you're right, if I sell something on ebay I don'y really see myself as any of those three.

Capital

To my way of thinking, markets and trade aren't relevant to capitalism. Capital (invested money) is amassed for profit-making enterprise, generally in corporations. Isn't that what capitalism is really about, the selling of shares in corporations? Unfree (talk) 02:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

unfortunately this is where the problems come from. Capitalism is not that much about capital as it is about the trade of capital in free markets, Hence the bloody difficulty in getting people to agree on definition. In a purely capitalist society all capital is privately owned and traded, that's about all capitalism has to do with capital. --Pachang (talk) 23:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Capitalism is not an ideology with some pure version. It describes the economic system that emerged after the end of feudalism, where wealth was generated from privately-owned enterprises. Whether or not there is free trade or limited corporations is irrelevant. Some businesses (or even most businesses) may actually be government owned, e.g., public transport. The Four Deuces (talk) 07:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Well that's what I thought it was...That's what I was told in school and what it says in my high-school economics text book. Basically, an economy that is purely capitalist has no government intervention at all. If there is government taxes and businesses then it is called a "mixed" economy. If you are right then most of what I was told in school about capitalism was wrong (which is fine :P). I think the difference in definition comes from a historical definition of capitalism vs a economist definition of capitalism. Reading Anarcho-Capitalism, Rothbard puts capitalism into to two types: State Capitalism and free market capitalism. I think this distinction should be made in this article in the introduction. What you think?--Pachang (talk) 11:47, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

That distinction really is part of Rothbard's theories and is not mainstream. There is a school of thought that distinguishes between statism and liberty and equates any involvement in the economy as socialism. I think the distinction really belongs in articles about liberalism, which is the ideology that advocates capitalism. The liberalism of the rich usually supported government intervention, while the liberalism of the middle class usually opposed it. Middle class people are often frustrated that their taxes pay for government programs they believe benefit the wealthy and the poor. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:18, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

PROFIT defines Capitalism

My economics professor said if you don't learn anything else in our course, take away this: "Profit is the Reward for the Successful Handling of Risk." Adam Smith may have had a handle on cost relative to the "ergs" of energy expended by the aggregate of labor (labour) in a manufacture; but Capitalism is the RISKING of CAPITAL for the potential reward. The greater the RISK the greater [should be] the Profit. Essential in the RISK component must be the chance of losing the capital, which often happens.

Too much time has been spent talking about ownership of property. Wage earners can own property and have no risk to their income stream. Ownership of Profit is what makes Capitalism. The "property" is merely added capital, which may be put to further risk to compound more Profit. No discussion of Capitalism will suffice without the Profit/Reward element.

4Ranch2 (talk) 21:32, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

""Profit is the Reward for the Successful Handling of Risk,"" said your economics professor 4Ranch2. I studied economics and economists do indeed make this kind of statement very often. However, they are not talking about the workers plunging to their deaths on construction but only about financial risk.

Gatorinvancouver (talk) 00:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

M&Ms says: I'd also like to add that he was your economics professor, not your capitalism buddy. If he mentions the word capitalism in his lectures then my ex-professor would like to fight him. Damn it, i bet the whole faculty will want a piece of him! Peace out: make profit not anarchy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.47.175.66 (talk) 16:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The subject is an historical mode of production, "profit" is a central concept to it, but it doesn't define it. In fact any definition will be somebodies POV or OR so no simple definition as a first text by a wiki editor will fly. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 14:42, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Money

Sabine McNeill's recent edits appear to go into much detail with regards to money, put a dead link in the See Also section, and re-add unimportant links in the see also section, which should be just the important ones IMO (Das Kapital, The Wealth of Nations etc.) Thoughts from others? Soxwon (talk) 19:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

These edits are unsourced and do not appear to be relevant. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Issue: Commodity Commodities. Did you know words are commodities too? Well the right ones are anyway.

M&Ms says: Hello, please read the below copied from the article page. It has been italicised and the issue is highlighted below it.

Commodity|Commodities There are two types of commodities: capital goods and consumer goods. Capital goods are products not produced for immediate consumption (i.e. land, raw materials, tools, machines and factories), but as the inputs of consumer goods (i.e. televisions, cars, computers, houses) to be sold to others.

The issue is this: a definition of capital is given but I find it erroneous. The goods, according to the article are "not produced for immediate consumption". Lets look at two of the examples given - land and tools. Neither of these resources (or as the article calls them: goods) are passed on to the final consumer. They are inputs necessary for production but the consumer does not acquire these goods in particular. Therefore, the users (which would be the producers of "consumer goods")of the resources are the final users.

The paragraph therefore contradicts itself as the producers are the end users of such goods. Not only that but, and this only applies if the author of this section has been true to his or her sources, but the very concept of this dichotomy is flawed. So nevermind correcting the contradiction, but should this concept be accepted as part of the articles content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.47.175.66 (talk) 16:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikidiculous: Mo-nay

M&Ms says: Below is a segment from the article main page:

Money Money was primarily a standardized means of exchange which serves to reduce all goods and commodities to a standard value. It eliminates the cumbersome system of barter by separating the transactions involved in the exchange of products, thus greatly facilitating specialization and trade through encouraging the exchange of commodities.

However, besides serving as a medium of exchange for labour, goods and services, money is also a store of value, similar to precious metals.

Now, everything goes well until we come upon the third word. At first glance I didn't see a problem with the word "primarily". However, I saw the point the sentence was trying to make. A point that is incorrect also! There is no need for the word primarily. You can simply say that money IS or ACTS AS as store of value. It does not serve to reduce (three loaded weasel words) goods to a standard value. The value of the goods fluxuated over time and also according to geographical location (5euro for a shoe here, 5euro30cent two miles down the road, etc.).

The second problem relates to the writers second paragraph (being exact and sequential is tedious but rewarding you will find). Money IS a medium of exchange because it ACTS AS a store of value. Two side of the same coin. The sentence seems to seperate the sentence clauses into two distinct functions that money performs. But one is the description and the other is the function. Q.E.D. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.47.175.66 (talk) 16:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Economic Elements of capitalism

M&Ms says: I would like to highlight an issue with the following:

The economics of capitalism developed out of the interactions of the following five items:

You can read the article if you like and see these five items. However, I am illuminating an error of omission. For those not in the know; capitalism is an economic system (though you will be hard pressed to find it mentioned in an economic text book because it is just a weasel word used by people who see fault with the system) but lets call this a "free market economy". If we polarise economic systems we would find a centrally planned economy (i.e. communism) is the antithesis of the free market system. What is the most important difference? A free market is characterised by private property rights that place the decision of use, regulation and a burden of responsibility on the individual (or group of). A centrally planned economy does not share this characteristic and instead has a centralised (nationalised) and communal property rights legal structure. This is not mentioned under the aforementioned section.

Instead, the author has listed 5 items that can be found in a centrally planned (i.e. non-capitalist, though industrialised) economy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.47.175.66 (talk) 09:37, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Early use of the term Capitalism goes to Proudhon and Marx?

What about the Adam Smith? It is widely known that "The Wealth of Nations" of 1776 was the beginning of Capitalism as a political and economic philosophy, it also defined Capitalism contemporary meaning. Agrofelipe (talk) 14:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

M&Ms Posits: Did he use the word "Capitalism" as it is understood today (though I think that is why the article is in such a state)? I think the importance of Smith was his advocacy for the recognition of a spontaneuos economy (invisible hand) and that the Government must encourage it not through protectionist policies but through incentives (e.g. awarding patents for inventions). Otherwise the Government is to have no input. Can we really say that this was the beginning of "Capitalism as a political and economic philosophy"? Or should he be entered as a milestone in the shift from mercantalism towards Capitalism?

You have to be pretty clear on how he relates to Capitalism before you enter him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.123.0 (talk) 11:45, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Controversial or not???

Since this is such a controversial topic, an admin should swoop down and semi-lock it --173.51.175.30 (talk) 04:29, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

"Many" states?

From the main article: "and many states have what are termed "mixed economies." This is a gross understatement: not "many", not "most, but every state except North Korea and Cuba have an economy which is a mixture to some degree of capitalism and socialism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.83.132.68 (talk) 10:50, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

While it is a vague term, it usually means a significant government involvement in the economy. Cuba btw allows foreign investment and some local businesses. TFD (talk) 21:21, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Defining Capitalism

It seems from the extended debate so far that Capitalism is both an economic system and an ideology. As an economic system, it can be defined quite uncontentiously, but as an ideology only its multiple flavours can be listed. The Oxford English Dictionary (1933) gives the following:

Capitalism - The condition of possessing capital; the position of a capitalist; a system which favours the existence of capitalists.

Capitalist - One who has accumulated capital; one who has capital available for employment in financial or industrial enterprises

Capital - ... wealth in any form used to help in producing more wealth. (under defn B3b)

It stumbles over Wealth, however, commenting

There has been much controversy among economists as to the precise extent of meaning in which the term should be used. The definition that has been most widely accepted is that of Mill.

and quotes from John Stuart Mill, Principles of political economy (1848):

... all useful or agreeable things except those which can be obtained, in the quantity desired, without labour or sacrifice. (the conclusion of a fairly extensive quote)

Now this gives capitalism a pretty broad remit, but the key feature which emerges, running the definitions together (and carefully navigating Mill's double negative), is accumulation through labour and sacrifice of the means of production for the benefit of the accumulator. This is the point at which the ideology starts. Whose labour, whose sacrifice, and to what extent, should the system favour, and by what criteria should the should be addressed: equity (strictly pro rata), egality (redistributionist), efficiency (neoclassical orthodoxy), euthenics (sustainability and welfare)? Splitting the discussion up in this way should assist in marshalling the various dimensions of the subject.--Skeptical-H (talk) 15:51, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I should have read through all the archives before submitting this. It was clearly naive of me to use the term "uncontentious" with editors so divided about which aspects must be present before a system can be called capitalist. However, I am not proposing a cast-iron definition - that's what's caused all the heat. The OED definitions were previously considered here[7] but dismissed because they failed to encompass all systems of capitalism. I'm proposing them instead because they form a stripped down core around which the various systems can be developed.--Skeptical-H (talk) 18:13, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Good luck with that, most editors can't agree on even the most bare bones of a definition. Soxwon (talk) 02:13, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Capitalism is not an ideology, although one's attitudes toward capitalism may form part of an ideology. TFD (talk) 06:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Wage labor

Is it the consensus of sources that say wage labor is predominant over self employment in order for the system to be capitalism? It doesn't seem right. A system of self employed capitalists doing business with each other is still capitalism. If you deny this then what would such a system be called? And what exactly does it mean to say wage labor "predominates"? That most people work for wages or that most businesses have employees? If it's the latter then the US would not capitalism because most businesses do not have employees. I think the wage labor comment should be struck until the answers to these questions can be established. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Associater (talk • contribs) 03:46, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

In the United States and some other countries there was a time when most people were self-employed as farmers, tradesmen and professionals. TFD (talk) 04:15, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Ideas from the German wikipedia entry might be valuable?

Since this article is struggling a little perhaps we can gain something by reflecting on the efforts of our German language friends. if your German is as good as mine this link to an english translation is of use:(follow the link on the page to see english translation) http://translate.google.com/#auto%7Cen%7Chttp%3A%2F%2Fde.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FKapitalismus 41.132.178.180 (talk) 22:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you got the idea that the article was struggling... Soxwon (talk) 23:11, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps "struggling" was the wrong word.I refer to the article's removal from the "good pages" list.41.132.178.180 (talk) 05:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

That was almost four years ago. Soxwon (talk) 05:17, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Do you know the reasons why it was removed? And why after 4 years has not been able to restore its good rating (please excuse my ignorance on the matter)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.132.178.180 (talk) 13:51, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Freedom

Why doesn't this article point out that capitalism is the antithesis of democracy and is only compatible with absolutism or oligarchy? --76.77.139.243 (talk) 17:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Explain your argument and maybe it will. --68.32.17.238 (talk) 18:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Neoclassical Synthesis section should not get its own section

Is there a good reason that this should get its own section? As it is this section is weakly supported by references. 41.132.178.180 (talk) 13:58, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Free-Enterprise Advertisements of the 1960's & 70's

Does anyone remember the free-enterprise advertisements and free-enterprise clubs of the 1960's & 1970's that were advertised on television (basically western propaganda to counter the Soviet propaganda it seems)? Please contact me if you do... Stevenmitchell (talk) 03:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Risk and Rewards

The article now lacks a reference to risk and rewards -- the idea is that in capitalism that potential and actual gains and losses are realized by the owners of an enterprise. In fact, one indicator of whether an entity or activity is capitalist or something else is the degree to which to profits and losses are borne by its owners. I should obtain be able to locate a V and RS cite supporting this, but I am discussing this here to see if this ground is already covered. patsw (talk) 19:31, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Minor reversion

I replaced the blurb on Participatory economics. The concept seems to be notable and reliably scholarly. It also seems to have sparked further scholarly research. It seems to be sufficiently worthy of the weight given. BigK HeX (talk) 18:15, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

It is very difficult to determine the notability of participatory economics. The only references from RS publications in wikipedia are written by the authors of the theory (which also raises POV issues), Why should it be mentioned as a leading alternative to capitalism? Has it been documented by a reliable source to exist in any form anywhere? It seems to me it is an evolving hypothesis, not an economic system that has ever existed or been studied to any extent. It is certainly not as notable as central planning (or mercantilism). Why should it be mentioned in the lead? Mrdthree (talk) 00:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I dont see the phrase 'democratic planning' anywhere in the Participatory economics article. Is it really a synonym for this theory? If the alternative being offered is parecon, this should be explicit. So that editors can determine if it is notable. Or if the goal is to document examples of democratic planning, it should be footnoted, not linked.Mrdthree (talk) 01:11, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

change lead: Participatory Economics is not notable

The mention to [Participatory economics] should be dropped from the lead of the article. All references in wikipedia to the subject are written by the authors of the theory. Based on these references the theory is less than 10 years old, and is simply not a leading alternative to capitalism. Unless an RS can be found that states it exists somewhere in some form as something other than a hypothesis, it is not an economic system and belongs in the body. It is certainly not as notable as mercantilism, which is omitted from the lead. Mrdthree (talk) 01:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

"Over 80% of countries use capitalism, a free market, laissez-faire economy."

This statement in the introduction seems a bit dubious to me, especially coming on the heels of the claim that many nations follow the "mixed economy" paradigm.
While I'm not contesting the fact that the vast majority of nations and the mechanisms of international trade more or less conform to the dictates of capitalist theory, it seems that the connection between the fact that the predominant characteristics and driving forces behind most economies are primarily capitalist to the notion that this fact places them into the "capitalist" category in the assumed dichotomy of "capitalist" vs. "not capitalist," then connecting this to the classical definition of a capitalist system as a "free market, laissez-faire economy" presumes that all nations that are primarily capitalist (admittedly the vast majority) are therefore "laissez- faire" by extension.
While capitalism is a relative term that may exist to various degrees, it seems to me that "laissez- faire" describes an absolute condition, and one that has never been fully implemented. In considering terms like "laissez-faire capitalism" I can't help but think of how the "absolute" form of any other economic system has never been fully realized, and are at best descriptions of a "higher form" of the system that is free from the same scrutiny that is applied to the real-world attempts at implementing them. It is a term of convenience, just as "communism" is- when various attempts at its implementation fail, the overall ideal is insulated from dismissal; the implementation was not "pure" or "correct."
While it may be true that many nations moved away from state-owned enterprises and regulations during and after the "liberal wave" of the 1980s, few if any of them did so to the extent necessitated by the implications of what a laissez-faire state of things would indicate. Even at the height of this wave, regulations on product safety, industry standards, corporate conduct, and workplace safety remained intact, as did the routine practice of industry favoritism with regard to military contracts and agricultural subsidies. Even if such associations were based in tradition rather than law, the fact that the associations continued to exist would seem to negate the claim that a state of laissez-faire existed then or now.
For accuracy's sake, I think that the "laissez-faire" component of this statement should be eliminated. Any takers? --Apjohns54 (talk) 09:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

The reference given is Encyclopedia Britannica, although I do not know if the source actually says this. Does one use capitalism? In any case it is wrong. TFD (talk) 10:10, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is a ridiculous statement. I'm sure no source says that 80% of economies, let alone any economy, is pure capitalism or laissez-faire whichever you want to call it. Rapidosity (talk) 15:06, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Corrected it. Thanks for the heads up. Rapidosity (talk) 15:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

sentence change

I have a problem with this part of the first sentence:

"supply, demand, price, distribution, and investments are determined mainly by private decisions in the free market, rather than by the state through central economic planning"

The problem I have is everything after "supply, demand, price, distribution, and investments are determined mainly by"

I could give a long list of reasons for what is wrong with this. One is, how is demand at a market in the old USSR different than a market in the US? If something is produced, and people don't exchange their rubles for it at the store, then it is no different than in the modern US. To kind of prove my point, the USSR bought US wheat throughout the 1970s - was the market demand any different due to this? It was not.

Also, this presupposes central economic planning through the state is not a feature of capitalism (although it is - TARP, the billions the US gives to government contractors every year etc.) and the only alternative to the theoretical capitalism is state central economic planning (whereas even in the USSR, not all production was owned by the state and centrally planned for. In Yugoslavia, this was even more so the case. And then there were systems like in Republican Spain when the CNT-FAI took control of production in some areas which was not centrally controlled state planning. Ruy Lopez (talk) 08:35, 25 August 2010 (UTC)