From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article Capitalism was one of the good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
August 8, 2006 Good article reassessment Delisted
August 28, 2006 Peer review Reviewed
March 2, 2008 Good article nominee Not listed
Current status: Delisted good article

Surplus value and profit[edit]

Appears as if the editor is equating (surplus) value exclusively with profit when s/he writes "labor is the source of all value, and thus of profit"

Surplus-value, is not the same thing as profit; surplus-value can take the particular form of profit as well as rent and interest: “Rent, interest, and industrial profit are only different names for different parts of the surplus value of the commodity, or the unpaid labour enclosed in it, and they are equally derived from this source and from this source alone. (Value, Price, and Profit, XI. “The Different Parts into which Surplus Value is Decomposed”) In other words, all profits derive from surplus value but not all surplus value can end up as profits. The second important distinction between surplus-value and profit is that profit is the mask behind which bourgeoisie conceals the exploitation (or the utilization of another person or group) involved in the extraction of surplus value: “Surplus value, however, necessarily assumes the form of profit in the bourgeois mind — and this is not just a way of looking at things. (Marx’s Economic Manuscripts of 1861-63; Capital and Profit, “Surplus Value and Profit” V33, MECW, p. 70) and that “the capitalist knows nothing of the essence of capital, and surplus value exists in his consciousness only in the form of profit, a converted form of surplus value, which is completely abstracted from the relations under which it originates and by which it is conditioned. (Ibid.)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 08:15, 3 December 2013

The cause of prostitution[edit]

Could you please add that Emma Goldman said that prostitution is caused by capitalism? Thank you. Pepper9798 (talk) 21:34, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

And also Upton Sinclair in The Jungle. Pepper9798 (talk) 01:12, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Neither source says that. TFD (talk) 02:32, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Paragraph 6 for Emma Goldman, and "The Jungle" on pages 305 "There are a thousand-ten thousand, maybe-who are the masters of these slaves, who own their toil. They do nothing to earn what they receive…..", 307, 313 '…the proletariat, bound into slavery by unseen chains…", 314 "..As if political liberty made wage slavery any the more tolerable!", 333, 341 & 343. Pepper9798 (talk) 04:05, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Although more specifically for prostitution is on bottom of page 304 to top of page 305 "driven by hunger to sell their bodies to live…they may be your sisters, your daughters…the same fate may be waiting for her…" Pepper9798 (talk) 04:15, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
See Synthesis. You would need an explicit statement. Note too that prostitution, poverty, slavery and many other social ills pre-date capitalism. TFD (talk) 08:49, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
This: "What is really the cause of the trade in women? Not merely white women, but yellow and black women as well. Exploitation, of course; the merciless Moloch of capitalism that fattens on underpaid labor, thus driving thousands of women and girls into prostitution." Uh oh, you said "pre-date capitalism". See my talk page. Pepper9798 (talk) 15:31, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Goldman was writing about the white slave trade, not prostitution per se. Prostitution, like manufacturing, is transformed from a guild system to a capitalist model on a larger scale. So too, in Brecht's "Mack the Knife", was crime. The craftsman, the prostitute, thee criminal are no longer sole traders but employees. TFD (talk) 16:38, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Natural disasters[edit]

Mention the profits made not just from wars, but from rebuilding everything after natural disasters: floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, etc? Pepper9798 (talk) 04:14, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

The difference is that capitalists do not (usually) cause natural disasters to generate profits. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:53, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Richest 1%[edit]

Here's the richest 1% own everything worldwide: Pepper9798 (talk) 04:47, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Human trafficking[edit]

See the connection between capitalism and growing Human trafficking. Pepper9798 (talk) 04:47, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Disputed paragraph[edit]

The paragraph below has now twice been removed as "biased", even though it is referenced to a major academic source.

"Capitalism is the most successful wealth-creating economic system that the world has ever known; no other system, according to economist Joseph Schumpeter, has benefited "the common people" as much. Capitalism, he observed, creates wealth through advancing continuously to ever higher levels of productivity and technological sophistication; this process, known as creative destruction, requires that the "old" be destroyed before the "new" can take over."

reference for the paragraph above: Gilpin, Robert (2000). The Challenge of Global Capitalism: The World Economy in the 21st Century. Princeton University: Princeton University Press. Introduction. ISBN 978-0-691-09279-9. 

This article has an entire section on criticism of capitalism, so the critics of capitalism (and sometimes I am one) have their say. But whatever the faults of capitalism, the creation of great wealth is one of its features. I think virtually all economists would agree on the factual accuracy of the paragraph. I will add more references if that is necessary. But I would hope the person or persons who object to the paragraph would explain their objection so we can discuss it here and avoid an edit war.

Rick Norwood (talk) 13:02, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

While it is true that capitalism is the most successful wealth-creating economic system that the world has ever known, the phrasing is biased. It is phrased more like a defense than a description. Also, it is biased to provide just one opinion (the Austrian economist.) It is a utililitarian argument that while highland clearances, colonialism and total war have made millions worse off, on balance common people are better off. TFD (talk) 22:27, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
"that the world has ever known" is peacock language. Perhaps the ancient Egyptian economic system was better - who knows?! It is completely unprovable. We should write the clause in attributed form - I am sure we can find an economist who has made this hyberbolic statement. Oncenawhile (talk) 00:32, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
It is attributed (to Joseph Schumpeter). Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 00:36, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Only the second half of the sentence, after the semi colon. If Schumpeter stated the first half as well, we need to fix the sentence structure. Oncenawhile (talk) 00:38, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
While the information is not in itself problematic, its inclusion in the lead and its current phrasing is quite biased. It is phrased in such a way to suggest that there can be no other superior economic system in the future, as Schumpeter himself believed that capitalism would eventually be displaced by democratic market socialism. -Battlecry 02:01, 23 January 2016 (UTC)