Talk:Capitalism/Archive 26

Capitalism produced Communism

Ferdinand Lundberg says in "The Rich and the Super-Rich" referring to US robber barons, "the industrial tycoons, American and foreign, in 1914-1918, far from saving the world, they were the chief operative factors in producing World War I, as a wealth of research conclusively shows. Again, it was the American business leaders who pushed the United States into that war from far out in left field on fantastic grounds of insuring freedom of the seas, terminating militarism and saving the world for democracy. Nearly every major difficulty of the contemporary world can be traced directly to the governments of the major powers, including the United States, in 1914-1918, and the leading property holders who stood solidly behind them. They PRODUCED, among other things, totalitarian communism as an outgrowth of the situation." Study American labor struggles (strikes to see the poverty of most American slaves in 20th century. Stars4change (talk) 18:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC) |}

One true fact

Capitalism is evil. It had killed millions of people only in the begining of 21st century. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.196.176.156 (talk) 19:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Could you please contribute constuctively. You have already been warned about your edits to Ted Turner[1][2] and further postings of this nature are disruptive and will be reported. For your information this article does contain criticism of capitalism and is presented (at least that is the intention) in a balanced manner to show all views and to provide sources for readers so that they may form their own opinions. The Four Deuces (talk) 13:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

LA photos show empty land

Could you add the following photos of LA around 1900 because it shows there were hardly any people or buildings in the Old West which is why USA wanted Capitalism instead of Socialism and Communism (instead of building UP): http://thechive.com/2009/02/los-angeles-before-sigalert-31-photos/ ? Stars4change (talk) 21:29, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

The introduction

Again, I'm not an economist, but I wouldn't define Capital as "the means of production", as that's a bit ambiguous. I would define Capital as money, plain and simple, to be provided by the capitalist to the producer to be used by the producer to generate profit, with the expectation that the profit is shared with the capitalist. There was surely a "means of production" long before there was Capital! <the post below is also mine, in case anyone takes issue.> Richtib55 (talk) 17:16, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't an explanation of Capitalism emphasize the role of *Capital*? As the article says, in Islam there was nascent capitalism, despite the Islamic prohibition against "usury". It was only because the Muslims recognized the value provided to their society by outsiders, in this case mainly Jews, who not only practiced the professions and advised politically but also facilitated trade outside of Islam. Perhaps most importantly of all, they provided capital - and were able to do so only by charging interest in order to offset potential losses, and cover any opportunity cost. The Muslims allowed the Jews to freely practice "usury", defined as the charging of interest for loans. Within Christendom Capitalism took hold in England in the 16th century as various geopolitical factors combined, not least of which was the schism with the Roman Catholic church and its prohibition against usury. Once Henry VIII had dispossessed the Roman church, and the Anglicans were free of Papal authority, usury became common practice even by gentiles in London ( http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1577harrison-england.html ) One can only imagine what it might be like to overhear conversations in a London coffeehouse in the 1500's - where the newly-discovered American goods, coffee and chocolate, were served. While drinking coffee, practicing members of the new capitalist class discussed their capitalist enterprises in the New World, and shortly established another pillar of capitalism - insurance. Lloyd's of London was founded in Edward Lloyd's Coffee House, according to Lloyds' website: ( http://www.lloyds.com/About_Us/History/Chronology.htm ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.177.107.34 (talk) 21:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

... was a mess! Introductions should introduce the entire article, but simply and concisely. Details and sources should be presented iand developed in the body of the article, freeing up the introduction to be general. I just did a cleanup. We do not need to indentify different POVs which are all covered in the article, we only need an introduction that works with all of the views in the article, which is now the case. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:06, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

That is an improvement. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:35, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually we do need to mention the different POV's mentioned in the article. A good introduction summarizes the contents of the article. Introman (talk) 04:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

No, there are too many views and the differences are complex. It is a long enough article. The intro does introduce the article, and it states what the main issues of difference are (what is private property, which markets are how free), anything more specific would get too overwrought. But if you want to work on a paragraph here that does what you wish, we can try working on it. I could see ending the lead with "There are seven major approaches to capitalism..." although I still think it would end up being too long a paragraph, we can try. Slrubenstein | Talk 08:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree there are too many views. I drafted a paragraph that mentions that there is no consensus and covers the basic concepts over which there is disagreement. Nubeli (talk) 20:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The first paragraph is not consensus. Theorists do not agree that capitalism is about "free" markets. Also there is no agreement on what is "pure" capitalism. Does that mean absolutely free markets? Or does it mean where there is complete proletarianization? Or does it mean where the economy is dominated by massive corporations? Until they agree on that we can't talk about "pure capitalism" in a neutral manner. I've edited the intro to reflect that. Nubeli (talk) 20:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The point is the recognition that the economic system called capitalism is a defined as an ideal in economics. Nothing in the real word is a perfect ideal corresponding to the economic definition, whether it's capitalism or socialism. Capitalism is a system of private ownership of the means of production. There is no such system in existence. Instead there are systems that are closer to it than others where say 80% is privately owned. Introman (talk) 21:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

We need to be able to talk about capitalism without assuming it can only exist with "free markets". Take Braudel, who analyzed the history of capitalism without restricting himself to only studying where markets were "free", which would basically eliminate the entire discipline. It's good to explain "pure capitalism", but it's too involved for the introduction. Some economists can speak of pure capitalism as if it meant free markets, but that is not something the historians or political economists can agree on. So I moved the paragraph to the end of the intro, but would really like to either find another place for it in the perspective section since "pure capitalism" is the perspective of certain theorists. Nubeli (talk) 20:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no such things as a capitalist system without free markets. A free market is one where the government is not dictating how much is produced and the price to charge. If the government is dictating this, that would be market socialism. There are conceptions of market socialism where the means of production are privately owned but the government sets the production and pricing policies. So it doesn't make sense to excise "free" from the definition, especially when most sources specifically say capitlaism is a system of free markets. Introman (talk) 21:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The whole point is to make the introduction a neutral point of view. I am arguing that historians of capitalism would disagree with you: you can have capitalism without "free" markets, because "free markets" have never existed. There has always been government "interference" or regulation in markets, either to the benefit of business, labour, environment or whatever. Historical fact. I have no idea where you pull this notion of "market socialism" from. Just look at the history section where it speaks of the role of the state in aiding monopolies. Reality is a lot fuzzier and the discussion is much messier so let's not put loaded terms into the introduction and let's put the bigger discussion in the Perspectives section. Nubeli (talk) 21:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean free markets have never existed? There are plenty of free markets in existence. Consider bread production in the U.S. That's a free market. The government doesn't tell the producers how much to produce and what to charge. In other words, it's "unregulated." The government doesn't regulation production and consumption. That is, bread market is a free market. There is no such thing as a capitalist system where there are no free markets. The distinguishing characteristic is free markets. Is there an economy where all its markets are free? No, of course not. That's why all economists agree that the world's economies are all mixed economies. There is no pure (thorough) capitalist system nor socialist system. Introman (talk) 21:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

What an interesting perspective. But it's still your perspective, your own original research. Read someone like Fernand Braudel and you'll understand what I mean. Take an authorative historian of capitalism and you'll see that capitalism most certainly exists without free markets. Even your bread market is regulated for food safety, quality control, price subsidies to farmers and so on - far from "free". But let's say that even if a free market could exist, it doesn't mean that we should make the definition of capitalism so narrow that it excludes cases where markets are regulated or "interfered in" by the state. Then you're bringing in your point of view, and not what is the broadest, most neutral summary of capitalism. Nubeli (talk) 21:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I see what the problem is. You're not using the term "regulation" in the economic sense. I'm using it in the classic sense. "Regulation" is the setting of production and pricing. Supply and demand is regulation. Quantities produces and prices set can be regulated by supply and demand or by the government. When they're regulated by the market, it's a free market. When they're regulated by the government, theyre called "regulated markets." It has nothing to do with safety regulations and what not. It's not my "original research" that capitalism is defined as a free market system. Most definitions point that out. Introman (talk) 21:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

There are enough definitions by political economists and historians to make this a POV issue. What you say by "classic" to me means neoclassical economics sense. Well, there is certainly a much broader analysis out there than just neoclassical. In order to take that into account we need a neutral introduction. Therefore the loaded term "free" should not be there. Nubeli (talk) 21:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Most sources define capitalism as a "free market" system. That's pretty easy to verify, so it should definitely be there. I can start pulling up sources if you want. If there a number of definitions that define it some other way then those should be there too. It's POV of you to delete a very common, I think the most common, definition. I don't understand where you claim of "POV" is coming from. Introman (talk) 22:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I know you can find macroeconomic texts that mention this "free market" system, but guess what, we can't just look at those texts because they are not authoritative enough when it comes to the development of capitalism, the history of capitalism, nor the sociological and anthropological dimensions of capitalism. The definition needs to be broad - to match the breadth of the article, which covers the history, etymology and perspectives of capitalism. It isn't an economics textbook. The inclusion of "free" narrows the definition so much so as to be exclusionary of major authoritative perspectives (many of which are mentioned further down in the article such as Marx, Weber, Veblen and other major figures). And that goes against the purpose of Wikipedia. Nubeli (talk) 05:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Introman is just wrong. Any economist would tell yo that the kinds of regulation Nubeli refers to alters the price of bread and thus interferes with a free market. Intorman also returns to this silly claim about "most sources." Introman, the issue is not most sorces," the issue is, how many significant views?" Why? You may as wll print out your definition of capitalism and then photocopy it a thousand times and parade around sayingyo have a thousand sources supporting you. When you look at a source that provides a definition of capitalism it is usually providing someone else's view of capitalism. if you line up a hundred sources and they are all providing an account of the same view of capitalism, all you have is one view of capitalism. What sources are you looking at? Dictionaries? Those are only good sources for spelling. Economics textbooks? Okay, those are good sources for what economists think. have you looked at sociology or anthropology textooks? Have you looked at works by historians like Braudel or Wallerstein? Slrubenstein | Talk 01:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually I would like to see Introman's list of sources. The only ones I've seen him use are from a relatively unknown undergraduate introductory principles text and a dictionary. Texts like Gregory Mankiw's Principles text don't even touch the term "capitalism" because of the issues being discussed here. Instead he contrasts "market economies" with "communist countries". And, of course, more advanced texts contain a much more detailed examination of capitalism than Introman's simplistic POV. Introman, given that basically everyone disagrees with the neat "capitalism vs socialism" dichotomy you believe in, I think it may be time you expand your studies a bit.Moralmoney (talk) 23:22, 20 August 2009 (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)

Recommending splitting off perspectives on capitalism

The article meets the criteria for a split candidate and that section would lend it's self to being split quite well. Any suggestions, input, or objections welcomed. Financestudent (talk) 22:41, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I suggest we work toward fixing the article Capitalism

I suggest we work toward fixing the article Capitalism up, it seems fairly neglected and considering the scope of it's influence it is important and should be represented accurately and completely on Wikipedia. I'm going to start by spinning off the perspectives on capitalism section into it's own page so the rest of the article can be expanded with quality sources and information without the article becoming too large which it already is approaching. Any proposals, suggestions, and constructive edits are welcome. Financestudent (talk) 23:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. I'd agree that it needs some work (though there are much worse artilces out there, on less-watched subjects) but is splitting out the "perspectives" really the best approach here?

Once you've removed what Austrians / classical liberals / neoliberals / marxists &c &c think, there's not much left to say :-)

bobrayner (talk) 00:45, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Well most of the features of capitalism from an economic perspective are not even covered in the article. There is still much to say in both articles. Besides if worse comes to worse we could always re-merge.Financestudent (talk) 02:50, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

The new page is here: Perspectives on capitalism. Rinconsoleao (talk) 07:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

In Our Time

The BBC programme In Our Time presented by Melvyn Bragg has an episode which may be about this subject (if not moving this note to the appropriate talk page earns cookies). You can add it to "External links" by pasting * {{In Our Time|Capitalism|p00545kv}}. Rich Farmbrough, 03:01, 16 September 2010 (UTC).

I think he meant.... Thinking Allowed,22 sep 2010 depending where you are this link may help (UK site) http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00tt60h 81.101.109.99 (talk) 03:23, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

"Other Variants" List Is Troubled

Many of these "other" variants are listed immediately above (and so aren't "other" at all), while many of the rest appear to be just alternate names for the previously listed items. I'd clean this up but I don't have time at present. GeneCallahan (talk) 00:05, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

USA not a freemarket capitalist country?

Mix of State and Corporate Capitalism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericg33 (talk • contribs) 08:48, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

It seems you may be expressing a personal opinion. Wikipedia articles are made up of material from third party sources, not our own opinions. If you have a source where this perspective is mentioned, let us know and we can discus adding something to the article. HiLo48 (talk) 10:15, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Wild Capitalism

No article about "Wild Capitalism"! Well done Böri (talk) 12:05, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Rent

"Income in a Capitalist system is split into profit and wages." According to one venerable view, there are three distinct sources of income, because return on land or natural resources generally isn't really "capital," it is "rent." You can argue with this, of course, but to incorporate into the article this early the presumption that the physiocrats, the Georgists, etc. are all wrong and rent simply equals profit, land simply equals capital, is very much a matter of taking a controversial POV. Accordingly, I will change this. --Christofurio (talk) 23:52, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the threefold split gives undue weight to what is hardly a mainstream view.

To the extent that physiocracy, georgism, and other long-discredited systems made an explicit threefold division, we could mention that in the appropriate part of the body of the article - in context - and certainly cover it in more depth in the respective articles on those systems; but to put it in the lede of Capitalism is giving undue weight to a fringe belief, I feel.

"Venerable" carries no weight whatsoever, unless you're writing a history of economic thought. The geocentric model and phlogiston are venerable. bobrayner (talk) 00:22, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

To say that a POV is "venerable," though, is clearly to rule out the possibility that I'm engaging in OR in seeking to include it. Venerable implies "a lot older than me." And, no, I don't think that this view is analogous to phlogiston, just as economics isn't a science in quite the same sense as is chemistry. --Christofurio (talk) 20:32, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Content removed

Note: I removed the following unsourced statements:

1. Private investment in Fascist states, such as Nazi Germany, greatly increased .
2. In response to criticism of the system, some proponents of capitalism have argued that its advantages are supported by empirical research. For example, advocates of different Indices of Economic Freedom point to a statistical correlation between nations with more economic freedom (as defined by the indices) and higher scores on variables such as income and life expectancy, including the poor, in these nations.

I removed #1 because it had been unsourced for more than a year. I removed #2 because it is both unsourced and false. Two of the leading countries with the highest economic freedom and open markets, Singapore and New Zealand, overcame their social problems with massive government spending, in other words, socialism, which in turn, alleviated poverty and contributed to increased life expectancy and quality of life, as well as investing heavily in education and training, which led to an increase in employment and an opportunity for income advancement. 71.22.40.31 (talk) 13:25, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Investing heavily in education and training, with an explicit goal of increasing earnings, is hardly the polar opposite of capitalism. Anybody familiar with the basic principles of HRM would recognise that improving skills costs money, but that it can be seen as an investment which brings good returns for all concerned; an impeccably capitalist, rather than socialist, stance. bobrayner (talk) 14:52, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

The investment in question was not made by the private industry nor regulated by the free market, but paid for with public funds in a regulated manner by the state for the express purpose of enhancing and expanding the foundation for free enterprise. The passage that was removed claimed, without sources, that these things came about as the result of economic freedom, which is clearly not the case at all. We see in fact, that the so-called economic freedom came about much later, as a result of massive government funding and regulation. 71.22.40.31 (talk) 03:54, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

2. is completely factual and government spending is not socialism. Government spending from taxing a capitalist economy is democratic capitalism so either way it is still from capitalism.

source: http://www.heritage.org/index/

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)

What needs to be worked out, with this article in general perhaps, is that there are several theories of capitalism. For example, Ruy, you suggest that central economic planning through the state is a feature of capitalism, at least to some extent. There are various degrees of capitalism (laissez-faire, mixed-economy, anarchy-capitalism, libertarianism and libertarian socialism, etc), and not only is the type of capitalism practiced in the USA debatable, but, in general, the relationship between government and economy is constantly changing and challenging our views. The theories and debates within theories of capitalism are endless: How does one distinguish between socialism and pure laissez-faire (in other words, where is the line drawn?)? When does an economic system cease to be laissez-faire and become regulated, restricted, or absolutely controlled?

Perhaps, given that this is a discussion about an encyclopedia article, we should ask if an encyclopedia article should identify every anomaly of a widely understood--although, perhaps, vague--explanation. Should the article address every single theory and debate about what is or is not capitalism? Should it define each word used and include every single criticism of those definitions, ideas, and their implications? I'm inclined to say "no, they should not be included," because, frankly, it would be impossible to do all that (there are even disagreements within respected theories of capitalism, and that makes the task all the more difficult). An encyclopedia article is supposed to be meaningful, but it can be nothing more than an introduction to the concept and relevance of the topic. It can serve as the starting point of our general understanding and inquiry into a topic, but it should not be a catalogue of every idea, interpretation, argument, and criticism on the topic.

Despite my rant, Ruy, you've raised a question concerning the boundaries of the definition of "capitalism." No encyclopedia article (and probably no article or answer whatsoever) can acceptably address that in a concise, absolute, and accurate way. We can only capture the basic understanding of capitalism--its connotations and general meaning relative to other economic systems. So if you think that the definition in the lead does not accurately reflect the connotation and general understanding of capitalism, then provide reliable sources to change it. Treefingers1206 (talk) 01:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Capitalism is a descriptive term not an ideology. It means that the means of production are privately owned. Whether the owners allow free markets or enforce monopolies, or get the government to subsidize or own loss-making industries like public transit makes no difference. TFD (talk) 02:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting that it was an ideology. I was talking about the definition and academic understanding of "what is capitalism?" It's not simply a "descriptive term," and it's not necessarily true that, in a capitalist economic system, the means of production are privately owned. The most significant--or powerful--capitalist entities are publicly owned (i.e., corporations), sometimes even by the government. What distinguishes capitalism from, say, socialism or communism or a democratic system is that the fundamental goal is the creation and accumulation of capital. If the "means of production," even if privately owned, are not organized with the intention of generating and accumulating capital, it is not capitalist. As an economic system, generating and accumulating capital is the function, obligation, and necessity of all participants. Treefingers1206 (talk) 22:44, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

M&Ms says: You do not understand what is meant by 'public ownership' mr./ms./mrs. treefingers. Public ownership of a corporation means that whoever wants to buy shares becomes an owner, along with the other share holders. The share purchasers are private individuals - not supra-entities such as the government. So, if a politician wanted to buy a share in Exxon (I'm not sure if there are rules on a politicians involvement with private enterprise, but anyway...) than his or her name will be noted on the share certificate and not the name of the government they belong to. The term 'public ownership' is used solely for companies who do not choose who the owners/investors are.

Now, the example given to support your claim that the US government acts as a central planner because it gives billions to contractors is wrong. In a centrally planned economy the state makes all decisions what & how much to be produced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.70.133.9 (talk) 10:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Treefingers responds: You're right, I wrongly equated public trading in a market of private owners to public ownership in which it is owned by government. Despite that being a bad example, my point is really this: capitalism is not defined by private ownership. It's defined by capital accumulation. Capitalism is not the absence of government. Governments can be (and, in fact, most are) capitalist. Capitalist refers to an economic system in which the incentive/motive for production is the creation and accumulation of capital. This differs from other economic systems such as: (1) feudalism, the incentive/motive of production is physical security (privilege to knights, food, etc); (2) communism, where the incentive/motive of production is utilitarian (providing the greatest happiness for the greatest amount of people); (3) statism/totalitarianism/socialism, where the incentive/motive of production is fear (or enforced obligation to the state.)

Governments have long been capitalist, even the "communist" governments of the USSR and China were/are capitalist governments, although their domestic economies are statist/totalitarian. They still compete(d) in a capitalist global economy. Capitalism is not about people, individual freedom, or private ownership. It's about accumulation of wealth, despite whether that accumulation is public or private. Treefingers1206 (talk) 00:09, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

A capitalist Someone who does not labour but lives off their capital, e.g. A landlord
Capitalism The justification on historic/social/legal grounds of a capitalist for not having to labour
81.101.109.99 (talk) 03:14, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

no, its a system of supple and demand. the landlord has appartments, the supply, and the tenants want them and rent them from said landlord, thus demand. the landlord had to work to get the appartments, he didnt just sit around doing nothing. the beauty of capatlism is if you create or getsomthing other people want, you dont have to work as hard anymore. some just twist it and corrupt it. 24.228.24.97 (talk) 03:52, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

To quote Adam Smith (Bk. 1, Ch.6) "landlords love to reap where they never sowed". Sorry, couldn't resist. But you seem confused between capitalists and landlords. Different roles, different earnings. A landlord can charge rent even if he did not put an ounce of work into the place. Just the mere fact of ownership of limited land. Look up the concept of "rent". (not to say some landlords cannot behave "as capitalists" when, e.g. they expend to introduce improvements, maintenance, etc. But then they are wearing their capitalist hat, not their landlord hat. The returns they make as "rent" are above and beyond whatever expenses that go into it. It's in the definition of the concept of rent) Walrasiad (talk) 05:54, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Tecnical definition: - capitalist an owner of capital. (defined as : produced means of production, i.e. tools, machinery, raw materials, the essence of it being that it is an input that is itself "built".) - landlord an owner of land. Land is not built, it is not an outcome of a production process. It is God-given. e.g. Factory is capital. The land on which the factory sits is not capital. Walrasiad (talk) 05:58, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd recommend the line itself be struck. It is awkward, and does not explain anything which is not covered later in the article. Downix (talk) 22:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I suggest revising the lead sentence, as it fails to mention the fundamental characteristic of capitalism: production contingent upon the perpetual accumulation of capital, and by extension economic and social activity structured around this process. The other qualities listed (ie, private ownership, mixed economies, state capitalism) refer to various institutional configurations possible under a capitalist system. The distinguishing feature between socialism is that a socialist economy is based on production directly for use, so that economic demand is directly satisfied (as opposed to indirectly satisfying economic demand as a byproduct in the pursuit of profit). Also, there should be a description of Capitalists somewhere in the article (ie, those who invest in production and receive their income by owning and trading private property / shares of companies).Battlecry (talk) 00:59, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Hm. Well, accumulation is not the fundamental characteristic. It just happens to be one of several implications of private ownership of capital. Just as producing for profit rather than demand is a consequence of private ownership. The crux is still private ownership of capital though - and from that, stem all the remaining features, blessings and sins of the system. But I guess it could be useful to lay out a list of implications a little more clearly. Walrasiad (talk) 07:54, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree it is socially unacceptable Nordikrage (talk) 21:42, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Capital simplified is anything you can make profit with (except people). That includes land, machines, factories, money, and natural resources. A capitalist simplified is someone who owns capital. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.240.199.188 (talk) 01:10, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

POV Template Image

The template image seems to advance Europhilia and anti-Americanism in that the euro symbol is placed in front of the dollar despite the fact that the United states is a larger and more powerful economic force than the EU. Shouldn't the Dollar be out front?

67.142.172.20 (talk) 00:43, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Europhilia? Hmm.

The gap between the currency zones is not huge,[3] but the little symbols were not really intended to display relative size of GDP &c. If they were, we'd use a graph instead. Some people might, alternatively, think of it geographically (the $ to the west and the € to the east); other people might think chronologically (the € overlaid because it's a newer currency than the $). Some might not care at all, as long as there are cute little balls of colour.

Don't read too much into it. Sometimes a cute coloured blob is just a cute coloured blob. And sometimes a lighthouse is just a lighthouse.

However, if you still find the image unacceptable, feel free to create a better one.

bobrayner (talk) 01:19, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

A new logo? A combination of the USD, the euro and the Japanese yen. Mm. Maybe with a Czech koruny in the middle? $€Kč¥ ! Walrasiad (talk) 06:58, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Proper Eurocentrism, AKA American exceptionalism denial. Seriously though the dollar sign alone, as its symbolism was used in Atlas Shrugged, is the best choice. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 18:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Atlas Shrugged is hardly a cornerstone of capitalism. Plus, in that dubious book the dollar sign isn't just the symbol of capitalism; it's also the monogram of the US and is tied to some odd ideas about gold. Some of Rand's ideas do not fit modern reality very well; there are plenty of capitalists in other countries who have no need of the $ monogram, and capitalism gets along just fine without a gold fetish.

Personally, I'd be open to arguments that the $ in the image should be more prominent, but maybe not Ayn Rand :-) bobrayner (talk) 20:13, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Well the point is that Money as such is a neutral device for value abstraction and exchange that doesn't imply a social order, economic system, etc. On the other hand the Dollar Sign is associated with that particular social order/economic system and so a consensus seems to be building that the dollar sign should be prominent and/or there alone. I don't think capitalism has any cornerstone except capital itself which has the distinction, lost on some perhaps, from general money noted. Certainly many champions of that order have considered Rands work to constitute a philosophical pillar of it if you will. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 21:08, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The Euro symbol might be over the dollar sign, but the dollar sign is first. You could argue that either of those promotes one over the other. As such, I don't think it's worth arguing about; it's just a symbol, and not intended to have some deeper symbolism than representing economics using two of the most prominent currencies. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The current image is ethnocentric. Proposing to create a new image, with three circles side-by-side of equal size, left most one containing the Euro symbol, center containing dollar symbol, right-most one containing Yen symbol. Illustration in black and white. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.93.163 (talk) 19:32, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Not bad but I would add more detail to free market capitalism

The state is not limited to just protecting property rights but as well as consumer protections especially fraud and being the "referee". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.240.199.188 (talk) 01:03, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Biased Point of View

This article is blatantly written from a Marxist perspective. The phrase "means of production" has strong Marxist undertones, as is the use of the word "capitalists" to refer to investors. The article's first sentence fails to point out capitalism's most important and recognizable feature - the limited power of the State. It needs a complete overhaul by someone who isn't a leftist. I'm not debating the virtues and vices of capitalism here - I'm saying that the terminology and tone of this article is very clearly derived from the Communist Manifesto. Falconclaw5000 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:45, 22 June 2011 (UTC).

The terminology is prior to Marx. It comes from Turgot, Adam Smith, David Ricardo, John Stuart Mill, etc. Its rather standard, and been used pretty conventionally across the board. The only word that comes from Marx himself is "Capitalism". And that's to his credit, since nobody else really identified it as a distinctive system before. It's not about being right or left. I can sympathize slightly with what you're saying, in the sense that the terminology has a slightly archaic feel. But all 19th C. Classical terminology feels archaic. And maybe it is true Marxists have been more prone to stick with older terminology - but that is because they rely on 19th C. models of analysis, and thus continue to use its terms. But then again, "Capitalism" - the title of the article itself - is old terminology. And few, beyond Marxists and their opponents, actually use the term. Walrasiad (talk) 03:13, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with the term: "means of production and distribution" While it is true that Marx used that term, it is s technical economic term.

However, I have a problem with this:

"profit is what is received, by virtue of control of the tools of production, by the capitalists"

This needs work since it is about ownership, not control. Perhaps there is some Marxist bias here. And, also indirect ownership such as a loan from a bank results in profit going to the bank and those that supplied the money to purchase the means of production (and distribution).

Tyrerj (talk) 21:17, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Hm. I see your first point, although there is an important connection between capital ownership and enterprise control needs to be underlined, i.e. that in a capitalist system, it is shareholders, and not managers, that "control" the direction of an enterprise. And it is by virtue of that control that capital-owners are the residual earners (i.e. claim the firm's profits, as opposed to just being paid some fixed "rent" by the entrepreneur for the use of their capital). But that can be a mouthful. Perhaps if one rewords it better? I do draw the line on your second point, though. A bank loan is not "indirect ownership". It is debt, not equity, there is no claim of ownership, indirect or otherwise. The bank receives interest, not profit - although that interest is indeed deducted from the profit that would otherwise go to the capital owners. Walrasiad (talk) 22:44, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I changed the last couple of sentences in the first paragraph, which were undeniably Marxist. Workers are not the only ones who sell their labor - any one who provides a service to an enterprise, and does not have an ownership stake in it, is selling their labor, since they do not profit from it DIRECTLY. The way the article was written before I changed it really stank of class warfare.

Here is the edited version. Before reverting the change, PLEASE discuss it: In any case, profit is what is received, by virtue of control of the tools of production, by the owners of the enterprise — those who provide the capital. Very often profits are used to expand an enterprise, thus creating more jobs and wealth. Wages are received by those who provide a service to the enterprise, but do not have an ownership stake in it, and are therefore compensated irrespective of whether the enterprise makes a profit or a loss. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.131.188.102 (talk) 05:32, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Some little mistakes:

1. Financial capital =/= Capital!!! Finance is lending, money, credit, debt; capital is equity, real goods, i.e. machinery, tools, inventory, real "stuff" that makes other "stuff". A firm can use finance (i.e. borrow money from someone else) to buy machinery for itself, but the financier (e.g. a bank) doesn't have an ownership claim on that machine. Moreover, you don't always need to borrow to acquire capital, e.g. you can build the machine yourself, stockpile retained profits until you have enough to buy it, borrow the machine from someone who owns one (i.e. issue shares), get it as a gift, steal it from another firm, etc. Moreover, finance doesn't necessarily go into acquiring new capital, e.g. finance can be used to pay a wage bill, past debts, etc., none of which is capital. I know newspapers are fast and loose with the terms, but there's a big difference between the economic definitions of finance and capital. So make it clear you're talking about the owners of CAPITAL, i.e. the owners of the "real stuff", owners of the tools, machinery, etc. - that is, the shareholders (i.e. owners of capital), not the "financiers" (i.e. lenders of money).

1. The definition of someone who owns his own labor and sells labor services to a firm in return for salary or wage of some sort is called a "worker" or "laborer". That's from the shop floor to upper management. CEOs, CFOs, etc. are "workers". I know of no other term in the field of economics to describe it. I don't see a reason to avoid it.

And one final more reflective comment:

1. "Owner of the enterprise" is a bit ambiguous, and touches on the deeper point about the definition of an "enterprise". Is it any more or any less than the collection of capital within it? e.g. suppose you are an entrepreneur, you come up with a business plan, found a firm, register the name, set out the plans, rent the space, hire the workers, negotiate the supply contracts, organize the production, make the sales, etc. But I happen to lend you the machinery (phones, desks, machines) you happen to use. Are you the owner or am I the owner of this enterprise? In a capitalist system, I am. This is the unique, central feature of capitalism. I, by virtue of owning the phones, desks, etc. you use, have "taken possession" of the entire firm away from you, the founder-entrepreneur. That's not true in other systems (e.g. cooperatives), where the "ownership" of an enterprise doesn't necessarily fall into the hands of those who happen to own the phones, desks, etc.

(The capitalist does have a strong defense of control: namely, that if the firm goes bust, you, the entrepreneur, just walk away, with your hands in your pocket, dreams broken, but that's about it. Workers might lose their jobs, but they still have their bodies, minds & labor intact; landlords can find another tenant. But me, the capitalist, I'm the only who's taken a permanent loss here, since its is going to be MY desks, MY phones, etc. that are going to be auctioned and sold off to pay off the debts incurred by the firm. Of the four participants in the enterprise(entrepreneur, worker, landlord, capitalist), I am the only one who risks coming out with less than I came in with. Since I am the only one risking permanent loss, then I demand - nay, have the right - to control. Why? Because I OWN the capital, because I own the only thing that risks being permanently lost by the firm.)

That's why private ownership of capital is of such central importance here. It is the core feature. It explains why firm ownership, control & decisions in such a system are structurally organized as they are. Saying merely "owner of an enterprise" pre-supposes that owner of capital and owner of enterprise are synonymous. That happens to be the case in capitalism - and a tremendously important feature that is indeed. That transition, from owner of capital to owner of enterprise, needs to be highlighed. Walrasiad (talk) 06:48, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the intelligent analysis. I made a few changes in the wording to resolve your concerns. If you would like to alter the wording further, or add something, let me know. Also, that transition does indeed need to be highlighted but I'm not sure if the introduction is a good place, or how to word it precisely, so you can do that. Falconclaw5000 (talk)

Lead paragraph issue

The lead paragraph to this article misses the fundamental defining criterion of capitalism: that production is structured around the accumulation of capital - investment in order to realize a financial profit and reinvestment of that profit in production. The lead paragraph places undue weight on one aspect of capitalism, namely distribution of income (in a manner intended to glorify the system). I would also add that private ownership of the means of production is not in itself the definition of capitalism, and although it has certainly been a strong point of advocacy by its ideologues, private property and even market allocation are in themselves only specific components of capitalism that are not by themselves intrinsic to the system as a whole. In reality, capitalism can (and does) take a variety of different institutional configurations - state enterprises/state capitalism, economic interventionist markets and free enterprise; however, the common and underlying element to each of these systems is that production is based on the accumulation of capital. As per distribution of profits, it should be noted that profits primarily go toward reinvestment in production and do not accrue primarily as income to capitalists. Capitalism is a system that is based upon the continued operation of this process, and the sum total of all social relationships (including the distribution of income) that arise from this process. Ironically, this also happens to be the most consistent analysis with Marx. Battlecry (talk) 23:28, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be discussing theories about capitalism, not definitions, and I'm not sure theories should lead the paragraph. It is not necessarily true that profit is reinvested in production. It is frequently used for consumption (often quite conspicuously so!) or lent to non-production entities (e.g. buying government bonds, lending for consumption loans, mortgages, student debt, etc.). In his analysis, Marx (like Ricardo before him) did simplify it to simple archetypes: "capitalists save, workers consume, landlords have fun". That's how he got his "all profits are reinvested". But clearly, that's not the case. Paris Hilton most certainly uses profits to live up the high life. And lots of wage-earners also happen to save and accumulate capital. Emphasizing private ownership of capital is hardly glorifying; indeed, it is Marx's number one point. His three whole volumes are dedicated to dissecting how that "fact" came about, and all the implications that derive from it. Indeed, it is because it is privately-owned that the structure of production becomes what it becomes. From that simple fact, all else follows, all the blessings and all the sins, of capitalism. Which is why Marx defines communism as exactly the same system in every way except one: collective (non-private) ownership of capital. Change nothing else. Just remove that one fact, and the entire system changes completely (to utopia, he predicts).

(P.S. - as I adverted before, please be careful with your use of the word "finance". Capital = machinery, real stuff, not paper debt. Best to avoid using the word finance altogether.) Walrasiad (talk) 03:50, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I am not arguing that all profits are reinvested into production, all I am saying is that profits in general have to be reinvested into production for the system to function. Yes, some profits are consumed by owners of capital, but overall, there has to be a reinvestment of profits into the economy for the system to reproduce itself. As for private property, I disagree with Marx, changing which entity legally owns the means of production does not necessarily change the underlying mode of production. The PRC's or Singapore's large state sectors are evidence enough of this, although they are publicly owned, they still operate for a profit and often reinvest this profit into the economy, the wage-system (which Marx considered to be a defining feature of capitalism) still remains in place as workers are still exploited in the Marxian sense (China is described as capitalist or state capitalist by non-socialist and non-Marxist commentators and political scientists). I am simply saying that some mention of capital accumulation should be included in the lead paragraph, because it is a fundamental aspect of capitalism. Battlecry (talk) 21:35, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the lead needs to highlight things that make capitalism distinctive, e.g. what makes the last couple of hundred years of economic growth different from any two hundred year period of Roman history or Chinese history. I think one difference is that capitalism grows through the intensification of production (phrase this however you want) and this occurs because a significant portion of profits is invested in new technologies (as opposed to more slaves or more land). So I agree with Battlecry. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:47, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Nice joke to define communism as the ownership of capital. Capital means private property and control of means of production. Communism means collective control over means of production, no private property at all, not any ownership, thus not any capital. -- ClaudioSantos (talk) 03:26, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I have added a reference to the accumulation of capital and competitive markets in the lead.Battlecry (talk) 00:34, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the reference to the accumulation of capital, for the reasons I have already given. To reiterate,

• "accumulation of capital" refers to only one of various possible uses of profit income by those who receive them. The form an income is received does not dictate how it will be spent. There was an old Classical archetype to facilitate analysis, but modern economics does not use archetypes. It allows for the reality that wages can be saved and profits can be consumed.
• Secondly, it implies motives that are not recognized by different theoretical schools. Marxists may believe capitalists seek to accumulate for accumulation's sake, but Neoclassical economists believe capitalists accumulate according to lifetime consumption pattern.
• Thirdly, even penny-pinching capitalists don't accumulate "capital"; they accumulate purchasing power, which may be held in the form of capital (shares) but can also be held in debt (e.g. bonds), or in cash, or in commodities, or in durable goods (e.g. jewellery, art, etc.)
• Fourthly, the phrase is distracting and potentially misleading; production decisions in capitalist enterprises are designed to maximize profits, not to maximize size. It is vital to keep that distinct and clear, whereas the "accumulation" phrase might induce a casual reader to mix them together. Walrasiad (talk) 19:20, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

You should define wht you undertand for Purchasing power and for capital, as you for some reason exclude cash, commodities and durable goods from capital while they could be also capital. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 03:45, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

A note on perspective

An editor has expressed concern of "leftist" viewpoint. In fact what you have is that to examine the thing from a neutral external and objective perspective is precisely what Marxism does or attempts to do (albeit from its perspective of the class struggle). Marxism is somewhat stranded in the nineteenth century but its actual rational basis carries forward in mathematical economics and mathematical treatments of various aspects of production planning, sociology, etc. to the present time. It is the subsumption of Capitalist relations and taking them as universal givens, even when one knows that they have developed from historical predecessors that is the POV pushing, albeit a consensus one that tends not to get the pushback it deserves. For one thing there are relatively few that can speak in objective terms outside the subsumption of particular established ways of doing things (i.e. relations of production) or outside a typically low overall intellectual stature but varying degrees of well versedness in Marxist/Trotskyite orthodoxy . It is rather the case that Capitalist viewpoint is inherently rightist, neo liberal or leftist bourgeois perspectives such as Soros, Krugman, etc. notwithstanding, so that the thing that regards it (Capitalism) externally as an other is naturally perceived as (and is in fact definitively to the extent it rejects it as necessary and universal) leftist. It's important to understand this in developing quality content for the article. The effect in the current weasel worded § on globalization probably is typical of much of the rest of the article. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 12:11, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Also the current text doesn't seem to point out that Capitalism is more than "just" an economic system, it is an entire basis and way of organizing society and production. One that determines what is possible, what can even be conceived within its given relations, though the § Democracy, the state, and legal frameworks would seem to be the place. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 12:33, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

As an article in the The New Republic, which this site calls "left of center" said recently liberals are capitalists. As it is a given that conservatives are, this is a pretty clear statement of the POV issue here. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 21:35, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

State capitalism v. Mixed economy

"State capitalism" seems to describe what is generally referred to as the "Mixed economy". To quote from the article: "state ownership of (some) profit-seeking enterprises that operate in a capitalist manner in a market economy. Examples include corporatized government agencies or partial state ownership of shares in publicly listed firms" (alright, I inserted "some", which I think is implied here; see also the mention of "partial" in the same section). That's a mixed economy, by definition! State capitalism as defined only makes sense if it refers to state ownership of ALL profit-seeking enterprises ... In other words, what is later referred to in the same section as "State monopoly capitalism." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.228.148.113 (talk) 15:23, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Mixed economy

I don't want to pp on the article directly, not being an expert on the subject. But surely it is worth mentioning that the "Mixed economy" was the dominant model in western Europe (UK, France, Germany ...) after the Second World War, right up until the 1980s, with major sections of the economy (rail transport, electricity industry, water supply and distribution ...) all being nationalised. The same applied (I believe) to other parts of the world, such as South America (but I might be wrong about that). The wave of nationalisation that swept the world after WWII was followed by a wave of denationalisation (or "deregulation") from the 1980s onwards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.228.148.113 (talk) 15:31, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Inclusion of Rand

Ayn Rand was not a person with any developed analysis of Capitalism, nor did she contribute to its understanding. Rand should certainly be removed from that list. It would be like including Chomsky in the same place. He is important, like Rand, but neither contributed their own ideas like Ricardo or Marx. Also, it seems like the introduction has a strong right-libertarian cast in including Rothbard and Mises, but excluding Ricardo, Smith and Marx, the latter three much more important to modern and historical understanding of what Capitalism is than the former two. There seems to be a knee-jerk reaction by many to eradicate any mention of Marx, or to even accuse words of being "Marxist." This is absurd. Marx, whether some like it or not, is next to Smith in importance in defining and understanding Capitalism. Even the right-wing University of Chicago recognizes Marx as one of the most important persons in the development of the Social Sciences, where Marx and Smith are required reading in their "Common Core" reading. Notably, Rand, Rothbard and Mises' works aren't part of that canon of books. Spartan2600 (talk) 21:34, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I do agree, except on considering Marx less relevant than Smith in the conceptualization of capitalism. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 03:40, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

No Rand is not worth credence on Capitalism as an economic topic, and her philosophical contributions are similarly trite and vulgar. Nonetheless, her contributions to the ethos and effective thrust of Capitalism and effect on same are undeniable, and to my mind, with their core message of rational self-reliant man as the sine qua non, essentially positive, albeit lopsided in relation to a man's role in society. Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, is I think the principal single title, and of course the rant at the end of Atlas Shrugged. It's false to say that she did not have a developed analysis, it simply wasn't from a perspective of classical political economy or economics. As Capitalism is first and foremost a way of being, a fundamental organisation of society, and then immediately but secondarily a mode of production, it is quite proper to have a recounting of her influence in the article. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 10:17, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be suggesting that Ayn Rand and her adherents made some sort of cultish fetish of their fuzzy notion of Capitalism. That may be worth noting somewhere in the article, but not properly in the first section, considering that Capitalism to most of the world is an economic proposition. I don't think "Capitalism is first and foremost a way of being" really says anything. TheScotch (talk) 10:56, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I certainly wasn't suggesting that she be mentioned in the lede. No comment on your other thoughts. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 10:32, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

The new introduction sounds horribly lengthy.

The newly edited introduction for this article sounds too ambiguous and it severely lacks succinctness and conciseness. I think when people want to quickly read information about a specific topic, they don't want an obscurely dull and time consuming introduction that explains why capitalism is difficult to define. If you're going to create such an introduction concerning why capitalism has multiple equivocal definitions that are difficult to define, at least add it to another section, and don't place it in the introduction. To exemplify the perfect type of introduction, it should be read as follows: "Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production are privately owned and operated for profit... etc etc".

Put the lengthy ambiguities under a new section entitled: "Differences in definitions" or just delete it or at least improve it.

Here's the introduction that I'm talking about if people don't know what I'm referring to:

"Capitalism has been variously defined by sources. There is no consensus on the precise definition of capitalism, nor on how the term should be used as a historical category.[1] There is, however, little controversy that private ownership of the means of production, creation of goods or services for profit in a market, and prices, wages and competition are elements of capitalism.[2] The designation is applied to a variety of historical cases, varying in time, geography, politics and culture.[3] It is generally defined as the economic system where the means of production are privately owned, operated for profit from investment, and in competitive markets.[4]"

Just my opinion Nashhinton (talk) 15:02, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I disagree. I think in this particular case the "ambiguity" should be noted from the outset. Capitalism is a term the proper definition of which there is no facile agreement among those who really have some sort of knowledge of the subject. TheScotch (talk) 10:41, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Capitalist mode of production pretty much captures it, but of course that's not going to work here, as truth/facts are famously not the decisive criteria in this site. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 23:56, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Capitalist mode of production may describe it from a marxist perspective, and may therefore be useful in marxist contexts, but that description is consequently either misleading or inaccurate when applied to the real world and to evidence-based economics. bobrayner (talk) 14:16, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

My response to this pre-given in perspectives thread above. The thing is only even fully understood as such (i.e. als "das Kapital") due to Marx. If you had a true Randian appreciation for the original creator of the intellectual product, you'd give him his due. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 19:35, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

What on earth does Rand have to do with this? I thought we were here to describe actual capitalism (ie. reflecting what reliable sources say), rather than listing semifictional rants about capitalism - although Rand and Marx's perspectives are probably both notable and influential enough to merit a mention somewhere further down in the article. In the unlikely event that the lede of "capitalism" is to focus on who was first to flesh out the term "capital", folk such as Smith did so far earlier than Marx, and he even had a slightly more workable theory of value. bobrayner (talk) 19:42, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I would define it something like this:

• a combination of economic practices that became institutionalized in Europe between the 16th and 19th centuries, especially involving the centrality of wage labor and the formation and trade in ownership of corporations (see corporate personhood and companies) for buying and selling goods, especially capital goods (including land and labor power), in a relatively free (meaning, free from state control) market, and which is now global in scope.

• 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.

... a definition that I think fits in which the major sources and accommodates all the main views in the article. The trick is where to be specific and where to be vrod and vague.

But, I am not xpecting others to agree with me. It is a complicated topic. Anyone who admits how complex it is, will, I think, ind out current introduction pretty reasonable and not overly long. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:22, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

It's not that complicated. The definition is rather simple: an economic system where production is primarily directed by the owners of capital. That's all there is to it. The rest follows from there. Just because you can build mountains of additional observations about the implications, features, theories, histories, etc. of that system, doesn't mean that the system itself is "undefined". It is very clearly defined and it is not "contentious". Besides, this is an encyclopedia, not a thesis, it is supposed to be a concrete point of reference, not ruminations. If the wiki article on something as amorphous as "Philosophy" can be given a clear definition in the introductory lead, then certainly something as simple and concrete as "capitalism" can too. Instead we got this airy "nobody really knows what capitalism is...." nonsense. Walrasiad (talk) 22:52, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

P.S. - Capitalism is not "theories" nor "beliefs". It is an economic system, about which there are theories and beliefs. Don't confuse them. Walrasiad (talk) 22:58, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

"an economic system where production is primarily directed by the owners of capital" sounds like a belief about capitalism to me. This does not surprise me because to my knowledge all social activities and institutions are intimately ties to beliefs about them. As for this particular belief, it may be a widespread belief. I am not sure that everyone shares this belief. But it doesn't matter. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. It is not our task to come up with definitions to words. Our job is to write the introduction to the article. In the body of the article, we provide multiple views (beliefs about) capitalism. Our introuction needs to introduce the article, and whatever it says about capitalism must be inclusive of all the views in the body of the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:59, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

It's not a matter of belief. It is a matter of fact. In capitalist systems, most firms are controlled and directed by shareholders (i.e. owners of capital). They're not run by workers, nor landlords, nor governments, nor bishops. Now, most countries might have some firms which might be run differently, e.g. household workshops, worker cooperatives, state-run firms, monastic abbeys, landlord manors, etc. But far and away the predominant form of organization of production in a capitalist system is the capitalist-run firm, i.e. where the board of directors of a production enterprise, the ultimate determinant of its production decisions, is elected by the capitalists alone. That's all there's to it. There is no "other" definition. That's one clear definition. That's what makes it different from all other economic systems (feudalism, communism, etc.). And it is from that "fact" that all the rest of the features of a capitalist system stem, all its blessings and all its sins, e.g. it is why production is designed for profit (capitalists are residual earners, so as the controller of production decisions of a firm, all its production decisions will be to maximize their earnings, i.e. for profit), the formation of labor markets (again, as capitalists are the residual earners and directors, then workers are "hired" by capitalists for pre-set compensation, i.e. "wages"), etc. You are overcomplicating a simple fact with hoary metaphysics. Walrasiad (talk) 23:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I never mentioned metaphysic or brought in any metaphysical claim. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:35, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

If OWS not critical of capitalism, why include it?

I removed the discussion of OWS under Recent criticism since it doesn't say that OWS is critical of capitalism:

Recent criticism of Capitalism relates to the late-2000s financial crisis, as seen in the Occupy Wall Street movement in the Autumn of 2011. While the movement has not formalised its criticism of capitalism or demands for reforms, political scholars have, nevertheless, begun to identify common themes such as objections to the "ruling economic class", or "the richest 1%", having undue influence on government policies and that this situation reflects a "failure of democratic representation" for the middle and lower classes, or the "other 99%". However, others point out that the policies being protested are the direct result of Keynesian economics, not capitalism. In fact, the source that the critics cite as being critical of capitalism makes no mention of it.

Jojalozzo 18:27, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

self-ownership - is it generally considered an element of capitalism?

Consider this paragraph:

[quote]There is general agreement that elements of capitalism include private ownership of the means of production, creation of goods or services for profit or income, competitive markets, 'self-ownership', voluntary exchange, and wage labor.[/quote]

Why is "self-ownership" in this list? The other items are easily measured aspects of a free market economy, and are generally included in most definitions of capitalism. Self-ownership is a bit of a fad in Libertarian circles these days, many Capitalists and Libertarians do not consider the concept well formed, at least as generally understood.

I doubt very much that there is "general agreement" that the elements of capitalism include "self ownership", or that there is agreement on how to measure it. Therefore, I'm taking the word out of the list for now. If I'm wrong, please add it back and add sufficient documentation to justify the claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathan.robie (talk • contribs) 13:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree this is problematic since slavery always has coexisted with capitalism. Jojalozzo 14:47, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Unequal income

I restored material an editor believes is SYNTH. I do not see any synthesis. Could you please explain what is the synthetic claim? We should not remove well-sourced content. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:49, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Pointless Garbage Removed from Intro

The intro contained horribly unfocussed and inappropriate tidbits about Karl Marx and the three biggest names in Austrian-school economics. It seemed like the results of some petty contest to see whose partisan political heroes could be name-dropped and associated with this broad topic as being the most notable authorities on the subject of capitalism (which is obviously contentious and absurd). Ludwig Von Mises is as significant to the topic of capitalism as Donald Trump is - and Ravi Batra much less than either of them. Those paragraphs had no business in a general article about capitalism, let alone the introduction. Maybe Marx should be mentioned somewhere in the article but certainly not in the intro. The rest were ridiculous. People need to ask themselves if this is the kind of thing they would ever see in a textbook or traditional encyclopedia article. Obviously it isn't. User:Lifterus (talk) 05:34, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Of course Marx and the Austrians are relevant to a discussion of Capitalism. They were major contributors in defining it, albeit from opposite ends of the spectrum. The focus on inequality in Capitalism is because it represents a chief attribute of the system, which has been systematically glossed over but is now increasingly being brought out, most notably in the Occupy Wall Street protests. The reasons for inequality has been tied to the role of capitalists, as custodians of wealth and originators of investment. This is an important rationale to bring out. As for the limits of the "modern" treatment of capitalism in encyclopedias and text books, there is an unfolding development, the biggest financial crisis in Western countries in seven decades has just hit! The best known recent "standard" textbook on capitalism is by Harvard Professor Mankiw. There was a national story this fall on students on US campuses, notably in Mankiw's class, who walked out in protest of his description. They claimed it was irrelevant due to a failure to address this key feature. We should discuss how to reflect the changing views on the capitalist system. Agree or disagree with Batra and Sarkar, who like Marx, shed light on an important glossed over feature of the system, its propensity to melt down after speculative manias and its failure to meet the needs of the poorest in society. Recently, 300 economists signed a statement in support of the concerns of the Occupy movement [4]. Omitting such material from the article results in its failure to offer a balanced description.Plankto (talk) 07:24, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

None of that needs to be in the opening. It is definitely not a "chief attribute" of the system. Of feudalism, maybe. Walrasiad (talk) 12:17, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Of course mention of the unequal distribution is needed. IT is the key feature of Capitalism. By the way, it is called CAPITALism not because capital has meaning in and of itself but because it is in the hands of the CAPITALists who by definition have more of it than others and thus more social and political influence, with implications for investment & economic growth, booms & depressions and poverty & misery. Study the following graphs until their meaning sinks in.Plankto (talk) 18:04, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

A chart showing the disparity in income distribution in the United States.

• Do you have reliable sources which support this redefinition? bobrayner (talk) 18:26, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Not all people believe that capitalism is based on the unequal distribution of resources, but this is a significant and well-established view of capitalism and it is presented with sources in the body of the article.

The introduction should introduce the article as a whole. All debates about content should be directed to the body of the article. The only question is, does the introduction accurately introduce the body of the article giving due weight to views expressed in the body of the article? If the body of the article says that there are two or three major views of capitalism, each one whould be summarized in the lead. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:28, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

@Plankto Capitalism is not a system built on hierarchical categories, like feudalism. Inequality is historical. Capitalism may not have mechanisms to fix historical inequality (although it does quite a bit), but that is hardly a "feature" of the economic system. Inequality began when your ancestors stole the land of whomever was there before. Thereafter, inequality persists by the law of inheritance. Capitalism, as a system, neither depends upon, nor requires inheritance. It can take it or leave it. As for distribution of income between wages and profits depends on many factors, most importantly the demand and supply for goods produced by industries which use different intesities of capital and labor. Now, you may complain about inequality within rich countries, but in poor countries the tendency is the exact opposite. After all, rich country workers are heavily overpaid relative to workers in poor countries, so it is natural, with trade, for labor-intensive industries to flourish in the latter and decline in the former, meaning you're bound to see (and do see) wages rocketing in poor countries, while remaining stagnant in rich countries. No mystery there. It also means, globally-speaking (i.e. across poor & rich countries, not within rich countries alone), capitalism has in fact been an enormous equalizer of global incomes. So if you wish to discuss "inequality", you need to be very precise about what you mean by it, make sure you got all your facts right, and make sure you can rule out more mundane reasons (e.g. trade, specialization, market-segmentation, etc.) for any patterns you might see. And even then, it is still not part of the introduction, as it is not a feature of the system, but something that may or may not happen, depending on how things go. Inequality is no more a feature of capitalism than AIDS is a feature of capitalism. They happen to both exist in capitalism systems, and in both cases, capitalism is not greared to fix either AIDS or inequality - it may, or it may not, depends. Walrasiad (talk) 19:05, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Walrasaid, you have expressed your own point of view. Big deal. Your point of view does not go into artciels. Nor does mine. WP only publishes the significant views found in reliable sources. Some of these argue that capitalism causes inequality; some do not. Both kinds are discussed in the body of the article, and both should be introduced in the lead. Please do not use WP as your soapbox. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:22, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

@Slrubinstein I agree. This should not be included. I am merely addressing Plankto's insistence on trying to include it as an "essential" feature, and thus in the introduction. If so, there should be some essentiality in its definition. And it's not even in the theory, much less the definition. Walrasiad (talk) 20:47, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Bobrayner, inequality is everywhere when it comes to the definition of capitalism. This idea is not a redefintion. However, the media reflection of capitalism is a moving target. For instance, during the years of the "Washington consensus" of neoliberalism, launched by Ronald Reagan in the 1980s, with such claims as "A rising tide lifts all boats", the issue of inequality was pushed into the shades and those few openly critical of this feature of capitalism were marginalised. However, since the crash of 2008, the apologists for capitalism have been on the defensive and the critics, including "We the 99%" or OWS protesters, are having their say about this key feature of capitalism.[5]

Walrasid, your analysis is not aligned with what the scholars of the field say (see below). Concepts like the "wealth held by the richest 1 percent" or the "Annual US income share of top 1 percent" or the Gini coefficient (see the graphs) are quite specific! Here are some quotes:

"The inequality of individuals with regard to wealth and income is an essential feature of the market economy." Ludwig von Mises, Human Action, p.287

"Of greater historical significance are the profits that arise under capitalism from the unique relationship between capital and labor - namely, as a surplus derived from the activity of production, not exchange. Here the key institution - the institution that reflects the inequality of power at the core of capitalism - is that of wage labor." Robert L. Heilbroner, The Nature and Logic of Capitalism, p. 66.

"Thus in the acquisitve age, all other sections submit to the wealthy who then control the means of production - land, factories, financial capital. Feudalism and capitalism, for instance, are two pointed examples of the acquisitive era of western civilization." Ravi Batra, Regular Economic Cycles, p. 27.

In the wikibook on Sociology there is this: "Karl Marx argued that the rich and powerful have control over the means of production, which is economic power, and they also have great influence on government power, including the rules governments follow, the people who work for the government, and the laws governments make."[6].

As slrubenstein suggests, the lead should reflect the main body of the article, which may need to be updated as well.Plankto (talk) 20:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

My analysis is very much aligned. Economics has much to say about the determination of income distribution in a capitalist society. Go look up the "Second Welfare theorem" or the "Stolper-Samuelson theorem". It's a lot more subtle than the facile rhetoric of sociologists. Walrasiad (talk) 20:47, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Walrasiad, the above quotes are not the facile rhetoric of sociologists but the insights of major economists. WP describes The Stolper–Samuelson theorem thus "[It] is a basic theorem in Heckscher–Ohlin type trade theory. It describes a relation between the relative prices of output goods and relative factor rewards, specifically, real wages and real returns to capital." SST belongs to trade theory, a limited part of economics. It is far too simple and contained a construct to offer anything close to a description of capitalism as a system, nor can it explain the inequality in society. or the power relations of capitalism. There is such a thing as not seeing the forest for the trees. Plankto (talk) 21:52, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Respectfully, from an non-expert's perspective, you seem far too close and invested in this material to make a good editor for an article on a broad term that is found in school textbooks. Perhaps you should be writing books on economic theory for which future wiki articles might reference. But I think your ideas of what is appropriate for this article, particularly the introduction, are severely divorced from reality. The introduction article should resemble an entry in a dictionary with a bit more depth. That is all. It is not a place for libertarian activists to name-drop their Austrian-school heroes, nor is it a place for progressive activists to name drop Ravi Batra - as if there haven't been thousands of opines and ideas on this subject by countless other "experts" before them. The petty agendas behind throwing those particular names in there was so obvious I would almost call it vandalism. The notion that any of them are the top figures on the subject is absurd. This isn't like saying "Adam Smith said this, but Karl Marx said that" - which would be sloppy and lame but still acceptable. Smith and Marx are 'major historical figures found in junior high school textbooks. Ludwig Von Mises and Ravi Batra will almost certainly not be found in a typical college textbook. Whether you think they should be or not is irrelevant. The inclusion of them in this article (let alone the intro) is controversial, and one should strive for non-controversey when it comes to these things. The best way to approach this is to do it in a vanilla way that won't bother anyone which would result in a discussion like this. Lifterus (talk) 00:18, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Lifterus, respectfully, your suggestions are not in the WP spirit. WP is not the Encyclopedia Britannica. Capitalism, as a social formation, is being discussed in society (media, universities, workplace, cafes, etc) at any given time. Today, the front burner issue is inequality and what to do about it. If you would bother to read the OWS/Occupy movement articles, you would see that there is a groundswell social reaction in the USA against the distributive policies of the past three decades. Can those people protesting be written off as "progressive activists" who are "divorced from reality"? No, of course not. This is a factual development backed by RS. The recent massive financial aid to Wall Street, rather than to Main Street, seems to have triggered the protests. The Arab Spring was also an impetus, the link being to reinvigorate democracy in the USA, and remove the monopoly of big corporations on US policy. Should these facts be reflected in the article on Capitalism. Of course. Here is another fact for you. Today, there are 40 million Americans who are judged by the US government to be living below the poverty threshold. That is one in six. There are plenty of RS for the protests against and measures of the inequality. I put it to you, is omitting such facts about capitalism not being divorced from the reality of its result? Plankto (talk) 07:59, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

No, the frontburner issue is joblessness and the recession, and what to do about it. Unemployment is a reality. Inequality is just a statistic. That a bunch of ill-informed young people imagine that the reason jobs don't exist is "because them rich folks done gone stole 'em" is just usual mob scapegoating, imagining conspiracies and cabals are behind their frustrations. Unemployment and inequality are bigger than Goldman Sachs. Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of economics can easily analyze and explain the current sorry situation without resorting to tall tales of the Illuminati. Mobthink is not RS. Walrasiad (talk) 16:16, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Walrasiad, I'm sure that's all very brilliant, but the fact remains that OWS is focusing on the inequality. For your information, Batra's theory of depression is based on growing wealth concentration. In other words, inequality causes unemployment. Check out his 1987 New York Times best-selling book The Great Depression of 1990 (originally titled Regular Cycles of Money, Inflation, Regulation and Depressions), p 122-127. Heilbroner also viewed inequality as a major outcome of capitalism as well as its organizing principle. Heilbroner's book The Wordly Philosophers is still the second best selling economics book of all time.[7] Certainly, scholars like that may be cited with RS, while our thoughts, however, won't do.Plankto (talk) 20:06, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

PS You boys are going to love this CNN story: Obama says economic 'inequality' hurts everyone.[8]Plankto (talk) 20:27, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

When Bobrayner asked if someone has reliable sources, he was asking a good question which I think was wildly misinterpreted. What we need a source for is not the "fact" that capitalism presupposes or produces structural inequalities; what we need is a source that supports the claim that this is a significant view of capitalism. Instead, we now have a little debate over the causes of the current crisis in the Atlantic economy.

None of this discussion is helping us improve the article. The purpose of talk pages is to discuss improvements, and if talk does not lead to an improvement that means editors are abusing the talk page. This is not the place to debate our beliefs about the economy. All of the discussion in this section raises simple issues that can be resolved by appealing to policy, not CNN stories. The first is NPOV. If you guys have not read the NPOV policy recently, with respect I suggest you read it again. NPOV was designed for just these situations. Walrasaid and Plankto have strong views about the economy. WP does not care which of you is right and which of you is wrong; this is not the place to discuss who is right or wrong. NPOV says that WP articles are not the place to write about "the truth" precisely because editors will disagree over what is the truth. Therefore, NPOV demands that our articles include all significant views. This will include the views of economists, but also sociologists and historians and prominent and influencial activists. If you want to be a constructive WP editor, you would practice adding to articles views you passionately reject as false, because this requires a set of dispassionate skills that WP absolutely depends on. Make sure that views you think are absurd or silly or evil are represented in a neutral way, and you will be improving WP. The criterion is: is the view significant. Nothing that Plankto or Walrasiad have written suggests that the views being discussed are insignificant. Tht being the case, we have consensus that all of these views belong in the article.

The other guideline relevant to this discussion is Reliable Sources. Again, if you have not read this guideline recently I urge you to reread it. What you should be focusing on is identifying the reliable sources that best represent the significant views you have brought up on this talk page.

The only questions you should be debating is: which are the most reliable and credible and appropriate sources for each of the views (Marx vs. Weber vs. Hayek; Keynes vs. Friedman; economists vs. historians vs. sociologists; capitalists vs. communists vs. socialists vs. anarchists) and how to represent all of them neutrally. Once we can agree that the body of the article represents opposing and antagonistic views neutrally and accurately, we can discuss how to craft an introduction to the article - a lead that introduces people to the article as a whole, to the body of the article.

I have not seen any discussion of these issues which really makes me wonder what you guys hope to accomplish. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:13, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, capitalism is an evolving entity. While underlying principles remain the same, some of its features have changed. For instance, manufacturing giants like GM and US Steel ruled the US economy in the 1960s. Today, however, it is financial behemoths like JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs that rule the US economy. While mid 20th century or earlier economists can discuss the underlying features of capitalism, they cannot be expected to say much of anything meaningful about the form of capitalism we have today. In the 2010 documentary Inside Job, which is a stunning piece of work, we see how the US government and economics profession became captured by $5 billion hand outs from the financial services lobbyists prior to the collapse. One notable commentator in the documentary called Obama's administration a "Wall Street government" and said that if asked about the financial reforms he would reply "Hah! What reforms?" In short, it is the powerful corporations that STILL write the legislation that purport to regulate it. There are plenty of RS on this.

Tell us what the Reliable Sources are. How do you measure the significance of the views? Be sure to include views you do not ascribe to. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Despite such flagrant facts, including the OWS protests, some here want to avoid the discussion of inequality, calling it "pointless garbage" and proposing it be deleted from the lead and economists who've made a name exposing it, be stricken too.

So what? this page is not for discussing your beliefs. And it doesn't matter what any editor thinks - the only response to someone saying that a view is "garbage" is to ask for a reliable source demonstrating that this is a significant view and then we add this view to the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Their desire is to offer a "vanilla" description, so as not to arouse controversy. That is beyond lame.

You should not be editing WP. It is utterly irrelevant that you think this view is lame. As long as it is a significant view from reliable sources you should be wrking to include it. I asked you to read NPOV and now I will tell you since you seem to be clueless about our policies. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Even President Obama has now publicly acknowledged that "inequality is a problem". The Occupy Wall Street/Occupy movement protests, statement of 300 supporting economists, speech of President Obama, works of renowned scholars of capitalism and reports in the media confirm that this is a significant view of capitalism. WP is not intended as a glossy brochure for representation of the idealised system, but the real deal, how the system really manifests. The improvement in the article is tied to the relevancy of the content. We should focus on that. But as you say, we should try to do that in a fair and balanced manner, representing the differing viewpoints. Plankto (talk) 23:06, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

"Today, however, it is financial behemoths like JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs that rule the US economy." ?? Bizarre. Speak with a guy in Egypt, and he's convinced Mubarak ruled the economy.

It does not matter what a guy in Egypt thinks. That is not a reliable source. It does not matter whether you think this view is bizarre. The only question is, is this a significant view found in a reliable source? If it is, you should be working to include this view in the article. You need to read NPOV as you are disregarding our core content policy. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

And .... well, you get the idea. So, at what point do markets & reality come in to this story? You know, minor things like the demand & supply, capital-labor ratios, population growth, costs of production, technology, unemployment rates, trade, etc. 200 years of economics, 200 years of systematic and careful analysis of what determines wages and profits, and all that is to be thrown out the window because of a cheap documentary?

It does not matter if any editor says that we should throw out these views. As long as you can demonstrate that these are significant views from reliable sources, they must go into the article. If anyone says otherwise, as long as we have reliable sources you can simply ignore him. But if there are opposing views that also come from reliable sources, we must include them to - not despite the fact that you consider them bizarree but because you consider them bizarre: WP is inclusive of views we do not agree with, like, or understand. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

All this progress, enlightenment and education, all these years of economic research, debate and inquiry, and the best story we can come up is that it is all "ruled" by a international conspiratorial cabal of financiers with suspicious-sounding last names? *sigh* Where have we heard this story before? Oh, yeah, from the mouths of fearful illiterate peasants back in 19th C. Tsarist Russia. Their analysis was no less deep, and their conclusions no less careful, than what is being pursued here. Walrasiad (talk) 08:15, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I apologize for cluttering this. My intention is not to propose my view, but to emphasize the standard view of economics (I have a view, but I am not articulating it here).

If you do not wish to clutter, then do not argue. Simply ask for the sources and open up a discussion about the significance of various views. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

My point is simply that the view being pushed by Plankto is a fringe view.

Some views may be fringe. Others may not be. All you have to do is ask for reliable sources and evidence of significance. If you do not know what these terms mean for goodness sake just read WP:NPOV and WP:RS. But the simple fact that you vehemently disagree with these views does not make them fringe. This is not how we determine what is fringe versus a minority view. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

That this view happens to be riding a wave of street popularity, does not mean it should be inserted into the lede. The standard view you'll find in any economics textbook is straightforward: Does inequality exist in capitalism? Yes. Is inequality essential to capitalism? No. Does capitalism increase inequality? Sometimes. Does capitalism decrease inequality? Sometimes. Can we say anything about inequality in capitalism? Yes, quite a lot. What can we say? It depends. Walrasiad (talk) 08:46, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Guys, please take this to your talk pages. This is a debate between the two of you, it is an abuse of the talk page as nothing you are writing is moving towards improving the article. Both of you continue to ignore NPOV and RS and are wasting everyone's time. Stop performing for a non-existent audience; if you want to argue between yourselves you can use your personal talk pages or e-mail. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, with all due respect, I raise two points, one on protocol and the other on substance, hopefully to bring some order and result to this discussion. First, it seems a bit disrespectful to tear up another editors comments, even if on a talk page. Also, it is not for others to assume the discussion is of no interest than to those engaged. Some read the talk pages of popular articles like capitalism and may join in the conversation to contribute. The only aim of editors should be to improve an article and editors should always assume good faith even if sentences are not carefully composed or if there is little agreement with points made. Your concern about NPOV and lack of SR, while perhaps understandable given debate about specific points, is misplaced when it comes to the material in the article. Since the talk page discussion began, in order to reach a mutual understanding, no attempt has been made to reinsert the text on inequality in the lead. Second, the discussion is focused on 1) the existing lacuane in the article on this topic and 2) the significance of the topic for the article subject matter. In fact, it has been shown that inequality is a well established feature of capitalism (see graphs above), even if it differs across countries and time. The debate has touched on the degree of acceptable inequality. The two main polar opposite views on inequality are that it is a) necessary (neo-liberal capitalism) and b) unacceptable (no capitalism, but communism). However, inequality also involves social acceptance. As inequality in countries ranges from high (e.g. USA) to low (e.g. Sweden), there are different problems in society. Some hold that as wealth increases so does inequality, but that all benefit as the wealth spreads. This notion is called tricklism (a rising tide lifts all boats). Economist Ken Rogoff, in an article below, notes that Sweden has managed to maintain good economic growth while keeping inequality low. Others consider that growing inequality leads to more wealth but that eventually a depression results, which causes misery to the poorest. Meanwhile, the wealthy remain unaffected. This now appears to be the case in the USA and hence the social acceptance of the greatly increased inequality is being objected to and questioned. The recent OWS or "We are the 99%" protests reflect that. The fact that the President of the United States of America, Mr. Obama, has given a speech echoing this theme is also signficant. A statement of 300 university economists in support of the demands of the OWS protesters is also significant. This alone makes inequality relevant to the article about capitalism. Additionally, economists describing capitalism have always had something to say about inequality in the system. Of course, they are also of two or more views on its implications. A Google search of "Inequality & capitalism" yields no less than 6,460,000 hits! With an abundance of material it is a matter of presentation to satisfy RS and NPOV criteria. See for example the following:

• NEUTRAL: [9][10]
• SUPPORTIVE: [11][12]]
• CRITICAL: [13][14][15][16] [17]

It should be possible to introduce a paragraph on inequality in the lead, based on material in the body of the text, that satisfies sensible editors concerning RS and NPOV.Plankto (talk) 22:29, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

@slrubinstein, The burden of proof is not on me. It is for the pusher of the fringe view. The problem with disproving a "fringe view" with sources is that such views are not discussed in RS - that's precisely why it is "fringe". Open your average economics textbook and you won't find it anywhere. The best I can do here is show you that there are chapters on income distribution, and those chapters discuss the determination of wages and profits in quite some detail. I've already cited two universally-accepted examples from the professional literature (Second Welfare Theorem, Stolper-Samuelson), which prove the opposite of the statement that is trying to be pushed here, i.e. they show that it is quite possible for capitalism to lessen inequality, and that it frequently does so. It is, of course, a conditional result. And that is exactly my point: there are no blanket statements that can be made about this.

By way of analogy, it is like inserting a statement in the introduction of an article on the "Males" that "Another feature of men is that men beat their wives". Well, some do. Some don't. Certainly it is not an "essential" feature of malehood to be thrown into the introduction (which really should be focused on distinctive chromosomes and genitalia, not on whether some people think men are wife-beaters). This is not to "ignore" wife-beating, or pretend it doesn't happen. It is just not essential to a discussion of the Male Sex. Now, I'm sure there's a handful of fringe-thinkers out there who believe all males are wife-beaters at heart, and that is essential to the definition of malehood. And yes, an activist rally may contain more than a few of them. But that's not how the profession discusses the male gender (nor even how they discuss the phenomenon of wife-beating). How do I provide RS to prove that not all men beat their wives? There is no study out there that links maleness to wife-beating, save for a couple of fringe folks who want to prove that it does. I can simple show the negative cases, of males who don't beat their wives, or other theories of wife-beating (e.g. conditional on alcohol, etc.) to prove it is not "essential" to malehood. Walrasiad (talk) 06:35, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Text books cover theoretical representations of perceived dynamics in the real world. Theoretical constructs like SWT or SST are too limited to reflect real world dynamics, such as the social and political fallout from excessive inequality. They are also not always correct and, to the extent they have merit, such dynamics may become irrelevant in extraordinary circumstances. Take note also of the fact that a majority of economics text books were silent on theories suggestive of another major financial crises, until it happened. The text books covering inequality did so as a limited analytical problem. It has now become a major problem, with individual lives in the balance. I recommend to editors of this article to read the Occupy Wall Street article and Obama's recent speech. Let's get real here. An article about capitalism needs a description of both the theory and reality.Plankto (talk) 08:19, 8 December 2011 (UTC)