This is an archive of past discussions about Capitalism. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Exploitation of workers

I fail to see how "exploitation of labourers" could be part of any serious definition of capitalism. As far as I know, only Communists employ such a definition. This should be made clear. As it is now, it just looks like "exploitation" is a neutrally accepted view adopted by most people - which it is most definetely not! The question of exploitation could be explained and treated in the criticism section, but should not be included in the definition. Luis rib 19:20, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

But why should the communist definition be exluded? Or the anarcho-capitalist? The intro only state "some combination" not "all of the following". Ultramarine 19:22, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Because of this sentence: Nevertheless, virtually all definitions of capitalism describe a system composed of some combination of the following conditions. Exploitation of workers is certainly not part of virtually all definitions. Luis rib 19:26, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Right, "exploitation" is a criticism of capitalism, but apparently it's not part of definitions out there. Besides, definitions themselves, to be good, reliable definitions should be NPOV. I don't think "exploitation" is an NPOV term since in this case it would refer to an "unjust" use of people. RJII 19:28, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Exploitation is part of some definitions. And there is certainly no consensus on some essentials which are part of all definitions. Either remove the intro completely or allow listing of the essential parts of all definitions, not only the pro-capitalist ones. Ultramarine 19:33, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please cite a reputable definition of capitalism that says exploitation is a condition. RJII 19:40, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

David Harvey defined capitalism in terms of three features: it is growth-oriented ("a steady state of growth is essential for the health of a capitalist economic system"); "growth in real values rests on the exploitation of living labor in production;" and it is "necessarily technologically and organizationally dynamic."

This is hearsay. What are David Harvey's words. This may be a criticism of capitalism rather than a definition. RJII 19:52, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Eric Wolf defines capitalism in terms of "three intertwined characteristics:" First, capitalists detain control of the means of production. Second, laborers are denied independent access to means of production and must sell their labor power to the capitalists. Third, the maximalization of surplus produced by the laborers with the means of production owned by the capitalists entails "ceaseless accumulation accompanied by changes in the methods of production" (Sweezy 1942: 94; Mandel 1978, 103-107).

Again, may be hearsay. What are Wolf's words and are they a definition of capitalism or a criticism? RJII 19:52, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Dictionary of Critical Sociology: "A system which separates workers from any property rights in the means by which they produce culture by their labor. The system transforms the social means of subsistence into capital on the one hand and the immediate producers into wage laborers on the other hand. Most of the time, capitalism is defined as the private ownership of the means of production but that definition does not encompass the great harm done to humanity by the system. By claiming all (or most) of the means to produce culture as private property, a small class of owners preempts material culture to their own comfort while denying the vast majority the means to subsistence as well as the means to produce ideological culture when they are not working." Ultramarine 19:43, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Strangely, I always believed that capitalism was the system that actually allowed workers also to own capital, should they wish and have the means to do so. The last source also seems quite biased to me. Not to mention that none of those definitions uses the word exploitation. Luis rib 19:49, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The first one does. I am not an proponent of either anarcho-capitalism or marxism but these schools are certainly influential. So their essentials should be listed, not only those of ordinary pro-capitalists. Ultramarine 19:53, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Its not because their biased view is influential (is it really? it seems to me that marxism doesn't have a broad appeal in the population) that it should get the seal of respectability and neutrality by wikipedia. By all means, mention it later on in the article (actually, I find this whole article already rather POV, in the pro-marxist sense), but not in the definition. Luis rib 19:57, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If we are going to define capitalism then that definition should be NPOV. The sources we reference should be regarded by consensus as NPOV as well. The NPOV sources for definitions are some of the major dictionaries out there. Merriam-Webster, for example --commonly regarded as a generally NPOV source. We can't just pick any definition that some college professor (such as David Harvey) happens to make up and put out on the net. We wouldn't be doing our job. And, "exploitation" is not an NPOV term. RJII 20:03, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Some would argue that MW is the product of an american capitalist company and is not NPOV. Why should Communist dictionaries and scholars be excluded? There are still several states that embrace Communism and Communist parties are inflential in many nations. And the definitiona above are cited and in one case an exact reference is given. Ultramarine 20:12, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I guess it comes down to what the consensus is of what definitions are NPOV and which aren't, as well as what sources for definitions are widely-regarded as NPOV and which aren't. But if college professor happens to define capitalism as "exploitation" it's irrelevant. RJII 20:15, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I didn't have any college professor that included exploitation of workers in any definition of capitalism. Luis rib 20:25, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes you do. David Harvey is Professor of Geography at The Johns Hopkins University. RJII 20:31, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I meant that I personally didn't have any professor like that. But what you say explains it all: what does a professor of geography have to do with economics, for god's sake? I could as well ask a finance professor to comment on Shostakovich's Leningrad symphony. Luis rib 21:27, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. I thought you were Ultramarine. But, yes. RJII 21:31, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Be glad for that :). But some theorists definitions are important and widely used by other scholars. And the "Dictionary of Critical Sociology" is an example of how capitalism is thought of in much of the Marxist literature. Ultramarine 20:29, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

All the capitalism stuff in there is from a guy named "Cobb." Who is he? RJII 20:45, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

First, this discussion -- in which people point out that each others' definitions are POV -- was precisely the reason why a year ago or so people agreed tothe three bullet-point definition, as an inclusive basis for a more complex discussion. Second, Luis rib's point that Harvey is a geography professor and not an economics professor is irrelevant. Economists do not have a monopoly on analyses of capitalism, nor do they have any particular authority. Yes, views of economists shouold be represented, but scholars from many disciplines have provided detailed analyses of capitalism (including Harvey). Finally, RJII's claim that the definitions by Wolf and Harvey is "hearsay" is a ridiculous objection. These are paraphrases of Wolf and Harvey which is completely legitimate in Wikipedia. RJII is grasping at straws because he has done no research while others have done serious research. The sources for these definitions are Wolf, Europe and the People Without History page 78; Harvey comes from The Condition of Postmodernity page 180. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:42, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Blah, blah. RJII 18:17, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

some contradictory

What is contradictory in there? RJII 21:37, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

economic system dominant in the Western world since the breakup of feudalism

Ultramarine: You put the above back in after I deleted it, saying "Is it NPOV to only represent the pro-capitalist definitions?" I don't understand what you mean. How is not putting that in there pro-capitalist?? Anyway you asked for a citation that there is not consensus that the modern economies are capitalism. Here's one: "What we have today is not a capitalist society, but a mixed economy" -Ayn Rand (from Playboy interview). She is a very published, influence, and noteable author ..unlike the geography professor you quoted above. Need another? "There's nothing remotely like capitalism in existence" -Noam Chomsky RJII 21:59, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

" Communist parties still rule several nations and get many votes in many other nations. Their views are widespread." <-what are you talking about? RJII 22:08, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Communist parties still rule Cuba, Vietnam, North Korea and China. Communist regularly get around 10% of the votes in many countries. This is certainly a more widespred view than those of Rand, anarcho-capitalits or minarchists. The Libertarian party only got under 0.5% of the votes in the US and much less for similar parties in other nations.

So you're saying that communist label the modern economies as "capitalism"? They're probably using "private ownership of capital" definition, as is typically used by Marxists. In that case any country where capital is privately owned is capitalist, regardess of the modes of distribution, freedom of the market etc. RJII 22:18, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The private ownership of capital definition is not a Marxist definition. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:46, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You have still not shown any references for this "Marxist" definition of capitalism. And no, MW and OED are communist dictionaries. Ultramarine 22:21, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You still don't get it. Marx never defines "capitalism." He USES the term "capitalist" to refer to people that own capital. And Marxists use the word "capitalism" to refer to the condition of being a capitalist. RJII 22:23, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You are wrong. Marx characterizes capitalism as a structure, and explains what structural features define capitalism. Just because you are ignorant of Marx does not mean that Marx didn't have a definition -- it means only that you are ignorant. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:46, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

So you have repeatedly stated without ever producing any references as required by "cite your sources" policy. Ultramarine 22:29, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Oxford English Dictionary has a definition. RJII 22:34, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As I stated a few lines up, OED is not a marxist dictionary and not evidence for how Marxists define capitalism. (And no, nor is MW a marxist dictionary). Ultramarine 22:38, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You don't need a "Marxist dictionary." They don't use the word in any uncommon way. The definition in the OED is common. That's how they use the term. RJII 22:42, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

So you claim. But without sources as required in "cite your sources". Ultramarine 22:44, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What the hell are you saying? Sources for what exactly? RJII 22:47, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please read "Cite sources". Please read the above section again to refresh your memory. Ultramarine 22:53, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What is it that you would expect such a source to say, generally? RJII 23:14, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please read the above section again. You have attributed various statements and definitions to Marxists. Please cite sources. (And no MW, OED are not sources for what Marxists think.) Ultramarine 23:16, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No I haven't. RJII 23:24, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You wrote: "They're probably using 'private ownership of capital' definition, as is typically used by Marxists." and "Marx never defines 'capitalism.' He USES the term "capitalist" to refer to people that own capital. And Marxists use the word 'capitalism' to refer to the condition of being a capitalist."

Please cite sources for your claims. (No, OED and MW are not marxist dictionaries). Ultramarine 23:31, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No. I'm not required to cite sources for what's posted in Talk. RJII 23:32, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ok. Please never use these claims as support for changing the article itself. Ultramarine 23:35, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I cite sources for what I post. RJII 23:38, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

RJII is covering up for his own ignorance. Ultramarine is completely correct -- OED does not provide "Marx's definition." If you do not know what Marx's definition is, RJII, then just do not go around claiming you know what it is. But if you insist on claiming you know what it is, you must provide a source from Marx himself!!! Slrubenstein | Talk 17:46, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There is no "Marx's definition." He never defines "capitalism." Again, things just go in one ear and out the other with you. You're a complete waste of time to talk to. RJII 18:20, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Marx does explain what capitalism is, and he does not say it is "private ownership of capital." Just because you do not know what Marx's definition of capitalism is does not mean that he does not have one, it means only that you are ignorant. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:54, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

How old are you? RJII 19:05, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What difference does it make? What is important is that contributors to this article be committed to our NPOV and NOR policies. Marx explains what the capitalist mode of production is -- and it is not "private ownership of capital." If you are going to present a "Marxist definition of capitalism" you must do research and provide sources. Appropriate sources for a Marxist definition of capitalism is not a dictionary, but a book by Marx. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:17, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What does any of this matter if I've never made any post in the article that claimed anything was a "Marxist" position? Dude, get a clue. RJII 19:21, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You did make such a post to the article. In this edit summary [1] you explicitly provided "Marx" as a source for your definition, "private ownership of capital." And as I have explained, you are wrong. And although I have asked you to provide the actual source for this definition (you write "Marx" but neglected to say what book or chapter or page), you still haven't backed up your own claim. From this I infer that you have not done serious research. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:56, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Distribution of wealth

Now that the intro question seems to have been resolved, could we discuss the distribution of wealth paragraph, which makes lots of assertions that seem wrong to me? In particular: where is the source for this sentence: Typically between 0.5% and 1% of people own more than half of productive capacity, if not half of all wealth? Where are the various studies? Luis rib 12:16, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This is probably exaggerated, but wealth inequality is high all over the world, probably most probably most in Latin America which is not particularly capitalist. But search for wealth or income inequality in Google scholar and papers that show that in the US the top 1% own 30% of all wealth are easily found. I do not have the time now to find a recent, good summary. Ultramarine 20:16, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

New Intro

I've put together a new intro that is hopefuly less disputatious and more rational (an explanation follows):

Capitalism is an economic or social system typically regarded as being comprised of the following conditions: 1) The "means of production" or capital are privately or corporately owned and operated in order to obtain a profit. 2) Investment, distribution, and production decisions are privately determined. 3) Prices are determined by trades that occur in a free or relatively-free market. 4) A competitive environment exists that is favorable for owners of capital. (see definitions of capitalism for various published definitions)

Some maintain that capitalism was institutionalized between time frames approximately corresponding to the period between the 16th and 19th centuries in Europe. Probably most assert that it exists in some economies today. Some assert that capitalism has never existed. Others hold that it has existed in the past but no longer exists. Noteable economists and political philosophers differ broadly in this regard.

Explanation... I used the term "typically regarded" so that stray definitions by malcontent college professors don't count. I think I've obviated any need for government to be mentioned (typical definitions out there do not mention government anyway), by pointing out "private" ownership and "private" decisions --private means government is not involved --so that takes care of laissez-faire. "Free market" is there as that is very typical in definitions. And, 4 is something that I think both Marxists and pro-capitalist individuals can agree on ...life is better if you have capital. Not only this, but it also accords with a definition of capitalism in the Oxford English as well as according to other definitions that mention competition. Finally, I took the assertion that capitalism has been established out of the definition, as that goes beyond defining capitalism, and put it in a separate pararaph noting the lack of consensus. I also added a note about Ultramarine's definitions of capitalism article. Finally, I put the conditions in sentence form as a way to help force or guide people to make coherent statements. Any objections or recommendations? RJII 14:25, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

RJII writes, "I used the term "typically regarded" so that stray definitions by malcontent college professors don't count." -- This is laughable! All you are saying here is that "Since I have not done research, what I say is true, and anyone who has done research is wrong!" This is not the way to write an encyclopedia. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:48, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The research is right there in definitions of capitalism, buddy. Stop your disruptive behavior. RJII 18:01, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes, you are pointing to research that I and Ultramarine did. What research have you done? Slrubenstein | Talk 18:52, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I consulted your research. Why should I do the grunt work? That's your job. RJII 19:24, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, we know what Slrubenstien and Ultramarine feel about it. Slrubenstein vandalizes the intro and seems more intent on playing nerd-style "king of the mountain," and Ultramarine insists on an intro with bad writing and incoherent thoughts. RJII 17:59, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If you think I am a vandal have the guts to say so on the "vandalism in progress page" and request mediation, arbitration, or some other action against me -- and try to prove it. Put your money where yor mouth is. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:14, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Go to bed, little boy. RJII 19:28, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi RJII, I've just wandered in here, so I'm not sure what the main issues are. What in your view is wrong with the introduction that Ultramarine reverted to? SlimVirgin 18:50, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I'd like to answer you in full, but we've been going at it for awhile. In fact this entire Talk page is an attempt to get the intro to make sense. So, you could read some of that to get an idea. I think most people think the intro was bad ..didn't make much. I've suggested a version which I provided just above. What's in there now is a new suggestion of Ultramarine's. Personally, I think it's attrocious. RJII 18:58, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've done a light copy edit of it just to tidy it. If I've inadvertently edited in any factual errors, feel free to revert. SlimVirgin 19:24, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Briefly looking through the recent versions of the intro, I prefer this one myself. SlimVirgin 19:30, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Feel free to put it in there if you like. I'll edit it to hell and back though. RJII 19:35, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please say why. SlimVirgin 19:43, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

That's all explained on this Talk page. No reason to go through it all again. RJII 19:45, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Slrubenstein's edit has just improved it, in my view, though personally, I'd get rid of the minarchist/Marxist paragraph only because it's probably too detailed for the introduction. But that's a minor point. SlimVirgin 19:47, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with SlimVirgin, the second paragraph is bizarre and not helpful in the intro. Will take it out, but, RJII, im not vandal. Mgw 19:55, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore, RJII, I would like to know why you fell so strongly that Anarcho-Capitalism should be in the intro. You keep putting it back in, but its really an obscure point that doesn't belong in the intro.

Mgw 19:59, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Mgw, you must have me confused with Ultramarine. He was putting anarcho-capitalism in, and I was removing it and accusing him of pushing anarcho-capitalism.

My own belief is that the introduction should introduce the article as a whole, and discussion of specific definitions and theories belong in the body of the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:19, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It looks good as it currently stands. SlimVirgin 20:23, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

"From your mouth to God's ears." Slrubenstein | Talk 20:31, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've looked at the intro, and tried to follow the Talk: pages. The intro as it stands seems reasonable and compehensive to me. It looks better than previous versions; significiantly better in some cases. Jayjg ^(talk) 08:50, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[A]re the ruling ideas

God has nothing to do with it. I have a problem with how this intro speaks of most definitions, then proceeds to legalistically illustrate one favourable to capitalism out of it (which I realize is the aim and POV of most involved here, so no suprises on that front). Well, it isn't the number of definitions, qunatitatively, but the impact each had, that the definition (the definition that claims it is a summary of definitions) should encompass — not one pro-capitalist definition based on this most factor.

1. Capitalism is not simply a system, as I already stated here, strongly, it is an economic system with particular economic charachteristics. As the New Webster Dictionary for the English Languages (print) pointedly states in its one sentence definition: "Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production, distribution and exchange are privately owned and operated for profit."

2. The role of capitalists remains omitted (!). The role of wealth being highly centralized and concentrated (250 billionaires own as much wealth as 2.5 billion poorest people - a factor of a million to one), within a tiny segment of the population. This isn't merely a demographic footnote, it's absolutely pivotal as to how capitalism operates, socially and economically.

That is 10 million to one. Elected leaders, patriarchs, dictators and oligarchs control tremendous wealth and power also, and act far more coercively. Probably not all the 250 are capitalists, and there are millions of capitalists that are not billionares. Perhaps you should look at what capitalists do with their wealth, there is no way they can consume even a fraction of it. If they were to take it all and buy gold with it, they would probably be doing the owners of the gold a favor by taking a relatively useless metal off of their hands. Instead they use if for something far more valuable than gold, they productively employ it to produce goods and services for billions of people, providing opportunities for millions to be productive. The world is a richer place because wealth is producing wealth rather than sitting statically, or just changing hands in a zero sum game. How many of those 2.5 billion people live in capitalist countries? What makes you think this concentration of wealth is intrinsic to the capitalist system? Can you cite a theory that proves that wealth concentrates like this? Although the "capitalists" seem to be much better at productively employing wealth than traditional coercive power regimes, I suspect that much of this concentration is due to the intervention of government. The Saudi billionares received favored treatment from the Royal family. The Royal family itself nationalized wealth that it had no right to. Even a seemingly benign billionare like Bill Gates, relied on artificial government protection of intellectual "property". Still, however these people got their wealth, they have little choice but the productively employ it. If instead they find some way to spend it on worthless trinkets like jewelry, gold faucets, paintings, etc., then they no longer have the wealth. Someone else does who probably probably employ it more productively.--Silverback 13:06, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

3. That modern Political economy is fundamentally based around approches to capitalism, as I stated a few weeks ago: the Left seeks to reverse it revolutionarily, the Moderate Left seeks to reverse it evolutionarily, the Moderate Right seeks to retain it in a reformed form, the Right seeks to retain it. That the article is somehow incapable of outlining this broadly and instead using the specific theories as pretext to 'give up' and opt for the most summary (which sneaks one of these through the backdoor), is not an approach I find credible.

I suggested a few weeks ago (no comments in response were provided) that the intro should aim towards something between the Economist and Monthly Review, instead (predictably), it appears to go with the former. I'm not sure why I expected more (I didn't, really, it was largely rhetorical): A definition of capitalism, written under capitalism, by a website owned by a capitalist (whose own ideological affiliation, Rand, is grossly overrepresented here, as in elsewhere in other articles, as per her own historical/political/economic/etc., impact; 'ideas of the ruling class remain, as always, the ruling ideas,' with NPOV being a mere buzz word for ours is neutral). This is all to be expected, as are the objections I posed and continue to pose, as is the fact that they are going to make no difference whatsoever, with the exception of, perhaps, making a few people think a bit more critically – that, too, is an accomplishment of sorts. Sorry, SlR, I think you are a fine anthroplogist, but this opening paragraph is one that I find highly lacking. At least it isn't original reserach, though, it's just very, very selective. Until a few decades ago –one third of the planet– was officially committed to reversing capitalism, but apperently this isn't even worth being mentioned as a minor footnote in this intro. Intellectually, historically, a grotesquely political omission.

On the other hand, we have RJII who makes an original research, abstract contradistinction which I don't find has basis in fact. S/he writes: The other, somewhat prevalant, set of definitions do not refer to the nature of economic decisions or methods of pricing and distribution but, instead, define capitalism as the private ownership of capital. I'm sorry, RJII, I have never heard of that distinction made by anyone (and I just noticed your comment now on my talk page, sorry I overlooked it the day you sent to me). Ownership explicitly intimates decisionmaking (and I don't mean just in the abstract, but historically it has and continues to) on some and/or all of these fronts; I don't know anyone that sees this (superimposed, I argue) distinction as even remotely mutually exclusive as you phrase it. On the contrary, the two fit quite well together, and have been written on extensively as an interconnected whole; so, it is my understanding that this do not refer bit is made-up stuff. I see no evidence that any of the major theories from the Left, M Left, M Right, and Right, treat it in this way.

Argh, I don't blame you SlR, but had it not been for your request, this would have remained one of several articles in the enecyclopedia that I would never, ever read, because I know, for it, NPOV is mere lip-service and it would just upset me, pointlessly, which it has. But I do hope my points above resonate, somewhat (you've heard it all, I know, but it's the context which matters). And RJII, no offence, but you need to do more research on the subject, you're treating complex theories far to simplistically and reducationistically, and originally. Yet, depite this (and I argue, because of this) unfamiliarity with the material, you are able to highlight some truths which those with greater expertise (ironically, to the left of you) are dogmatically b(l)inded (chained, even) to overlook and ommit. But such glimpses are, of course, not nearly enough. El_C 23:52, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

My first reaction to your comment was to laugh out loud, since this whole article is already way too much POV in the opposite sense (i.e. pro-marxist). If you want to see totally biased articles, look at Communism or The Black Book of Communism. Reading those makes you wonder how all the states that embraced communism could fail, and why voters in Russia and Eastern Europe have consistently rejected Communism in all elections since 1989. Paradise lost? It seems more like there never was a paradise. Luis rib 11:04, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have no interest in engaging with polemics with you, especially on such a superficial and antagonistic level. I am disheartened that you opt merely for combativeness rather than addressing the specific items I raised. If you wish to discredit my argument (which I did expend some effort into formulating, though that seems of little consequence to you) in such a dismissive, abrasive manner, well, naturally I find that a dispiriting (but far from an unexpected) response, that remains your prerogative. El_C 11:32, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't mind discussing with you, and am glad you remain open to discussion. The previous comment was, as noted, my first reaction, though I guess you can infer from it my general position. Of course I'm willing to engage in civilised and hopefully constructive discussion. I will take your own structure, if you don't mind.

1)I agree that capitalism is just an economic system, and that it should be pointed out.

2)I disagree with this point. Inegality exists, and there's no doubt about that, but the numbers you cite are misleading. The billionaires you cite reside mostly in the US, which has a rather extreme version of capitalism (though admittedly sopme claim that it is the purest capitalism in existence). In Europe, inegalities are much lower, especially in the Scandinavian countries. Also, the 2.5 billion poor you cite live mostly in countries which are not capitalist, or which have only become capitalist in recent years. India, for instance, had a planned economy until the early nineties, which might (and in my opinion does) explain the wide-spread poverty that still exists there. China too only embraced capitalism in the last 20 years, and the regions that remain untouched by it (the interior provinces) are, of course, very poor. Africa has certainly the highest levels of poverty, but again almost no African country is truly capitalist. Botswana, Mauritius and South Africa are exceptions, and are also the African countries that managed to develop most. Most other countries have maintained dirigist state-controlled economies, on the Indian model. The lack of infrastructure is also a huge problem in Africa, and one that global capitalism has indeed failed to address. Latin America, finally, has the highest levels of inegality, but again in Latin America interventionist politics have prevented real free markets from emerging. Wealth is concentrated among very few people which have strong links to politicians, which prevents the competition that is necessary in true capitalism (NB: the US also partly have this problem, if you think about the shocking monopoly that Bill Gates' Microsoft is allowed to enjoy).

3)You are right that the article is messy and mixes all the ideas instead of clearly stating which political wings adopt them. Maybe a new paragraph/section should be added, which could explain these different approaches.

4) I don't know the Monthly Review. Is it an American news magazine (I live in Europe, btw). The Economist is certainly right-wing, but usually relatively neutral (at least they give arguments for their positions). In some previous version, I had suggested to add a different paragraph in the intro that would explain the marxist or left-wing definition of capitalism. Somehow, this disappeared in the following edit war. After all, why should the intro only have a single paragraph? It should, i think, have two or three, where the different positions relative to capitalism are explained. On the other hand, I don't think there is any need for the minarchist (what the hell is that anyway?) or anarcho-capitalist versions. I agree with your proposal of 4 views: the marxist, the moderate left, the moderate right, and the libertarians. Concerning your comment on Communism, I maintain my rather aggressive view of it, which I wrote in my previous comment. Fascism also once controlled a big chunk of the world, yet that does not mean that the views of Fascism should be granted the same importance as other, more pacifist, views.

5) I don't think that this article is highly imbalanced, at least if you consider it as a whole. Some sections are clearly POV from a marxist point of view (worst of all, in my opinion, the Distribution of wealth section). Other sections are POV from a right-wing position. Yet if you compare this article to the article on Communism, it is a totally neutral article. Any contribution to the Communism article that tries to criticise it will immediately launch an edit war that will end with numerous counter-criticisms to the initial critique. Any single critique one makes has to be weighed by sources. I would like this to be the case in this article as well, especially, again, concerning the Distribution of wealth section, which claims without citing any sources that a handful of people own half the wealth in the world.

Well, now I took some time too to answer your comment. I would gladly read your reply. Luis rib 12:34, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Alright. An (amicable) word of advise, though, try to always aim at a diplomatic intro to such contentious subjects, when deeply-held convictions are involved. You know, it is a fact that there are certain items within your own exposition above that make me, sort to speak, cry out loud (and I mean, profoundly so, as was the case in your lol case, I gather), but I still wouldn't phrase it in that way (though I just did, but only to illustrate this point), and instead aim for collegial and professional delivery from the outset.

With that preamble out of the way, I'm writing in haste so, regretfully, I will not be able to respond to your substantive comments above as I have to get going in ~5 minutes; even with what I intend to say now, I have to be brief. A word of caution first: in light of the wide-ranged scope of your comments, my response may end up being rather lengthy – perhaps we should continue the discussion on a subpage and link it here as (hopefuly) a must-read (?). Anyway, before I go, If I could quickly respond to/reference your very last sentence/query, which reads:

I would like this to be the case in this article as well, especially, again, concerning the Distribution of wealth section, which claims without citing any sources that a handful of people own half the wealth in the world.

"[T]he recently published UNRD report ... provide[s] a snapshot of what is going on in terms of economic development patterns around the world ... The staggering disparity between the richest and the poorest is illustrated by the observation that 225 billionaires own more than the disposal income of 3.5 billion people, while 1 billion people do not have the purchasing power to meet basic human needs." (Sustainability and Profitability: Conflict or Convergence?, Univ. of Cambridge Programme for Industry, 1998 PDF).

Of course to those billions, disposal income is their wealth, thus, the figures are rather similar when it is measured as such. Note that the following UN study is from 1996, the above from 1998. Since class inequality has risen so much in the last ~decade, I believe my 255 viz. 2.5Bn example is valid, but I wasn't able to trace the source for it on-the-fly, nonetheless, it is still a few hunderd individuals versus 2.x billions, so in a general sense, it makes little difference either way.

"The world's 358 billionaires own as much wealth as the world's poorest 2.3 billion people, 45% of the world's population." (Human Development Report, United Nations Development Programme, Oxford, 1996).

So, indeed, not a handful — as I claimed in my first comment, a few hundred. El_C 14:25, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Irrelevant crap"

El_C, I didn't put original research into the article. It's not surprise that you think I have given some of the falsehoods a certain individual here has been perpetrating. I put in the definition of capitalism that says it is the private ownership of capital. I provided a source. The source was the world's most respected dictionary in the world. The Oxford English Dictionary: ""The condition of possessing capital; the position of a capitalist; a system which favours the existence of capitalists." As you can see, the word is not only used to refer to an economic system, but also merely to the ownership of capital. I noted in Talk, that when Marx is referring to a "capitalist" he's referring to someone who owns capital. And, that the definition in the Oxford was an extension of this usage of this word. But, I've never mentioned anything whatsoever about Marx or Marxism in the article. The claim above that I did was a lie. The "original research" claim is just a diversion from someone who has nothing better to do spend his time arguing irrelevant crap. RJII 15:52, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Negative. I quoted you directly from my Talk page, I never said you lied, I did not mention your view in extension to Marxism, nor have I commented on your version for that matter (only SlR and UM's), except touching on your original research premise that ownership-decisionmaking are defintionally distinct — which is your original research (lifting part of it from the Oxford dictionary to create it and all the bravado in your above comment notwithstanding). You have no reference that speaks of this distintiction outright, as such, you made that stuff up yourself. At any rate, I don't believe you read my comment closely enough, nor do I think that you are sufficiently well-read or have the background to be writing about this issue. And, moreoever, you seem too emotionally immature and not accustomed to dispassionate intellectual debate. Oh, and incidentally, I take exception to your claim/insult that I have nothing better to do than write irrelevant crap, that is false: I do have better things to do! Yes, yes, I'm off to do them (wish me luck!). :) El_C 21:35, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Apparently you have no idea what I was saying. I wasn't even talking about you. I know you never said I lied. When I said "the claim above that I did was a lie," I wasn't referring to you. I was talking about how you might think that my post to the article was unsourced if you were reading some of the info above that was a lie from someone else ..not you. The "irrelevant crap" comment wasn't about you either. Your response represents a total misunderstanding. I was being nothing but civil with you. If anything I wasn't clear enough, and I apologize for that. RJII 23:58, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Argh, no, I apologize for that. Yes, it was a bit unclear, but not that unclear. I misread you because I was writing in haste, I shouldn't have written anything. Hmm, I realize this dosen't reflect well on me. At any rate, got home after a long drive and now I need sleep. Since I'm not fully coherent, maybe I shouldn't be writing this now either (alas, I'll regret it when I wake up – how convinient is that!). Again, sorry for the harsh, misdirected words, indeed, a product of a misunderstanding (on my part). I think I should probably end this comment now and revisit this when I'm more lucid. El_C 12:02, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I am not a liar -- it is telling that when confronted with facts you retreat into personal insults. You have posted this definition in the article, and here on the talk pages -- and talk pages are for discussions about how to improve the article, and explanations for chantes to the article -- you have claimed that this is a marxist definition. Yes, the quote was taken from the talk page -- but so what? It is the "talk page" of the "Capitalism" article!!. Moreover, in this edit summary [2] you explicitly provided "Marx" as a source for your definition, "private ownership of capital." Slrubenstein | Talk 21:12, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's clear for all to see that you lied about me, and I resent it. And this is not the first time that you've been dishonest. Here is where you lied:

RJII:"Marx does not define the word "capitalism" --just as Adam Smith doesn't. I don't have to do research for a damned thing that I haven't posted in the article. I never posted anything in the article that was labeled as a Marxist definition. You're out of line. RJII 19:15, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC) Slrubenstein:I am quoting you right here: "...the basic Marxist definition of capitalism --the private ownership of the means of production." So yes, you obviously have posted something that you yourself labeled a "Marxist definition." The problem is, your Marxist definition is wrong. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:23, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC) RHII:You're a liar. That was taken from the Talk page. That was never posted to the article. Again, I find over and over you to be a reprehensible disingenuous individual who is a complete waste of time to have a discussion with. So, this concludes my wasting my time talking to you. I forget that I had come to that conclusion before. RJII 19:41, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Respond if you want, but I'm not going to respond to you. As I said, you are a waste of time for me to converse with. Find someone else to get into petty disputes with. And adjust your behavior. It is not civil to lie about fellow editors. RJII 00:10, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

RJII, could you I ask you to stop the personal attacks and reversions, please, because it's just making people mad at each other. The version you've reverted to is not particularly well written apart from anything else, and the second paragraph is very woolly: some maintain this, others hold that. Notable economists and philosophers are referred to but not named. Perhaps instead of reverting, you and El C could say what you feel is missing from Slrubenstein's version (below) that needs to be in there as well; or how to reword the sentences you're not happy with. SlimVirgin 16:17, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

You're wrong to single me out. The last person who was banned from violating the 3 revert rule here was Slrubenstein. Before that, it was Ultramarine, and then me when my record was researched afer reporting him. The version I just put in there was there before it was reverted to the version I just reverted. So, don't point your finger at me. This edit war is from all sides. Why don't you just reword what you don't like about the version I just put in? RJII 16:28, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Capitalism is a system that rose to dominance in Europe between the 16th and 19th centuries and replaced feudalism and mercantilism. There are many, sometimes contradictory, theories and definitions of capitalism that developed in the 19th century, in the context of the industrial revolution, and in the 20th century, in the context of the Cold War. Most definitions of capitalism include some combination of the following: the right of individuals, or groups of individuals to act as corporations with distinct legal personality, to own and trade private property including capital goods and land in a competitive environment in the form of a free or relatively free market, where price and wages are determined by supply and demand, and where there is investment for profit, with risks being assumed by the investors and investment decisions being made privately; the state is relied upon to protect private property rights; explicit and implicit contractual obligations are adjudicated by the state or contractually specified third parties.

There is not enough consensus among notabeable theorists to assert in the intro that capitalism was implemented at any time or that it exists today. For example,Noam Chomsky says "There's nothing remotely like capitalism in existence. To the extent there ever was, it had disappeared by the 1920s or '30s." "And, Any Rand says, "What we have today is not a capitalist society, but a mixed economy." Rand also believes capitalism has yet to be implemented, hence the title of her book "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal." So this latest version of the intro takes the unqualified assertions out of the definition (where they do not belong) and puts in it a separate paragraph that states that lack of consensus. RJII 16:59, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The views of Chomsky and Rand are tiny-minority views that need not be referred to here according to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and certainly not in the introduction, as neither of them has any expertise in this area. Capitalism certainly does exist; it's simply not unfettered. Who are the economists and philosophers you refer to? SlimVirgin 17:23, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

To hell they are "tiny-minority views." They are major figures with hordes of followers. I noted those two because they are on opposite sides of the fence politically, for the sake of NPOV. RJII 17:27, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Regardless of what anyone thinks of them in general, their views count as tiny-minority and uninformed under the NPOV policy because neither of them has expertise in this area, and they're expressing a controversial position. If you want to attribute views to anyone, it would make sense to attribute to economists, or others working closely in the area. Under the Wikipedia:No original research policy, we can only refer to ideas from authoritative, published sources, and while Chomsky would count as such on linguistics, and Rand on Objectivism, they're not authoritative sources here. SlimVirgin 17:46, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

Given your protestations, there is apparently a lack of consensus that they are authoritative source. I think they are, and many others do as well. Rand, for example, is very well regarded as an expert on capitalism by MANY. You want economists? Look up the Austrian School ..they think that the modern economies are "mixed economies." RJII 17:51, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Also, there is the claim in the definition that capitalism "replaced fuedalism." There is not consensus of that either. For example, Oppenheimer says that capitalism is by a combination of fuedalism and markets. The point I'm making here, is that a definition is capitalism is one thing. These other things in that paragraph are supplemental assertions that are going beyond defining capitalism. Capitalism is what it is. A definition says what it is. Whether capitalism as is defined has been implemented is another subject entirely. Such assertions don't belong in a definition and only cause disputes such as the ones I'm bringing up. RJII 17:57, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The point I'm trying to make is that edit disputes are often solved by sticking closely to Wikipedia's two key policies, and by avoiding personal attacks and revert wars. If we stick closely to Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, we will seek to describe the majority and significant-minority positions of scholars in this field, attributing the views we mention to particular individuals or schools of thought, where appropriate. I'm not saying that Chomsky or Rand couldn't be referred to somewhere in the body of the article (though personally I wouldn't), but their views are not dominant or scholarly enough for the introduction. Also, the policies state that the burden of evidence lies with the editor who makes the edit, not with any editor who challenges the edit. I don't intend to be hostile with these remarks; I'm only arguing in favor of sticking to the policies in order to solve this dispute.

I disagree they their views are not prevalent enough to prevent one from making such outright assertions of what is supposed to be consensus. The consensus is just not there. It looks to me like you're trying to push your POV, while I'm just trying to allow all noteable sides to be represented. You're the one that needs to look at the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy. RJII 18:21, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Regarding your second point (we had an edit conflict, so I've only just read it), it makes sense, in my view, to place capitalism in relation to other economic sytems. This article isn't called "definition of capitalism." I'm not sure what you mean by: "For example, Oppenheimer says that capitalism is by a combination of fuedalism and markets," but if you have an authoritative position you can cite (so long as it's not a tiny-minority view), you can certainly include reference to it. I wish I knew what POV you feel is being expressed by the Slrubenstein version, because I honestly couldn't see one. Sorry if I'm being dense. SlimVirgin 18:07, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

Right, the article is not called definition of capitalism, but Wikipedia policy suggests that each article begin with a "good definition" or description of the article. For awhile now, it's been trying to define capitalism. By the way, the last version I took out was not Slrubenstein's version, but Ultramarine's. My problem with Ultramarin's is that it presents itself as represnting a definition of capitalism but then makes the additional assertion that it has been implemented. That's like defining communism and then pointing to Cuba and saying communism has been implemented. Sure, many would agree with you, but many would also not agree. The version with bullets that Slrubenstiein liked was just a mess. It made no sense if one looked at overall logic of it. Others agreed, which is why that version has been discarded. RJII 18:21, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As I said, the way to deal with edit disputes is to stick very closely to Wikipedia's policies. If you want to say that capitalism has not been implemented, please cite an authoritative, academic source. SlimVirgin 19:02, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

What do you consider an "academic source"? Your college professor? RJII 23:49, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

RJII, I've asked an editor who has a degree in economics for his views on this (though whether he'll have time, I don't know), and I'm also looking through the books I have here in case I can find anything to help you out. SlimVirgin 19:31, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

That's fine, but your friend is no more qualified than me on the matter. RJII 23:50, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's false to assume that capitalism is a monolithic, unchanging thing that one definition will suit. Surely, modern American capitalism is vastly different from early industrial capitalism in Great Britain. Adam Smith would most likely oppose corporatism and other modern developments of capitalism, but that does not mean he was not a capitalist theorist, nor does it mean that we do not have a capitalist economy in the United States. We should define various trends in capitalist development and definitions by theorists of opposing viewpoints. --Tothebarricades.tk 00:44, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with that for an important reason. Capitalism doesn't change --it's definitions of capitalism that change over time. Economic systems can change and evolve, but it doesn't make any sense to say that an economy that was once capitalism and that has evolved into another form is still capitalism, by the original definition of capitalism. If that were the case then any state of affairs is capitalism. So, again, it's definitions of capitalism that may evolve, not capitalism itself. You bring up "corporatism." There is a reason that there is such a word --the reason is that it describes something other than capitalism. RJII 02:11, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

labor

I put "labor" back in the first paragraph. There is no doubt that in capitalist economies labor is a commodity -- economists talk about labor markets all the time, and all big business have offices of "human resources." Slrubenstein | Talk 21:17, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There is no doubt???? I see you never had a single economics class in your life! Labour is definetely not considered as a capital good! Wages are supposed to be determined by markets, yes, but that does not mean at all that the labourers are bought! They just sell a service. The distinct feature of labour is exactly that it cannot be owned by anyone. And if you look at big businesses: none of them has labour on their accunts - exactly because labour is not an asset you can own. I'll therefore revert it back. Luis rib 21:21, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You are correct -- I should have said "labor power." Slrubenstein | Talk 21:22, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please note, too, that the first paragraph is not a definition of capitalism but a list of elements that are found in various definitions of capitalism. Some definitions do not include a concept of "labor-power" but some do. the same can be said for other elements. NPOV requires as inclusive a list as possible. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:25, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

NPOV does not require wrong facts to be included. Labour power cannot be owned, therefore it is not a good. It's as easy as that. Also, the sentence talks about capital goods, which are in exact opposition to labour power. The previous intro already states that wages are determined by supply and demand. I think that's clear enough. Luis rib 21:28, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

(not a comment on the above) Luis rib, I haven't forgotten about you, I will return to respond to your comment at length soon (right now, I'm off to attend this Chinese function). El_C 21:41, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

no prob. please take your time Luis rib 21:42, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Rand is a legit reference

Rand was a seminal figure in putting forward capitalism as an ideology that was defensible on moral grounds rather than just practical grounds. She was influential beyond just those roids that called themselves objectivists, and her works were the second only to the bible in sale for many years. In a sense she helped to bring capitalism "out of the closet", and should be given her due. I was a bit surprised to find only an external link reference. There was one reference to Milton Friedman that I spotted that was also a natural place to include her and perhaps her one time associate, Greenspan.--Silverback 12:29, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

But perhaps not for the intro, which is where RJII had her. SlimVirgin 15:14, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

Original research and the definition of Capitalism

As can been seen in definitions of capitalism, there are numerous and sometimes contradictory definitions by different authorities. In the introduction to this article there has been numerous attempts to construct a new definition. These are all original research. Saying that the new definition reflect "most" of the authoritative definitions is inevitable subject to POV regarding which definitions to include and thus original research. There can be only two solutions:

1: No definition, just a statement referring to definitions of capitalism.

2: A summary allowing all the elements from authoritative definitions published elsewhere. Ultramarine 14:47, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There is no possible way to list every interpretation of capitalism out there, nor should we. We should focus on the "typical" definition or description of capitalism. I maintain that the typical is that which reflects what is found in modern popular dictionaries. The best dictionaries out there conduct thorough research to find the most typical usage of terms. All we have to do is put those definitions in our own words. And, as long as it's labeled as "typical" it's a true statement. Sure, some personal judgement comes in in regard to what is typical but there is no way of avoiding some judgement on such things. That doesn't constitute being "POV." I think you're going overboard with that. POV would be claiming that capitalism is good or bad, or presenting it as such. RJII 14:57, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There have been numerous edit wars with no resolution in sight. For example, the current attempt excludes mentioning strong property rights, by many economists today considered the most important element, and that it followed Feodalism, probably considered important by every significant theorist. And dictionaries are not more important than theorists or papers, the theorists and papers are often the source for the definition of the dictionaries. No one would would consider MW to be more important than mathematical papers regarding definitions in mathematics, for example. Ultramarine 15:06, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A distillation of the pure meaning of capitalism is not original research, it is more of a summary. The intro should present the aspects of capitalism that capitalists are willing to defend and that opponents of capitalism must meet in the field of ideas and not a strawman for non-capitalists to attack.--Silverback 15:23, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A "distillation of the pure meaning of capitalism" is certainly original research and would be an immediate Nobel prize if correct. Ultramarine 15:26, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please give reference for this extrapolation of no original research policy.--Silverback 18:05, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Compromise intro

As the revert war continues, would this do as a compromise?

Capitalism, also known as the free market, is an economic system that rose to dominance in Europe between the 16th and 19th centuries, replacing feudalism, and evolving out of mercantilism. It is typically regarded as comprising the following: 1) most of the means of production or capital are privately owned, and are operated for profit; 2) production decisions, prices, and wages are determined by market forces; (3) groups of individuals have the right to act as corporations with distinct legal personality; (4) there is investment for profit, with investment decisions being made privately, and with risks being assumed by the investors; (5) the state is relied upon to protect private-property rights; and (6) explicit or implicit contractual obligations are adjudicated by the state or contractually specified third parties. SlimVirgin 15:14, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

See above. The mentioned two alternatives are the only ones that are not original research. Ultramarine 15:15, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Which part(s) of my compromise constitute original research, would you say? SlimVirgin 15:19, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

Your exclusion of the anarch-capitalist, minarchist, marxist defintions being some. And many of the authorative defintions strongly exclude some of the elements that you say compromise capitalism. Ultramarine 15:22, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

First, The anarcho-capitalist and minarchist definitions are not any different. They use the same definition. Where do you see a mention of government in that? That definition definitely allows for the existence or non-existence of government. About the so-called Marxist definition, whatever it is, if it was "typical" usage of the word it would be included in the authoritative dictionaries out there. If you insiste on having it, indicate it in another paragraph, because it's not typical use of the word "capitalism." If we list one non-typical definition, we would have to list all non-typical definitions. RJII 15:30, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The minarchist includes a state, see Rand for example, and the anarcho-capitalist excludes a state by definition. Why should anyone of us decide what are typical when economists do not agree and do active research in this area? This is original research on a high level. Ultramarine 15:38, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

To say that saying that something is "typically regarded as" is original research is taking that concept to an insane extreme. You're going to far, man. RJII

I wouldn't mind adding a sentence about Marx to the intro. I was thinking of adding something along the lines of Marx arguing that exploitation of the working class is a necessary component as the value of the commodities labor produces must exceed the market value of the labor itself. But I'm not sure how to word it, and I have no Marx at hand to quote from. SlimVirgin 15:35, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

not too bad, except the assertion that capitalism arose, etc. And I think the description of the system could be worded better. What's wrong with this other than it doesn't assert the rising of capitalism --no "original research" and no POV that I can tell:

Capitalism' is an economic or social system typically regarded as being comprised of the following conditions: 1) The "means of production" or capital are privately or corporately owned and operated in order to obtain a profit. 2) Investment, distribution, and production decisions are privately determined. 3) Prices are determined by trades that occur in a free or relatively-free market.

Excludes strong property right, as stated by many economists today considered the most important element. Ultramarine 15:24, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Silverback, your intro is very definitely OR. I'd revert, but now have no idea which version to revert to. RJII, what is wrong, in your view, with the capitalism arose sentence? It's quite factual. There's no need to say privately or corporately owned, because we later say what a corporation is. Also your version makes no mention of the state's protection of property rights which is crucial. And you don't say what a corporation is. And capitalism isn't a social system; it's an economic system. I'm not sure what "economic and social system" means in this context. And the means of production are mostly privately owned. SlimVirgin 15:28, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, :Asserting that capitalim arose is not a definition or description of capitalism. It's an assertion that goes beyond definition what capitalism is. I think there is a need to say "privately or corporately owned" as capitalism can exist even if there are non-corporatized businesses. "Private or corporate" is actually said in the Merriam-Webster definition, because of this. I don't think you need to mention state protection of property rights, if property rights exist then wouldn't you think a state would be protecting them? By the way I didn't say "econimic and social system" but "economic or social system." I'm fine if it doesn't say "social system." I guess I was trying to appease someone who earlier kept bringing up Rand's definition. RJII 15:39, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Slim, I have produced versions of the other alternatives as well. One of them seems closely related to yours, check my edits right after someone elses, I tried to get certain changes into each version. We already have a page of definitions, so what we need in the intro is a summary or distillation of capitalism as the defenders of capitalism see it. I don't think that has to be considered original research. I am replicating my current proposal here:

- - Capitalism is the use of tools to increase the productivity of labor, an intrinsic, almost definitional human characteristic. Because the labor used to craft or acquire tools is diverted from directly meeting one's needs, capitalism requires forsight, the investment of time or resources, and the forgoing of some current consumption. This phenomenon flourishes in a society that allows the rewarding of this deferral of consumption with profit. The term capitalism has come to be associated and ultimately to sometimes mean those conditions in which allow it to flourish in mass society, i.e., low information and transaction costs (free markets, contract law, a culture of honesty and opposition to fraud) and which ease the raising of capital with limited liability artificial legal entities, e.g., corporations.

It is common to allow the intro to be a description putting the subject in a friendly light. There is plenty of space for achieving neutrality in the rest of the article. The war does not need to begin in the intro.--Silverback 15:35, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please give reference for this policy. And explain why anyone of us should write a definition that economists disagree on and which is an active area of research? Ultramarine 15:41, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It is practice not policy. What is the area of active research? If economists can't agree, then they each probably declare their own definition at the beginning of each paper and to understand the paper, you must read it within the context of the definition it was written to. It is not like economists are going to discover what the word capitalism actually means. They are far beyond that anyone, coming up with mathmatical descriptions of markets, the price behavior of securities and derivatives, the influence of societal differences on growth, wealth creation and competition, etc.--Silverback 15:49, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

So you have no references. Should an article about Nazism or Torture start with a friendly introduction? Who are you to condemn economists and their research? Read some of the research on "economic freedom" and you will find extensive empirical and theoretical and sometimes contradictory research on the essentials of capitalism. Ultramarine 15:56, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Not Nazisim or Torture, they are among the reprehensible exceptions, but for instance communism is allowed a friendly introduction as is global warming.--Silverback 16:17, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There's some problems with your new intro, Silverback. First of all, capitalism does not aim for an increase of productivity of labour. Productivity of labour is just a tool in the wider aim of achieving profit. That's the fundamental goal of capitalists. Also, how can productivity of labour be a fundamental human characteristic if its definition is simply production divided by labour (measured in hours, for instance)? The following sentences are rather confusing and unnecessarily complicated. Finally, corporations are not "artificial" legal entities - otherwise you have to consider the state as being an artificial legal entity as well. In all, I prefer the previous two intros. Luis rib 15:47, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What a capitalist brings to the table are tools and organizations for increasing the productivity of labor, otherwise labor would just work on its own. It is tool use that is the human characteristic, although it is now known to occur in other animals. Even early man produced capital equipment such as spears, bows and arrows, and plows that significantly increased the productivity of their labor, and was well worth the investment, despite the sacrifice in current consumption because it diverted their labor from finding food and other necessities. --Silverback 16:27, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think you mix up capitalism (the economic system, which consists of capital owners, labourers, consumers, etc.) and capitalists in the marxist sense (i.e. just owners of capital). The rest of the article makes it pretty clear that we are talking about the first, the economix system, and the labourers are an integral part of that economic system. Luis rib 16:33, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Does anyone on this page have a degree in economics or a closely related subject? Because, if so, I think we should be guided by that person. SlimVirgin 15:58, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

I have a degree in management, and I hadd a few economics courses. Luis rib 16:01, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The only authorities are persons publishing academic research. And they publish outside Wikipedia. Again, a correct definition of capitalism is Nobel prize material. Ultramarine 16:04, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, I was a triple major in economics, philosophy and physics, before my money ran out and I had to exit with a degree in philosophy. I've also done graduate work in finance. But don't be blinded by authority but rather by the merits.--Silverback 16:06, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Publish in a peer-reviewed journal, not in Wikipedia. Ultramarine 16:09, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't release that kind of information. It don't think it matters here. I'm well qualified to comment and I'm sure others are as well. I couldn't care less if you are high school dropout or a PhD. Credentials mean nothing here. RJII 16:11, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I do not care if you are the reincarnation of Adam Smith. Do not publish the definitive defintion of capitalism in Wikipedia, do it in academic literature. Ultramarine 16:14, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'll publish the conditions that are contained in the typical definitions of capitalism. It's plain to see what definitions are typical and which are atypical. If you want to publish the atypical you are asking for a never ending list. Be sensible. RJII 16:17, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There has been no agreement of these "typical" definitions and will not be in the future. It is not plain to see. Read more on no original research. Wikipedia is not the place to publish a new theory where economists disagree and do active research. Ultramarine 16:32, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've left a note for an editor who has a degree in economics, but he may not have time to help out. Ultramarine, what would your introduction be, if you could write whatever you wanted (bearing in mind NPOV and NOR)? SlimVirgin 16:12, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

It seems we already have a few people with economic or similar degrees. Anyway, an economist will not be much help since the word capitalism is not used in academia. Economists usually talk of free market economics instead of capitalism. The concept of capitalism is in general very fuzzy, exactly because it is used by people that are not economists and that associate different things with it. Luis rib 16:37, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Original research and the definition of Capitalism

As can been seen in definitions of capitalism, there are numerous and sometimes contradictory definitions by different authorities. In the introduction to this article there has been numerous attempts to construct a new definition. These are all original research. Saying that the new definition reflect "most" of the authoritative definitions is inevitable subject to POV regarding which definitions to include and thus original research. There is no agreement on this among economists and other scientists. This is an active area of research and and a correct solution would be an immediate Nobel prize. So it is preposterous that anyone here should write a new definition. There can be only two solutions (as is also shown by relentless edit wars regarding this new defintion):

1: No definition, just a statement referring to definitions of capitalism.

2: A summary allowing all the elements from authoritative definitions published elsewhere. Ultramarine 14:47, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There are more than 2 solutions. Open your mind. 3. Supply the conditions of capitalism that are presented in the typical definitions of capitalism out there. Mention that there are other definitions if you want, from various malcontent academics for example, but that this represents the conditions stated in the typical, popular, definitions. The typical definitions are found in the most popular respected dictionaries out there. RJII 16:22, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

4. Another solution is to let the advocates of capitalism write the intro, as long as they don't consume too much real estate, and give the others their due, in the rest of the article. No strawman definitions in the intro.--Silverback 16:30, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Should the same apply in articles about Nazism, Torture and Child pornography? I have never seen this "friendly" introduction policy. Ultramarine 16:34, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Original research and the definition of Capitalism

As can been seen in definitions of capitalism, there are numerous and sometimes contradictory definitions by different authorities. In the introduction to this article there has been numerous attempts to construct a new definition. These are all original research. Saying that the new definition reflect "most" of the authoritative definitions is inevitable subject to POV regarding which definitions to include and thus original research. There is no agreement on this among economists and other scientists. This is an active area of research and and a correct solution would be an immediate Nobel prize. So it is preposterous that anyone here should write a new definition. There can be only two solutions (as is also shown by relentless edit wars regarding this new defintion):

1: No definition, just a statement referring to definitions of capitalism.

2: A summary allowing all the elements from authoritative definitions published elsewhere. Ultramarine 14:47, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There are more than 2 solutions. Open your mind. 3. Supply the conditions of capitalism that are presented in the typical definitions of capitalism out there. Mention that there are other definitions if you want, from various malcontent academics for example, but that this represents the conditions stated in the typical, popular, definitions. The typical definitions are found in the most popular respected dictionaries out there. RJII 16:22, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

4. Another solution is to let the advocates of capitalism write the intro, as long as they don't consume too much real estate, and give the others their due, in the rest of the article. No strawman definitions in the intro.--Silverback 16:30, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Should the same apply in articles about Nazism, Torture and Child pornography? I have never seen this "friendly" introduction policy. Ultramarine 16:34, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This is an example that lists the elements of all defintions:

"The many and sometimes contradictory definitions of capitalism use some combination of the following statements:

the right of individuals to own, and trade private property including capital goods; the right of groups of individuals to act as a corporation with distinct legal personality and responsibility; the strong protection of these rights; the existence of an strong enforcement of contractual agreements and peaceful settlements of disagrements by a third party; a free or relatively free market where price is determined by supply and demand; private investment for profit with the risk of loss of the investment; competition for this profit; following feudalism; today dominant in the Western world; today not present in a pure form but only partially in the current "mixed economy"; never achieved in its pure form; in anarcho-capitalist theory, peaceful, voluntary exchange which is fully realized only without a state; in marxist theory, exploitation of workers by the owners of capital; in minarchist theory, the role of government is limited mostly to protecting economic liberty and private property." Ultramarine 16:36, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That looks good. It's quite similar to this version [3], which I think is Slrubenstein's. SlimVirgin 16:39, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

I'd probably prefer it without reference to the "pure form," only because it's not clear what that would be. SlimVirgin 16:41, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

Or in bullet form (removed pure form);

"The many and sometimes contradictory definitions of capitalism use some combination of the following statements:

the right of individuals to own, and trade private property including capital goods;
the right of groups of individuals to act as a corporation with distinct legal personality and responsibility;
the strong protection of these rights;
the existence of an strong enforcement of contractual agreements and peaceful settlements of disagrements by a third party;
a free or relatively free market where price is determined by supply and demand;
private investment for profit with the risk of loss of the investment;
competition for this profit;
following feudalism;
today dominant in the Western world;
present only partially in the current "mixed economy";
in anarcho-capitalist theory, peaceful, voluntary exchange which is fully realized only without a state;
in marxist theory, exploitation of workers by the owners of capital;
in minarchist theory, the role of government is limited mostly to protecting economic liberty and private property." Ultramarine 16:45, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's horrible. I disagree with putting non-typical things in there. Typical definitions of capitalism don't go into things such as anarchism. If you want to list the elements of every definition you can find out there you're going to have a never ending list that's not useful to the reader who just wants to know what is commonly meant by "capitalism." RJII 16:44, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The marxist definition is not a good faith definition, it is a strawman, intended to be dismissive or a criticism. The way you can tell, is to check the marxist definition of communism. Is it the "exploitation of workers by fellow workers" or the "exploitation of workers by the state". Obviously, exploitation is intended to be pejorative rather than informative.--Silverback 16:46, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Definitions used by the ruling parties in several states and by parties regularly achieving over 10% of the votes in many countries are not atypical. Ultramarine 16:49, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Das Kapital is one of the most important or definitive descriptions of capitalism. It's appropriate to mention Marx in the introduction. SlimVirgin 16:52, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

Marx never defines "capitalism." Rather, he describes a system which some regard to be capitalism. He never even uses the term "capitalism." Capitalism is typically not regarded to be what he describes...hence his view is not present in popular definitions. As an encyclpedia we should present the typical definition or description. These are found in popular sources such as the most popular and respected NPOV dictionaries. Then if we want to mention there are less-used definitions or descripitions ok. That's the best NPOV way to go that I can think of. RJII 16:59, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Dictionaris are not original sources. No one would prefer a dictionary defintion to that of academic material regarding mathematics, intelligence, race, physics, or other subjects. Dictionaries are secondary sources. You are confusing Wikipedia with Wictionary. Ultramarine 17:03, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy suggests articles begin with a "good definition." Where is the best place to find typical definitions other than the various popular dictionaries out there? Dictionaries are original sources for typical definitions. The research they do is the same we would be doing to find how a term is commonly used. They've already done the research. We don't need to do "original research" by scouring Google for definitions from hundreds of people. What matters most is how the term "capitalism" is typically used, rather than finding every obscure definition under the sun and trying to compile a list. That's insane. RJII 17:09, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Dictionaries are secondary sources. No refers to MW as an original reference regarding for example a mathematical definition. The writers of dictionaries have not done original research, they collect original research and are thus secondary sources. If you do not believe me, copy the MW defintion regarding "race" or "intelligence" and state in the appropriate articles that this is the true and final definition for these terms and that the debates there are pointless. Ultramarine 17:17, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't care whether you want to call dictionaries original or secondary sources. Regardless, it makes sense to use them to find what what the typical uses of words are. RJII 17:58, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

So why is not dictionaries then used to reference mathematics, physics, intelligence, and race? Why is not MW cited as evidence for what "time" is? Dictionaries are secondary sources and inferior to academic research. Ultramarine 18:05, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It is ridiculous to return to the bullet point version. Ultramarine's version is inferior to the two versions we were discussing, so we should forget about it. Also, as I mentioned in my comment to El C, we could have two intro paragraphs, one being the definition part (i.e. one of the two we were considering, or modifications of those), followed by a paragraph explaining the diverging definitions by marxists and libertarians. Luis rib 16:53, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

How about giving an explanation? This version accomodates existing defintions and do not create a new defition which is original research. Ultramarine 16:57, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Your version is totally confusing and contradictory. If you want, feel free to acknowledge major currents of definition, but do not mix them all in an uncomprehensible stew. Luis rib 17:28, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The definitions are contradictory. The version is confusing if you insist that all the statements should are true. By insisting that the introduction should contain only a new definition which is a non-contradictory subset of the authorative existing definitions you are doing original research. Ultramarine 17:32, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Re-read what I said: I am in favour of having several definitions, but not all in one. The 2 we were discussing before are those acepted by a majority of people. Other views, such as marxists and libertarians, could be presented in a second paragraph. That way, all views would be represented. Luis rib 17:35, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There is no consensus on what is accepted "by the majority of people". Do you have a academic reference for this statement? For example, your latest versions avoids mentioning strong property rights which many researchers think are extremely important. Many people not doing research may disagree. Ultramarine 17:40, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Again: there is no academic research on this since economists don't use the word capitalism exactly because it is fuzzy. Concerning the majority view, I think we had a pretty good overview on it. Of course, property rights could be included. It's not supposed to be an exclusive explanation. Luis rib 17:46, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It was excluded earlier by those claiming to know the true definition. As was vehemently earlier the statement that it followed feodalism although this is the opinion of almost all theorists. You think you know the majority opinion. This is your opinion and uninteresting unless you have a reference. Furthermore, if there was a consenus on the majority opinion, why all the edit wars? And why is the majority opinion interesting, it should be the academic research that is important. Ultramarine 17:52, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Do a search on published articles on for example "economic freedom". You will find an enormous amount of articles on the essentials of capitalism. Ultramarine 17:54, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I did. It basically conforms with what I called the "majority view". Actually I never deleted the property rights part. And I never deleted the feodalism part (i just extended it by mentioning mercantilism as well, which was the economic system favoured during absolutism). My only disagreement with you was about labour. Also, my opinion is that the contradictory bits (i.e. exploitation; no state) should be mentioned in a separate paragraph, explaining the philosophic currents to which they belong. Luis rib 14:11, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Influential non-academics like Rand and Marx are also important. Neither did much publishing in peer reviewed journals. Important politicians are also good sources. --Silverback 18:01, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

And Chomsky, who says that capitalism doesn't exist, and that if it had it was before the 20's or 30's in the U.S. So, my point is to stick with the typical definitions, as are in dictionaries, and don't go beyond defining into making assertions that capitalism was implemented. Elaborate on various interpretations in the body. RJII 18:07, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but if there was peer-reviewed evidence and agreement for what capitalism is it would supercede Rand and Marx. But again, Wikipedia is not the place to publish the definite definition for capitalism. This is an active area of research. It is preposterous that anyone of us should write an defintion where there is no agreement among researchers. Ultramarine 18:10, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The intro of an article called "capitalism" is the perfect place to say what capitalism is typically defined as being. It's not us coming up with a new or original definition. It's merely relaying what the common usage is. The common usage is can easily be seen by consulting the various popular dicationaries. You're making things more difficult and disputatious than they have to be. RJII 18:14, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

So how about stating that is common usage according to dictionaries and is not a definition or what is meant in academic research? Ultramarine 18:17, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Something like that is fine with me. RJII 18:19, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

OK. Write something and hopefully we can agree on what is common to the most important dictionaries. Ultramarine 18:21, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

How about this, and then people can edit the conditions how they see fit:

Academic and non-academic research and philosophy from noteable authors commonly contain disparate opinions on how capitalism should best be defined or characterized. However, "capitalism," as defined in the most widely-disseminated and consulted dictionaries, is typically described as an economic system being comprised of the following conditions: 1) The "means of production" or capital are privately or corporately owned and operated in order to obtain a profit. 2) Investment, distribution, and production decisions are privately determined. 3) Prices are determined by trades that occur in a free or relatively-free market. RJII 18:41, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I wrote short one using MW, see the article. No interpretation at all in the text so maybe we can agree. :)Ultramarine 18:45, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Quoting the Merriam-Webster seems like a copout to me. So what if there is going to be warring on what the common dictionary definitions represent? At least it narrows it down greatly. I see nothing wrong with fine tuning it through edit warring, or even eternal conflict. RJII 19:11, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What about something like the beginning of this article (but written in a more NPOV version): http://www.mises.org/efandi/ch9.asp Luis rib 18:41, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Capitalism is individualism in the realm of economics"

This quote is from Dr. John Hospers, who was head of the Dept. of Philosophy at USC at the time.--Silverback 18:28, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Another term associated with laissez faire is capitalism. This again is a term of indefinite meaning depending upon who uses it. It is employed by the enemies of the American system for purposes of slur. -- Herbert Hoover

Capitalism is a system of exchangable private-property rights in goods and services, with the central government, protecting and enforcing these rights. Private-property rights, in turn, can be defined as the rights of owners to choose the use of their goods and resources (including labor and time) as they see fit. -- "Exchange and Production" by Alchian & Allen.

--Silverback 19:26, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Put some definitions in definitions of capitalism article if you want. As far as the intro, at least two of us seem to have some consensus that it's worked out. Hopefully, you can agree on the rationalization explained there as well. RJII 19:31, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The thing about capitalism is, the system explained by theorists simply does not exist. Defining something in the terms of its propagandists is hardly NPOV. This definition is absurd. --Tothebarricades.tk 20:38, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You must not have read the articles on the non-existant communism or anarchism. The usual etiquette to prevent edit warring in these controversial topics is to allow a friendly theorectical or idealogical definition.--Silverback 09:50, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

So give us your piece of wisodm, Oh great one! Luis rib 21:27, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

We are not saying the MW definition is the one true definition, but probably the most popular one. I am sure you can find one definition that suits you among the many proposed in defintions of capitalism. Ultramarine 21:32, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Where in that definition does it say what is defined exists? There are many who would accept that definition who would also say that system has not been implemented. There are, I don't doubt, more who say that what is defined there does exist. Capitalism is what it is. What exists is what exists. If there is no assertion that capitalism exists in practice or not, then there is no problem. Dictionaries are smart not to make such assertions, and leave that up to the individual for the sake of NPOV. RJII 22:34, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Capitalism has both historical and aspirational elements, both of which should be acknowledged in the article. By definition, if something is an aspiration then it doesn't now exist -- which was, I suppose, Rand's point in the above quoted expression about its non-existence. Still, I (an enthusiastic capitalist myself, BTW) think that the most sensible course for an encyclopedia is to work from the history that gives rise to the aspirations. Starting with the historical base is what SlimVirgin's intro did, and I don't think anybody else has improved on it. --Christofurio 13:19, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

Unpredictable/unapproved direction of capitalist economies

Nevertheless, in most modern capitalist economies the State attempts to maintain a certain degree of economic planning (using such tools as allowing the country's central bank to set base interest rates) in order to discourage economic instability and provide greater longer-term direction (disputed — see talk page).

Some economists would argue that instability is the effect of government manipulation of the money supply which causes intertemporal distortions in the interest rate and deviations from the "natural" rate of interest, resulting in a misallocation of capital resulting in business "cycles". Central banks are used to borrow money on behalf of the populace or future generations without their consent, because the debt of a State must eventually be paid off by its citizens; this method of finance also hides the true cost of government spending, for with taxation the participants know how much is being used, but with inflation these costs are spread unevenly throughtout the economy and cause the phenomenon of inflation.

Reverting

RJII, the version preferred by User:JoshG, User:JMaxwell and myself is a little more encyclopedic than the version you keep reverting to, in my view. If you and Ultramarine feel there's material missing from it, would it not make more sense to add a second paragraph containing that material, rather than to revert continually? I don't know why you feel there's no evidence to support the edit that capitalism arose out of feudalism and mercantilism: it's in the Encyclopedia Britannica if you want a reference, so it shouldn't be deleted. You might also want to be careful that you don't violate 3RR, as this isn't worth getting blocked for. SlimVirgin 15:00, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

I put in a second paragraph before about capitalism arising, etc, and it was deleted. And don't worry about the 3RR...I'm sure you are full of concern that I don't get blocked. But, I appreciate the patronization. RJII

SlimVirgin, I think that your last effort was quite good and do not oppose it. I am opposed RJII endless attempt to get a definition that suits his anarcho-capitalist views. As such, he is constantly trying to exclude all mentioning of strong state protection of property rights and that capitalism replaced feudalism. Since he seems to have little actual knowledge in this area he constantly refers to dictionaries. Sadly I see no end to this conflict as since RJII seems to like endless edit wars "I see nothing wrong with fine tuning it through edit warring, or even eternal conflict." [4] Ultramarine 15:17, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ultamarine, cease your lies and personal attacks. You were the one that was putting anarcho-capitalism in the article and I was the one deleting it. Consult the history of talk; I have consistently argued against anything about anarcho-capitalism being in the intro. And if you don't like "eternal conflict" then why are you here? Don't you realize nothing is set in stone on Wikipedia? Once you get everything like you want it, someone else is going to come along and mess up your sandbox. If you can't handle it, leave. RJII 15:26, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Although you many not explicitly mention anarcho-capitalism, you are constantly removing all mentioning of anything related to the state, like strong state protection of property rights or that it followed feodalism in Eurpean states. In addition you often refuse to provide references for your statements, like your claim regarding what is the Marxist definition of capitalism. Note also that there is an arbitration case against you on this subject. Ultramarine 15:41, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You're a liar. (If anyone is interested, do a search on "anarcho" on this talk page). You are the one who was over and over tried to make sure the definition either referred explicitly to "anarcho-capitalism" or "anarchy." I have consistently deleted those references. Also you argued that one of my latest definitions did not give room for anarcho-capitalism. As far as "Marxist definition" I never posted anything in the article about Marxism. I posted a definition I believed to be consistent with a basic Marxist definition of capitalism --"private ownership of capital" and provided the OED as a source. I didn't provide the OED as a source that that was the Marxist definition (as I never claimed that in the article) but as a source the capitalism referred to the private ownership of capital. Stop your lies and deceptions. Get out of here unless you are going to be honest and refrain from personal attacks. And, yes, Slrubenstiein is trying to perpetrate the same fabrication in Arbitration. RJII 15:49, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Here are some posts by you regarding Marxist definitions of capitalism: [5] [6]. (See your edit summary for the posts). As I state earlier, you have not mentioned anarcho-capitalism but constantly excluded all references to the state like that capitalism followed feudalism in European states and that it has relied on state protection of property rights. I have constantly tried to include all definitions from the minarchistic to the anarcho-capitalist and tried to protect it from the attempts to only reflect some of the schools, but especially the attempts to exclude strong state protection of property rights which many today agree are essential. I can accept excluding marxist, anarcho-capitalists, and minarchists but not the mentioning of property rights and that it followed feodalism which is something common to most scholars. Ultramarine 16:15, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

So where is the post by me in the article that makes an assertion about Marxism? It doesn't exist. All I see there is "see Marxism." So, cut the crap and move on. RJII 16:26, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

See your edit summary regarding the above to posts. Ultramarine 16:28, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There is no assertion that that is the basic Marxist definition of capitalism, even though it is. RJII 16:34, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Try that before the arbitration commitee. Excellent example of your argumentation style. Ultramarine 16:40, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Try canning your lies about me putting anarcho-capitalism in the article. If anyone has been trying to push anarcho-capitalism, it's you. RJII 16:42, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Chill, alleging that you are putting anarcho-capitalism in the article is not an accusation it is a compliment. I'd be happy to be accused of it, although I haven't done it yet, it certainly should be done for completeness, although I don't think it needs to be in the into, at least not in the first paragraph.--Silverback 19:53, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ultramarine, I was under the impression you supported RJII's latest version. Here's the one I support: it's not what I'd write left to my own devices, but I'm happy with it as a compromise. If you agree, there's no reason to allow this other version to constantly be reverted to. RJII, I wasn't being patronizing and I'm sorry it sounded that way. I do actually have a genuine concern not to see you blocked. SlimVirgin 15:28, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I supported the compromise version which RJII now has abandoned in the hope that this would stop the edit wars. Ultramarine 15:41, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Your version is much better. Ultramarine 15:48, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I came across this quote from Jimbo Wales the other day, and it seems particularly apt regarding an article on capitalism. SlimVirgin 16:06, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

I frequently counsel people who are getting frustrated about an edit war to think about someone who lives without clean drinking water, without any proper means of education, and how our work might someday help that person. It puts flamewars into some perspective, I think. — Jimbo Wales [7]

Exactly, edit warring is fun. RJII 16:41, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That would be an unusual interpretation of the quote. Not everyone finds it fun. Some find it quite upsetting, and it's almost never good for articles; and we're here to write articles. SlimVirgin 16:46, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. I think edit warring is instrumental in producing good articles. Conflict is good. RJII 16:49, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thesis, antithesis, synthesis? Perhaps. But don't forget that's a process that invariably has casualties. There are less hazardous ways. SlimVirgin 16:53, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

RJII, your latest version stated that capitalism is comprised of such-and-such, whereas the current version makes it clear that there is debate about the definition, and that most definitions include at least some of the following, which is an important qualification. Also, how it rose to dominance is easy to find a reference for: for example, the Encyclopedia Britannica. You're not supposed to delete relevant material that can be referenced. The EB says: "Capitalism, also called free market economy, or free enterprise economy: economic system, dominant in the Western world since the breakup of feudalism, in which most of the means of production are privately owned and production is guided and income distributed largely through the operation of markets." [8] SlimVirgin 18:14, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

That is not a typical definition. Typical definitions are found in dictionaries which never say that whether capitalism exists or has existed. Regardless, look closely at that EB statement. It contains a definition, but also contains an assertion that capitalism exists. The statement as a whole is not simply a definition but a combination of a definition and an assertion of a real-world application of what is defined. For definitions of terms, you must see dictionaries. The EB combines a definition with an assertion, but there is no necessity that this encylopedia article (Wikipedia) does. If there is such an assertion then that assertion should be stated separately from the definition in a separate paragraph for the sake of clarity. As one thing is a definition, and the other isn't. RJII 18:31, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

First, you appear not to understand what a definition is, and second, there is no rule anywhere that says Wikipedia articles must begin with dictionary definitions. We are an encyclopedia. The EB is an encyclopedia. You should read encyclopedias, rather than dictionaries, to find out how encyclopedias approach topics. I wish I knew what your POV or approach is here so I could understand where you're coming from, because I'm afraid I just don't get it. SlimVirgin 19:33, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

I understand exactly what a definition is. You don't. Dictionaries specialize in providing definitions. An encyclopedia is not a dictionary. Encyopedias often 'contains definitions. The EB quote is not a definition, but an encyclopedia entry that among other things contains a definition. And there is indeed a Wikipedia policy that says that an article an article "can and should always begin with a good definition or a clear description of the topic." Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary Most of us here are aware of that policy and have chosen to provide a "good definition" to begin the article. Ok? RJII 21:53, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Here's a dictionary def that you would probably argue includes unnecessary detail:

Mode of socio-economic organization in which a class of entrepeneurs and entrepeneurial institutions provide the capital with which businesses produce goods and services and employ workers. In return the capitalist extracts profits from the goods created. Capitalism is frequently seen as the embodiment of the market economy, and hence may result in the optimum distribution of scarce resources, with a resulting improvement for all; this optimism is countered by pointing to the opportunity for exploitation inherent in the system. Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, ed. Simon Blackburn, 1996 SlimVirgin 19:41, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

Why something so complex, why not just the Alchien & Allen definition above. That is a classic textbook used in micro-economics and price theory classes. The later paragraphs of the intro can express other elements. Also, there is certainly no rush to get this settled. I am currently reading "Hayek's Challenge". F.A. Hayek is often referred to as the greatest free market economist since Adam Smith, or at least was as of a few decades ago, some may prefer Friedman now. Whatever we settle on now, I may suggest improvements, when I am done.--Silverback 20:01, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

LOL! I'm starting to think we need a definition of dictionary, and a definition of definition. Someone find us a meta-dictionary please. ;-) I only offered the above as an illustration of how dictionary definitions vary. Anyway, I'm glad to see that Silverback is doing some real research. Ultramarine, you should read Friedman, I'll read Adam Smith, and as a punishment, RJII can be assigned Das Kapital. ;-) SlimVirgin 20:07, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

Intro: ownership of means of production

Some people want the intro to say that capitalism is typically defined as a system where the "predominate" or "most" of the means of production are privately owned. But, that's not a typical definition of capitalism. There is no such qualifier in the typical definitions of capitalism. So, that's "original research" --a violation of Wikipedia policy. I wouldn't ordinarly be such a stickler but that seems to be the attitude around here, and that claim has been used against me.RJII 16:13, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As it says above, Encyclopedia Britannica (my emphasis): "capitalism, also called free market economy, or free enterprise economy: economic system, dominant in the Western world since the breakup of feudalism, in which most of the means of production are privately owned and production is guided and income distributed largely through the operation of markets." [9] SlimVirgin 16:29, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

An encyclopedia isn't a dictionary. Dictionaries specialized in definining --and that's what we should be looking at. But, granted, EB does define capitalism, although that's only one source. Where are all the others? One source doesn't make typical. RJII 16:35, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"An encyclopedia isn't a dictionary." That is correct, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, as is EB. EB is widely regarded as an excellent source, cited for example in Supreme Court rulings. Ultramarine 16:43, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No original research, which is policy, says that editors should provide reputable, credible sources. The EB is such a source. SlimVirgin 16:39, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

But the intro is presenting how capitalism is "typically" defined. Sure, EB is a great source. But apparently, it's an atypical definition. We have to narrow it down the typical definition or there's going to be major problems with everyone fighting over what is the "correct" definition. See? RJII 16:48, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please provide a source or sources showing that the EB is an atypical definition. Also, a mention of what capitalism replaced and arose out of IS part of the description. At some point, this discussion of what a definition is has to stop. Wikipedia intros are supposed to follow the upside pyramid to some extent and offer a brief overview of the subject, not restrict themselves to dictionary definitions. I've restored the consensus introduction, and am pasting it below. If you want to make changes, please make them on this talk page, and then discuss them, instead of continually reverting. Many thanks, SlimVirgin 16:53, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

Look at the sources in definitions of capitalism. That's what I'm citing. As you can see, only the EB says "most." It's not a typical definition. If it was up to me I would qualify it with "most" or something like that, but I prefer NPOV. And the typical definition of capitalism does not qualify it like that. Either stop trying to make the definition adhere to your POV or get with the program. RJII 16:57, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Capitalism is an economic system that rose to dominance in Europe between the 16th and 19th centuries, replacing feudalism, and evolving out of mercantilism. There is some debate regarding the exact definition ^[10] of capitalism, but most definitions include at least some of the following characteristics: 1) most of the means of production or capital are privately owned, and are operated for profit; 2) production decisions, prices, and wages are determined by market forces; (3) groups of individuals have the right to act as corporations with distinct legal personality; (4) there is investment for profit, with investment decisions being made privately, and with risks being assumed by the investors; (5) the state is relied upon to protect private-property rights; and (6) explicit or implicit contractual obligations are adjudicated by the state or contractually specified third parties.

"most definitions include...most of the means of production..." Bull. Only one has been cited. RJII

"most definitions include at least some of the following characteristics ... " SlimVirgin 17:06, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

Most definitions do not include "most of the means of production...", which is one of "some of the following characteristics" that are claimed to be present in most definitions. Did you seriously think substituting "typical" with "most" made any difference? RJII 17:09, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please read what it says. "Most definitions include at least some of the following characteristics ..." That doesn't mean that most include all of the following. I didn't substitute typical with most. What point are you trying to make here? Are you saying that e.g. the UK under Margaret Thatcher (the most capitalist of British prime ministers) did not have a capitalist economy because the state retained ownership of a few industries? SlimVirgin 17:16, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

What is that .some kind of shady way of getting your POV in? Guess what ..it doesn't work. RJII 17:18, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't know what you're talking about. Please be explicit, and please note that I have no POV when it comes to finding a description of capitalism. Regarding your recent edit of the words "correct definition," there is no such thing as a "correct" definition in a situation like this. Precise, agreed, or exact definition would all work better. Also, for the record, I note that you're using misleading edit summaries, e.g. calling the last edit "remove quote marks," when in fact you made a partial revert. [11]. I'm happy to debate this issue with you, but I will not get into a fight about it, or have meta-discussions about what the word "definition" means. SlimVirgin 17:26, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

I have been explicit. A child could understand what I've said here. RJII 17:38, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Right, it does not matter here what the "correct" definition. What matters is what the typical definition is. "Agreed" definition is not good if what is agreed is what the correct definition of capitalism rather that on what the typical definition of capitalism is. And the typical definition is found by looking over the popular sources. One source is not good enough to say that that represnets the typical definition. If you want to say that the EB is typical in saying "most", then you should be able to provide other popular sources that say the same thing. One doesn't make typical. (And again, if you don't limit to typical, then there will be no resolution as there is a source for every possible POV under the sun). Explicit enough? RJII 18:03, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Capitalism is an economic system that rose to dominance in Europe between the 16th and 19th centuries, replacing feudalism, and evolving out of mercantilism.

I dispute this unqualified assertion. Noteable theorists do not agree. For example, Rand says that capitalism has yet to exist, hence the title of her book "The Unknown Ideal." Noam Chomsky says that capitalism does not exist. As far as the replacing feudalism statement, Oppenhemier says that capitalism is a blending of feudalism and markets. RJII 17:28, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Most of the authorities (like Smith, Marx, Greenspan, DeSoto, Rand) consider capitalism to have evolved from feodalism and rely on state protection. In fact, probably everyone except anarcho-capitalists. Their minority view should not dominate the article. Ultramarine 17:30, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You say Rand is an authority, yet Rand doesn't agree that capitalism has been implemented. She said the US is a "mixed economy" rather than capitalism. Oppenheimer is not an anarcho-capitalist and says that capitalism is a blend of feudalism and markets, rather than a departure from feudalism. I said all this above. Can't you read? RJII 17:38, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

For Rand, capitalism had never existed in its purest form. Still, semi-capitalism was powerful enough to demolish the remnants of feudalism, mercantilism, and absolute monarchy throughout the world. Saying that capitalism is evolving out of feudalism is compatible with both Rand's and Oppenheimer's definitions. Ultramarine 17:43, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Instead of "replacing feudalism," would "evolving out of feudalism and mercantilism" work better? SlimVirgin 17:33, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

Seems to be a good idea. Ultramarine 17:35, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That's not going to work either. Many on the left think that capitalism is feudalistic. RJII 17:40, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Source please. Ultramarine 17:44, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Most of this could be resolved if the definition is limited to the content of the "typical" definition. It's the only way I know of to minimize POV. RJII 17:43, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

RJII, would it help if you were to suggest a second paragraph for the intro including the views of Rand, or any other credible, authoritative source, outlining the view you feel should be represented? SlimVirgin 17:46, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

I've done that and it was deleted. RJII 17:53, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Can you write it here for discussion, but please note that Chomsky is not an authoritative source. Also, it would help to expand a little, in a scholarly way, rather than just saying "according to some, e.g. Rand, capitalism has never existed." SlimVirgin 17:59, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

Changing the statement to this should suit Rand and Oppenheimer: "Capitalism is an economic system that rose to dominance in Europe between the 16th and 19th centuries, evolving out of feodalism and mercantilism, although some argue that there has never been a completely pure form" Ultramarine 18:00, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that's quite good enough because the people who disagree are not saying that it doesn't exist in pure form but that existing systems are not even relatively close enough to the pure form to properly be labled capitalism. For example, Chomsky "There is nothing remotely like capitalism in existence." I don't think many of the critics who say capitalism doesn't exist are saying that because they think it's not "pure" but that the modern economies don't closely enough approximate what is defined. Few people are demanding absolute purity to label an economy capitalism (except many anarcho-capitalists). RJII 18:10, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The use of "some" isn't encyclopedic or scholarly: we would need to say who, and those sources would have to be authoritative. Second, we'd have to explain what is meant by "completely pure form." Third, it would need to have its own paragraph to be expounded properly, and to signal that we're deviating from a typical description. It would also be helpful to include a quote from one of the authoritative sources. SlimVirgin 18:13, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

Can't the "rose to dominence" stuff wait for the history section? It doesn't seem to be part of the definition, and also seems very Eurocentric. I still think a simpler definition ala Alchien and Allen's. --Silverback 18:22, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Note, I have added some quotations from Encarta Referenece Libarary to definitions of capitalism since RJII asked for more sources. Ultramarine 18:24, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Just keep in mind, encyclopedia aren't dictionaries, so they go beyond defining and make other assertions. So if you use them as a reference for a definition you have to isolate where the definition is among the rest of the wording in the entry. Dictionaries are the best pure source for definitions. RJII 18:43, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and other encyclopedias are thus excellent sources. There is no requirement that there should be a definition in the intro, it can also be a desription. Ultramarine 18:47, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I quote from the Wikipedia policy: "article can and should always begin with a good definition or a clear description of the topic." The intro as it stands is talking about definitions of capitalism. If you rather it didn't then change it, and while you're at it, delete the link to the definitions of capitalism page, because it won't be relevant anymore. But I'll change it back, because I think a "good definition" is the best way to start the article, rather than a "decription of the topic." If you want, do both, but don't put something in the definition of capitalism that's not definitional. Use a second paragraph. RJII 18:57, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

How about this: "Capitalism is an economic system that evolved out of feodalism and mercantilism" Ultramarine 18:35, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Tried out new formulation. Maybe it's more consensual. Luis rib 18:48, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Removed industrial revolution, it emerged from capitalism, not from feodalism, according to every source I have read. Suggest this:

Capitalism is an economic system. There is some debate regarding the correct definition ^[12] of capitalism, but most definitions include following characteristics: 1) The means of production or capital are privately owned, and are operated for profit; 2) production decisions, prices, and wages are determined by market forces; (3) groups of individuals have the right to act as corporations with distinct legal personality; (4) there is investment for profit, with investment decisions being made privately, and with risks being assumed by the investors; (5) the state is relied upon to protect private-property rights; and (6) explicit or implicit contractual obligations are adjudicated by the state or contractually specified third parties; (7) evolved out of feodalism and mercantilism. Ultramarine 18:51, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ok, except point 7), which is not really a definiton. I would finish the sentence after point 6). Then continue with: It evolved out of.... Luis rib 18:56, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

New suggestion (changed to mainstream definitions) And definitions can included history, see for example MW definition of "bronze age":

Capitalism is an economic system. There is some debate regarding the correct definition ^[13] of capitalism, but the mainstream definitions include following characteristics: 1) The means of production or capital are privately owned, and are operated for profit; 2) production decisions, prices, and wages are determined by market forces; (3) groups of individuals have the right to act as corporations with distinct legal personality; (4) there is investment for profit, with investment decisions being made privately, and with risks being assumed by the investors; (5) the state is relied upon to protect private-property rights; and (6) explicit or implicit contractual obligations are adjudicated by the state or contractually specified third parties; (7) evolved out of feodalism and mercantilism. Ultramarine 18:51, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I personnally prefer the initial version (i.e. the one RJ does not like), where feudalism is mentioned in the first or last sentence, but is not part of the enumeration of definitions. But I won't revert it; it's a minor, rather stylistic point, and definitely not worth an edit war. Luis rib 19:02, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

V 0.3 Wikify, grammar, mostly privately owned, means of production like capital. Not all of mainstream definitions include feudalism so it should be mentioned in the list. Otherwise there is an impression that all definitions include this.

Capitalism is an economic system. There is some debate regarding the correct definition ^[14] of capitalism, but the mainstream definitions include the following characteristics: 1) The means of production like capital are mostly privately owned, and are operated for profit; 2) production decisions, prices, and wages are determined by market forces; (3) groups of individuals have the right to act as corporations with distinct legal personality; (4) there is investment for profit, with investment decisions being made privately, and with risks being assumed by the investors; (5) the state is relied upon to protect private-property rights; and (6) explicit or implicit contractual obligations are adjudicated by the state or contractually specified third parties; (7) evolved out of feudalism and mercantilism. Ultramarine 19:11, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Luis, I think we had an edit conflict there, because I seem to have overridden your edit. I also restored private property. RJII, your behavior on this page is out of order and you're wasting everyone's time with this constant back and forth. You've violated 3RR with partial reverts and you're using misleading edit summaries. Much as I hate to see anyone blocked, if you continue, I'm going to report it. SlimVirgin 19:18, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

Cut the crap. You're the one wasting everyone's time here and doing partial reverts as much as anyone else. I'll report you if you don't calm down. RJII 19:20, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

V 0.4 Removed means of productions as Capital should be enough, removed duplicate mentioning of profit

Capitalism is an economic system. There is some debate regarding the correct definition ^[15] of capitalism, but the mainstream definitions include the following characteristics: 1) Capital is mostly privately owned; 2) production decisions, prices, and wages are determined by market forces; (3) groups of individuals have the right to act as corporations with distinct legal personality; (4) there is investment for profit, with investment decisions being made privately, and with risks being assumed by the investors; (5) the state is relied upon to protect private property rights; and (6) explicit or implicit contractual obligations are adjudicated by the state or contractually specified third parties; (7) evolved out of feudalism and mercantilism. Ultramarine 19:11, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

most definitions include at least some of the following characteristics=

This is a B.S. statement meant to slide POV in. Why list characteristics that are not in most definitions. One could list an infinite number of characteristics that are not included in most definitions. "Some of" needs to be deleted. RJII 19:29, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I just had another edit conflict with RJII. You cannot insert "see talk" into the introduction — it is vandalism. And please see Wikipedia:No personal attacks. SlimVirgin 19:32, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

I just had another edit conflict with RJII. You cannot insert "see talk" intro the article — it is vandalism. And please see Wikipedia:No personal attacks.

Yes you can insert the ^{[dubious – discuss]} tag into articles. I didn't put "see talk" in there..it's part of the tag. So, stop vandalizing the page SlimVirgin. RJII 19:34, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Changing most to mainstream should resolve this. Ultramarine 19:37, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think I'd prefer "mainstream" ..narrows it down even more. RJII 19:41, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

But that still doesn't address my point. If you say "some of" then you could list an infinite number of characterists are not mainsteam, and don't even have to be sourced since you're saying that some are not part of the definitions. "Some of" should be deleted. RJII 19:50, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

mostly privately owned

This is not typical of mainsteam definitions, and for good reason. If only 51% of the means of production are privately owned is it still capitalism? Of course not. That's indisputably a "mixed economy." The list of characteristics should be what is typically found in mainstream definitions. Yes, the Encyclopedia Britannica says "most", but, as I've said many times, encyclopedias are not dictionaries; dictionaries are the commonly-consulted source for definitions. RJII 20:11, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. EB is extremely mainstream. Ultramarine 20:13, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Cite policy or other source that Encyclopedia Britannica is not allowed. Note that you are already in arbitration regarding your cite sources policy. Ultramarine 20:21, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, but encyclopedias tend to provide definitions along with encyclopedic content. And if you want a definition you go to a dictionary; if you want an encyclopedic entry you go to an encyclopedia. We are trying to provide a "good definition" of capitalism as suggested by Wikipedia policy. Yes EB is mainstream, and provided a definition among its encyclopedic content, but that definition saying that "most" of the MOP are privately owned is not typical. To be fair, the characteristics listed should be typical of mainstream definitions rather than finding just ONE mainstream definition that fits your POV and insisting on that one. RJII 20:25, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Cite source that encyclopedias cannot be used for defintions. Cite source that there most be a majority of mainstream dictionaries. Ultramarine 20:29, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

By the way, I plan on going through every single sentence of this biased article. At this rate, I estimate I'll be here for the next 25 years. RJII 20:28, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I will point this out to the arbitration commitee as evidence that you intend to continue with edit wars and citation policy similar to what you have been doing up to now. Ultramarine 20:31, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Feel free. You will be laughed at. I have every right to judge every single sentence and word of this article and I will. 24 hours a day, 7 days a week for the next 25 years. I have nothing better to do and enjoy the relaxation it gives me. RJII 20:36, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Rv. Show policy that Enyclopedia Brittancia cannot be used as a source" <--what is this? No one is claiming that EB cannot be used as a source. I am claiming that the definition there is not typical of mainstream definitions beause it says "most." Why not represent what's typical of mainstream definitions instead of insisting on just one atypical one? Is it because this one suits your POV? RJII 20:36, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Also, how ludicrous is it for you to criticize someone for edit warring when you're centrally involved in the edit war? Get a grip. RJII 20:44, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I am not stating that I like edit wars, that I think that endless such are good, and do not state I have nothing better do with my life than continuing with edit warring 24/7/52 apparently as some form of strange harassment or revenge. Ultramarine 20:51, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Has nothing to do with harassment. I'm not trying to harass anyone. I'm just doing the same thing you are --trying to get the article right. And, sure, the conflict is enjoyable. RJII

This is not a democrarcy where the most dictionaries win. Quality is more important. Encyclopdia Britannica is extremely highly regarded and cited in Supreme Court cases without controling what other sources says. Again, show policy that Encyclopedia Britannica cannot be used as a single, reliable source. Ultramarine 20:42, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm not saying it can't. It can. I'm saying that it makes more sense to list characteristics that are typically found in mainstream definitions. How much more plain does this need to be said to you? RJII 20:46, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As you say yourself, EB is enough in itself and do not need another source, this may be preferable but is not neccessary. Ultramarine 20:55, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I did not say EB is enough in itself. EB is a good source, but the definition of capitalism contained in it is not typical as most do not say "most of the means of production." If it is preferable to have the definition represent the typical mainstream definition then why not do that so we can have a quality intro? Is your POV getting in the way? RJII 21:28, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Predominant" is a better word here than "mostly." The "predominant" means of production is that which gives its tone to the rest, which "dominates" the system. Govt-owned systems such as the TVA exist in the US, but they take their tone from the predominantly private system. It isn't a matter of percentages. --Christofurio 03:42, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

Good edit and good point, Christofurio. Thank you. SlimVirgin 04:18, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

I would agree with you in theory. I would personally define it as "the overwhelming majority" but my POV doesn't matter. As far as I've been able to tell, the mainstream definitions typically have no such qualification. They just say that the means of production are privately owned. I don't think we should be making up a new definition purporting to represent the typical mainstream definition when it doesn't. That would be "original research." Look over the definitions of capitalism. Only one says anything like that; the Encyclopedia Britannica says "most." So it's not typical in the various mainstream definitions. RJII 04:29, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Whether capitalism has ever been "implemented"

Copied from User talk:Taxman (note: I asked Taxman's opinion because he has degrees in economics and the mathematics of finance)

Taxman, I wonder whether you have any time to look in on Talk:Capitalism. There's a dispute (and revert war) regarding the introduction and what it should say. One editor feels that the current introduction states or implies that capitalism has been "implemented," and that this is POV. I'm not in a position to judge the merits of the argument, and can only ask for authoritative sources for the claim that capitalism has not been "implemented" (by which I take it he means it has never existed in a pure form). Do you know whether this is a tiny-minority view of the kind that should not be referred to in the introduction? Or if it is a mainstream view, can you refer us to an authoritative, academic source? If you don't have time, however, that's fine, I understand. Best, SlimVirgin 19:28, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

Certainly not my area of specialty. But I do think that is a relatively uncontroversial view. Regulation causes markets not to be free, so pure capitalism has not been implemented on a large scale. Neither has pure much of anything else political so that distinction is rather esoteric. Therefore those who would define capitalism only as pure capitalism are just being pedantic. I couldn't make heads or tails of where you would want this on the talk page so I'll leave it here for you. - Taxman 00:42, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

I don't know of anyone who would only refer to an economy as capitalism is it was "pure" unless anarcho-capitalists. Most of those who say modern economies are not properly labeled capitalism say that because they think it's not even relatively close enough to be called capitalism. Chomsky for example, "There's nothing remotely like capitalism in existence." Also, Rand "What we have today is not a capitalist society, but a mixed economy." (I provide these two examples since they are on opposite sides of the fence politically, for sake of NPOV. And these two are very noteable, especially Rand who was many adherents of her philosophy). Again, usually the objections to calling the modern academies capitalism is not because they're not "pure." And, it is not uncommon to call the modern economies mixed economies", a mixture of capitalism and socialism (or central planning). RJII 14:36, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

How about an example for just how mainstream that view is: "The United States is a mixed economy based on capitalism." That's not from some radical philosopher but from the McGraw Hill Online Learning Center. [16] RJII 15:16, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalitsts should not get their definition by force by rather by courtesy

A relatively pure/idealistic definition of capitalism such as the anarcho's might choose, should be allowed to dominate if not monopolize the introduction, just as the ideal does at Communism and Anarchy. It is a basic lack of courtesy that has allowed this controversy to continue. Pet peeves and historical interpretations should not have to be in the intro. --Silverback 13:24, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Why not the minarchist or marxist pure/idealistic definiton? Ultramarine 14:36, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

page lock

Strange that they locked the page. I thought a general consensus was starting to materialize --that we were going to provide the most common mainstream definition, rather than POV push. RJII 14:26, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Good idea with page lock. As you refuse to consider any sources that do not fit perfectly with the anarcho-capitalist definition, and ignore sources like Encyclopedia Britanica or Alan Greenspan, page protection is good. Note that an arbitration case regarding RJII's use of citations is now open. Ultramarine 14:32, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ultramarine, don't start with your lies again about me pushing anarcho-capitalism. The record is plain to see that you are the one that has been mentioning "anarch-capitalism" and "anarchy" explicity, and I have been consistently deleted it. You are a disingenous individual and I resent your intentional misrepresentation of me. (Clear to anyone who does a search for "anarcho" on the Talk page). I don't think that anarcho-capitalism should be mentioned, nor should a special definition be tailored for anarcho-capitalists. The most NPOV way I know is to provide the "typical" or "maintream" definition. I've said this consistently. Keep it up and I'll bring an arbration case against you for consistently lying to damage another user. This is unjustified. RJII 14:43, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You have written this on anarcho-capitalism on Feb 19 and has since then tried to change the introduction of the Capitalism article to this anarcho-capitalist definition:

"1. It is important in understanding anarcho-capitalism that the definition of "capitalism" to which is referred by the school of thought is one that refers to a free market. For example, Merriam-Webster defines capitalism as: "an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market." This differs from some other definitions that make no mention of a "free market" but instead refer to the private ownership of the means of production." [17] Ultramarine 14:49, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What does that have to do with anything? That's not this article but the anarcho-capitalism article where I was trying to explain anarcho-capitalism. I was pointing out that anarcho-capitalists don't use a Marxist definition of capitalism. RJII 14:54, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

And your are in arbitration for among other things refusing to provide sources for this "Marxist" defintion. Ultramarine 14:56, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You and your buddy are involved in the arbitration thing. Another attempt to misrepresent and harass me. RJII 15:08, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Talk History