Have got several problems with Paige. Interesting that she ends with a
Would anyone be interested in me establishing a history of capitalism article?
You should probably avoid ambiguity by calling it either "history of Capitalist Ideology" or "History of Capitalist Institutions" -- whichever is the subject in which you're interested. Either could be interesting, of course. -- Christofurio 20:38, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)
Oh, most definitely. -- Colonel E 01:30, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I reverted two changes: first, the capitalism that the article describes developed in the 16th century and after -- when was a capitalist system in place prior? Second, capitalist practices are not derived from feudalism. Slrubenstein
We may be getting into a matter of semantics, but I do not know of any theorist of capitalism who defines it in a way that would include Babylonian city-states, or the Roman Empire. Moreover, there is the opposite of a significant relationship between the Feudal aristocracy and the capitalist elite -- the bourgeois supported the French revolution, initially, and the rise of the House of Commons (along with the decline of the power of the monarchy and the House of Lords) is another example -- in the 18th century the bourgeoisie and the nobility were antagonistic classes. The rise of European capitalism involved a real break from feudal legal and political structures too.
One could -- indeed, I think one should say that all states, including ancient Mesopotamian states, the Greek city-states, and Rome, as well as all current nation-states, are "stratified," that is, divided into unequal socio-economic classes. In this context, you could say that the Feudal aristocracy and the Capitalist elite are similar in that they are at the top of their repsective societies. But how they got to the top, what it means to be at the top, what their values and behaviors are, are quite different. This, at least, is what I have gathered from most of the scholarly works I have read -- if there is a body of scholarship you know of that makes a different article, it should by all means by summarized in the article, Slrubenstein
I haven't read the book, but it doesn't surprise me -- the Talmud has a complex discussion on interest rates and how to price loans. But this does not mean that "capitalism" is an enduring reality. No one has ever claimed that market/money based societies did not exist prior to the rise of capitalism (or, if you prefer, modern capitalism). Many societies five thousand years ago had money and markets. But many did not, and for most of human history there is no evidence of markets or money. Moreover, there has been considerable debate over whether one could equate market economies with capitalism. Of course they have in common markets and money. But there are many things they do not have in common. Slrubenstein
Instead of defining capitalism as "The economic policies institutionalized during such and such a period", perhaps it would be best to use some more informative definition of capitalism? My understand of capitalism involves some economic system involving private property, wages, corporate merchant groups, banks and interest rates, foreign trade and balances of trade, surplus and defecits, stocks and insurance, marketplaces and markets, etc.
The second part of the article notes how there is much debate as to what the definition of capitalism is. Perhaps we should use something like that as the beginning of the article, rather than immediately declaring that capitalism first appeared around the 1500s. Susan Mason
quoting from above from Susan
I would be interested in any references to the economy of the ancient Babylonian and related societies if you have any. You can just enter them here.
I am aware of descriptions of these societies that include strict social stratification based on things other than wealth (including very extensive slavery), and fixed pricing laws for the majoirty of key items involved in the economy - such as land rent, labour, oxen, wheat, etc. I am not aware of any corporate groupings like publicly traded companies. A corporate body that functions like a guild is not the same thing, and a group of merchants along the lines of a modern day partnership is not a coporate body.
All of these things mean that these ancient societies were not capitalist - although they did have some, even many, aspects in common with capitalism. I would be happy to see any references to some part of the ancient Babylonian societies that was more capitalist than what I have seen so far. The capitalist aspects might appear to be more important if you focus on the international (or inter-city-state) aspects of trade, rather than the way most of the people in these societies existed.
Indeed! It was just as capitalist as you describe! Susan Mason
I agree with Susan that it would be nice to have a more descriptive definition of capitalism at the start rather than just saying when and where it happened, but I can see the problems with previous attempts (including my own ones). But here's another try.
Capitalism is the use of, or belief in, economic systems in which monetary valuations of products, factors of production, and ownership of productive organisations have a predominant influence over the organisation of production.
It seems to me that this definition works for all the various uses of the word that I can think of at the moment. If nobody points out anything wrong with it, then I might put it in the article.
It doesn't say that production influences production, it says that monetary valuations influence the organisation of production - I suppose I had the profit motive in mind here. But I take your point about money - I guess I can imagine capitalism in which all transactions are bartered, although it would be paralysingly inefficient without some type of "credit points" system very similar to money. Anyway, here's the same thing with money removed.
Capitalism is the use of, or belief in, economic systems in which the exchange values of products, factors of production, and ownership of productive organisations have a predominant influence over the organisation of production.
And maybe to make clearer the nature of the influence that these exchange values have, there should be some mention of profit incentives, as follows.
Capitalism is the use of, or belief in, economic systems in which the exchange values of products, factors of production, and ownership of productive organisations is encouraged or allowed to have a predominant influence over the organisation of production through an incentive to profit.
So what's wrong now?
I think that the current start of the article spends more time talking about the context of capitalism rather than capitalism - by context I mean, where it happened, when it happened, and what came before it, etc. These things should be mentioned somewhere near the start, but I think saying what it is should be the prime thing to say right off.
Then, the bits at the start that do say what it is are a particular point of view anyway. They are qualified by the word "especially", and the things mentioned are probably as good as most definitions I've seen, so on the whole compared to many sources it's not bad, quite good actually, but still there's no harm in trying for something better. One thing that I see as a small fault in the part that says what capitalism is, is the trade in ownership of companies. Trade in company ownership was important in the historical development of capitalism, and so given that the first sentence is an historical statement saying when capitalism developed, it is important to mention it there, and I think that as it stands in that sentence it is fine because it is talking about the economic systems that developed in the 16th to 19th centuries, and it wouldn't be right to simply remove it. But, there are types of capitalism that don't have trade in company ownership - I'm thinking here of Lenin's state capitalism, and perhaps more importantly post WWII European capitalism in which government ownership of major companies occured quite often. Government ownership didn't completely displace individual ownership, but the ideals behind it did allow for a form of capitalism in which companies weren't traded, but were still valued and managed with a profit motive and accounted for with a view to their capital worth. You can easily argue that the governments did a poor job in using their ownership rights, and that such practices were inefficient or whatever. You can also argue that much of it was motivated by socialist desires, but nevertheless many of the people doing it, and many comentators believed it was a form of capitalism, and that if government ownership did displace private ownership then it still would have been a form of capitalism - because it would ideally function the same, only without the unequal distribution of ownership - the only differnece in these people's minds was that the shareholder was the government, instead of a small number of rich people. So, in short, taking the historical route to introducing capitalism leads I think to too much emphasis on some of the early historical happenings, and this can lead to an inaccurate view of later widespread happenings in the world.
"While the revolution in Germany is slow in 'coming forth', our task is to study the state capitalism of the Germans, to spare no effort in copying it and not shrink from adopting dictatorial methods to hasten the copying of it. Our task is to do this even more thoroughly than Peter the Great hastened the copying of Western culture by barbarian Russia, and he did not hesitate to use barbarous methods in fighting against barbarism."
"The real nature of the New Economic Policy is this -- firstly, the proletarian state has given small producers freedom to trade; and secondly, in respect to the means of production in large-scale industry, the proletarian state is applying a number of principles of what in capitalist economies is called 'state capitalism."
"Experience has proven that we were wrong. It appears that a number of transitional stages were necessary -- state capitalism and socialism -- in order to prepare -- to prepare by many years of effort -- for the transition to communism."
I took out the following bit
"Zero unemployment would indicate that workers never quit to look for a better job, or were laid off because advancing technology reduced demand for their current skill sets. This condition would only occur in a completely static, stagnant economoy."
I never heard of anyone who quit for the purpose of looking for another job - people quit AFTER they have found another job, or they might quit because of some dispute or dislike of their job, and then look for another job, but it would be rare for someone to quit for the purpose of looking for another job. Anyway, the point is that you CAN look for another job while in your current job, and so zero unemployment does not imply a stagnant economy. Secondly, the classical economist's opinion of what happens when demand for your labour is reduced by technology in a pure capitalist economy is that your wages will drop, not that you will be fired. You might then decide to start looking for a better paying job while still working in your current job, or you might just accept the lower wages. In fact the standard economist view is that unemployment is not possible in a sufficiently free market economy, since everyone will be able to find some sort of job if they only lower their wage requirement enough.
Is it true that "the vast majority of all personal wealth" is in stock ownership? How vast?
When reading the paragraph of section 3.4 "Unknown/unapproved direction of capitalist economy" I find that it neglects or ignores relevant facts, and/or implies incorrect facts. A few disconnected ideas on the subject:
- the great complexity of a modern economy resulting in many interdependences and thus requiring a very detailed and broad plan
- that the modern economy is dynamic due to changes in human desire, technology, advances in knowledge, resource depletion and discovery, man-made and natural disasters
- that is possible to devise a 'good' plan for a complex / dynamic economy
- the relation between profits and ability to predict the future, and that the future isn't predictable
- the reliances of a distributed system as it requires manipulation of independent entities but with the downside of the ability to pick of smaller entities one at a time. I'm thinking of those attempt to manipulate the economy though political leaders and those that use violence (terrorism).
not really a very accurate page...
perhaps some mention of Adam Smith and generally understood capital principles? No practicing capitalist would quote Marx's definitions...
I also question the use of Marx to define capitalism. To true capitalists, Marx is irrelevant. Those who hold onto Marx's labels are at risk of falling far behind in today's world. A Wiki article SHOULD reflect this. (DJ November 8 2004)
I think the small section on mercantilism should be re-located once more. Mercantilism is an ideology, but it is also a system that predates capitalism. Morreover, by some accounts it is not "capitalist" domestically since it relies on slave-labor and indentured servitude and not just free labor. Slrubenstein
I have removed the implication that the slang word "buck" for "dollar" has anything to do with slaves. This is folk etymology and an urban legend. Cite: [1]. -- FOo 03:29, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I added a section History of capitalism and a note about Adam Smith. Both could be expanded (and changed), but I just cant imagine talking about capitalism without reffering to AS. -- Piotrus 14:35, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Fubar's modifications of the introduction are a significant improvement. wgoetsch 14:43, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I think the intro should be a simple/basic as possible. I removed two kinds of detailed information from the intro: first, stuff on the development of free markets. There is evidence of free markets prior to the development of capitalism. I also removed stuff on finance, which developed later in the history of capitalism. In fact, I believe both of these issues (or sets of practices) DO belong in the article. But they should go in the body, where they can be discussed with greater nuance. I just don't see how they are so essintial they belong in the intro. Slrubenstein
I've restated my brief definition of the financial aspects of capitalism, but in accordance with your suggestion I've moved it out of the intro into the pro-and-con section. -- Christofurio 19:40, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)
Free markets represent the _ideal_ capitalism, which (to my mind) differs from corporate capitalism or actually-existing capitalism (the US, etc.) Jdevine 16:58, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I don't agree. Wikipedia is not a dictionary (dictionaries are about how people use words; encyclopedias are about the things words refer to), and dictionaries are poor authorities on substantive knowledge (see Barbara Wallrof's essay in the NYST Magazine 9/5). The introduction to this article should introduce the article, not echo a dictionary definition.
Of course, if there are elements in the definition that you think are not represented in the article, then by all means add substantive material. Slrubenstein
There is no such thing as the "right" definition, especially when you get to a phenomena like capitalism which is both historical and abstract. Dictionaries do not provide the "right" or "true" definition of a thing; they strive to describe how most people define a thing. Many dictionary entries in fact provide many definitions of something (usually numbered). In some cases, these are ranked according to how common the usage is, but in many cases the numbering is arbitrary and the definitions are not ranked. In the case of some words, like "chair" for example, few people will argue over the definition of the word and it won't be that hard to write a dictionary or encyclopedia entry. But in other cases -- and I think Capitalism, which has taken many different forms over the past two hundred years and has been the constant object of conflict (from luddites and the Captain Swing movements, to anarchism, socialism, and communism), is a perfect example -- there will be many different definitions and many people sharply disagree over definitions. In the United States some people even today argue over whether the New Deal saved Capitalism or destroyed it -- a debate which of course assumes different understandings of what "capitalism" is. I think our article should cover all of these different views. In your first e-mail you suggested that the elements of the definition be incorporated into the article and I agree. I just don't think they should be incorproated as one authoritative definition -- because for NPOV purposes someone else will immediately have to put in a different definition, and say "some people define it this way, others define it that way." No, I think it makes more sense to organize the article around the different historical manifestations that capitalism has taken, and describe the differfent beliefs people have had about capitalism, in the body of the article. Slrubenstein
Thanks for the clarification, I think we pretty much agree. Slrubenstein
Is there really a need to divide libertarian socialism and socialism? the system should be the same, shouldn´t they? -- Harshmellow 21:12, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
yes they need to be divided: libertarian socialists see their proposed system as ideal, compared to "bureaucratic socialism" or "actually-existed socialism" (the old USSR, etc). Jdevine 16:58, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Actually, Jdevine, libertarian socialism and "USSR-style socialism" are far from being the only types of socialism. Libertarian socialists reject all state-based forms of socialism, including the democratic ones that have nothing to do with the old USSR. And also including the "dilluted socialism" of the social democrats, of course. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 14:09, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Should it stay or should it go? There's been some back-and-forth in this article, and we may as well discuss it here. -- Christofurio 13:11, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)
I took out some stuff that was added by anonymous contributors today. Here are the paragraphs:
24.157.36.242: "This argument [that the uneven distribution of wealth is sustainable because even the poor in capitalistic countries maintain a higher standard living] is not universally accepted. One notable counter argument is that population dynamics will realign to reflect the uneven distribution of wealth. This argument points to clumping of human capital around idealized cores while sustaining fringes subject to grossly inefficient use of resources." Because I just have no idea what this is referring to.
81.136.211.103: "It should be noted that due to differences of ability between individuals, not everyone is capable of meeting the requirements demanded by employment, thus leaving a marginal percentage of unemployment. This plays an essential role in the evolving network structure--as explained above--due to the "survival of the fittest" law. Improving efficiency requires the removal of the "weakest link", and when left alone a free system naturally practices this method. In this case, that would mean that the more capable people will provide their talents, possibly improving the system even more." There's probably some material worth salvaging here, but the basic gist is a specific POV, so we should at least say who it is that thinks this (preferably not just "some people think it"). Specific problems with this material: when we say "not everyone is capable" of meeting employers' demands, are we assuming anything about what kind of employers, what kind of work, what kind of demands, etc., what kind of employees (are we just talking about the elderly, children, and seriously disabled people, or is this meant to include some able-bodied adults as well?). How much is a marginal percentage? Who says it plays an essential role in evolving network structure. "Survival of the fittest" a law according to whom? Logically, improving efficiency does not necessarily involve removing the weakest link -- it could also involve improving that links efficiency, or leaving that link the way it is while improving other links. And so on. - Nat Kraus e 15:12, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
"If people can get similar power over involuntary people or their possessions, then the economic system is not capitalistic but, e.g., socialistic"
Because it is not NPOV. Socialism is about democratic control of work places by the people that work there. It is not about slavery. As for the rest, it's a matter of definitions. Workers voluntarily choose who to work for, but not whether to work for someone or not.
This is how it read before:
"It is characteristic for capitalism, that all that power is obtained voluntarily: workers agree on to sell some of their work for certain wage, banks or investors lend money on certain terms etc."
and this is my edit:
"It is characteristic for capitalism, that power is meant to be obtained voluntarily: workers choose who to sell their labour to, banks or investors lend money on certain terms etc."
Any objections?-- Che y Marijuana 05:35, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
Is it our place to say that the Marxist definition of capitalism is "imaginary"?-- Che y Marijuana 05:42, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
I think the term more commonly used is "ideal" or "theoretical model." However, Marx definitely took an alternative approach, building any model out of specific historical practices. Slrubenstein
Have got several problems with Paige. Interesting that she ends with a
Would anyone be interested in me establishing a history of capitalism article?
You should probably avoid ambiguity by calling it either "history of Capitalist Ideology" or "History of Capitalist Institutions" -- whichever is the subject in which you're interested. Either could be interesting, of course. -- Christofurio 20:38, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)
Oh, most definitely. -- Colonel E 01:30, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I reverted two changes: first, the capitalism that the article describes developed in the 16th century and after -- when was a capitalist system in place prior? Second, capitalist practices are not derived from feudalism. Slrubenstein
We may be getting into a matter of semantics, but I do not know of any theorist of capitalism who defines it in a way that would include Babylonian city-states, or the Roman Empire. Moreover, there is the opposite of a significant relationship between the Feudal aristocracy and the capitalist elite -- the bourgeois supported the French revolution, initially, and the rise of the House of Commons (along with the decline of the power of the monarchy and the House of Lords) is another example -- in the 18th century the bourgeoisie and the nobility were antagonistic classes. The rise of European capitalism involved a real break from feudal legal and political structures too.
One could -- indeed, I think one should say that all states, including ancient Mesopotamian states, the Greek city-states, and Rome, as well as all current nation-states, are "stratified," that is, divided into unequal socio-economic classes. In this context, you could say that the Feudal aristocracy and the Capitalist elite are similar in that they are at the top of their repsective societies. But how they got to the top, what it means to be at the top, what their values and behaviors are, are quite different. This, at least, is what I have gathered from most of the scholarly works I have read -- if there is a body of scholarship you know of that makes a different article, it should by all means by summarized in the article, Slrubenstein
I haven't read the book, but it doesn't surprise me -- the Talmud has a complex discussion on interest rates and how to price loans. But this does not mean that "capitalism" is an enduring reality. No one has ever claimed that market/money based societies did not exist prior to the rise of capitalism (or, if you prefer, modern capitalism). Many societies five thousand years ago had money and markets. But many did not, and for most of human history there is no evidence of markets or money. Moreover, there has been considerable debate over whether one could equate market economies with capitalism. Of course they have in common markets and money. But there are many things they do not have in common. Slrubenstein
Instead of defining capitalism as "The economic policies institutionalized during such and such a period", perhaps it would be best to use some more informative definition of capitalism? My understand of capitalism involves some economic system involving private property, wages, corporate merchant groups, banks and interest rates, foreign trade and balances of trade, surplus and defecits, stocks and insurance, marketplaces and markets, etc.
The second part of the article notes how there is much debate as to what the definition of capitalism is. Perhaps we should use something like that as the beginning of the article, rather than immediately declaring that capitalism first appeared around the 1500s. Susan Mason
quoting from above from Susan
I would be interested in any references to the economy of the ancient Babylonian and related societies if you have any. You can just enter them here.
I am aware of descriptions of these societies that include strict social stratification based on things other than wealth (including very extensive slavery), and fixed pricing laws for the majoirty of key items involved in the economy - such as land rent, labour, oxen, wheat, etc. I am not aware of any corporate groupings like publicly traded companies. A corporate body that functions like a guild is not the same thing, and a group of merchants along the lines of a modern day partnership is not a coporate body.
All of these things mean that these ancient societies were not capitalist - although they did have some, even many, aspects in common with capitalism. I would be happy to see any references to some part of the ancient Babylonian societies that was more capitalist than what I have seen so far. The capitalist aspects might appear to be more important if you focus on the international (or inter-city-state) aspects of trade, rather than the way most of the people in these societies existed.
Indeed! It was just as capitalist as you describe! Susan Mason
I agree with Susan that it would be nice to have a more descriptive definition of capitalism at the start rather than just saying when and where it happened, but I can see the problems with previous attempts (including my own ones). But here's another try.
Capitalism is the use of, or belief in, economic systems in which monetary valuations of products, factors of production, and ownership of productive organisations have a predominant influence over the organisation of production.
It seems to me that this definition works for all the various uses of the word that I can think of at the moment. If nobody points out anything wrong with it, then I might put it in the article.
It doesn't say that production influences production, it says that monetary valuations influence the organisation of production - I suppose I had the profit motive in mind here. But I take your point about money - I guess I can imagine capitalism in which all transactions are bartered, although it would be paralysingly inefficient without some type of "credit points" system very similar to money. Anyway, here's the same thing with money removed.
Capitalism is the use of, or belief in, economic systems in which the exchange values of products, factors of production, and ownership of productive organisations have a predominant influence over the organisation of production.
And maybe to make clearer the nature of the influence that these exchange values have, there should be some mention of profit incentives, as follows.
Capitalism is the use of, or belief in, economic systems in which the exchange values of products, factors of production, and ownership of productive organisations is encouraged or allowed to have a predominant influence over the organisation of production through an incentive to profit.
So what's wrong now?
I think that the current start of the article spends more time talking about the context of capitalism rather than capitalism - by context I mean, where it happened, when it happened, and what came before it, etc. These things should be mentioned somewhere near the start, but I think saying what it is should be the prime thing to say right off.
Then, the bits at the start that do say what it is are a particular point of view anyway. They are qualified by the word "especially", and the things mentioned are probably as good as most definitions I've seen, so on the whole compared to many sources it's not bad, quite good actually, but still there's no harm in trying for something better. One thing that I see as a small fault in the part that says what capitalism is, is the trade in ownership of companies. Trade in company ownership was important in the historical development of capitalism, and so given that the first sentence is an historical statement saying when capitalism developed, it is important to mention it there, and I think that as it stands in that sentence it is fine because it is talking about the economic systems that developed in the 16th to 19th centuries, and it wouldn't be right to simply remove it. But, there are types of capitalism that don't have trade in company ownership - I'm thinking here of Lenin's state capitalism, and perhaps more importantly post WWII European capitalism in which government ownership of major companies occured quite often. Government ownership didn't completely displace individual ownership, but the ideals behind it did allow for a form of capitalism in which companies weren't traded, but were still valued and managed with a profit motive and accounted for with a view to their capital worth. You can easily argue that the governments did a poor job in using their ownership rights, and that such practices were inefficient or whatever. You can also argue that much of it was motivated by socialist desires, but nevertheless many of the people doing it, and many comentators believed it was a form of capitalism, and that if government ownership did displace private ownership then it still would have been a form of capitalism - because it would ideally function the same, only without the unequal distribution of ownership - the only differnece in these people's minds was that the shareholder was the government, instead of a small number of rich people. So, in short, taking the historical route to introducing capitalism leads I think to too much emphasis on some of the early historical happenings, and this can lead to an inaccurate view of later widespread happenings in the world.
"While the revolution in Germany is slow in 'coming forth', our task is to study the state capitalism of the Germans, to spare no effort in copying it and not shrink from adopting dictatorial methods to hasten the copying of it. Our task is to do this even more thoroughly than Peter the Great hastened the copying of Western culture by barbarian Russia, and he did not hesitate to use barbarous methods in fighting against barbarism."
"The real nature of the New Economic Policy is this -- firstly, the proletarian state has given small producers freedom to trade; and secondly, in respect to the means of production in large-scale industry, the proletarian state is applying a number of principles of what in capitalist economies is called 'state capitalism."
"Experience has proven that we were wrong. It appears that a number of transitional stages were necessary -- state capitalism and socialism -- in order to prepare -- to prepare by many years of effort -- for the transition to communism."
I took out the following bit
"Zero unemployment would indicate that workers never quit to look for a better job, or were laid off because advancing technology reduced demand for their current skill sets. This condition would only occur in a completely static, stagnant economoy."
I never heard of anyone who quit for the purpose of looking for another job - people quit AFTER they have found another job, or they might quit because of some dispute or dislike of their job, and then look for another job, but it would be rare for someone to quit for the purpose of looking for another job. Anyway, the point is that you CAN look for another job while in your current job, and so zero unemployment does not imply a stagnant economy. Secondly, the classical economist's opinion of what happens when demand for your labour is reduced by technology in a pure capitalist economy is that your wages will drop, not that you will be fired. You might then decide to start looking for a better paying job while still working in your current job, or you might just accept the lower wages. In fact the standard economist view is that unemployment is not possible in a sufficiently free market economy, since everyone will be able to find some sort of job if they only lower their wage requirement enough.
Is it true that "the vast majority of all personal wealth" is in stock ownership? How vast?
When reading the paragraph of section 3.4 "Unknown/unapproved direction of capitalist economy" I find that it neglects or ignores relevant facts, and/or implies incorrect facts. A few disconnected ideas on the subject:
- the great complexity of a modern economy resulting in many interdependences and thus requiring a very detailed and broad plan
- that the modern economy is dynamic due to changes in human desire, technology, advances in knowledge, resource depletion and discovery, man-made and natural disasters
- that is possible to devise a 'good' plan for a complex / dynamic economy
- the relation between profits and ability to predict the future, and that the future isn't predictable
- the reliances of a distributed system as it requires manipulation of independent entities but with the downside of the ability to pick of smaller entities one at a time. I'm thinking of those attempt to manipulate the economy though political leaders and those that use violence (terrorism).
not really a very accurate page...
perhaps some mention of Adam Smith and generally understood capital principles? No practicing capitalist would quote Marx's definitions...
I also question the use of Marx to define capitalism. To true capitalists, Marx is irrelevant. Those who hold onto Marx's labels are at risk of falling far behind in today's world. A Wiki article SHOULD reflect this. (DJ November 8 2004)
I think the small section on mercantilism should be re-located once more. Mercantilism is an ideology, but it is also a system that predates capitalism. Morreover, by some accounts it is not "capitalist" domestically since it relies on slave-labor and indentured servitude and not just free labor. Slrubenstein
I have removed the implication that the slang word "buck" for "dollar" has anything to do with slaves. This is folk etymology and an urban legend. Cite: [1]. -- FOo 03:29, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I added a section History of capitalism and a note about Adam Smith. Both could be expanded (and changed), but I just cant imagine talking about capitalism without reffering to AS. -- Piotrus 14:35, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Fubar's modifications of the introduction are a significant improvement. wgoetsch 14:43, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I think the intro should be a simple/basic as possible. I removed two kinds of detailed information from the intro: first, stuff on the development of free markets. There is evidence of free markets prior to the development of capitalism. I also removed stuff on finance, which developed later in the history of capitalism. In fact, I believe both of these issues (or sets of practices) DO belong in the article. But they should go in the body, where they can be discussed with greater nuance. I just don't see how they are so essintial they belong in the intro. Slrubenstein
I've restated my brief definition of the financial aspects of capitalism, but in accordance with your suggestion I've moved it out of the intro into the pro-and-con section. -- Christofurio 19:40, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)
Free markets represent the _ideal_ capitalism, which (to my mind) differs from corporate capitalism or actually-existing capitalism (the US, etc.) Jdevine 16:58, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I don't agree. Wikipedia is not a dictionary (dictionaries are about how people use words; encyclopedias are about the things words refer to), and dictionaries are poor authorities on substantive knowledge (see Barbara Wallrof's essay in the NYST Magazine 9/5). The introduction to this article should introduce the article, not echo a dictionary definition.
Of course, if there are elements in the definition that you think are not represented in the article, then by all means add substantive material. Slrubenstein
There is no such thing as the "right" definition, especially when you get to a phenomena like capitalism which is both historical and abstract. Dictionaries do not provide the "right" or "true" definition of a thing; they strive to describe how most people define a thing. Many dictionary entries in fact provide many definitions of something (usually numbered). In some cases, these are ranked according to how common the usage is, but in many cases the numbering is arbitrary and the definitions are not ranked. In the case of some words, like "chair" for example, few people will argue over the definition of the word and it won't be that hard to write a dictionary or encyclopedia entry. But in other cases -- and I think Capitalism, which has taken many different forms over the past two hundred years and has been the constant object of conflict (from luddites and the Captain Swing movements, to anarchism, socialism, and communism), is a perfect example -- there will be many different definitions and many people sharply disagree over definitions. In the United States some people even today argue over whether the New Deal saved Capitalism or destroyed it -- a debate which of course assumes different understandings of what "capitalism" is. I think our article should cover all of these different views. In your first e-mail you suggested that the elements of the definition be incorporated into the article and I agree. I just don't think they should be incorproated as one authoritative definition -- because for NPOV purposes someone else will immediately have to put in a different definition, and say "some people define it this way, others define it that way." No, I think it makes more sense to organize the article around the different historical manifestations that capitalism has taken, and describe the differfent beliefs people have had about capitalism, in the body of the article. Slrubenstein
Thanks for the clarification, I think we pretty much agree. Slrubenstein
Is there really a need to divide libertarian socialism and socialism? the system should be the same, shouldn´t they? -- Harshmellow 21:12, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
yes they need to be divided: libertarian socialists see their proposed system as ideal, compared to "bureaucratic socialism" or "actually-existed socialism" (the old USSR, etc). Jdevine 16:58, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Actually, Jdevine, libertarian socialism and "USSR-style socialism" are far from being the only types of socialism. Libertarian socialists reject all state-based forms of socialism, including the democratic ones that have nothing to do with the old USSR. And also including the "dilluted socialism" of the social democrats, of course. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 14:09, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Should it stay or should it go? There's been some back-and-forth in this article, and we may as well discuss it here. -- Christofurio 13:11, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)
I took out some stuff that was added by anonymous contributors today. Here are the paragraphs:
24.157.36.242: "This argument [that the uneven distribution of wealth is sustainable because even the poor in capitalistic countries maintain a higher standard living] is not universally accepted. One notable counter argument is that population dynamics will realign to reflect the uneven distribution of wealth. This argument points to clumping of human capital around idealized cores while sustaining fringes subject to grossly inefficient use of resources." Because I just have no idea what this is referring to.
81.136.211.103: "It should be noted that due to differences of ability between individuals, not everyone is capable of meeting the requirements demanded by employment, thus leaving a marginal percentage of unemployment. This plays an essential role in the evolving network structure--as explained above--due to the "survival of the fittest" law. Improving efficiency requires the removal of the "weakest link", and when left alone a free system naturally practices this method. In this case, that would mean that the more capable people will provide their talents, possibly improving the system even more." There's probably some material worth salvaging here, but the basic gist is a specific POV, so we should at least say who it is that thinks this (preferably not just "some people think it"). Specific problems with this material: when we say "not everyone is capable" of meeting employers' demands, are we assuming anything about what kind of employers, what kind of work, what kind of demands, etc., what kind of employees (are we just talking about the elderly, children, and seriously disabled people, or is this meant to include some able-bodied adults as well?). How much is a marginal percentage? Who says it plays an essential role in evolving network structure. "Survival of the fittest" a law according to whom? Logically, improving efficiency does not necessarily involve removing the weakest link -- it could also involve improving that links efficiency, or leaving that link the way it is while improving other links. And so on. - Nat Kraus e 15:12, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
"If people can get similar power over involuntary people or their possessions, then the economic system is not capitalistic but, e.g., socialistic"
Because it is not NPOV. Socialism is about democratic control of work places by the people that work there. It is not about slavery. As for the rest, it's a matter of definitions. Workers voluntarily choose who to work for, but not whether to work for someone or not.
This is how it read before:
"It is characteristic for capitalism, that all that power is obtained voluntarily: workers agree on to sell some of their work for certain wage, banks or investors lend money on certain terms etc."
and this is my edit:
"It is characteristic for capitalism, that power is meant to be obtained voluntarily: workers choose who to sell their labour to, banks or investors lend money on certain terms etc."
Any objections?-- Che y Marijuana 05:35, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
Is it our place to say that the Marxist definition of capitalism is "imaginary"?-- Che y Marijuana 05:42, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
I think the term more commonly used is "ideal" or "theoretical model." However, Marx definitely took an alternative approach, building any model out of specific historical practices. Slrubenstein