Soxwon, what singular event are you referring to in you revision of my revision - last I checked there are millions of robberies all the time, and a lot of money is spent by private individuals to protect their property by force.-- Red Deathy ( talk) 15:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC) Oh, I'll add, I don't see what WP:SYN has to do with anything, an unreferenced claim was removed, and I commented in my reasoning why the claim wasn't supportable on logical grounds - private property conceptually includes the right to use force to defend that property against aggressive interlopers.-- Red Deathy ( talk) 15:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Through capitalism, the land, labor, and capital are owned, operated, and traded, without force or fraud
refers to compulsory actions, not protection. Protection is addressed later in the paragraph. I was initially unclear as to what your statement was referring to and thought it might be referring to some form of fraud or misconduct in business. (probably made that assumption on your name, I apologize) Soxwon ( talk) 16:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
In the Etymology section it's stated that Arthur Young uses the term Capitalism in his work Travels in France, buth when I search the source text, I only find Capitalism used in the foreword, not in the text from 1792? Do I miss someting? See http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=292&layout=html Nsaa ( talk) 23:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
The Perspectives section is a sidetrack and seems to be limited only to perspectives that are enthusiastic about capitalism or are mildly critical. This is no perspectives section if it doesn't include at least a brief explanation of Karl Marx and other major formative thinkers such as Thorstein Veblen. Why not just create a new page which is more inclusive of perspectives, both positive and negative? Wikipedia doesn't exist to whitewash. Nubeli ( talk) 22:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I want to add a link that shows another way (besides starting wars etc--" Rogue State" Wm Blum) that USA forced Americans & the world to "be capitalist" through the education system: The Goose-Step (book): A Study of American Education is a book, published in 1923, by the American novelist and muckraking journalist Upton Sinclair. It is an investigation into the consequences of plutocratic capitalist control of American colleges and universities. Sinclair writes, “Our educational system is not a public service, but an instrument of special privilege; its purpose is not to further the welfare of mankind, but merely to keep America capitalist." (p. 18) Stars4change ( talk) 21:32, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
When editing this article Wikipedia gives a warning that this article may be too long: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_size. Since the majority of the sections are linked to specific articles it would increase legibility to reduce the size of this monstrosity. The Perspectives section can easily be summarized (as I had attempted earlier) with links to the appropriate articles on Keynesian, neo-classical, classical, marxian economics and so on. There's no need to revisit all the tenants of these various economic theories.
I also feel that the Perspectives section should not be first, but rather after History. People reading the article should be presented first with an overview and the development of captalism and then given a sense of all the different theories. Nubeli ( talk) 17:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
The use of voluntary has nothing to do with whether a person is in a capitalist society voluntarily. It has to do with the voluntary exchange of goods and minimal to no interference from outside forces such as the government. As for the force or fraud, I'm not sure how that is self-evidently false and hoped you could explain your reasoning. Soxwon ( talk) 16:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Guys, I think you are both talking past one another. "Capitalism" refers both to a belief about how economies should work, and a set of practices. As with most anything people do, ideals often conflict with practice. I think it si a profound mistake to conclude that this means that either the ideals or the practice is "wrong." Why ideals and practices contradict is an interesting question and a matter of debate and as with everything else instead of pretending it doesn't occure, Wikipedia should provide an account of all significant views in notable sources. Moreover, people have different ideas of what capitalism is ideally, and other people have different ideas about what it is in practice. We need an article that accommodats all this.
A long time ago I helped craft this, but now banned user user:RJII deleted it repeatedly. I am not sure whether other people who watch this page would wish to resurrect it but here it is just in case people are curious:
Well, that was my best effort (of course, others worked on it - it was more or less stable for over a year before it was deleted). Slrubenstein | Talk 02:46, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
As I've pointed out previously, force is a necessary part of contract - if one party defaults, ppolice/bailifs may be called in to enforce the contract, that is compatable with capitalism. Fraud is a moral not an economic category, logically, capitalism can exist alongside fraud, so it's absence cannot be considered an essential part of capitalism. I think the simple excision of force/fraud from the definition does not alter POV, but simply remains silent on the issue, maybe the point about the oughts of froce/fraud could be moved furtehr down the article?-- Red Deathy ( talk) 12:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Moving it further down the article may well be an idea. In any case, my experience says that the terms 'force' and 'fraud' are highly used in libertarianism and a more detailed description would be preferable. Anyway, I see it has more to do with the laws of a country rather than any particular value of force or fraud. Munci ( talk) 15:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
This http://www.er.uqam.ca/nobel/gedeonou/slavery2/ that in capitalism it's all the same thing to buy & sell humans, including into prostitution, & we now have to sell ourselves. Stars4change ( talk) 16:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
According to Arjen Hoekstra, the current unregulated capitalist/consumerist trading system is unethical. Arjen Hoekstra compares the consumption of products made at such a fashion that it devestates the local environment (bringing people locally in trouble) with the handling of stolen goods. He says that it is "playing innocent while purchasing a bycicle for 10$ of a junkie".
Perhaps it can be added in article. The analogy used above (which is I believe very accurate) could be mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.176.1.77 ( talk) 17:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
M&Ms says: WHAT? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.209.74.201 ( talk) 16:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
The problem with defining capitalism is that there may not only be a difference between theory and practice, but also one between the experts and the general public. But before discussing what the experts say it should be noted that, as a matter of pure logic, even a minimalist capitalist system must have a state that provides the service of legislating and enforcing property rights. One could make a leap of logic and argue that, in theory, enforcement could possibly be conducted by the market, but legislation? This one exception necessitates the role of the state in the provision of some services.
But capitalism is, at its root, a Marxist term. The current definition does not capture this and is from a side discussion in a chapter entitled “Price Determination” from a fairly unknown introductory economic principles textbook. A more rigorous discussion can be found in Frank Stilwell’s “Political Economy: The Contest of Economic Ideas”. This is a graduate textbook for a Political Economy course by a well-known expert. He argues that:
This seems to be what is being done in the wikipedia base definition without the small, yet significant, inclusion of “most” in the definition. Yet, in the very next sentence, Stillwell proceeds with:
Instead, Stilwell states that Marx’s original distinction bridges the gap between “technical” and “social” aspects of capitalism. The definition is:
Maybe we could go ahead with this definition instead of the one from a little-known economic principles text. Either way, the existing definition is one of common usage/practical capitalism and should mention some level of state provision of services such as law enforcement, military provision, highway/transportation system, and public education. If we go in a more economic/theoretical direction then the term should be defined in a more classical manner as Stilwell suggests. MoralMoney ( talk) 18:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Since there have been so many books that prove capitalism IS slavery of the masses to make a few people rich, when will you say that it's slavery? These are just some of the books that prove it: "The Rich and the Super Rich" by Ferdinand Lundberg; " Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower" by William Blum; " When Corporations Rule the World" by David Korten; "Dirty Truths" by Michael Parenti; "100 Ways America is Screwing up the World" by John Tirman; " Give Me Liberty" by Gerry Spence; " Democracy for the Few" by Michael Parenti; "America Beseiged" by Michael Parenti; " Downsize This" by Michael Moore"; ' The War Against Women" by Marilyn French; Noam Chomsky's books; & many more? If we'd end capitalism we'd immediately end world poverty, & this article should just say the wage is slavery.. Stars4change ( talk) 04:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
. . Capitalism should indeed be defined as "The Traditional Neanderthal Practice of Tribal Slavery to Tribal Chieftains", even though Capitalism poses as an economic system because it allows its slaves to invest their spare time in the production of pre-owned products and services and to barter these in village malls for chieftain-manipulated slave-labor script.
. . No references need vouch for this fact, whose unpleasant effects are frequently impressed on all slaves.
. . However, presenting the true definition of an "Economy" would be edifying to your readers because of its stark contrast to phony landlord Capitalism.
. . This definition appears in Talk:Economy (or was until it was maliciously removed by unknown capitalist bandits - see reprint below)and in the revolutionary new eBook, "THE OCTAHEDRON, The Symbol Of Man, Blueprint For Civilization", available from Amazon.com in Kindle Book format, and in computer format at MobiPocket.com with a free eBook reader.
. . If you have noticed that you are a slave to club-wielding Neanderthal chieftains, perhaps you have enough motivation to liberate yourself by organizing a local Consumer-Based Economy and link it to others elsewhere.
. . Such an economy would enable you and your friends to order everything you want from your economy - even an ideal, modern, self-governing city - and pay for everything with your labor, rather than with slave-labor script.
. . This entire process is described in complete detail in the referenced eBook.
. . . . . .
Civilized Man (
talk) 02:05, 10 July 2009 (UTC) . . . Early Summer, Cancer 18 (that's July 9 on the retarded Capitalist calendar).
. . "Economy" is properly defined as a "Scientific System of Labor Exchange", not a primitive market barter practice!
. . This entire topic on the definition of "Economy" needs to be totally re-written to remove all arbitrariness to qualify as a Definition.
. . Quite obviously, despite common erroneous usage, primitive market barter and peddling of existing goods in open markets can never be considered to involve any kind of system.
. . Nor can the slavery of Socialism or the Compulsory Market Consumption involved in Capitalism be considered an economic system.
. . The instinctive word "Economy" can be defined ONLY as "a scientific System of Exchange of Future Labor created by the Long-Term Industrial Orders of the ultimate Consumers".
. . The barter of existing products for other existing pre-owned products, or for intermediate standard items of barter such as money or currencies, could therefore occur only OUTSIDE an economy.
. . The scientific system of future labor exchanges can occur ONLY when the ultimate consumers create those jobs through orders placed with industry for Future production, and the workers involved state their relative preferences for the different types of specialized labor involved.
. . This scientific exchange of specialized labors can be decided precisely through a mathematical equation involving The Principle of Fair Labor Exchange.
. . This can be systematically computerized as "the square root of the product of the two ratios of each worker's relative preferences for the two types of jobs involved in a labor exchange".
. . . . . . . Civilized Man (talk) 09:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC) Civilized Man. . . Early Summer, Cancer 16 (that's July 7 on the retarded Capitalist calendar).
Was there a reason that bourgeois was used four times in the article outside of the marxist and criticism sections? Soxwon ( talk) 22:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
67.188.42.104 ( talk) 04:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC) I know this is copy/paste Wikipedia, but it is unnecessary to have this paragraph repeated twice within the span of half dozen paragraphs:
"Feudalism began to lay some of the foundations necessary for the development of mercantilism, a precursor to capitalism. Feudalism took place mostly in Europe and lasted from the medieval period up through the 16th century. Feudal manors were almost entirely self-sufficient, and therefore limited the role of the market. This stifled the growth of capitalism. However, the relatively sudden emergence of new technologies and discoveries, particularly in the industries of agriculture [64] and exploration, revitalized the growth of capitalism. The most important development at the end of feudalism was the emergence of “the dichotomy between wage earners and capitalist merchants”.[65]"
Karl Marx. No other name carries so much political baggage. Despite this, he should not be ignored as the first person to express the term “capitalism” as an economic system. Before the cold war, before WWII or WWI there were 3 main classical economists: Smith, Ricardo, and Marx. That’s just inescapable economic history. The etymological section of this article makes the claim that Adam Smith is “often described as the ‘father of capitalist thinking’”, and then cites Smith’s original work. Obviously Smith couldn’t make this claim about himself! Is this a personal opinion? Who said he is “often described” as this? Smith could be described as the father of free-market and laissez fair economic thought and policy, but capitalism is not necessarily synonymous with laissez-faire.
So, why is it relevant that Smith never used the term? And if Smith, as the father of capitalist thinking, is just an opinion and there is no supporting cite for the opinion, then why is this a part of an article that is already too long?
Marx’s 1844 manuscripts are also ignored in the etymological section. In these he uses the term “kapitalist” in reference to an economic system, but had not used the term “kapitalism” yet. It was in Das Kapital that the term was first used as a description of an economic system. Why is this not noted? Why is the use of “capitalist” as a person who owns capital more relevant and found before the factual origins of “capitalism” as an economic system? Instead the article simply states that Marx “only” used the term twice. But these were the first two times in history that the term was used to describe capitalism as an economic system! This hardly deserves the qualifier “only”.
The historic significance of this can be seen today. In economics, the symbol for capital is ‘k’ due to Marx. This is ‘k’ for “kapital” and “kapitalism”! This article is really an inaccurate joke as it leaves out the creator of the entire concept simply as a matter of American politics. MoralMoney ( talk) 22:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Marx is NOT a classical economist. That's all I have to say. His economics start in direct contrast to classic liberal economics.
Teeninvestor (
talk) 22:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
The Criticism section says this: "Following the economic crisis which began in 2008..." This presupposes that there actually was an economic crisis, that reader knows what economic crisis is being referred to, and that it began in 2008. It would also require some sort of citation I imagine. All these things seem to lead to information beyond the subject of the article, and indeed the whole point of the phrase -- which is simply to provide a date that the papacy said something. I think I will be WP:BOLD and edit it out. Feel free to revert with comments here if you disagree and would like to discuss. HyperCapitalist ( talk) 05:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
The Perspectives section has needed some major shortening for some time. You can find ALL the information in separate articles. By Wikipedia guidelines we should only provide an introduction or highlight where the school of thought touches on the topic of capitalism. The place for detail is elsewhere. So I'm not censoring since people are free to go into detail on the respective pages. But here I will be making all perspectives concise will still giving them appropriate weight according to their importance (and not according to how I agree with them). Nubeli ( talk) 16:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
By the way, the original article was approaching 110 KB before I pared it down to 60 KB. Even at 80 KB Wikipedia was giving us a warning. Nubeli ( talk) 20:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
More - far more - people will come to the article on "Capitalism" than to the article "history of Capitalism" or "Hayek." The article that most people will read is the article that should provide as much information as readers will want to know. I agree that material has to be relevant to understanding capitalsim, but i am suspicious of the word "directly." What a marxist considers relevant to understanding capitalism may not be shared by a Weberian who may not share the views of a follower of Hayek. We have to make sure each view is presented as intelligible. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Wage labor is not essential to the definition of capitalism. A sole proprietorship is a capitalist enterprise. What makes something a capitalist is that it is owned and operated by a private individual rather than by the state, not whether the owner hires some help. Wage labor is just a natural consequence of capitalism, of allowing people to own their own businesses. Some hire help, some don't. Introman ( talk) 14:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
"Capitalism is defined as private ownership of the means of production." By whom? Please bear in mind that there is no one definition of capitalism, there are many. Marx defined capitalism in terms of a labor market, this is very clear in Capital. Private ownership of means of production occurs in Feudalism; it is only when the principle form of labor is free, wage labor, that the means of production become concentrated in the hands of capitalists. Wage labor is essential to the definition of capitalism because, as marx explains in chapter 1 of capital, until labor is free and commoditized, capitalism does not exist. Of course, this is only the Marxist definition of capitalism, others have other definitions. "A capitalist economy could conceivably even have zero wage labor." What is your source? Slrubenstein | Talk 18:52, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Hey introman,NPOV demands that we include all significant views. marx's is one of them. It is not a fringe view. And why don't you actually read the article before editing the lead? Slrubenstein | Talk 19:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
In the social sciences, the most significant definitions of capitalism are those of marx, and of Weber. So marx's is definitely a very significant view. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:12, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
I amended the sentence to allow for the fact that individuals may start their own proprietorship and so become capitalists themselves. Though individuals are not legally forced to become wage labourers, there are certainly a number of economic barriers to becoming a businessperson and incentives to remain a wage earner, such as the stability of a regular job compared to the uncertainly and irregular earnings of a small business. Nubeli ( talk) 19:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Nubeli, you're claiming "most capitalist economies a minority of individuals own and control the majority of capital through a number of dominant corporations" and citing Adam Smith as a source? You're making claims about "most capitalist economies." Adam Smith is hasn't surveyed today's economies. Furthermore, which ones are capitalist and which ones are mixed economies? Most economists would call the U.S. a mixed economy, because of major government intervention and ownership, so I don't know what economies you're talking about. Also, even if it were true, you're making it look like it's part of the definition of capitalism, that to be capitalist requires that capital is concentrated in a few hands. That's not in any mainstream definition of capitalism. Introman ( talk) 19:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
If the lead is going to represent a mainstream view then don’t we want a view of capitalism in practice? If not, then shouldn’t we take the view of academics who specialize in studying theoretical capitalism? Introman wants to have it every which way. He wants a definition that is theoretical, but doesn’t want any definition from Marx, despite the fact that Marx originated the study of capitalism. He grabs a citation from a side discussion on pricing from a fringe introductory economics text and claims that this is what all academic experts think. Then he wants a view that represents mainstream definitions but not if it’s from Merriam Webster because that definition allows for a role of government. After that he wants a mainstream definition of idealized capitalism that doesn’t actually exist in practice and is synonymous with free market systems? Seriously, this guy is a one-man quality wrecking machine. Why can’t anything be done? MoralMoney ( talk) 06:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
For goodness sake, Wikipedia is not a dictionary! And if we just gave the dictionary definition of capitalism, I would just tell people "Why waste your time at Wikipedia, just look it up in the dictionary." We are supposed to be an encyclopedia. That means doing research. Do you think you can research good articles by surfing the web or cribbing from Webster's? If we are going to write an encyclopedia, let's actually do research. you know, like they taught us to do in college. you know, read books publsihed by academic presses. Articles published in peer-reviewed journals. Is this too hard for you? then don't try to write encyclopedia articles!! Really, guys, if we want to produce something good, we actualy have to work at it. Reading dictionary definitions does not cut the mustard. There are real scholarly boks out thee on capitalism and different approaches to capitalism and we should be reading those books to sort out how scholars look at capitalism.Introman claims that websters is well-researched... and, so, why shoud I care? Are you saying we should let the folks at websters do our research for us? Excuse me, but that is just making a mockey of Wikipedia. We should be doing our own research. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:53, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Your definition sounds pretty good to me. But look, the issue is this: the lead should reflect the body. We should not be arguing over definitions of capitalism ex nihilo. The article has a section on "perspectives on capitalism." The introduction does not ned to give a single dfinition of capitlism, but it does have to introduce the article by indication what the main viws of capitalism are that we cover in more detail into the body. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Can a section be included on socialistic capitalism (saw term in time magazine, march 2009: 10 ideas changing the world right now, idea 9). Mention with social entrepreneurship —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.182.199.16 ( talk • contribs) 16:47, 19 June 2009
There's no such thing as socialistic capitalism; the two are entirely incompatible. Moarhate ( talk) 03:47, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
look up france or euorpe if you want to see such an example. "social capitalism" is an oxymoron, and should not be included in this article because it is not entirely capitalism. Ref ward ( talk) 17:13, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
83.255.169.48 ( talk) 11:03, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Check out the means of production article and find that the only two ]] ( talk) 16:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC) things referenced in it are someone writing about Marx, and... "Capital vol2 ch1", which I guess is another Marx reference, but don't hold me to that.
In fact, if you look the term "means of production" up on Google, you'll find that most definitions mention Marx.
This quite validly leads me to believe that stressing the use of this term destroys a neutral point of view of the article by making it read like Das Kapital. We should find a more neutral, less one-sided term to use. If Ayn Rand made up terms in her critique of socialism or communism, would you let an editor use those terms in the first sentence of the socialism or the communism article? I highly doubt it. Would you say that doing such makes the neutral point of view of these articles questionable? Probably.
We should find a different term to use; one that wasn't obviously made up by major historical figures (like Marx) to describe their perspectives. Until we arise to a reasonable conclusion (not one that just dismisses the point here), we should not take down the NPOV tag on the capitalism article.
I propose we use the term "property" because it doesn't lend a favorable or unfavorable view to any ideology. The meaning of the term is clear. It is applicable in the context that "means of production" is used early on in the article. It does not make the article read like a television advertisement for capitalism, nor does it come off like one of those propaganda cartoons from the Soviet Union. That's more than what we can say if we continue using the term "means of production".
If anybody has any criticism of this suggestion, or a tertiary option, go ahead and post them. Macai ( talk) 05:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
The problem with "property" rather than "means of production" is that property has been privately owned in other systems than capitalism, e.g. under feudalism and the ancient civilisations. We need a term that is specific to capitalism. W. Linesman ( talk) 12:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
To avoid the use of the term "capitalism" would marginalise Wiki as a credible source of information on this. Imagine the public's response if they keyed in the search term "capitalism" and got ... nothing! The term "capitalism" is widely used by mainstream supporters and critics of our contemporary economic system, so avoiding the term is not the issue. Let's focus on defining it properly. W. Linesman ( talk) 12:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
(out) Ayn Rand is not a reliable source and all references to her writings should be removed from all articles that are not about her and her writings. Thackeray's ironic passing use of the term capitalist (not capitalism) should not be interpreted as meaning that he invented the term capitalism and he did not use the term capitalist in its modern sense. It rarely appears in the writings of other Victorian authors, like Dickens and Trollope.
Under capitalism, not all property (or even sometimes most property) is privately controlled, while private control of property existed in some pre-capitalist societies, like ancient Rome. Any additions to the article must be supported by reliable sources.
The Four Deuces ( talk) 16:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
The fact that poorly sourced or unsourced information appears in numerous Wikipedia articles does not mean that it is the standard to which it aspires. If you feel strongly about changing the lead there should be no problem in finding a reliable source that supports it. The Four Deuces ( talk) 17:00, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
"Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources when available. However, some scholarly material may be outdated, superseded by more recent research, in competition with alternate theories, or controversial within the relevant field. Reliable non-academic sources may also be used, particularly material from reputable mainstream publications. The choice of appropriate sources depends on context and information should be clearly attributed where there are conflicting sources."
Nubeli ( talk) 01:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)"Organizations and individuals that express views that are widely acknowledged by reliable sources as fringe, pseudo-academic,[4] or extremist may only be used as sources of information about those organisations or individuals."
This section is garbage. Capitalism is an economic and social system which asserts all property is privately owned, and can only be sold or traded to another individual with the owner's consent. Anything else would be a mixed economy, and therefore not capitalism. The only reason that Capitalism would be considered a social system at all is because it must include mutual respect for others' private property, and the consent to trade with other person(s). The rest of this discussion is garbage. There is no compromise on facts. Moarhate ( talk) 03:57, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Since the current controversy is whether or not the sources I'm citing are unbiased enough to pass muster, I don't think we're going to come to an agreement. It has, in some regards devolved into "yes they are" versus "no they're not" debate. We're arriving at a dead end. For this reason, I've decided to propose two possible compromises, both of which I find reasonable.
We can:
All supplied definitions are flawed. Correct definition would be "Capitalism is an economic system where all property is privately owned." Capitalism is not a social system except by virtue that people are forced to interact with each other to be successful in a capitalist system. Please don't use the American mixed economy as a basis for your definition of Capitalism, because Capitalism has not yet ever been implemented. 71.111.199.200 ( talk) 18:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
"Means of Production" is a vague term at best, as absolutely nothing of value can be created without human input. If and when we do reach a technological singularity, the term will have more meaning. 71.111.199.200 ( talk) 18:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
I think either option is fair. I'm open and willing to listen to other compromises you might want to propose. Macai ( talk) 21:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
While I see little issue with the definition provided it may be an idea to not only consider Marx. There were other scholars that wrote about capitalism and had their own ideas as to how they defined capitalism. Rather than provide one definiton by Marx use one by Max Weber as well among ones already mentioned. There is nothing saying that you should be finite with a definition and more understanding is never a bad thing. Too many people think of Marx as soon the word Capitalism or Communism comes into the equation which is somewhat narrow sighted, no offence to anyone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.30.29.179 ( talk) 11:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Soxwon, what singular event are you referring to in you revision of my revision - last I checked there are millions of robberies all the time, and a lot of money is spent by private individuals to protect their property by force.-- Red Deathy ( talk) 15:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC) Oh, I'll add, I don't see what WP:SYN has to do with anything, an unreferenced claim was removed, and I commented in my reasoning why the claim wasn't supportable on logical grounds - private property conceptually includes the right to use force to defend that property against aggressive interlopers.-- Red Deathy ( talk) 15:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Through capitalism, the land, labor, and capital are owned, operated, and traded, without force or fraud
refers to compulsory actions, not protection. Protection is addressed later in the paragraph. I was initially unclear as to what your statement was referring to and thought it might be referring to some form of fraud or misconduct in business. (probably made that assumption on your name, I apologize) Soxwon ( talk) 16:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
In the Etymology section it's stated that Arthur Young uses the term Capitalism in his work Travels in France, buth when I search the source text, I only find Capitalism used in the foreword, not in the text from 1792? Do I miss someting? See http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=292&layout=html Nsaa ( talk) 23:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
The Perspectives section is a sidetrack and seems to be limited only to perspectives that are enthusiastic about capitalism or are mildly critical. This is no perspectives section if it doesn't include at least a brief explanation of Karl Marx and other major formative thinkers such as Thorstein Veblen. Why not just create a new page which is more inclusive of perspectives, both positive and negative? Wikipedia doesn't exist to whitewash. Nubeli ( talk) 22:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I want to add a link that shows another way (besides starting wars etc--" Rogue State" Wm Blum) that USA forced Americans & the world to "be capitalist" through the education system: The Goose-Step (book): A Study of American Education is a book, published in 1923, by the American novelist and muckraking journalist Upton Sinclair. It is an investigation into the consequences of plutocratic capitalist control of American colleges and universities. Sinclair writes, “Our educational system is not a public service, but an instrument of special privilege; its purpose is not to further the welfare of mankind, but merely to keep America capitalist." (p. 18) Stars4change ( talk) 21:32, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
When editing this article Wikipedia gives a warning that this article may be too long: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_size. Since the majority of the sections are linked to specific articles it would increase legibility to reduce the size of this monstrosity. The Perspectives section can easily be summarized (as I had attempted earlier) with links to the appropriate articles on Keynesian, neo-classical, classical, marxian economics and so on. There's no need to revisit all the tenants of these various economic theories.
I also feel that the Perspectives section should not be first, but rather after History. People reading the article should be presented first with an overview and the development of captalism and then given a sense of all the different theories. Nubeli ( talk) 17:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
The use of voluntary has nothing to do with whether a person is in a capitalist society voluntarily. It has to do with the voluntary exchange of goods and minimal to no interference from outside forces such as the government. As for the force or fraud, I'm not sure how that is self-evidently false and hoped you could explain your reasoning. Soxwon ( talk) 16:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Guys, I think you are both talking past one another. "Capitalism" refers both to a belief about how economies should work, and a set of practices. As with most anything people do, ideals often conflict with practice. I think it si a profound mistake to conclude that this means that either the ideals or the practice is "wrong." Why ideals and practices contradict is an interesting question and a matter of debate and as with everything else instead of pretending it doesn't occure, Wikipedia should provide an account of all significant views in notable sources. Moreover, people have different ideas of what capitalism is ideally, and other people have different ideas about what it is in practice. We need an article that accommodats all this.
A long time ago I helped craft this, but now banned user user:RJII deleted it repeatedly. I am not sure whether other people who watch this page would wish to resurrect it but here it is just in case people are curious:
Well, that was my best effort (of course, others worked on it - it was more or less stable for over a year before it was deleted). Slrubenstein | Talk 02:46, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
As I've pointed out previously, force is a necessary part of contract - if one party defaults, ppolice/bailifs may be called in to enforce the contract, that is compatable with capitalism. Fraud is a moral not an economic category, logically, capitalism can exist alongside fraud, so it's absence cannot be considered an essential part of capitalism. I think the simple excision of force/fraud from the definition does not alter POV, but simply remains silent on the issue, maybe the point about the oughts of froce/fraud could be moved furtehr down the article?-- Red Deathy ( talk) 12:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Moving it further down the article may well be an idea. In any case, my experience says that the terms 'force' and 'fraud' are highly used in libertarianism and a more detailed description would be preferable. Anyway, I see it has more to do with the laws of a country rather than any particular value of force or fraud. Munci ( talk) 15:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
This http://www.er.uqam.ca/nobel/gedeonou/slavery2/ that in capitalism it's all the same thing to buy & sell humans, including into prostitution, & we now have to sell ourselves. Stars4change ( talk) 16:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
According to Arjen Hoekstra, the current unregulated capitalist/consumerist trading system is unethical. Arjen Hoekstra compares the consumption of products made at such a fashion that it devestates the local environment (bringing people locally in trouble) with the handling of stolen goods. He says that it is "playing innocent while purchasing a bycicle for 10$ of a junkie".
Perhaps it can be added in article. The analogy used above (which is I believe very accurate) could be mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.176.1.77 ( talk) 17:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
M&Ms says: WHAT? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.209.74.201 ( talk) 16:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
The problem with defining capitalism is that there may not only be a difference between theory and practice, but also one between the experts and the general public. But before discussing what the experts say it should be noted that, as a matter of pure logic, even a minimalist capitalist system must have a state that provides the service of legislating and enforcing property rights. One could make a leap of logic and argue that, in theory, enforcement could possibly be conducted by the market, but legislation? This one exception necessitates the role of the state in the provision of some services.
But capitalism is, at its root, a Marxist term. The current definition does not capture this and is from a side discussion in a chapter entitled “Price Determination” from a fairly unknown introductory economic principles textbook. A more rigorous discussion can be found in Frank Stilwell’s “Political Economy: The Contest of Economic Ideas”. This is a graduate textbook for a Political Economy course by a well-known expert. He argues that:
This seems to be what is being done in the wikipedia base definition without the small, yet significant, inclusion of “most” in the definition. Yet, in the very next sentence, Stillwell proceeds with:
Instead, Stilwell states that Marx’s original distinction bridges the gap between “technical” and “social” aspects of capitalism. The definition is:
Maybe we could go ahead with this definition instead of the one from a little-known economic principles text. Either way, the existing definition is one of common usage/practical capitalism and should mention some level of state provision of services such as law enforcement, military provision, highway/transportation system, and public education. If we go in a more economic/theoretical direction then the term should be defined in a more classical manner as Stilwell suggests. MoralMoney ( talk) 18:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Since there have been so many books that prove capitalism IS slavery of the masses to make a few people rich, when will you say that it's slavery? These are just some of the books that prove it: "The Rich and the Super Rich" by Ferdinand Lundberg; " Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower" by William Blum; " When Corporations Rule the World" by David Korten; "Dirty Truths" by Michael Parenti; "100 Ways America is Screwing up the World" by John Tirman; " Give Me Liberty" by Gerry Spence; " Democracy for the Few" by Michael Parenti; "America Beseiged" by Michael Parenti; " Downsize This" by Michael Moore"; ' The War Against Women" by Marilyn French; Noam Chomsky's books; & many more? If we'd end capitalism we'd immediately end world poverty, & this article should just say the wage is slavery.. Stars4change ( talk) 04:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
. . Capitalism should indeed be defined as "The Traditional Neanderthal Practice of Tribal Slavery to Tribal Chieftains", even though Capitalism poses as an economic system because it allows its slaves to invest their spare time in the production of pre-owned products and services and to barter these in village malls for chieftain-manipulated slave-labor script.
. . No references need vouch for this fact, whose unpleasant effects are frequently impressed on all slaves.
. . However, presenting the true definition of an "Economy" would be edifying to your readers because of its stark contrast to phony landlord Capitalism.
. . This definition appears in Talk:Economy (or was until it was maliciously removed by unknown capitalist bandits - see reprint below)and in the revolutionary new eBook, "THE OCTAHEDRON, The Symbol Of Man, Blueprint For Civilization", available from Amazon.com in Kindle Book format, and in computer format at MobiPocket.com with a free eBook reader.
. . If you have noticed that you are a slave to club-wielding Neanderthal chieftains, perhaps you have enough motivation to liberate yourself by organizing a local Consumer-Based Economy and link it to others elsewhere.
. . Such an economy would enable you and your friends to order everything you want from your economy - even an ideal, modern, self-governing city - and pay for everything with your labor, rather than with slave-labor script.
. . This entire process is described in complete detail in the referenced eBook.
. . . . . .
Civilized Man (
talk) 02:05, 10 July 2009 (UTC) . . . Early Summer, Cancer 18 (that's July 9 on the retarded Capitalist calendar).
. . "Economy" is properly defined as a "Scientific System of Labor Exchange", not a primitive market barter practice!
. . This entire topic on the definition of "Economy" needs to be totally re-written to remove all arbitrariness to qualify as a Definition.
. . Quite obviously, despite common erroneous usage, primitive market barter and peddling of existing goods in open markets can never be considered to involve any kind of system.
. . Nor can the slavery of Socialism or the Compulsory Market Consumption involved in Capitalism be considered an economic system.
. . The instinctive word "Economy" can be defined ONLY as "a scientific System of Exchange of Future Labor created by the Long-Term Industrial Orders of the ultimate Consumers".
. . The barter of existing products for other existing pre-owned products, or for intermediate standard items of barter such as money or currencies, could therefore occur only OUTSIDE an economy.
. . The scientific system of future labor exchanges can occur ONLY when the ultimate consumers create those jobs through orders placed with industry for Future production, and the workers involved state their relative preferences for the different types of specialized labor involved.
. . This scientific exchange of specialized labors can be decided precisely through a mathematical equation involving The Principle of Fair Labor Exchange.
. . This can be systematically computerized as "the square root of the product of the two ratios of each worker's relative preferences for the two types of jobs involved in a labor exchange".
. . . . . . . Civilized Man (talk) 09:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC) Civilized Man. . . Early Summer, Cancer 16 (that's July 7 on the retarded Capitalist calendar).
Was there a reason that bourgeois was used four times in the article outside of the marxist and criticism sections? Soxwon ( talk) 22:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
67.188.42.104 ( talk) 04:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC) I know this is copy/paste Wikipedia, but it is unnecessary to have this paragraph repeated twice within the span of half dozen paragraphs:
"Feudalism began to lay some of the foundations necessary for the development of mercantilism, a precursor to capitalism. Feudalism took place mostly in Europe and lasted from the medieval period up through the 16th century. Feudal manors were almost entirely self-sufficient, and therefore limited the role of the market. This stifled the growth of capitalism. However, the relatively sudden emergence of new technologies and discoveries, particularly in the industries of agriculture [64] and exploration, revitalized the growth of capitalism. The most important development at the end of feudalism was the emergence of “the dichotomy between wage earners and capitalist merchants”.[65]"
Karl Marx. No other name carries so much political baggage. Despite this, he should not be ignored as the first person to express the term “capitalism” as an economic system. Before the cold war, before WWII or WWI there were 3 main classical economists: Smith, Ricardo, and Marx. That’s just inescapable economic history. The etymological section of this article makes the claim that Adam Smith is “often described as the ‘father of capitalist thinking’”, and then cites Smith’s original work. Obviously Smith couldn’t make this claim about himself! Is this a personal opinion? Who said he is “often described” as this? Smith could be described as the father of free-market and laissez fair economic thought and policy, but capitalism is not necessarily synonymous with laissez-faire.
So, why is it relevant that Smith never used the term? And if Smith, as the father of capitalist thinking, is just an opinion and there is no supporting cite for the opinion, then why is this a part of an article that is already too long?
Marx’s 1844 manuscripts are also ignored in the etymological section. In these he uses the term “kapitalist” in reference to an economic system, but had not used the term “kapitalism” yet. It was in Das Kapital that the term was first used as a description of an economic system. Why is this not noted? Why is the use of “capitalist” as a person who owns capital more relevant and found before the factual origins of “capitalism” as an economic system? Instead the article simply states that Marx “only” used the term twice. But these were the first two times in history that the term was used to describe capitalism as an economic system! This hardly deserves the qualifier “only”.
The historic significance of this can be seen today. In economics, the symbol for capital is ‘k’ due to Marx. This is ‘k’ for “kapital” and “kapitalism”! This article is really an inaccurate joke as it leaves out the creator of the entire concept simply as a matter of American politics. MoralMoney ( talk) 22:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Marx is NOT a classical economist. That's all I have to say. His economics start in direct contrast to classic liberal economics.
Teeninvestor (
talk) 22:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
The Criticism section says this: "Following the economic crisis which began in 2008..." This presupposes that there actually was an economic crisis, that reader knows what economic crisis is being referred to, and that it began in 2008. It would also require some sort of citation I imagine. All these things seem to lead to information beyond the subject of the article, and indeed the whole point of the phrase -- which is simply to provide a date that the papacy said something. I think I will be WP:BOLD and edit it out. Feel free to revert with comments here if you disagree and would like to discuss. HyperCapitalist ( talk) 05:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
The Perspectives section has needed some major shortening for some time. You can find ALL the information in separate articles. By Wikipedia guidelines we should only provide an introduction or highlight where the school of thought touches on the topic of capitalism. The place for detail is elsewhere. So I'm not censoring since people are free to go into detail on the respective pages. But here I will be making all perspectives concise will still giving them appropriate weight according to their importance (and not according to how I agree with them). Nubeli ( talk) 16:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
By the way, the original article was approaching 110 KB before I pared it down to 60 KB. Even at 80 KB Wikipedia was giving us a warning. Nubeli ( talk) 20:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
More - far more - people will come to the article on "Capitalism" than to the article "history of Capitalism" or "Hayek." The article that most people will read is the article that should provide as much information as readers will want to know. I agree that material has to be relevant to understanding capitalsim, but i am suspicious of the word "directly." What a marxist considers relevant to understanding capitalism may not be shared by a Weberian who may not share the views of a follower of Hayek. We have to make sure each view is presented as intelligible. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Wage labor is not essential to the definition of capitalism. A sole proprietorship is a capitalist enterprise. What makes something a capitalist is that it is owned and operated by a private individual rather than by the state, not whether the owner hires some help. Wage labor is just a natural consequence of capitalism, of allowing people to own their own businesses. Some hire help, some don't. Introman ( talk) 14:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
"Capitalism is defined as private ownership of the means of production." By whom? Please bear in mind that there is no one definition of capitalism, there are many. Marx defined capitalism in terms of a labor market, this is very clear in Capital. Private ownership of means of production occurs in Feudalism; it is only when the principle form of labor is free, wage labor, that the means of production become concentrated in the hands of capitalists. Wage labor is essential to the definition of capitalism because, as marx explains in chapter 1 of capital, until labor is free and commoditized, capitalism does not exist. Of course, this is only the Marxist definition of capitalism, others have other definitions. "A capitalist economy could conceivably even have zero wage labor." What is your source? Slrubenstein | Talk 18:52, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Hey introman,NPOV demands that we include all significant views. marx's is one of them. It is not a fringe view. And why don't you actually read the article before editing the lead? Slrubenstein | Talk 19:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
In the social sciences, the most significant definitions of capitalism are those of marx, and of Weber. So marx's is definitely a very significant view. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:12, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
I amended the sentence to allow for the fact that individuals may start their own proprietorship and so become capitalists themselves. Though individuals are not legally forced to become wage labourers, there are certainly a number of economic barriers to becoming a businessperson and incentives to remain a wage earner, such as the stability of a regular job compared to the uncertainly and irregular earnings of a small business. Nubeli ( talk) 19:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Nubeli, you're claiming "most capitalist economies a minority of individuals own and control the majority of capital through a number of dominant corporations" and citing Adam Smith as a source? You're making claims about "most capitalist economies." Adam Smith is hasn't surveyed today's economies. Furthermore, which ones are capitalist and which ones are mixed economies? Most economists would call the U.S. a mixed economy, because of major government intervention and ownership, so I don't know what economies you're talking about. Also, even if it were true, you're making it look like it's part of the definition of capitalism, that to be capitalist requires that capital is concentrated in a few hands. That's not in any mainstream definition of capitalism. Introman ( talk) 19:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
If the lead is going to represent a mainstream view then don’t we want a view of capitalism in practice? If not, then shouldn’t we take the view of academics who specialize in studying theoretical capitalism? Introman wants to have it every which way. He wants a definition that is theoretical, but doesn’t want any definition from Marx, despite the fact that Marx originated the study of capitalism. He grabs a citation from a side discussion on pricing from a fringe introductory economics text and claims that this is what all academic experts think. Then he wants a view that represents mainstream definitions but not if it’s from Merriam Webster because that definition allows for a role of government. After that he wants a mainstream definition of idealized capitalism that doesn’t actually exist in practice and is synonymous with free market systems? Seriously, this guy is a one-man quality wrecking machine. Why can’t anything be done? MoralMoney ( talk) 06:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
For goodness sake, Wikipedia is not a dictionary! And if we just gave the dictionary definition of capitalism, I would just tell people "Why waste your time at Wikipedia, just look it up in the dictionary." We are supposed to be an encyclopedia. That means doing research. Do you think you can research good articles by surfing the web or cribbing from Webster's? If we are going to write an encyclopedia, let's actually do research. you know, like they taught us to do in college. you know, read books publsihed by academic presses. Articles published in peer-reviewed journals. Is this too hard for you? then don't try to write encyclopedia articles!! Really, guys, if we want to produce something good, we actualy have to work at it. Reading dictionary definitions does not cut the mustard. There are real scholarly boks out thee on capitalism and different approaches to capitalism and we should be reading those books to sort out how scholars look at capitalism.Introman claims that websters is well-researched... and, so, why shoud I care? Are you saying we should let the folks at websters do our research for us? Excuse me, but that is just making a mockey of Wikipedia. We should be doing our own research. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:53, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Your definition sounds pretty good to me. But look, the issue is this: the lead should reflect the body. We should not be arguing over definitions of capitalism ex nihilo. The article has a section on "perspectives on capitalism." The introduction does not ned to give a single dfinition of capitlism, but it does have to introduce the article by indication what the main viws of capitalism are that we cover in more detail into the body. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Can a section be included on socialistic capitalism (saw term in time magazine, march 2009: 10 ideas changing the world right now, idea 9). Mention with social entrepreneurship —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.182.199.16 ( talk • contribs) 16:47, 19 June 2009
There's no such thing as socialistic capitalism; the two are entirely incompatible. Moarhate ( talk) 03:47, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
look up france or euorpe if you want to see such an example. "social capitalism" is an oxymoron, and should not be included in this article because it is not entirely capitalism. Ref ward ( talk) 17:13, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
83.255.169.48 ( talk) 11:03, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Check out the means of production article and find that the only two ]] ( talk) 16:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC) things referenced in it are someone writing about Marx, and... "Capital vol2 ch1", which I guess is another Marx reference, but don't hold me to that.
In fact, if you look the term "means of production" up on Google, you'll find that most definitions mention Marx.
This quite validly leads me to believe that stressing the use of this term destroys a neutral point of view of the article by making it read like Das Kapital. We should find a more neutral, less one-sided term to use. If Ayn Rand made up terms in her critique of socialism or communism, would you let an editor use those terms in the first sentence of the socialism or the communism article? I highly doubt it. Would you say that doing such makes the neutral point of view of these articles questionable? Probably.
We should find a different term to use; one that wasn't obviously made up by major historical figures (like Marx) to describe their perspectives. Until we arise to a reasonable conclusion (not one that just dismisses the point here), we should not take down the NPOV tag on the capitalism article.
I propose we use the term "property" because it doesn't lend a favorable or unfavorable view to any ideology. The meaning of the term is clear. It is applicable in the context that "means of production" is used early on in the article. It does not make the article read like a television advertisement for capitalism, nor does it come off like one of those propaganda cartoons from the Soviet Union. That's more than what we can say if we continue using the term "means of production".
If anybody has any criticism of this suggestion, or a tertiary option, go ahead and post them. Macai ( talk) 05:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
The problem with "property" rather than "means of production" is that property has been privately owned in other systems than capitalism, e.g. under feudalism and the ancient civilisations. We need a term that is specific to capitalism. W. Linesman ( talk) 12:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
To avoid the use of the term "capitalism" would marginalise Wiki as a credible source of information on this. Imagine the public's response if they keyed in the search term "capitalism" and got ... nothing! The term "capitalism" is widely used by mainstream supporters and critics of our contemporary economic system, so avoiding the term is not the issue. Let's focus on defining it properly. W. Linesman ( talk) 12:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
(out) Ayn Rand is not a reliable source and all references to her writings should be removed from all articles that are not about her and her writings. Thackeray's ironic passing use of the term capitalist (not capitalism) should not be interpreted as meaning that he invented the term capitalism and he did not use the term capitalist in its modern sense. It rarely appears in the writings of other Victorian authors, like Dickens and Trollope.
Under capitalism, not all property (or even sometimes most property) is privately controlled, while private control of property existed in some pre-capitalist societies, like ancient Rome. Any additions to the article must be supported by reliable sources.
The Four Deuces ( talk) 16:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
The fact that poorly sourced or unsourced information appears in numerous Wikipedia articles does not mean that it is the standard to which it aspires. If you feel strongly about changing the lead there should be no problem in finding a reliable source that supports it. The Four Deuces ( talk) 17:00, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
"Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources when available. However, some scholarly material may be outdated, superseded by more recent research, in competition with alternate theories, or controversial within the relevant field. Reliable non-academic sources may also be used, particularly material from reputable mainstream publications. The choice of appropriate sources depends on context and information should be clearly attributed where there are conflicting sources."
Nubeli ( talk) 01:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)"Organizations and individuals that express views that are widely acknowledged by reliable sources as fringe, pseudo-academic,[4] or extremist may only be used as sources of information about those organisations or individuals."
This section is garbage. Capitalism is an economic and social system which asserts all property is privately owned, and can only be sold or traded to another individual with the owner's consent. Anything else would be a mixed economy, and therefore not capitalism. The only reason that Capitalism would be considered a social system at all is because it must include mutual respect for others' private property, and the consent to trade with other person(s). The rest of this discussion is garbage. There is no compromise on facts. Moarhate ( talk) 03:57, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Since the current controversy is whether or not the sources I'm citing are unbiased enough to pass muster, I don't think we're going to come to an agreement. It has, in some regards devolved into "yes they are" versus "no they're not" debate. We're arriving at a dead end. For this reason, I've decided to propose two possible compromises, both of which I find reasonable.
We can:
All supplied definitions are flawed. Correct definition would be "Capitalism is an economic system where all property is privately owned." Capitalism is not a social system except by virtue that people are forced to interact with each other to be successful in a capitalist system. Please don't use the American mixed economy as a basis for your definition of Capitalism, because Capitalism has not yet ever been implemented. 71.111.199.200 ( talk) 18:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
"Means of Production" is a vague term at best, as absolutely nothing of value can be created without human input. If and when we do reach a technological singularity, the term will have more meaning. 71.111.199.200 ( talk) 18:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
I think either option is fair. I'm open and willing to listen to other compromises you might want to propose. Macai ( talk) 21:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
While I see little issue with the definition provided it may be an idea to not only consider Marx. There were other scholars that wrote about capitalism and had their own ideas as to how they defined capitalism. Rather than provide one definiton by Marx use one by Max Weber as well among ones already mentioned. There is nothing saying that you should be finite with a definition and more understanding is never a bad thing. Too many people think of Marx as soon the word Capitalism or Communism comes into the equation which is somewhat narrow sighted, no offence to anyone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.30.29.179 ( talk) 11:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)