I removed the paragraph with the thesis: "the term capitalism now being used neutrally or favorably". It's just point of view. This is not an obvious fact nor are there any references given that confirm that there is such a general trend. The only inadequate evidence given was one business magazine calling itself "capitalist tool". That's not enough to confirm a general societal trend. Nubeli ( talk) 15:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Given the number of compeeting definitions for capitalism, I think any attempt to define it in the introduction will be contentious and overwrought. I propose instead describing different ways to describe (not define) ho the word is used (not what it "is"). How about this:

Capitalism refers to a set of economic practices that became institutionalized in Europe between the 16th and 19th centuries, especially involving the right of individuals and groups of individuals acting as "legal persons" (or corporations) to buy and sell capital goods (including land and labor) in a market; a set of theories that developed in the 19th (in the context of the industrial revolution) and 20th (in the context of the Cold War) centuries meant to justify the private ownership of capital, to explain the operation of such markets, and to guide the application or elimination of government regulation of property and markets; and a set of beliefs about the advantages of such practices.

My motive is only to be simple and readible, and not to reject any of the "perspectives" in the body of the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Sounds like a good approach. The concept is fungible that it is better to describe how it is used by different authorities. I re-introduced the 3rd paragraph because I think it important to provide a summary of the whole article. Missing were perspectives and political advocacy. Needed a way to explain the variety of perspectives by describing the concepts around which the congregate. I'm sure it could still be made more readable.

By the way, I reverted your edits, Slrubenstein, but kept the essence of your intro changes (with some edits). When you reverted you removed a whole lot of changes to different sections that had nothing to do with your intended changes (as far as I know). Nubeli ( talk) 04:59, 8 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Sorry I missed that other paragraph! Slrubenstein | Talk 10:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC) reply

The History section is just entire duplication of the History of Capitalism. If an article gets too long the regular Wikipedia custom is to spin it off into its own article. This was done, but someone kept all the same information in the Capitalism article. This is a waste of effort. If you need to expand on the History do it in the sub-article. Wikipedia is already asking on every edit that we reduce the size of the article. It is illegible with all the info crammed into it. Nubeli ( talk) 20:32, 22 July 2009 (UTC) reply

That is odd. It does look like a lot of overlap. I added the Duplicate section template. Sturmey ( talk) 00:03, 24 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Are there any arguments for not taking out the duplicate section? Since Vision Thing has been on the forefront of arguing for consensus it would be nice for him to at least provide an argument for keeping duplicate content. The original post was two days ago. Is that not enough time to allow someone to object with a good reason? Nubeli ( talk) 13:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC) reply

It is an integral part of the article. Meaning of "capitalism" changed a lot during its history. Without such section readers won't get a good understanding of the term. However, to address your concerns I have added a shortened section back in the article. -- Vision Thing -- 13:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC) reply

I really don't think this is addressing the concern. The section is still just a duplication of a different article. Their needs to be a proper resolution. I'm going to re-insert the duplication template that Sturmey added. Nubeli ( talk) 18:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC) reply

The duplication template is for pov forks and history section is not a pov fork. Did you read a guideline on summary style? -- Vision Thing -- 20:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC) reply

It is not. You can have a summary linked to a full a subarticle neither of which are POV. The duplicate template is for duplicate material, pure and simple. Nubeli ( talk) 23:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC) reply

The duplication template and the content forking article cover similar material. WP is explicit that POV forking is just a subset of content forking and duplication. Duplication, even if it is not in order to get a pov across, is against WP policy. From the content forking guidelines: "A content fork is usually an unintentional creation of several separate articles all treating the same subject. A point of view (POV) fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines," Nubeli ( talk) 13:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Let us be clear on the "history" of these articles. People put a lot of work into this article including a history section on what, as Vision thing quite correctly points out, is a topic essential to understanding this subject, "capitalism." When the history section was long enough, sonmeone cut and pasted it to create a new article. This does not mean that the material here (so-called duplicate but it is the history of capitalism that his duplicate) should be cut. Instead, we should treat the history of capitalism article as a virtual stub. There is a LOT of work by historians on capitalism that is not in that article. In short, that artidcle needs drastic expansion, at which point the material we have here -uncut - will look like a summary of a longer article on this history of capitalism. But the problem is not that the section on hisotry here is too long, the problem is that the article on history, which copied material from this article is undeveloped and too short! Slrubenstein | Talk 23:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC) reply

I can see it as essential, but there is still a current problem with duplication. I really don't think the length of the section here could be considered a "summary". Just try to imagine trying to expand on the separate article and having to go back here and determine if the timeline, concepts, facts match up with the longer one. Shudder. Nubeli ( talk) 13:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC) reply

I've added the {{Sync}} template to this section. As the History of Capitalism article expands (and absorbs some other stubs) the summary here needs to be kept in sync. Nubeli ( talk) 20:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC) reply

{{Sync}} template says that this section and article are not currently synchronized. That is not the case as far as I'm aware of. -- Vision Thing -- 11:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC) reply

The two are beginning to drift away from each other. Take a look. Nubeli ( talk) 15:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Arguably this is one of the most important sections. Yet, there are only 3 short paragraphs and really only the second is relevant to industrialism. In the first paragraph it is hardly relevant to a concept of "industrialism within capitalism" that Hume and Smith criticized mercantilist doctrines and practices. Neither Hume nor Smith can seriously be considered industrialists, nor can it be said as the third paragraph tends to imply, the the abandonment of protectionism in favour of free trade somehow represents the quintescence of industiralism. One would think that at least Ricardo's initials contemplations about machinery should be brought into the picture and then it should be extended towards the most serious theorists that specifically relate industrialism to capitalism. BernardL ( talk) 01:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC) reply

I have added a section on notable capitalists. It is by no means complete, so please try and help expanding it. Thank you very much. 78.99.63.175 ( talk) 01:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC) reply

There's no need for a section of capilatists, and having one with a "body count" section seems extremely POV. I'm removing it again, please seek consensus here on the talk page before readding. Dayewalker ( talk) 01:20, 19 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Perhaps the biggest problem with finding a definition stems from our search for applying a definition to both the economic and socialogical parts of capitalism. Should we try to seperate the two (as that would make it easier to distinguish the views of Marx and Weber which seem to be more sociological than say Adam Smith)? Soxwon ( talk) 04:15, 24 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Your proposal albeit in good faith, just repeats the problem, as it would only be according to some definitions that capitalism is a social system versus something else (and Adam Smith definitely viewed it as a social and moral system). This problem with definitions is a distraction. Why should we expect capitalism to have one, three or even one hundred definitions? Why should we think that something must have one definition for it to be shares? (I think the obvious is more logical and likely - the easier it is to define something your own way, the more likely it will be shared by many people). We do not need to "find" a definition. We do not need to Find" anything, except what the significant views from verifiable sources are. If in finding these views we discover seven definitions, we provide seven. If we discover that some do not ever define capitalism (but instead, say, describe five different examples of capitalism), we report that. Wikipedia is an educational instrument, and education is not about squeeezing ideas into the boxes that fill our minds; it is about rechaping and rearranging and sometimes breaking those boxes, depending on what we learn. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC) reply

I certainly find myself in agreement with Slrubinstein. Most of us who have some experience with studying the subject realize there are different schools of thought in fact often with academic industries attached to them that each bring significant viewpoints to the public discourse. I'm a little wary of what seems to be a reductionist impulse to force in a simplistic one-line definition. Such an approach when it goes overboard can easily erect obstacles to a clear understanding of such a complex phenomena. FWIW here is Bruadel again, himself a great admirer of the market economy, disagreeing emphatically with reductionist approaches:

The worst error of all is to argue that capitalism is simply an 'economic system', whereas in fact it lives off the social order, standing almost on a footing with the state; whether as adversary or accomplice; it is and always has been a massive force, filling the horizon. Capitalism also benefits from all the support that culture provides for the solidity of the social edifice, for culture - though unequally distributed and shot through with contradictory currents- does in the end contribute the best of itself to propping up the existing order. And lastly capitalism can count on the dominant classes who, when they defend it are defending themselves. (Braudel, Fernard. The Perspective of the World, 623) BernardL ( talk) 17:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe there is in fact significant controversy about the definition of capitalism. The assertion there is some overwhelming consensus about the definition also requires references from reputable experts. I will present some evidence from economic historian Richard Grassby about the debates and controversies surrounding the definition and meaning of capitalism:

"Few have been able to agree, however, on what the term actually means. Within and between each school of thought, the debate, often in unintelligible jargon, over what constitutes the essence and significance of capitalism has been continuous and intractable. As early as 1918, Richard Passow listed 118 definitions of the term. Little consensus exists as to when capitalism first appeared, what form it assumed, or how it may have changed over time. " Grassby, Richard. The Idea of Capitalism before the Industrial Revolution. Critical Issues in History. Lanham, Md: Rowman and Littlefield, 1999, p.1

Robert Heilbroner makes similar comments in his "The Nature and Logic of Capitalism." Infoman I think there are major flaws in your conception of capitalism as described by you on this talk page. Your definition is ahistorical, especially in that it sees a generalized system of capitalism featuring wage labour as evolving automatically out of sole proprietorship and also because it conflates the market economy with capitalism. One of the major historical treatmemts of the subject has been Fernard Braudel's mammoth three volume series "Civilization and Capitalism." At the end of the the third book Braudel notes that the "essential message of this long quest" is to underline the idea of "capitalism as distinct from the market economy." For Braudel capitalism is the realm of big business, "the little shop where I buy my daily paper could hardly be called a capitalist enterprise, though if it belongs to a chain of shops, the chain could be said to be part of capitalism." (Braudel, Fernand. The Perspective of the World,1984, 620 and 629.) BernardL ( talk) 19:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Well we know it's false that "few have been able to agree, however, on what the term actually means." It's very easy to see looking at sources that there are many people that agree on a definition. He's obviously wrong, even if it's true that a lot of people disagree on a definition. But that aside, what you say is sourced so I don't see any prima facie problem putting it in. But also, unless there are significant number of course then it would have be prefaced with "Richard Grassby says that "few people have been able to agree..." Also, I haven't looked are the source but if he's writing a POV piece that has to be taken into account too. Introman ( talk) 19:55, 20 August 2009 (UTC) reply

BernardL, ca c'est clair. You can add Prof. Frank Stilwell to the list of Heilbroner's and Grassby's graduate level work that agrees with what you say. Basically anyone who actually takes seriously their study of political economy or economic history would agree with you. Moralmoney ( talk) 23:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Introman, I agree with BernardL. If you question the validity of a statement the correct procedure is to tag it and mention it on the talk page, rather than edit war. And it is not necessary to identify the source in the main body of the text unless it represents a POV. But it is up to you to provide a source that it is a POV, which you have not done in this case. Btw your argument that if many people agree on something that therefore one cannot say "few agree" is sophistry. The Four Deuces ( talk) 23:56, 20 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Absolutely not! The correct procedure is to delete unsourced statements immediately, then ask for a source. That's what I did. Simply putting a tag on an unsourced statement is not a good idea. The integrity of the encyclopedia is at stake. As Jimmy Wales, the founder of Wikipedia once said: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced." [[ [1]] And, no, it's not sophistry to say that if many people agree on something that it's not true that few agree. It's axiomatic. Good luck trying to dispute it. Introman ( talk) 00:06, 21 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Mr. Wales was referring to misleading or false information. Please note that I follow this rule and have reverted your edits when you presented misleading or false information. However BernardL's edit was not misleading or false information, but merely unsourced. Therefore you should follow WP:V:

Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed, but how quickly this should happen depends on the material in question and the overall state of the article. Editors might object if you remove material without giving them enough time to provide references, especially in an underdeveloped article. It has always been good practice to make reasonable efforts to find sources oneself that support such material, and cite them.

The Four Deuces ( talk) 04:35, 21 August 2009 (UTC) reply

You don't understand the first thing about Wikipedia if you think that "misleading or false information" should be removed. That's not the issue. The issue is whether the information is sourced. It's not up to editors to judge whether the information is true or false. As long as it's sourced, it's true for our purposes. That's the whole idea behind Wikipedia. Introman ( talk) 17:14, 21 August 2009 (UTC) reply

What I stated above is a direct quote from WP:V, which you should follow:

Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed, but how quickly this should happen depends on the material in question and the overall state of the article. Editors might object if you remove material without giving them enough time to provide references, especially in an underdeveloped article. It has always been good practice to make reasonable efforts to find sources oneself that support such material, and cite them.

I was directly quoting Wikipedia policy. The Four Deuces ( talk) 18:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Your point is? Are you saying I violated policy? It's true that "Editors might object if you remove material without giving them enough time to provide references," but that's too bad for them. The integrity of the encyclopedia is more important than personal feelings. I'm dedicated to Wikipedia accuracy. Introman ( talk) 18:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Introman, I have to say that having watched you over the past several weeks you have only acted to erode my good faith in you. It seems that you are insistent on pushing your own POV regardless of agreement among experienced editors about either capitalism or Wikipedia policy. Folks, please look at WP:DE - does Introman fit the bill? if so, can you just start ignoring him and focus instead on improving the article? Slrubenstein | Talk 18:31, 21 August 2009 (UTC) reply

What POV are claiming that I'm pushing? I'm curious to know, because I consider myself trying to bring neutrality and reliability to the information on Wikipedia. Moreover, I'd like to see some evidence of POV pushing. It's easy to make a claim like that without evidence. Thanks to my calling for a source, there is now a source has been brought into the article. How can you think that's a bad thing? What I see is a few people that got their feathers ruffled becuase *GASP* someone wanted something to be sourced that wasn't. Introman ( talk) 18:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Introman - your own edit summary back on August 14th states your position as follows: "(this gives the impression that there's no consensus, which is not true. There's hardly any debate over the definition of capitalism)" Has your position changed or not? If not it seems that you are obliged to provide sources saying that some sort of convergence of opinion has taken place and consensus about a definition has been achieved. Where is your source? Richard Grassby is an Oxford historian of early british history. He happens to be highly critical of Marxism. I could provide evidence from Heilbroner who is probably appropriately described as a social democrat or democratic socialist. Braudel too refers to disputes and controversies among the experts about what should constitute the essentials of capitalism. As SLRubinstein has previously mentioned there seems to be several schools of thought: the Weberian, the neoclassicals, Austrians and libertarians, Marxists and other oppositional heterodox schools and there are discernible differences not only in their evaluation of capitalism's effects but also often about capitalism's defining qualities. BernardL ( talk) 03:18, 22 August 2009 (UTC) reply

No my position has not changed. I don't believe that there is much debate over the definition of capitalism in any substantial way. I think the source is wrong. I think you're wrong too. I understand that some people may debate it, but I don't there's enough debate over it to be notable. If there was substantial debate then there wouldn't be what appears to be near universal agreement on the definition among tertiary sources. But isn't the fact that I've left it alone after you put a source there proof that I'm not POV pushing? Until I come across a source that says there is consensus, there is no reason for me to challenge it. I don't put my personal opinions in articles. I may state my personal opinions in TALK or edit summaries on what I think is correct or incorrect, but that's something entirely different from POV pushing. I was merely stating why I was removing the statement. I was letting it be known that I wasn't removed simply because it has no source, but because it had no source AND I sincerely thought it was wrong. Capiche? Introman ( talk) 17:53, 22 August 2009 (UTC) reply

We need some sort of bare bones consensus on the word. I think that as illustrated by John Ashworth, capitalism can be loosely defined as a system in which means of production are changed from personal to market consumption (I'd like to see a model where that isn't the case) and (possibly) where the means for this production are owned by some private source. Is there any disagreement on this? Soxwon ( talk) 03:48, 22 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Well your own source evidences the fact that there is no agreement on meaning. It is not our job as editors to make a decision or establish our own consensus. If there is a plurality of definitions amongst a significant range of experts then the article should reflect that plurality and so should the lede I would think. BernardL ( talk) 03:58, 22 August 2009 (UTC) reply

You can't just keep saying there's no consensus. While there are a large number of sources, a good majority (as the source states) agree on certain basic facts such as the ones I listed. I think the fact that there is a general agreement (heck there's a dictionary definition of it, there must be consensus somewhere) on certain facts should be reflected in the article. Soxwon ( talk) 04:02, 22 August 2009 (UTC) reply

You have not presented a reference for a consensus you have presented a reference for a majority. It's a big difference. How authoritative is your source? Is he more authoritative than Marx, Schumpeter or Braudel? All three of those very significant experts have definitions and preconditions for capitalism which contradict your simplistic definition. Certainly Braudel who is something of an apolitical scholar's scholar admired by both Hayek and Wallerstein, does not believe we should just defer to common definitions of capitalism. Incidentally he spends some time lampooning the dictionary and commonly held definitions of capitalism in his major work. I don't see a reasonable way around acknowledging plurality when it really exists. BernardL ( talk) 04:09, 22 August 2009 (UTC) reply

I am with BernardL here, but I'd add Weber and Frank. When Introman writes, "I think the source is wrong. I think you're wrong too." that about cinches it, he is a disruptive editor who can safely be ignored. Personally, I think the iea that wealth should be invested in new technologies rather than just spent on consumer goods is a feature of capitalism foundin virtually all definitions but even if I am right o am not sure I advocate a LCD approach. More important is signalling that there are a range of differeing but all significant views. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:19, 22 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Of course you leave out the rest of what I said. If you read the rest of my message I said that even though I think the source is wrong, I let the information stand because I don't put my personal opinions in articles. I have no problem letting information stay in an article that I think is wrong if it's backed up by reliable sources. I'm not here to push my POV. Introman ( talk) 18:22, 22 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Well I put in a source clearly saying that there is little controversy over a FUNDAMENTAL definition of capitalism, being simply a system private ownership of the means of production, paid labor, and production of goods and services for profit in a market. But Slrubenstein deleted it twice without saying why and then Four Deuces deleted it as well. That's disruptive editing. Introman ( talk) 21:45, 22 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Thank-you for the reference to Simon Tormey's Anti-capitalism: A Beginner's Guide. Mr.Tormey's work seems very interesting (at least to me) but I hardly think that his claims are authoritative enough to establish that there is in reality "little controversy over a fundamental definition of capitalism" in spite of his opinion stating such; it seems there are several much more authoritative sources already extant claiming that there are controversies, difficulties, and differences concerning definition. The appropriate NPOV path seems to be to acknowledge a plurality of views in the lede and to let the body of the article elaborate on the differing perspectives. BernardL ( talk) 02:11, 23 August 2009 (UTC) reply

You say YOU don't think his claims are authoritative, but that's not the issue. The source meet Wikipedia standards. Personal opinions have to be put aside in deciding what goes in Wikipedia. I'm not disputing, and neither is the source, that people debate the definition of capitalism. The source doesn't say they don't. It says that there is a BASIC bare bones definition that hardly anyone disputes. Introman ( talk) 17:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Introman, see WP:RS#Scholar Anti-capitalism: A Beginner's Guide is not acceptable as a reliable source. The Four Deuces ( talk) 20:50, 23 August 2009 (UTC) reply

I've read the policy. You need to. It is a reliable source. And it has no less qualifications at being a reliable a source than the source that was given by BernadL to reference people debating how capitalism should be defined. Interesting how you only dispute sources one side of the argument. Introman ( talk) 21:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC) reply

It is a pathetic source. What we want are the best secondary sources for the body of our article, and then a well-written introduction that introduces the article. We do not need this source because any view it may represent is already covered by better (= more significant) sources in the body. So all we need is an introduction that does justice to the body.

Introman, have you ever read a book by Hayek? Or Marx, or Weber? Have you read Wallerstein? Not the Cliff notes, but an honest to goodness book? Do you know what a library is? have you ever done a literature search either using the Reader's Guide or various on-line tools used by reference librarians? Slrubenstein | Talk 15:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Your post means nothing. You're just saying you don't like the source. You don't think it's a "great" source. So what? What matters is not whether you think it's a good source or not but whether it meet's the standard for a good source according to Wikipedia policy. Of course you're not going to like the source if it says something you don't want it to say. Introman ( talk) 01:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Proof that you have never read a book by Hayek, or Marx, or Weber. Introman, read what i wrote: I do not accept your source because it is an insignificant source. And the intro should introduce the body. Now, look at the sources used in the body. Do you seriously believe I like all of them? Yet I have not argued for the removal of any of them. Wanna know why? because these are serious sources, verifiable but also providing significant views. It doesn't matter whether I like them or not; they meet our notability threshold. They reflect serious research. And that is the problem, you do not know how to do searious research, and so far it sounds like you have yet to read a real book. Come back to Wikipedia when you have reached a level of literacy required to create an encyclopedia, please. Slrubenstein | Talk 08:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC) reply

So you're claiming I'm stupid. Even if that we're true that doesn't invalidate the source. Introman ( talk) 12:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC) reply

I am not claiming you are stupid. I do not believe you are stupid. I believe that your edits reflect a wilful desire not to do serious research. They also reflect a lack of desire to consider other people's views about how to improve the article. For example, I wrote explicitly that what invalidates the source is its lack of significance. Your response is that I just claimed that what invalidates the source is your stupidity. I defy you to find the line where I say that. I don't think you are stupid, just too lazy or contemtuopus of Wikipedia to read what others have to say. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:08, 25 August 2009 (UTC) reply

"Come back to Wikipedia when you have reached a level of literacy required to create an encyclopedia," you said. That's saying I'm stupid. You want to make this personal and you're being disruptive. Now, you calling a source "insignificant" means nothing. It meets the Wikipedia criteria for reliable sources. And you saying I don't have a desire to do "serious research" is ridiculous, because "serious research" is how I found the source: I had a straight face the whole time I was looking for the information. Dude, do you realize you're on Wikipedia? How "serious" can "research" be here? You simply look up information in books and articles and cite them. Don't try to make Wikipedia into something that's it not and try to claim I'm not elite enough to contribute. Introman ( talk) 17:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC) reply

I reverted the Twormey reference, chiefly because it's not a strong enough source. The relvent section is available online at http://www.oneworld-publications.com/pdfs/anti_capital.pdf for anyone who wants to judge. Twormey doesn't back up his claims to being uncontroversial.

Now, as a proponent of the state capitalist thesis, I'd say state ownership is compatable with capitalism, for example, whilst this is a heterodox view it remains that tehre is controversy. I long ago accepted the basic 'consensus' def. because it wasn't worth long bityter fights over.-- Red Deathy ( talk) 12:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Just saying "it's not a strong enough source" means nothing. If a source says something you don't like, you can just claim it's not a "strong source." It's just a claim with nothing to back it up. Introman ( talk) 14:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Yes it is an EXTREMELY "heterodox" view that government ownership of the means of production is capitalism. Since it is, then as the source says it's true that there's little controversy over the fact that capitalism is private ownership of the means of production. In other words, anything else is a fringe view. Introman ( talk) 14:16, 25 August 2009 (UTC) reply

I was giving an example, the theory of state capitalism probably has more conscious adherents than you'd think. I said why I thought it was a poor source, Twormey doesn't give citations nor back up his claim with evidence, that's why it's not a strong source. A reference is a necessary but not sufficient creiterion for inclusion. -- Red Deathy ( talk) 14:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC) reply

The source itself is backup for the claim. That's how Wikipedia works. The guy is respectable scholar and has studied a lot of books, so he's in the position to make that judgement. Introman ( talk) 14:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC) reply

"That's how Wikipedia works." No, Wikipedia demans reliable verifiable sources, 'm questioning the reliability of this one because, 1) It sounds too much like a Marxian definition, I've seen enough libertarians here question inclusion of comments about waged labour to know they tend to stick to private property and the right to sell it, some would even question the need for profit in the def, arguing the point is people can do what they want with their property under capitalism, for example. 2) While you can make an appeal to authority on his behalf, that 'slant' should raise reliability questions, especially in a work that is more propagandistic than scholarly, by appearance. hell, I'm questioning because I agree with it.

Anyway, that's my BRD bit done, I've had my say, I'll just invite any previously non-involved editors to maybe comment on the basis of the above.-- Red Deathy ( talk) 14:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Do you realize that those disputing me are using a source that claims that opposite, that there is little agreement over a definition of capitalism? That statement isn't "backed up" either. But, I being a good NPOV editor didn't challenge it, because it's what the source says. Now that I bring up a source that says the opposite, it's challenged as being a bad source. Do you see how POV that is? It's POV to only present on side of an opinion when another side exists. Introman ( talk) 15:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC) reply

To Red Deathy ... perhaps it is important that you understand the historical sequences under which this dispute has evolved. Initially Introman was quite vehemently and forcefully arguing for the inclusion of a narrow definition of capitalism. Just look into the recent archives of this talk page under the wage labour section. In that section he vociferously argued that "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. Well, the other editors of this page reasonably insisted on keeping a less restricted description of capitalism in the lede. But when they did insist on a less restricted definition Introman reverted with an edit summary stating that "(this gives the impression that there's no consensus, which is not true. There's hardly any debate over the definition of capitalism)" and later demanded "if you're going to claim that people are debating over the definition of capitalism then you need a source for that". After a few more rounds of edit warring I intervened for the first time with a source from mainstream Oxford historian Richard Grassby, and also mentioned Robert Heilbroner's Nature and Logic of Capitalism to dispute the claim that Introman had been making to the effect that there was a consensus about his minimalist definition. Introman eventually responded with the Twormey source, Anti-Capitalsm: A Beginner's Guide, which mentioned in the introduction that there is little controversy about a base line definition of capitalism which Introman slightly distorted representing it as "however there has been little controversy over a fundamental definition of capitalism as system of private ownership, paid labor, and creation of goods of services for profit in a market." He reduced Tormey's "‘Paid employment’ or, to put it another way, ‘wage labour’ to "paid labor" and replaced "baseline" with "fundamental" as a description of the definition. Since I assume that you have by now read Twormey's article you will also recognize that this was only one-aspect of a two-fold explanation of capitalism, namely the "abstract" as oppsoed to the "historical" upon which Twormey later elaborates. In any case on the talk page I suggested that this was not such a strong source and I would now elaborate following you that the claim being made it is not well substantiated (even though I may appreciate the particular writer and his agency). If we take the definition which consists of private property of the means of production, production for profit and "paid" or "wage" labor I suspect that someone important like Schumpeter and some of the more historically sensitive Austrians might object because there is no mention of the importance of the formation of advanced credit institutions or someone like Wallerstein might mention that the unit of analysis for historical capitalism has always been global - to name just two examples. This is why I think we should be more interested in writng the intro as a presentation of varying views that follow rather than in terms of some "consensus' that does not exist or some vague sense in an individual of a lack or controversy. BernardL ( talk) 00:26, 26 August 2009 (UTC)00:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply

You're making too much of a deal about what I happen to say on the talk page, bringing up quotes. What's the point? The dispute shouldn't be about that but about what's in the article. I can say whatever I want on the talk page. And I don't understand why you make a big deal over "paid employment" "wage labor or "paid labor"? You say Tormey said "paid employment." I said "paid labor." I was just trying not to quote directly in order avoid plagiarism. I don't care which term is used. Use whatever term you want. Same thing for "fundamental" versus "base line," that you're making an issue over. I don't know if you noticed but I changed it to "base line" later anyway just to avoid any misunderstanding. So Anyway, no matter how much you protest, the source still exists. And it's a reliable source according to policy. And again, as I pointed out before, no one disputes that people don't debate over a sophisticated definition of capitalism. What there is little debate over is a bare bones definition. The source says hardly anyone disputes a basic definition of capitalism that says that capitalism is private ownership of the means production, operated for profit, with people getting paid by the owners of businesses for working. It's pretty simple. Do you dispute that those elements exist in capitalism? Who does? You're not going to find many. Not that there aren't some people with nothing better to do that may debate even these basic elements of capitalism, but they are relatively few compared to those that accept that these are aspects of capitalism. Introman ( talk) 00:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply

User:Introman has added the following template to the lead:

The neutrality of this article's introduction is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until conditions to do so are met. ( Learn how and when to remove this message)

This template is inappropriate and should be removed. Please indicate whether you wish to Keep or Remove this template. The Four Deuces ( talk) 14:33, 25 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Is it true or not that the neutrality of the introduction is being disputed? There's your answer. Introman ( talk) 14:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC) reply

The only one here who disputes the intros neutrality is Introman. The problem is not that the Intr is POV, the problem is that Introman is a disruptive editor. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC) reply

User:Introman has shown a consistent pattern of disruptive editing on this article over three months and continues this pattern after a 24 hour block for edit-warring. The best way to resolve this is through a WP:RfC/U and I will set one up if anyone else agrees that it is warranted. The Four Deuces ( talk) 17:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC) reply

That's laughable. So instead of reverting the information, I put up a dispute tag in order to prevent "edit warring," so this can be resolved in talk without having to do reverts, and you claim even THAT is edit warring. Good luck with that RfC. Introman ( talk) 17:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC) reply

This is getting childish. So, if you have to share your toy then you might as well break it so no one else can have it? This should be removed. The neutrality was not diputed once other perspectives were incuded in the lede. Introman believes the inclusion of other perspectives is a NPOV issue, which is ironic and makes my mind twist is circles. MoralMoney ( talk) 15:28, 27 August 2009 (UTC) reply

I don't believe "the inclusion of other perspectives is a NPOV issue." I believe the EXCLUSION of other perspectives is an NPOV issue. To recap, I have a source that says there is little controvery that capitalism includes private ownership of the means of production, production of goods and services for profit, and paid employment; in other words that BASE LINE definition is not very controversial. It's from a reliable source, not to mention appears to me to be pretty non-controversial claim. Who disagrees that those elements are present in capitalism? Not many, I suspect. Yet, a few people here don't want to allow that information to be revealed. It was first being deleted with no explanatory comment whatsoever, from people such as Slrubenstein and Four Deuces. Then I ask here why and all anyone can come up with is Slrubenstein said the source is "insignificant" or "not serious." I say whether he thinks it's serious or insignificant is irrelevant, if it complies with reliable source policy. His claim doesn't make sense. What does he mean the source is not serious? The source, Professor Simon Tormey, is not a comedian. Introman ( talk) 16:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Isn't the contribution you want to make essentially what is already there? The lede already mentions ownership of property, wage labor, and profits. Aren't these the exact same components of Tormey's definition? The question is about the relevance of the source, not the content of the article. Do you not agree with the lede? I fail to see how the lede has a POV issue if you are citing something that makes the same basic claim. I personally don't have much of a problem with the lede or Tormey's defintion. It still allows for the possibility of gov. provision and this can be discussed elsewhere. The NPOV box makes it appear as if there is something wrong with the entire article. I suggest you remove it in good faith and maybe others will show you the same good faith with your edits. MoralMoney ( talk) 22:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC) reply

The problem is their is a POV problem due to the fact that this statement in the intro: "Scholars in the social sciences, including historians, economic sociologists, economists, anthropologists and philosophers, have debated over how to define capitalism." More precisely, due to the fact that there is no sentence after it making a qualification. Yes, it's true, but it gives the impression that there is simply endless debate and no resolve on what capitalism is. My source say that there consensus over the most bare bones definition, the basic elements, of capitalism. I had placed my sentence indicating that, right after the sentence I just quoted. Then a couple people deleted it, first with no explanation and then later with the claim that the source is bad but with no proof for that claim. So, now the text again is back to giving the impression to the reader that there is no consensus at all on what capitalism is. The reason it's POV is because it excludes the other view, that their IS consensus on the BASICS. Moreover, If that were true people are debating over how to debate capitalism without coming to a consensus, which is I think the impression that sentence alone gives, then why on Earth is there a definition of capitalism in the intro? So it's misleading, POV, and creates a contradiction. I don't know why you say the POV tag makes it look like there is something with the whole article, because it specifically says the problem is with the intro. Introman ( talk) 23:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC) reply

I have been in a passive mood lately thinking that whatever the outcome - this is basically a tempest in a teapot - and what matters more is the body of the article. But then Introman, with your last post you brought in the word consensus over and over again. Consensus - necessary involves interaction, sometimes involving folks with conflicting values and concerns, in an effort to work out a solution that everyone can agree on. If there really were a consensus you could show that this process of interaction really existed (perhaps all of the world's social scientists got together at some point?) and you would be able to easily come up with lots and lots of sources who say "well here is the baseline definition, but I am going to modify it). At this point you have found a good prof who wrote a book called Anti-capitalism: A Beginner's Guide who in his introduction makes an assertion in passing that this is an uncontroversial baseline definition. In a way, I agree with MoralMoney that the relevant terms are already being introduced with the first sentence. It is also beyond dispute that there has been considerable debate (ongoing) about the definition and meaning so why isn't this sufficient to set the stage for the elaboration of perspectives in the body of the article? This is all not really a big deal for me. So if folks prefer a reference to the baseline definition offered without stating that it is the process of consensus I am willing to go with the flow. BernardL ( talk) 01:17, 28 August 2009 (UTC) reply

There actually is a reliable source, Fernard Braudel, who reports that the word capitalism was used with its modern meaning prior to Karl Marx (who seems to have used its very sparingly and less so than Engels). This is worth discussing. On the face of it since Braudel is uncontroversially a reliable source and he has documented usages prior to that of Karl Marx, then the edits that SummerwithMorons made should be modified to reflect that Louis Blanc and Proudhon employed the modern usage first, unless someone has information which affects this prima facie case. Here is the quote from Fernard Braudel:

"Capitalism the most exciting of the three words for us...has been pursued relentlessly by historians and lexicologists...But it was probably Lous Blanc, in his polemic with Bastiat, who gave it its new meaning when in 1850 he wrote "... What I call "capitalism" [and he used quotation marks] that is to say the appropriation of capital by some to the exclusion of others." But the word still occurred very only rarely. Proudhon occasionally uses it, correctly: 'Land is still the fortress of capitalism', he writes - and indeed this was one of his major theses. And he defines it very well: 'Economic and social regime in which capital, the source of income, does not generally belong to those who make it work through their labour."(Braudel, Fernand. The Wheels of Commerce, Civilization and Capitalism 15-18th Century, p.237)

BernardL ( talk) 16:39, 29 August 2009 (UTC) reply

The new source addition is fine. Sum ( talk) 22:12, 29 August 2009 (UTC) reply

The article needs the addition of a major section on the "Features of Capitalism", with a subsection for each major feature of capitalism that has been discussed by the most prominent scholars. This would make the article much more informative, while now we only have a section on "Perspectives", where each school of thought has basically no interaction with the others outside its own subsection. Sum ( talk) 22:24, 29 August 2009 (UTC) reply

An editor has added the following statement to the lead: "More broadly, capitalism is a system that facilitates voluntary exchange". [2] The source given is "Excerpts from Milton Friedman, Capitalism and Freedom (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962), Chapter 1, "The Relation Between Economic Freedom and Political Freedom," pp. 7-17". [3] The source states, "A working model of a society organized through voluntary exchange is a free private enterprise exchange economy -- what we have been calling competitive capitalism". Friedman was describing a type of capitalism, viz., "competitive capitalism" not all capitalism. The Four Deuces ( talk) 23:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC) reply

What type of capitalism worthy of the name does not incorporate "free private enterprise"? Friedman was using "competitive capitalism" as a synonym for free markets throughout the book, as distinguished from the 'capitalism' which purports to be such but which actually is largely intertwined with the state. -- TheFix63 ( talk) 00:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Fascist Italy and Fascist Spain, Germany at various times in the last 100 years, Japan before World Wars I and II, tzarist Russia in the decades before World War I. The Four Deuces ( talk) 00:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC) reply

In all of those societies government could and did step in to take command of private industries that were not acting in accord with the "interests" of the state, and introduced extensive measures to "protect" domestic industries from foreign competition.-- TheFix63 ( talk) 00:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC) reply

What is your point? They were all capitalist. The Four Deuces ( talk) 00:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC) reply

The "means of production" were not privately controlled. Nor was the capital, property, factors of production, or whatever else you want to call it this time. They were government controlled. So, no, they were not capitalist. Macai ( talk) 00:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC) reply

(out)Here's the full paragraph from Friedman which you will find if you follow the source of the disputed edit:

History suggests only that capitalism is a necessary condition for political freedom. Clearly it is not a sufficient condition. Fascist Italy and Fascist Spain, Germany at various times in the last seventy years, Japan before World Wars I and II, tzarist Russia in the decades before World War I -- are all societies that cannot conceivably be described as politically free. Yet, in each, private enterprise was the dominant form of economic organization. It is therefore clearly possible to have economic arrangements that are fundamentally capitalist and political arrangements that are not free. [4]

Friedman is not equating all capitalism with "a society organized through voluntary exchange", which is why he uses the term "competitive capitalism". Clearly the edit misrepresents the source. This problem would be avoided if editors would read the sources they use. The Four Deuces ( talk) 01:19, 21 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Where does it explicitly say that these nations were capitalist? If he can't use "competitive capitalism" interchangeably with "capitalism", then you can't use "free enterprise" interchangeably with "capitalism". Please also note that he is talking about political freedom, not to be confused with economic freedom. The context does not support your perspective. Regardless, why do you jump on literally every edit that doesn't stink of Marx and try to veto it? It's a little suspicious. Macai ( talk) 01:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Under any reasonable reading of the paragraph I just quoted, Friedman is saying that fascist states were capitalist. By the way, George Reisman and Friedman, and their influences Mises, Hayek and Rand, were not Marxists, and in any case would remind you that I you are the one insisting on inserting them into the article. The Four Deuces ( talk) 02:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC) reply

To be perfectly honest, I don't really care if this particular passage gets to stay on the article. But I have noticed a pattern where you jump on anything not Marxist as an edit. I mean, seriously, you actually objected to changed the term "means of production" with something more viable and neutral, essentially on the basis that the sources I cited weren't the Harvard University Press, when the alternative was to leave a document as-is with no sources at all. Seriously. Why choose no sourcing at all with blatant point of view description over neutral description with dictionaries and encyclopedias as a source? To be perfectly honest, I could have just edited the capitalism article to say that capitalism is a political ideology which advocates more cow bell, and it would have held exactly as much weight in terms of sourcing as the one presently there. Macai ( talk) 02:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC) reply

There was extensive discussion on the lead as you can see in the archives. I do not know why sources were not given. However, I think you may be over-reacting to the term "means of production". I do not remember much criticism of it for its Marxist origins, although it appears to be accepted by Keynsian and monetarist economists. I will write to the editors involved in the discussion to see if they can provide sources. You can check my contributions to see if I left anyone out. The Four Deuces ( talk) 03:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC) reply

There do not appear to be any reliable sources in the lead. I am writing to editors who recently discussed the lead and request that they assist in ensuring the lead is adequately sourced. The Four Deuces ( talk) 03:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Just flicking through the nearest book I could find on our shelves - Capitalism: an ethnographic approach / Daniel Miller (by an Anthropologist, I should add) - this book notes the multiplicity of the definitions capitalism; notes that the term itself largely occurs within Marxist/Leftists rhetorical discourses; observes a tendency to conflation with "markets" which it disputes; and observes that neo-classical economics comes nearest to an abstract "pure" definition of the term. The nearest definition it gives to "pure capitalism" seems to be: 'The underlying principle[...] that a free market will be the most efficient mechanism for producing the maximum quantity of goods at the cheapest possible price, and therefore increasing world weath. ...[C]ommodities should be free to circulate without distortion, backed by financial institutions in which the value of local monies gives tha true reflection of the [position of that economy.' that's not bad as far as it goes, and is a bit cribbed from the contextual flow, but may be useful for a cite.-- Red Deathy ( talk) 08:51, 21 October 2009 (UTC) reply

I like the way you're thinking. I have a good number of text books at home here, too. The title of the book is "Economics: Principles, Problems, and Policies". It's written by "Campbell R. McConnell", and "Stanley L. Brue". A family member had to get this book for an economics course she was taking. Here's how it describes capitalism on page 33:

The private ownership of resources and the use of markets and prices to coordinate and direct economic activity characterize the market system, or capitalism.

It later clarifies that some capitalist nations do actually get involved in the economy, just not to the point that they are the primary driving forces in that economy. This source supports the idea that there is a focus on private property in the concept of capitalism. Macai ( talk) 11:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Miller is certainly an authority. Among anthropologists so is Eric Wolf; a guy named Ritzer is one of the best sociologists writing on the topic. The Brue textbook is one of the most authoritative, if you want an economist's point of view. It would be good to include a historian, Eric Hobsbawm has written extensively on the matter. However, my view is that the introduction ought not to have sources. I think it is bad practice as well as ugly. The introduction should introduce the article as a whole. It should not introduce anything that is not already in the body. It is the body that should provide detailed discussions with citations. The only question is: does the introduction accurately introduce the rest of the article. Too often people put a lot of effort into sourcing an introduction as a way of avoiding confronting problems in the body of the article. And if the body of the article is fine and properly sourced, then an introduction that introduces that body is fine and does not need citations as they are all in the body. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC) reply

I had helped craft the lead (except for the last line: "However, since prior economic systems featured all these elements to some degree..." which is just confusing). WP:LEADCITE advices that the lead should be general and summarize the article, but it also says that if something is controversial then proper citations may be needed. From WP:LEAD:

The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject should be established in the first sentence of the lead, if possible.

I don't think the definition is particularly controversial among experts, but if need be let's get some sources. Just about every expert can agree that a defining feature of capitalism is the private control of capital - and by capital, most experts are referring to the means of production. I propose we switch the order so it reads "... in which capital (also known as the means of production) is privately controlled...". I will make the change and someone can always edit if they don't like it. We probably won't find a single source for citation but can reference a few that support the lead.

I want to emphatically say that just because the topic is "capitalism" doesn't automatically mean that economists have the final word. In fact, many economists have an ahistorical, aseptic view that does a disservice. I second including historians such as Hobsbawm or Bruedel. Nubeli ( talk) 00:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC) reply

I want to emphatically say that the reason that it's so hard to get a definition for capitalism around here is because of the lack of ahistorical viewpoint. We can have a history of capitalism section but seriously, we just need a succinct one sentence definition which describes what it means, not where it came from, who came up with the word and what they thought about it. capitalism is just private ownership coupled with private trade. If i sell something on ebay it's very much part of capitalism but you can't put that into the scope of means of production and labor markets so those things shouldn't be in the definition. "The private ownership of resources and the use of markets and prices to coordinate and direct economic activity characterize the market system, or capitalism." comes closest to hitting the nail on the head.-- Pachang ( talk) 23:49, 27 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Then you don't understand the concept of ahistorical - ahistorical means you need a good grasp of the whole subject and do not artificially cut yourself off from the progression. Neoclassical economists have worked backwards from an ideal world to explain all of history rather than look at the real facts on the ground. What it reveals is idealistic thinking, grounded in nothing. Nubeli ( talk) 06:15, 10 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Ahistorical just means without historical perspective. Why are we brining neoclassical economists into this? There's no need to. Just like there is no need to have "means of production" in the base definition of capitalism in the introduction of this wiki page. If you want to analyze ahistorical thinking over the years, of course you can talk about neoclassical economists and if you want to analyze thinking on capitalism over the years of course you talk about means of production. Just not in the first sentence of the main wiki page which is just meant to be a simple definition free from history and personal perspective. -- Pachang ( talk) 14:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC) reply

The icon being used for capitalism is silly. Why a star? Why a dollar sign? A more meaningful symbol would relate to one of the defining characteristics of capitalism -- some of which are mentioned in the lead. My suggestion would be a handshake in reference to voluntary exchange and transactions. HyperCapitalist ( talk) 04:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC) reply

The template is used for many articles and hundreds of user pages. I don't think that this is the correct talk page for changing it. The Four Deuces ( talk) 15:53, 23 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Really, a handshake?! This seems to be a typical response of the Rand supporters hanging around, who wish to eliminate all other perspectives from the article. I'm no huge supporter of the icon, but at least it is recognizable to many - the dollar sign is indeed a defining mark of capitalism. Nubeli ( talk) 00:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC) reply

isn't the dollar sign a more of a defining mark of any society that uses paper money and coins?-- Pachang ( talk) 23:34, 27 December 2009 (UTC) reply

It could also refer to Freemasonry. The Four Deuces ( talk) 00:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC) reply

I think that the dollar sign is most fitting. There's no other system known to man that can generate wealth like Capitalism can; it's a perfect match. Moarhate ( talk) 03:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Try Feudalism (Proto-Capitalism) 128.2.51.144 ( talk) 20:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC) reply

(Insert obligatory Marxist bitching about unequal distribution of said wealth here) Soxwon ( talk) 14:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC) reply

There is nothing that obligates us to have any icon at all for the sidebar navigation box. It is reasonable to use symbols in such boxes when the subject has a widely recognized symbol (such as the 'A' for anarchism). But if there is no agreed-upon symbol, then the box should not have one. This is the case for the sidebar boxes about libertarianism, liberalism and individualism. -- RL0919 ( talk) 14:56, 9 November 2009 (UTC) reply

I deleted the dependent clause that ended the first paragraph, solely because it is redundant. If labor is traded on a market, then of course it has a price and the price of labor is its wage. Now, I consider the rise of the labor market defining of capitalism and have no problem singling it out. However, if we are to single it out, then the earlier part of the sentence (which lists labor as one of many goods traded on a market) needs to be rewritten. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC) reply

M&Ms asks:Why do you consider the rise of a labour market to be "defining of capitalism"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.209.74.201 ( talk) 16:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Can we get a FAQ at the top to make sure people know that the Black Book of Capitalism is not a reliable soure? I bring this up b/c there was an attempt to reinsert it yet again and this has been a recurring trend. Soxwon ( talk) 20:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC) reply

I agree the introduction to the Black Book of Capitalism is not RS, although some of the articles in it may be RS if they have been printed in academic journals. Incidentally the Black Book of Communism, which is not RS either, is used as a major source for dozens of articles. The Four Deuces ( talk) 20:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC) reply

I've not read the latter, I just know that the tally of 100 million deaths is impossibly high... Soxwon ( talk) 20:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Seventy million people were killed in two world wars. Add to that people killed in other wars and through famine and poverty and you easily reach that number. (I am not defending the theory just explaining it.) The second book claims that Communism killed 100 million. The Four Deuces ( talk) 21:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC) reply

I know how they got it, I've read portions of it. At any rate, should we make the FAQ or not? Soxwon ( talk) 21:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC) reply

(out) Probably not practicle. Editors who insert the claim probably do not check the FAQ. We actually started a mediation on reliable sources for all economics articles but unfortunately that was abandoned. [5] You might want to discuss the issue on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Economics. The Four Deuces ( talk) 23:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC) reply

This topic need not be a "highly sensitive" one.
Here is a perspective of the root cause of the conflict among the editors of this entry, and, two proposed solutions.

CAUSE OF THE CONFLICT

The root of the editorial conflict stems from the facts that:

1. Karl Marx was the first to use "Capitalism" in reference to an economic system in his book, Das Kapital, published in 1867, long after the USA implemented their Free Market system.

2. Capitalism (as defined by Marx) is when Capital (ie. those who control it) hires Labor (the wage-laborers) to produce products that are sold in the marketplace for profit.
Capitalism is one way to organize Capital and Labor in the marketplace – there are also other ways, cooperatives, for example.

3. Free Enterprise is when government establishes a free market and plays referee and lets all the various ways of organizing Capital and Labor duke it out on a level playing field.

4. The term Capitalism has been adopted erroneously by "AdamSmithists" as a synonym for "Free Enterprise".
(They are not the same thing -- it's like calling the soda pop isle at the grocery store "the Coke Isle").

5. So, the Free Enterprisers get upset when the Marxists argue with them about the definition of Capitalism, because in their mind, they're thinking "Free Enterprise".

IDEAL SOLUTION

Since Marx essentially coined the term, his definition should rule.
The Free Marketiers should pick or coin another –ism. (How about Freedomism? Freemarketism?)

REALISTIC SOLUTION

Since almost all AdamSmithists in the world think "Capitalism" refers to Free Enterprise,
and since changing all their minds might take a month or two…
a more realistic solution would be to:
1. Make Marx's definition primary in the article,

2. Include an alternative definition written by the AdamSmithists with links to "Free Enterprise".

3. Remove the Wikipedia redirect to Capitalism from Free Enterprise and let the Free Marketiers flesh it out.
This solution will defuse the conflict -- the Marxists can control the primary definition, the AdamSmithists, the secondary.

FreedomWorks! ( talk) 05:56, 17 November 2009 (UTC) reply

In a word, bullshit. Free Enterprise is more closely associated with capitalism than with any other economic system. Your "realistic solution" would violate NPOV and would disregard the hundreds of debates already on this subject. Soxwon ( talk) 18:34, 26 November 2009 (UTC) reply

It doesn't matter who coined the term, when people use the word capitalism are not describing the same thing that marx described in his definition. They are describing a characteristic society where people produce and trade products (things of value) freely without government intervention. In this society labour is a thing of value/product as well. To say that we shouldn't call this capitalism and should coin another term that should be universally accepted around the world with the authority we have as internet kids on wikipedia is ridiculous. Marx's definition of what he saw as "capitalism" isn't helpful to a wikipedia article. We need a definition that is clear and succinct and even more importantly is not tied to any time, intellectual movement or philosopher but is a definition that will last forever. A base 1+1 = 2 definition. Here is my funk & wagnalls new world encyclopedia definition: Economic system in which private individuals and business firms carry on the production and exchange of goods and services though a complex network of prices and markets. Not a bad start in my opinion. -- Pachang ( talk) 23:25, 27 December 2009 (UTC) reply

In a word, one-sided. My proposal was intended to help resolve the conflict (via accommodation) between "people who use the word capitalism [to describe] the same thing that marx described in his definition" and those who do not. You're arguments feed the conflict, rather than work to resolve it by ignoring the existence and legitimacy of other widespread uses. Your statement would be more accurate if it were altered to say, "Free Enterprise is more closely associated with capitalism in the minds of most Brits and Americans than with any other economic system". To a large portion of the rest of the world, Marx's definition is very relevant. Wikipedia has a global reach -- should its definitions be ethnocentric, reflecting the nationality of its founder, or, should they reflect all common uses of a particular term? Besides, why should one current widespread use of capitalism "last forever" rather than the original one or even another current widespread usage? -- FreedomWorks! ( talk) 16:10, 30 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Please cite reliable sources that state that Marx's is the most widespread amongst scholars and in the general mainstream and we can state such. Otherwise you're pushing a POV. Soxwon ( talk) 16:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC) reply

"most widespread"? Not my point. What I'm trying to communicate is that the idea that capitalism = the free market is an Anglo-centric POV. There is another POV (equally worthy of attention on Wikipedia) which is widely held in Germany, for example (and I suspect in Russia and China). Erich Weede, professor of sociology at the University of Bonn, in his book, "Wirtschaft, Staat und Gesellschaft: zur Soziologie der kapitalistischen" in a footnote on page 9, states (in German), "While in Germany the concept of the [free] market economy has become the preferred characterization [ie. label] for western economic systems, the Americans (like the classical German [economists] Weber and Sombart) prefer to use the term 'capitalism'". More succinctly put, German scholars in general prefer to refer to Western economic systems as "market economies" rather than "capitalism", like the Americans do.
   We may also find it instructive to note how prominent Marx's concepts are on the German wiki's page for Capitalism (the very large 2nd paragraph discusses Marx's definition of capitalism and its defining impact on the meaning of the term). Note also how the section on Marx's contribution is substantially larger than Adam Smith's. See: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kapitalismus .
   I have illustrated above, via a reliable source, that Soxwon's statement, "Free Enterprise is more closely associated with capitalism than with any other economic system" is true in America, but not Germany, where they prefer "Marktwirtschaft" (Market Economy). If I had the time (and language skills), I suspect I would easily find similar statements from Russian and Chinese scholars as their economies were based for decades on Marx's criticism of Capitalism.
   - FreedomWorks! ( talk) 07:32, 31 December 2009 (UTC) reply

I agree, to make "free enterprise" synpnymous with capitalism would be a distortion. Also its clear that Marx analysis of the subject (which has been hugely influential in shaping world history) has been grossly neglected. 41.132.178.180 ( talk) 18:21, 14 June 2010 (UTC) reply

I'm sorry, but why is he mentioned in the lede above oh, Adam Smith, Karl Marx, Murray Rothbard, or any of the other thinkers that have tackled this subject. Soxwon ( talk) 18:37, 26 November 2009 (UTC) reply

"Individuals engage in the economy as consumers, labourers, and investors." What about managers? Unfree ( talk) 02:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC) reply

management is a type of labour -- 202.20.67.223 ( talk) 14:41, 13 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Also, consuming implies buying. What about selling? Unfree ( talk) 02:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC) reply

I think you're right, if I sell something on ebay I don'y really see myself as any of those three.

To my way of thinking, markets and trade aren't relevant to capitalism. Capital (invested money) is amassed for profit-making enterprise, generally in corporations. Isn't that what capitalism is really about, the selling of shares in corporations? Unfree ( talk) 02:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC) reply

unfortunately this is where the problems come from. Capitalism is not that much about capital as it is about the trade of capital in free markets, Hence the bloody difficulty in getting people to agree on definition. In a purely capitalist society all capital is privately owned and traded, that's about all capitalism has to do with capital. -- Pachang ( talk) 23:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Capitalism is not an ideology with some pure version. It describes the economic system that emerged after the end of feudalism, where wealth was generated from privately-owned enterprises. Whether or not there is free trade or limited corporations is irrelevant. Some businesses (or even most businesses) may actually be government owned, e.g., public transport. The Four Deuces ( talk) 07:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Well that's what I thought it was...That's what I was told in school and what it says in my high-school economics text book. Basically, an economy that is purely capitalist has no government intervention at all. If there is government taxes and businesses then it is called a "mixed" economy. If you are right then most of what I was told in school about capitalism was wrong (which is fine :P). I think the difference in definition comes from a historical definition of capitalism vs a economist definition of capitalism. Reading Anarcho-Capitalism, Rothbard puts capitalism into to two types: State Capitalism and free market capitalism. I think this distinction should be made in this article in the introduction. What you think?-- Pachang ( talk) 11:47, 31 December 2009 (UTC) reply

That distinction really is part of Rothbard's theories and is not mainstream. There is a school of thought that distinguishes between statism and liberty and equates any involvement in the economy as socialism. I think the distinction really belongs in articles about liberalism, which is the ideology that advocates capitalism. The liberalism of the rich usually supported government intervention, while the liberalism of the middle class usually opposed it. Middle class people are often frustrated that their taxes pay for government programs they believe benefit the wealthy and the poor. The Four Deuces ( talk) 23:18, 1 January 2010 (UTC) reply

My economics professor said if you don't learn anything else in our course, take away this: "Profit is the Reward for the Successful Handling of Risk." Adam Smith may have had a handle on cost relative to the "ergs" of energy expended by the aggregate of labor (labour) in a manufacture; but Capitalism is the RISKING of CAPITAL for the potential reward. The greater the RISK the greater [should be] the Profit. Essential in the RISK component must be the chance of losing the capital, which often happens.

Too much time has been spent talking about ownership of property. Wage earners can own property and have no risk to their income stream. Ownership of Profit is what makes Capitalism. The "property" is merely added capital, which may be put to further risk to compound more Profit. No discussion of Capitalism will suffice without the Profit/Reward element. 4Ranch2 ( talk) 21:32, 1 January 2010 (UTC) reply

""Profit is the Reward for the Successful Handling of Risk,"" said your economics professor 4Ranch2. I studied economics and economists do indeed make this kind of statement very often. However, they are not talking about the workers plunging to their deaths on construction but only about financial risk.

Gatorinvancouver ( talk) 00:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC) reply

M&Ms says: I'd also like to add that he was your economics professor, not your capitalism buddy. If he mentions the word capitalism in his lectures then my ex-professor would like to fight him. Damn it, i bet the whole faculty will want a piece of him! Peace out: make profit not anarchy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.47.175.66 ( talk) 16:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC) reply

The subject is an historical mode of production, "profit" is a central concept to it, but it doesn't define it. In fact any definition will be somebodies POV or OR so no simple definition as a first text by a wiki editor will fly. 72.228.177.92 ( talk) 14:42, 27 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Sabine McNeill's recent edits appear to go into much detail with regards to money, put a dead link in the See Also section, and re-add unimportant links in the see also section, which should be just the important ones IMO (Das Kapital, The Wealth of Nations etc.) Thoughts from others? Soxwon ( talk) 19:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC) reply

These edits are unsourced and do not appear to be relevant. The Four Deuces ( talk) 20:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC) reply

M&Ms says: Hello, please read the below copied from the article page. It has been italicised and the issue is highlighted below it.

Commodity|Commodities There are two types of commodities: capital goods and consumer goods. Capital goods are products not produced for immediate consumption (i.e. land, raw materials, tools, machines and factories), but as the inputs of consumer goods (i.e. televisions, cars, computers, houses) to be sold to others.

The issue is this: a definition of capital is given but I find it erroneous. The goods, according to the article are "not produced for immediate consumption". Lets look at two of the examples given - land and tools. Neither of these resources (or as the article calls them: goods) are passed on to the final consumer. They are inputs necessary for production but the consumer does not acquire these goods in particular. Therefore, the users (which would be the producers of "consumer goods")of the resources are the final users.

The paragraph therefore contradicts itself as the producers are the end users of such goods. Not only that but, and this only applies if the author of this section has been true to his or her sources, but the very concept of this dichotomy is flawed. So nevermind correcting the contradiction, but should this concept be accepted as part of the articles content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.47.175.66 ( talk) 16:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC) reply

M&Ms says: Below is a segment from the article main page:

Money Money was primarily a standardized means of exchange which serves to reduce all goods and commodities to a standard value. It eliminates the cumbersome system of barter by separating the transactions involved in the exchange of products, thus greatly facilitating specialization and trade through encouraging the exchange of commodities.

However, besides serving as a medium of exchange for labour, goods and services, money is also a store of value, similar to precious metals.

Now, everything goes well until we come upon the third word. At first glance I didn't see a problem with the word "primarily". However, I saw the point the sentence was trying to make. A point that is incorrect also! There is no need for the word primarily. You can simply say that money IS or ACTS AS as store of value. It does not serve to reduce (three loaded weasel words) goods to a standard value. The value of the goods fluxuated over time and also according to geographical location (5euro for a shoe here, 5euro30cent two miles down the road, etc.).

The second problem relates to the writers second paragraph (being exact and sequential is tedious but rewarding you will find). Money IS a medium of exchange because it ACTS AS a store of value. Two side of the same coin. The sentence seems to seperate the sentence clauses into two distinct functions that money performs. But one is the description and the other is the function. Q.E.D. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.47.175.66 ( talk) 16:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC) reply

M&Ms says: I would like to highlight an issue with the following:

The economics of capitalism developed out of the interactions of the following five items:

You can read the article if you like and see these five items. However, I am illuminating an error of omission. For those not in the know; capitalism is an economic system (though you will be hard pressed to find it mentioned in an economic text book because it is just a weasel word used by people who see fault with the system) but lets call this a "free market economy". If we polarise economic systems we would find a centrally planned economy (i.e. communism) is the antithesis of the free market system. What is the most important difference? A free market is characterised by private property rights that place the decision of use, regulation and a burden of responsibility on the individual (or group of). A centrally planned economy does not share this characteristic and instead has a centralised (nationalised) and communal property rights legal structure. This is not mentioned under the aforementioned section.

Instead, the author has listed 5 items that can be found in a centrally planned (i.e. non-capitalist, though industrialised) economy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.47.175.66 ( talk) 09:37, 17 February 2010 (UTC) reply

What about the Adam Smith? It is widely known that "The Wealth of Nations" of 1776 was the beginning of Capitalism as a political and economic philosophy, it also defined Capitalism contemporary meaning. Agrofelipe ( talk) 14:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC) reply

M&Ms Posits: Did he use the word "Capitalism" as it is understood today (though I think that is why the article is in such a state)? I think the importance of Smith was his advocacy for the recognition of a spontaneuos economy (invisible hand) and that the Government must encourage it not through protectionist policies but through incentives (e.g. awarding patents for inventions). Otherwise the Government is to have no input. Can we really say that this was the beginning of "Capitalism as a political and economic philosophy"? Or should he be entered as a milestone in the shift from mercantalism towards Capitalism?

You have to be pretty clear on how he relates to Capitalism before you enter him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.123.0 ( talk) 11:45, 28 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Since this is such a controversial topic, an admin should swoop down and semi-lock it -- 173.51.175.30 ( talk) 04:29, 23 April 2010 (UTC) reply

From the main article: "and many states have what are termed "mixed economies." This is a gross understatement: not "many", not "most, but every state except North Korea and Cuba have an economy which is a mixture to some degree of capitalism and socialism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.83.132.68 ( talk) 10:50, 23 April 2010 (UTC) reply

While it is a vague term, it usually means a significant government involvement in the economy. Cuba btw allows foreign investment and some local businesses. TFD ( talk) 21:21, 23 April 2010 (UTC) reply

It seems from the extended debate so far that Capitalism is both an economic system and an ideology. As an economic system, it can be defined quite uncontentiously, but as an ideology only its multiple flavours can be listed. The Oxford English Dictionary (1933) gives the following:

Capitalism - The condition of possessing capital; the position of a capitalist; a system which favours the existence of capitalists.

Capitalist - One who has accumulated capital; one who has capital available for employment in financial or industrial enterprises

Capital - ... wealth in any form used to help in producing more wealth. (under defn B3b)

It stumbles over Wealth, however, commenting

There has been much controversy among economists as to the precise extent of meaning in which the term should be used. The definition that has been most widely accepted is that of Mill.

and quotes from John Stuart Mill, Principles of political economy (1848):

... all useful or agreeable things except those which can be obtained, in the quantity desired, without labour or sacrifice. (the conclusion of a fairly extensive quote)

Now this gives capitalism a pretty broad remit, but the key feature which emerges, running the definitions together (and carefully navigating Mill's double negative), is accumulation through labour and sacrifice of the means of production for the benefit of the accumulator. This is the point at which the ideology starts. Whose labour, whose sacrifice, and to what extent, should the system favour, and by what criteria should the should be addressed: equity (strictly pro rata), egality (redistributionist), efficiency (neoclassical orthodoxy), euthenics (sustainability and welfare)? Splitting the discussion up in this way should assist in marshalling the various dimensions of the subject.-- Skeptical-H ( talk) 15:51, 28 April 2010 (UTC) reply

I should have read through all the archives before submitting this. It was clearly naive of me to use the term "uncontentious" with editors so divided about which aspects must be present before a system can be called capitalist. However, I am not proposing a cast-iron definition - that's what's caused all the heat. The OED definitions were previously considered here [6] but dismissed because they failed to encompass all systems of capitalism. I'm proposing them instead because they form a stripped down core around which the various systems can be developed.-- Skeptical-H ( talk) 18:13, 28 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Good luck with that, most editors can't agree on even the most bare bones of a definition. Soxwon ( talk) 02:13, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Capitalism is not an ideology, although one's attitudes toward capitalism may form part of an ideology. TFD ( talk) 06:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Is it the consensus of sources that say wage labor is predominant over self employment in order for the system to be capitalism? It doesn't seem right. A system of self employed capitalists doing business with each other is still capitalism. If you deny this then what would such a system be called? And what exactly does it mean to say wage labor "predominates"? That most people work for wages or that most businesses have employees? If it's the latter then the US would not capitalism because most businesses do not have employees. I think the wage labor comment should be struck until the answers to these questions can be established. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Associater ( talk • contribs) 03:46, 5 May 2010 (UTC) reply

In the United States and some other countries there was a time when most people were self-employed as farmers, tradesmen and professionals. TFD ( talk) 04:15, 27 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Since this article is struggling a little perhaps we can gain something by reflecting on the efforts of our German language friends. if your German is as good as mine this link to an english translation is of use:(follow the link on the page to see english translation) http://translate.google.com/#auto%7Cen%7Chttp%3A%2F%2Fde.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FKapitalismus 41.132.178.180 ( talk) 22:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC) reply

I'm not sure where you got the idea that the article was struggling... Soxwon ( talk) 23:11, 14 June 2010 (UTC) reply

Perhaps "struggling" was the wrong word.I refer to the article's removal from the "good pages" list. 41.132.178.180 ( talk) 05:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC) reply

That was almost four years ago. Soxwon ( talk) 05:17, 23 June 2010 (UTC) reply

Do you know the reasons why it was removed? And why after 4 years has not been able to restore its good rating (please excuse my ignorance on the matter)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.132.178.180 ( talk) 13:51, 23 June 2010 (UTC) reply

Why doesn't this article point out that capitalism is the antithesis of democracy and is only compatible with absolutism or oligarchy? -- 76.77.139.243 ( talk) 17:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC) reply

Explain your argument and maybe it will. -- 68.32.17.238 ( talk) 18:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Is there a good reason that this should get its own section? As it is this section is weakly supported by references. 41.132.178.180 ( talk) 13:58, 23 June 2010 (UTC) reply

Does anyone remember the free-enterprise advertisements and free-enterprise clubs of the 1960's & 1970's that were advertised on television (basically western propaganda to counter the Soviet propaganda it seems)? Please contact me if you do... Stevenmitchell ( talk) 03:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC) reply

The article now lacks a reference to risk and rewards -- the idea is that in capitalism that potential and actual gains and losses are realized by the owners of an enterprise. In fact, one indicator of whether an entity or activity is capitalist or something else is the degree to which to profits and losses are borne by its owners. I should obtain be able to locate a V and RS cite supporting this, but I am discussing this here to see if this ground is already covered. patsw ( talk) 19:31, 18 July 2010 (UTC) reply

I replaced the blurb on Participatory economics. The concept seems to be notable and reliably scholarly. It also seems to have sparked further scholarly research. It seems to be sufficiently worthy of the weight given. BigK HeX ( talk) 18:15, 7 August 2010 (UTC) reply

It is very difficult to determine the notability of participatory economics. The only references from RS publications in wikipedia are written by the authors of the theory (which also raises POV issues), Why should it be mentioned as a leading alternative to capitalism? Has it been documented by a reliable source to exist in any form anywhere? It seems to me it is an evolving hypothesis, not an economic system that has ever existed or been studied to any extent. It is certainly not as notable as central planning (or mercantilism). Why should it be mentioned in the lead? Mrdthree ( talk) 00:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC) reply

I dont see the phrase 'democratic planning' anywhere in the Participatory economics article. Is it really a synonym for this theory? If the alternative being offered is parecon, this should be explicit. So that editors can determine if it is notable. Or if the goal is to document examples of democratic planning, it should be footnoted, not linked. Mrdthree ( talk) 01:11, 8 August 2010 (UTC) reply

The mention to [Participatory economics] should be dropped from the lead of the article. All references in wikipedia to the subject are written by the authors of the theory. Based on these references the theory is less than 10 years old, and is simply not a leading alternative to capitalism. Unless an RS can be found that states it exists somewhere in some form as something other than a hypothesis, it is not an economic system and belongs in the body. It is certainly not as notable as mercantilism, which is omitted from the lead. Mrdthree ( talk) 01:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC) reply