Talk:Capitalism/Archive 29

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

Archive 25

←

Archive 27

→

Reserve army of labour

I think we need to open discussion to figure out what to do with the "Reserve army of labour" section. Gravuritas first pointed out that the term does not appear in the Macmillan Dictionary of Modern Economics. Next, Arjun1491 removed the section completely for giving "undue importance to Marxism." While I think complete removal is taking it a step too far, I do believe this section is undue weight. For something that is a Marxist analysis, should it really be prominently included (in such a large section) as one of five characteristics of capitalism? Are there any sources that indicate "Reserve army of labour" is so significant to capitalism (besides the primary source of Marx's Das Kapital)? I think this section should be condensed considerably and moved to the "Marxian and Leninist analysis" or "Marxian responses" sections. It is fairly evident this article has a problem of giving undue weight to Marxian definitions and thought, and doing so would be a step forward in improving this problem. Abierma3 (talk) 19:53, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

It should be turned into a section about unemployment and provide the wide range of views about it. TFD (talk) 20:03, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

After doing a little more research, I would agree with this. I am currently too busy to commit the time required for a significant rewrite like this, but I did a quick search and found some sources I would like to review and consider their relevance to the section when I do have time. Feel free to check them out as well as search for additional sources:

Abierma3 (talk) 22:20, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

I concur. Rick Norwood (talk) 22:46, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

[apologies to all for accidental delete yesterday]

Dealing with unemployment as a characteristic of capitalism possibly not straightforward. For balance, any description of unemployment under capitalism also has to deal with unemployment under systems other than capitalism. [That's unemployment under other real systems, not various hypotheticals]. And the problem then arising is that alternatives to capitalism don't recognise unemployment, they just have slave labour and starvation. So, for example, the first source in the list above explicitly excludes any coverage of unemployment under other systems, and the second source is just naive babytalk. So while I'm sure a lot of sources about the evils of unemployment under capitalism can be found, of themselves they may deserve placing in the criticism section, but not in the 'characteristic' section unless a serious source can be found to add some balance.

Gravuritas (talk) 07:08, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Today, essentially every country on earth is capitalist. (see: Capitalism, a Short History) But pre-capitalist systems (mercantilism for example) did consider the question of unemployment, and did not always result in slave labour and starvation, though there was a lot of that in the good old days.Rick Norwood (talk) 12:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

To your first sentence I'd suggest Burma and List of socialist states as examples that spring immediately to mind, disproving your assertion. And, as no doubt you realized, I had in mind current or much more recent alternatives to capitalism than C16- history.

Gravuritas (talk) 07:35, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

It appears we have consensus to rewrite this section as "Unemployment" under the Characteristics heading. I'm confident we can find enough sources. Here are a couple more sources that might help "add some balance:"

Abierma3 (talk) 08:35, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

The assertion (with reference) is that these days even socialist and communist states have a capitalist economy. Witness the capitalist success of communist China. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:09, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Mercantilism is a form of capitalism. And it was the advent of mercantilism that led to peasants removal from the land and joining the working class. Hence the Act for the Relief of the Poor 1601. But clearly unemployment was not a major feature of pre-capitalist societies. There was no unemployment in America before the Europeans arrived for example. That does not mean it was better. And whether or not "socialist" states were able to address unemployment or how they addressed it is irrelevant to whether it was a feature of capitalism. We should not say well capitalism is the best system or the only possible one and ignore its side effects. TFD (talk) 14:35, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry guys, individually you may or may not have tenable positions on the forthcoming re-write, but the consensus view doesn't hold water. If capitalism is now ubiquitous, then either unemployment is ubiquitous, or it is not. If unemployment is present in the various forms of "capitalism" including e.g. the North Korean variant, then show me the numbers. If unemployment is not present in North Korea, then either capitalism is not ubiquitous or unemployment is not a characteristic of capitalism. (Or, possibly more likely, N Korea is not capitalist and the alternative to capitalism's unemployment is slave labour and starvation.) Make your (consensoid) minds up. And whether or not capitalism is now ubiquitous, 50 or 100 years ago there were other systems ruling in parts of the globe and smokescreening their alternatives to unemployment by blathering about the relatively ancient history of mercantilism doesn't hold water, either. Good luck with the rewrite.

Gravuritas (talk) 10:06, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Unemployment is ubiquitous. In North Korea the unemployment rate is about four percent. Of course, like all modern versions of capitalism, North Korea does not have pure capitalism. Its peculiar version of capitalism is one where without massive infusions of money from China everyone would starve. But still, people buy and sell and work (or pretend to work) for wages. As I read the passage we are discussing, it does not say that unemployment is unique to capitalism, only that unemployment is a problem under capitalism, as it was not in a subsistence economy. Marx recognized that capitalism was better than what went before, he saw capitalism as a stage toward communism. Turned out he was wrong, as the example of Russia shows. (Unemployment was also a problem in ancient Rome, but I don't think Marx mentions that.) The paragraph in question is giving the Marxist view, not claiming it is the correct view. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:02, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't go so far as to say the collapse of the USSR proves Marx wrong, as Lenin and especially Stalin turned Marx on his head in many ways.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 12:48, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I was thinking of the fact that Marx predicted that a country must first be capitalist before it could be communist, but Russia went straight from serfdom to communism, skipping right over capitalism. Rick Norwood (talk) 16:35, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

@Rick Norwood. With reference to the 'Unemployment is ubiquitous' paragraph. If you wish to contrast capitalism only with a subsistence economy, then such a contrast is uninteresting & not appropriate in this article- who cares? You use a straw man comment by referring to 'unemployment is unique to capitalism' and then go on to inaccurately claim that the passage we are discussing states unemployment '..is a problem under capitalism'. Not so- the proposal under discussion is that unemployment is included in the list of *characteristics* of capitalism. That's a horse of a different feather, as there is then a need to explain why unemployment is a characteristic of capitalism and not other economic systems. Which gets particularly complicated if you believe that all systems are capitalist. 'All systems are capitalist' + 'unemployment is a characteristic of capitalism' => 'unemployment is characteristic of all systems', which I suggest is not a desperately interesting thesis to write about. btw, I would agree that unemployment is a problem under capitalism: why not write about it as such instead of making the broader claim that it is characteristic of capitalism?- which latter necessitates, imho, the comparison with other systems.

Gravuritas (talk) 09:17, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I would like, if we may, to move on to a larger question. I'm certainly not defending communism or attacking capitalism. The passage in question doesn't say unemployment is a problem under capitalism (though it is). What the passage says is that in the Marxist view unemployment is a problem under capitalism. Marx thought the problem would go away under communism. It didn't. So, instead of trying to improve the article one word at a time, I suggest we look at the larger structure of the article. Currently, criticisms of capitalism are scattered throughout the entire article, and while Marx is generally considered second only to Adam Smith in importance, the article has too much Marx and not enough Smith. I suggest the following large structure. The lead should define capitalism, mention Adam Smith, mention the varieties of capitalism, mention criticisms of capitalism, beginning with Marx and ending with modern criticisms of capitalism. Then the large structure of the article should be History of Capitalism, Modern forms of capitalism, Criticisms of capitalism. What do you think?

Starting with the smaller question: the section in which this passage appears is the Characteristics of capitalism, (CoC) not the problems of capitalism, and not the Marxist view of the problems of capitalism, so the passage, (or the suggested replacement, unemployment), needs to stand or fall by whether it deserves to be included under that (CoC) heading. I would suggest 'no' to Reserve army of labour, although to the suggested replacement, unemployment, I'd suggest 'yes, provided it is balanced'.

On the larger question you raise: the structure looks reasonable apart from the missing part: surely criticisms of capitalism should be preceded by something like: Advantages of capitalism?

Gravuritas (talk) 16:08, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Gravuritas, do you have sources that shows unemployment is not a characteristic of capitalism? Other sources besides ones with marxist view also seem to refer to unemployment as a characteristic/problem of capitalism (i.e. the credible PhD economist you dismiss as "naive babytalk" because he holds a differing point of view than you). If unemployment wasn't a characteristic of capitalism, wouldn't we have purely capitalist economies all over the world? I don't really see how calling unemployment a characteristic of capitalism is an NPOV concern, even the U.S. has a mixed economy. Abierma3 (talk) 20:34, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Unemployment under capitalism is not a criticism, is a characteristic. Marx btw was not anti-capitalist in the sense that conservatives were, but saw it as a step in human progress. And certainly unemployment was not a feature of pre-capitalist society. TFD (talk) 16:15, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Firstly the babytalk. The guy says "We as a nation forego about 15 percent of extra output of goods and services because of unemployed people and idled tools, equipment, etc." and then goes on to say how wonderful all the extra production would be. But some of the idled equipment might only be capable of producing old-style armour plate for battle tanks that nobody wants, and some of the unemployed might be expert coppersmiths who can produce industrial quantities of precisely-formed & jointed copper tubing, which has been superceded by plastic. So how wonderful would it be to have all this extra production of redundant armour plate and useless copper swirls? He doesn't even touch on this problem of outmoded tools- and that's just the first of his naivites- I could go on. So no, I don't describe as babytalk an opinion that only differs from mine: I reserve the term for someone who spouts hopelessly naïve views.

Back to the meat of the discussion- some precision please. We are not differing at all if you describe unemployment in the article as a problem of capitalism. I agree. Insofar as unemployment is described as a *characteristic* of capitalism, I am only asking for a balanced view. So that means- if not capitalism, then what? and then under system B, what do they have instead of unemployment? Let me put it by way of an analogy: if we wanted to say that bugs are a characteristic of Windows, then we need a comparison with Linux or whatever. Maybe Linux has fewer, or handles bugs differently? If we find that bugs are a problem of all operating systems, then we can no longer say that bugs are a characteristic of Windows, (though they may be a characteristic of operating systems)- bugs should then be described as a problem under Windows. So to spell it out, if we describe unemployment as a characteristic of capitalism we need to demonstrate that it doesn't exist under the alternatives, or ensure balance by contrasting unemployment under capitalism with underemployment, starvation, and slave labour under the most widespread alternative system in the last century.

But maybe instead of me wrangling about what should be in this passage, the best way forward would be a bold edit by those in favour of changing this passage to unemployment: I think it may well be an improvement on the current 'Reserve army of labour', and if I don't like it, I'll suggest some constructive changes.

Gravuritas (talk) 16:41, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, you are agreeing that unemployment is a feature of capitalism, and see it a least in some situations as a positive attribute. So I see no reason why it should not be mentioned. And we do not need to demonstrate that it does not exist under other alternatives. Capitalism is not a commercial product. And most writers who discuss unemployment under capitalism do not suggest replacing the system, but merely what if anything to do about it. TFD (talk) 17:04, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes: mostly all agreed, but, the position that I believe was originally floated for a section on unemployment was under 'characteristics', and I would suggest that all the generalities need to be tightened up to deserve inclusion in that section. But please go ahead and make a start, and let's see where it goes.

Gravuritas (talk) 21:22, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

State capitalism....

...should not appear in a list of types of capitalism without a suitable preface. Reading the WP State capitalism makes it clear that the term has been in use for some time, almost exclusively by the Left, in order to disown the crimes of e.g. the Soviet Union. There also appears to be a more recent usage, not entirely confined to the Left, to describe the current situation e.g. in China. But this latterday, less contentious, use of 'state capitalism' cannot be presumed to be the normal meaning of the word. Certainly looking at the emphasis in State capitalism, it's the earlier, Left-wing propagandist use of the phrase which dominates. So while State capitalism can be taken to mean C20 Soviet Union, then it's inclusion in a list of types of capitalism would be ludicrous. Gravuritas (talk) 16:04, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

But V.I. Lenin himself declared that Soviet Russia was State capitalist in numerous writings[1][2]. It is therefore disingenuous to ascribe the term exclusively to Leftists who merely wish to distance themselves from the crimes of Stalinism. The term is also defined by Merriam-Webster as "an economic system in which private capitalism is modified by a varying degree of government ownership and control."[3] Based on this I believe the term has merit and should remain on the list. It does have its own subsection after all.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 20:26, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Not sure I want to take any lessons in capitalist nomenclature from one of the old mass-murderers, and your quoting him tends to support my view that this is a word conjured by the Left for its own partisan purposes. The Merriam-Webster reference is admittedly a good counter-example which tends to undermine my view. The question then is whether the Left/smokescreen use of the term 'state capitalism' is more widespread than any genuine non-partisan use of the term. Certainly, judging by State capitalism, the Left's use of the term clearly dominates which I think makes its inclusion POV.

Gravuritas (talk) 21:38, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

You are only reading what you want to read. Did you miss the fairly large section "Current forms in 21st century" in the article? I already included the quote in an edit summary, but it says, "Many analysts assert that China is one of the main examples of state capitalism in the 21st century." This statement is well cited, see "Communism Is Dead, But State Capitalism Thrives" (http://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2010/03/22/communism-is-dead-but-state-capitalism-thrives/), "The Winners And Losers In Chinese Capitalism" (http://www.forbes.com/sites/gadyepstein/2010/08/31/the-winners-and-losers-in-chinese-capitalism/), and "The visible hand" (http://www.economist.com/node/21542931). In addition to the China subsection, there are also subsections with citations listing Singapore and Norway as examples of state capitalism, see "The True Meaning of the 'Singapore Model': State Capitalism and Urban Planning" (http://meridian.aag.org/callforpapers/program/AbstractDetail.cfm?AbstractID=38973) and "The rich cousin" (http://www.economist.com/news/special-report/21570842-oil-makes-norway-different-rest-region-only-up-point-rich). It should be pretty clear from the reliable sources' use of the term state capitalism that it's accurate to include state capitalism in the list of forms of capitalism. Abierma3 (talk) 23:56, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

You are only reading what you want to read. Did you miss the even larger sections.......see the contents list below from State capitalism 1 Origins and early uses of the term 2 Use by socialists 2.1 Use by anarchists 2.2 Use by the Russian communist left 2.3 Use by Mensheviks and 'Orthodox' Marxists 2.4 Use by Schachtmanite "Trotskyists" 2.5 Use by later left communists and council communists 2.6 Use by Maoists and anti-revisionists 3 Use by liberal economists 4 Use by Italian Fascists 5 In Western countries 6 In European studies 7 State monopoly capitalism 7.1 Political implications 7.2 Neo-Trotskyist theory 7.3 Criticism 7.4 In popular culture 8 Current forms in 21st century 8.1 People's Republic of China 8.2 Singapore's version of state capitalism 8.3 State capitalism in Norway

Now you've read the contents list, reread the article, and dewadded your panties, have you noticed how many sections of the article are of overtly Leftist views, (and possibly some others that are less obvious from the section titles)? Now you can re-read my question: "The question then is whether the Left/smokescreen use of the term 'state capitalism' is more widespread than any genuine non-partisan use of the term." and realize you need more than a couple of sources to counterweigh the Left's repeated propagandist use of the term. You haven't addressed that question. The WP article clearly makes my point, and if you disagree then you have bigger fish to fry than the inclusion of state capitalism in one position in the Capitalism article: you must logically believe that the State capitalism article is completely unbalanced. Make your choice. Gravuritas (talk) 17:06, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

The question is whether or not state capitalism is a form of capitalism, which the answer is clearly yes per the sources I included. Abierma3 (talk) 18:55, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

No, the question is clearly not 'clearly yes', and I'll go around the houses one last time. 'State capitalism' has clearly been used for Leftist propaganda/ obfuscation: only someone combining several types of twerpdom could believe that Lenin's 'state capitalism' was genuinely a form of capitalism as defined by this article. 'State capitalism' as mentioned by you and others also has a legitimate meaning- involving some elements of capitalism and some elements of state control. THE question is: which is the more established meaning? I haven't spent the time to consult a range of primary sources, but the evidence from WP State capitalism is that it's the left-wing usage which predominates, and that, dear Sir or Madam, ain't capitalism, and on that basis should not be included in types of capitalism.

Gravuritas (talk) 20:05, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

So what term would you use for the form of capitalism seen in China, Singapore, and Norway? Sometimes people use the proper term for something in ways we don't like (i.e. Holocaust is the term for a burnt offering in Judaism; just because Germany's WW2 genocide is the predominant use of the term doesn't mean "holocaust" is no longer the term for a burnt offering in Judaism). We shouldn't ignore a form of capitalism because the term that reliable sources refer to it as was also used in "Leftist propaganda." Abierma3 (talk) 06:54, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Capitalism in Germany : IG Farben

In Germany we had a capitalist system ... from 1900 till 1945 the ig farben have grown in german capitalism ... the IG farben had 11.000.000.000 Reichsmark Firmenkapital company capital ... the ig farben have buyed all other firms and companies with their money ... and the ig farben had a monopol market after buyed mostly all companies in europe ...

Carl Wurster, a fascist IG farben manager become the leader of Degesch, he leaded the production of Zyklon B. After the 2nd world war, he became the leader of BASF ...

In 1926, IG Farben had a market capitalization of 1.4 billion Reichsmark and a workforce of 100,000 people, of which 2.6 percent were university educated, 18.2 percent were salaried professionals and 79.2 percent were workers.

in 1933 the ig farben payed 400.000 reichsmark to the nsdap ...

the ig farben were the main financier for the nsdap ... it could be, that most nsdap leaders were also ig-farben-members ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.51.74.139 (talk) 18:10, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

the ig farben produced 100 % of the explosives of the wehrmacht, used in the 2nd world war

in 1945 the ig farben have splitted into BASF, Bosch, Hoechst, Bayer, Grünenthal, Wacker, etc ... all of them are on the stock market ...

the leaders of ig farben were sentenced at the nuremberg trials ...

there are for example Christian Schneider ...

in 1946 some ig farben veterans like gruenenthal selled contergan

IG Farben Managers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.51.74.139 (talk) 18:15, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contergan-Skandal — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.51.74.139 (talk) 17:09, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

This is interesting. I recommend you have someone who writes English well write it up, with references. Rick Norwood (talk) 18:27, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

IG Farben

http://media.liveauctiongroup.net/i/13881/14049945_1.jpg?v=8CF664CB49F0F80

ig farben managers and eu-founder walter hallstein plan the new europe

https://i2.wp.com/euro-med.dk/bil/billederhallstein-2big-farben-thumb.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.51.74.139 (talk) 18:49, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

military capitalism

a b2 bomber cost 700.00.000 dollar

a f22 plane cost 100.000.000 dollar

most rich are in the military — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.225.62.71 (talk) 19:54, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Agrarian capitalism..

The two current sources are from a socialist perspective. I tried flagging this, but was reverted. On further consideration, I thought the whole paragraph gave undue weight to a one-sided view, and deleted it, and have been reverted twice. I suggest the enthusiasts for this section either find some non-partisan sources to back it up; move it to the relevant section which is flagged as a Marxist perspective on capitalism; or accept its deletion. Gravuritas (talk) 17:38, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

You are confusing facts and opinions. Since the first source was published in the Oxford University Press, one can assume the facts are accurate. The second article which is published in a socialist publication may be of a lower standard but at least the author is a professor of history. If you think the facts are wrong, you should provide a source that gives the real facts. I do not see anything controversial in what the section says. TFD (talk) 18:49, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

No, it's you who are confusing assertions with facts and dogma with opinions. The assertions are incorrect, and so the opinions are valueless. See macfarlane / 'The origins of English Individualism'. p152. [In C13]. "Production was often for exchange, not for use." The para has to go.

Gravuritas (talk) 11:10, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I do not have access to Alan Macfarlane's book, and do not know how your quote is supposed to refute anything. However, according to John Gray, Macfarlane eplained that "industrial capitalism emerged in England against a background of centuries of agrarian capitalism and possessive individualism."[4] So certainly he accepted the concept. TFD (talk) 14:19, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

The disputed para is quoted, with my comments from Macfarlane in brackets

"The economic foundations of the feudal agricultural system began to shift substantially in 16th century England;

(Macfarlane says much earlier) the manorial system had broken down by this time, (Earlier) and land began to be concentrated in the hands of fewer landlords with increasingly large estates. Instead of a serf-based system of labor, (inappropriate: serf-based system in England was centuries earlier) workers were increasingly being employed as part of a broader and expanding money economy (money economy & widespread wage labour widely established centuries earlier) . The system put pressure on both the landlords and the tenants to increase the productivity of the agriculture to make profit; the weakened coercive power of the aristocracy to extract peasant surpluses encouraged them to try out better methods (undemonstrated), and the tenants also had incentive to improve their methods, in order to flourish in an increasingly competitive labor market (much earlier). Terms of rent for the land were becoming subject to economic market forces rather than the previous stagnant system of custom and feudal obligation (but competitive wage rates had been established centuries earlier)"

I'm happy if need be to give page references. The bottom line is that the paragraph corresponds to a socialist analysis of capitalism, and is supported by one decent source and one wobbly one. However, it is contradicted more or less in its entirety by a very decent source. Macfarlane's work is full of very detailed references to support his assertions, and basically either he is right or the source quoted to support the deleted para is right: there isn't a whole lot of common ground. Without looking a lot further, I'd suggest the best way is to delete such contentious material.

Gravuritas (talk) 14:45, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

How does what Macfarlane wrote differ from the text you removed from the article? TFD (talk) 16:57, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Gravuritas: Your comments are confusing. You begin by saying that the references are "two socialist sources". Now you agree that one source is "a very decent source", and yet you dismiss it because you think it disagrees with your one source. Macfarlane is a very interesting writer, but a controversial one. You are not at all clear about where Brenner is "contradicted more or less in its entirety" by Macfarlane. Feudalism in England began to decline in the fifteenth century, but it was not abolished until the seventeenth, and in any case Brenner is not writing about feudalism per se but about the economic foundations of feudal agriculture, which persisted even after the Tenures Abolition Act of 1660. Certainly those economic foundations were still present in the sixteenth century, and I would need to see a quote to believe Macfarlane thinks otherwise. Serfdom was still extant in England in the 16th century; it did not disappear "centuries earlier". Does Macfarlane say otherwise? By the 17th century, some English landlords were trying to improve their methods of farming, but others resisted modernity until well into the 20th century. If you want to make this change, you need to provide much better evidence than you have offered so far. Rick Norwood (talk) 20:06, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

will clarify. Give me a day or so.

Gravuritas (talk) 20:21, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

OK guys, firstly the generality, secondly the specifics. In general, the timeline is wrong. Macfarlane, p195 "It has been argued that if we use the criteria suggested by Marx, Weber and most economic historians, England was as 'capitalist' in 1250 as it was in 1550 or 1750. That is to say, there were already a developed market and mobility of labour, land was treated as a commodity and full private ownership was established, there was very considerable geographical and social mobility, a complete distinction between farm and family existed, and rational accounting and the profit motive were widespread". On the other hand, using a different definition of agrarian capitalism, Overton (Agricultural revolution in England) describes the change to [his sort of] agrarian capitalism as being "established...by the nineteenth century". So to put it mildly, there is no consensus on when agrarian capitalism was born, and no justification for accepting the leftist view.

Moving to specifics, the dateline for the change away from the feudal economy in the first sentence is wrong, according to Macfarlane: the English feudal system was not a peasant economy at least as early as the C13. The manorial system was not dominant in the way implied by the second sentence. The serf-based system did not exist in the same form as elsewhere: villeins were a different animal, with for instance frequent trading of parcels of land (by those relinquishing/ taking up the service requirements, not the landlord) Workers had been very widely employed at least since the C13. Neither Macfarlane nor Overton find anything exceptional happening in the C16. The better methods referred to in agriculture, according to Overton, were C18. Quote from Overton, p205: "Finally, according to Brenner, agrarian capitalism developed in those areas where control of lordship was strong and peasants were property rights were weak. In fact the reverse is the case..."

So the first para in agrarian capitalism is well and truly scuppered. Nearly every sentence is contradicted by one or both of the two sources cited, so it can't stand. Theoretically, one could try to write an entry covering the three timelines, but it would be bedevilled by terminological issues (how do you define agrarian capitalism?), and my guess is that some more digging would simply dig up yet more definitions of the phrase, and yet more differing views. A synthesis of the views is not possible as they are so contradictory.

Gravuritas (talk) 16:44, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

The text you removed does not state a timeline. And it is Macfarlane who is an outlier in claiming that feudalism never existed in England and that it was always capitalist. TFD (talk) 17:27, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Which word did you miss in "The economic foundations of the feudal agricultural system began to shift substantially in 16th century England"? And so far to put against Macfarlane you've only got Brenner who has been semi-castrated by Overton. Try harder.

Gravuritas (talk) 18:07, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I do not have access to Macfarlane's book and am relying on secondary sources. A book review by Alan Ryan for example summarizes Macfarlane thus: "The claim is that so far from England resembling the ideal type of peasant society before the ‘bourgeois’ or ‘capitalist’ or what-have-you revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries, England displayed most of the features of modernity at least as far back as the 14th century."[5] It never had a feudal period similar to Eastern Europe. Anyway the quote is from the text you removed from this article, so I do not see why you are mentioning it. TFD (talk) 18:59, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Now I am confused by your comments. I am trying to justify the removal of the text- the bit that was the main para in the Agrarian Capitalism section. That para started with the reference to the C16, which is one of the main issues I am disputing. The quote from Ryan about Macfarlane is more or less correct, (though I thought Macfarlane's comments stretched back to the C13, not just the C14, but let's not quibble), and that summary directly contradicts Brenner (and the main para's timeline and much of the rest of the para. So in summary, the main para's only significant support was by Brenner (a mag article is hardly impressive, so I discount that) and Brenner's assertions are contradicted by Macfarlane. At least one of Brenner's major assertions is destroyed by Overton. So I consider the main para no longer credible, justifying its removal.

Gravuritas (talk) 21:10, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

The relevant policy is WP:WEIGHT. If theories are generally accepted we can state them as facts. To the extent there is disagreement then we can add there views with appropriate weight. Overton's views appear to be in the minority as well. Also he was writing about agricultural production efficiency rather than whether crops went to market.

Also, could you please stop reverting text without discussion. One of the first things you mentioned when you deleted the section is that it presented "a Marxist perspective on capitalism." Can you explain how the dating relates to Marxist theory?

TFD (talk) 22:41, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

No, on the current evidence WP:WEIGHT doesn't come into it. You've misquoted me. [I said "...a socialist perspective...".] I don't propose to follow the red herring and turn this into a discussion of socialist or Marxist perspectives: the question is what is adequately referenced in the article, and what isn't. You've made a series of unsupported comments about Macfarlane and Overton 'being in the minority'. You've made an incorrect assertion that 'the text I removed does not include a timeline. I've given a sentence by sentence rebuttal of the original para. As the score stands in this discussion, the para goes. I suggest you exert yourself a little more and try to back up your assertions, or concede the point.

Gravuritas (talk) 04:42, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Can you explain why the material you removed is a socialist perspective? I will put it back in an ask that you explain your position, TFD (talk) 06:04, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

i have given chapter and verse for its removal, and that justification makes it irrelevant whether or not the offending para was or was not a socialist perspective, in or out of my opinion. However, as you're so interested in the development of my views: one of the cites was from a socialist mag, and the timeline seemed to fit conveniently into Marx. Irrelevant anyway.

Gravuritas (talk) 10:40, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

You began this thread by saying, "The two current sources are from a socialist perspective." Why did you say that? TFD (talk) 16:43, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

i have given chapter and verse for its removal, and that justification makes it irrelevant whether or not the offending para was or was not a socialist perspective, in or out of my opinion. However, as you're so interested in the development of my views: one of the cites was from a socialist mag, and the timeline seemed to fit conveniently into Marx. Irrelevant anyway.

Gravuritas (talk) 17:38, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

To remove text and set up this discussion thread for reasons that are irrelevant is disruptive. Now could you please explain how the timeline fits conveniently into Marx rather than the mainstream historical view that Overton and Macfarlane oppose. TFD (talk) 18:56, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I originally removed the text and summarised the reason by asserting that it constituted 'a socialist view'. I was fairly challenged by Rick Norwood to supply better evidence. After some expenditure of effort, I have done so, extensively enough to make the original para in the article untenable. This better evidence now makes my original 'socialist' comment, and your repeated twitterings about it, irrelevant. Irrelevant now, but not neither irrelevant nor disruptive originally, just insufficient. Now, for about the fourth and last time, back up your assertion that Brenners is the mainstream view, or pipe down.

Gravuritas (talk) 19:53, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Unless you can explain why you said the text you removed was a socialist view, it appears that you chose to remove it, and looked for reasons later. And the two sources you use to challenge the text are highly controversial. One says that England was never feudal, while other says that feudalism continued until 1750. So unless you can show that either of those views have any degree of support, I suggest you restore the text you removed. Also, weight requires us to present different views in accordance with their support in the literature. So again could you please explain what you thought was socialist about the timeline you removed. TFD (talk) 20:53, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

once again you are vapouring. On which page of Overton does he say that feudalism continued until 1750?. So you've completely failed to back up Brenner being mainstream, failed to establish that Overton or Macfarlane are minority views, failed in your claim that the original para did not include a timeline. Look through the thread and try to seriously engage with the points I made.

Gravuritas (talk) 05:09, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

You introduced Overton in order to rebut what you considered to be a "socialist" timeline. Now you are saying that he does not disagree with the timeline, and are asking me to argue that he does! You mentioned that you have changed your argument. Your originally opposed the timeline because it was "socialist", then you opposed it because Overton did, now you say Overton didn't (and challenge me to prove he did!). So what argument do you have now? TFD (talk) 07:25, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

First sentence: wildly incomplete. I introduced Macfarlane to rebut the original timeline, I introduced Overton to destroy one of Brenner's assertions and his timeline. Second sentence: first half false (where did you get that from?), second half false. That's sufficient to show that your reading of this thread is either terminally lazy or affected by something mind-altering. Now remember, O collection of lowest-valued cards, that the purpose of this talk page is not to debate your opinions or mine, but to justify the inclusion or exclusion of entries in the Capitalism page. Geddit? So try doing exactly that. Here is your task: given that the original para is supported by only one source (Brenner) and a little mag article, and is contradicted by two better sources, provide justification as to why it should stand? Note: write on only one side of the paper at a time and avoid straining brain to understand too many posts further up this thread. Further note: you need a couple more decent sources and not just another lazy post.

Gravuritas (talk) 15:23, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Could you please avoid personal attacks. First, I find it irritating and impolite. Second, most editors will draw the conclusion that you make them in lieu of reasoned arguments. It still appears that you for some reason do not want text in the article and are introducing views that are considered controversial in order to remove it.

You began this discussion thread by writing that the text provided a "socialist perspective." Unless you were trolling, you should be able to explain what you meant.

TFD (talk) 19:07, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Let's review. You have repeatedly harked back to my use of 'a socialist perspective', and I have offered an explanation which you have chosen to ignore. You have made a number of assertions that the sources that I have quoted are 'a minority view' or similar, and completely failed to support that assertion. In your latest, you state now that these are 'considered controversial' again with no support for that statement. Given that you have not put any work in to support your views, but keep emphasising them as if we are supposed to treat them as written on tablets of stone, I think 'lazy' is a statement of fact. As the argument above stands, the para in question is fatally undermined. Gravuritas (talk) 21:48, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I have already provided sources for you and links to them. For example, Ryan writes that Macfarlanes's book "argued that England had been in crucial respects a ‘modern’ society ever since the 14th century and maybe earlier, and that most accounts of the transition to modernity were therefore misconceived, and in so doing it attacked just about every vested interest in contemporary historiography." Certainly it is possible to google mine for views outside the consensus, but you need to establish the degree of acceptance they have in mainstream sources.

Your reply to my question about why you referred to the "socialist perspective" is "red herring" and " irrelevant", which is not an explanation but an evasion. If your objection is that it is a socialist perspective, please explain how so we can determine whether it conflicts with the mainstream view.

TFD (talk) 23:31, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Your first sentence: false unless the version I'm reading of this page is incomplete. I can see you've quoted one source: Ryan's book review of Macfarlane: the first time you did it the quote did not support your stance, it just explained Macfarlane's position, and the second time just now, you finally have one thing (maybe)in support of your stance. It doesn't actually say that Ryan disagrees with him. A book review. Big deal. So tell me the other sources you think you have quoted, and stop spouting rubbish like 'for instance...' as if you've previously quoted other sources. And where is one single cite to support your repeated assertions of 'minority views' with respect to Overton? What I need to do, I have done: Brenner, the original source for the para, is undermined badly by Overton and contradicted by both him and Macfarlane. Your repeated claptrap, (or even one book review) about 'the mainstream view' does not make it such. Put up or shut up.

Gravuritas (talk) 11:07, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Your writing is offensive and I am disinclined to continue this discussion with you. As far as I can see, you for some reason object to what you consider (without any explanation) a "socialist" historiography and have provided a few conflicting views. But none of them have received sufficient support to challenge the mainstream time frame. TFD (talk) 12:53, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

you've repeatedly claimed your views as majority and 'mainstream', but take a look at your posts- those cites swimming with you so far are a discredited initial cite, a little mag article, and a book review. Some mainstream. In contrast, your repeated attempted dismissal of my cites as 'minority views', when challenged, has yielded a book review of macfarlane and nothing to challenge Overton. Once again, you seem to be assuming that your presence in a puddle of opinion makes it so obvious that it is mainstream that the bald assertion needs no support. So, don't ignore the Overton cite: support your claim that it is a minority view. Put up or shut up, or live with appropriate adjectives being used to describe your views.

Gravuritas (talk) 15:05, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Alan Ryan is sufficiently expert in the subject to know the relative acceptance of different views, even if he published his comments in the London Review of Books. TFD (talk) 16:00, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I've just had a 20-second look at the review of macfarlane you cite, and the first para ends with "Moreover, in its main claims it was clearly right, and none of its critics have in the least disturbed its central contention." It's quite hard to avoid describing your selective extracts as anything politer than wilfully misleading. http://www.lrb.co.uk/v10/n02/alan-ryan/english-individualism-revisited . So not only have you not found anything to challenge the two sources I found, the only one you have cited actually supports my position. You lose. Gravuritas (talk) 17:00, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Instead of discussing the book review for 2 weeks before having a 20 second look at it, it would have made the discussions briefer if you had read it first, which btw takes more than 20 seconds. Indeed Ryan found the argument persuasive and noted that no one else did. TFD (talk) 18:35, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

My immediate comment to your last line "....no one else did" is that you've been parroting this line throughout this thread and, you've failed repeatedly to support it with anything other than a book review. That one source you cite- a book review- agrees with Macfarlane, and from your Olympian height, you choose to believe and cite one sentence and dismiss the main thrust of the review- his agreement with Macfarlane. So let's see the score. The cite supporting the para is from Brenner, attacked by Macfarlane, and discredited by Overton, so that scores nul points. The source you have found agrees with Macfarlane. So I score 3- Macfarlane, Overton, Ryan; you score 0 and the para fails.

Gravuritas (talk) 09:06, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I have tried my best and if you are unable to understand what I wrote, then I do not see what else I can do. Just to recap: there is a difference between what an expert says about the prevailing view among experts and their personal opinion. If you think that most experts hold the same opinions as you, then you need to find a source that says that. I can find for example experts who think climate change is a hoax, but I cannot find experts who say that most experts think climate change is a hoax. TFD (talk) 18:13, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

OK, so let's take your thesis as far as it can go, which is that Macfarlane is- let's use your words- a 'minority view'. But Macfarlane's makes a much bigger series of points than the one that I have been making: I've merely used him and Overton to attack the para in question. You've produced nothing to attack Overton- in fact you have studiously ignored him- and Overton has discredited Brenner. As the only cites for the para are from Brenner, then without refutation of Overton then the para fails. For clarity: I have not tried to demonstrate that Macfarlane is right, merely that the para is wrong. Your only foundation for the para is undermined, as it has been way back in the thread: and to shore it up you need either to show significant authorities other than Brenner, or you need to attack Overton. Have fun.

Gravuritas (talk) 19:42, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

If your point is that your sources have shown the prevailing wisdom to be wrong, then I concede you might be right. However, policy does not allow us to make that judgment. TFD (talk) 22:34, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

This feels like progress, but no, my point is not as you state. My point is that the only support for the para is Brenner, and he is disagreed with by Macfarlane and discredited by Overton. So with only one cite currently, the para fails and must be deleted. Now it may be the case that Brenner does encapsulate 'the prevailing wisdom', or what you have previously asserted is the majority view- but there is no cite for that in the para in question. At the moment the only (weak) support for your assertion is a book review by Ryan- and that's extremely weak because Ryan is saying that Macfarlane disagrees with the majority- Ryan is not saying that Brenner's view is the same as the majority, or that the words in the WP:Capitalism:Agrarian Capitalism section are correct. And even this extremely weak support is not cited in the article, it's in the talk page. So I propose that if you or somebody bolsters the existing para with cites showing that this is indeed the majority view, then the para stands, (and may be added to by way of extra information about dissenting views). If you can't bolster the para with some support, then it falls. As we stand at the moment, the cited dissenters are more numerous and, at least in the case of Overton, more authoritative than what you claim is the majority view. In short, as you've asserted that Brenner's is the majority view, walk the talk. Gravuritas (talk) 18:10, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

There could be tens of thousands of sources that comment on this and we cannot read all of them to determine what the mainstream view is. We have a source that says what it is and if you disagree then find one that contradicts it. TFD (talk) 08:13, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Let me go through this slowly, as one of is being very obtuse and I would like to check that it is not me.

1. The para says the roots of agrarian capitalism are blabla.

2. The para cites Brenner for support

3. The para does not say or cite that this is the majority view, just effectively via the cite that it is Brenner's view

4. I have found sources that contradict Brenner sufficiently to make him not a reliable source, so anything only supported by Brenner fails.

5. You have asserted that the para represents the majority view. But the book review by which you set so much store refers to Macfarlanes opposition providing "...answers [which] have emphasised different actors and different motivations, and have placed the revolutionary transition from peasant society to modernity at different points in time.". So there is no majority view as detailed in the offending para.

6. So you want to assert that there is a majority view. Prove it, and cut out the straw man bollocks about "tens of thousands of sources". You haven't even found one.

7. Your last sentence is untrue. You have found a source that says Macfarlane's is not the majority view. That is not remotely the same as saying that Brenner's is the majority view, or that the WP para is true. [In fact, the book review refers to the variety of different stances taken by Can you in all seriousness not see the holes in your logic?

Gravuritas (talk) 12:23, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

ou are asking me to repeat what I have already said. I fail to see that would be productive. And you still haven't answered my question about what the timeline has to do with socialism. TFD (talk) 16:03, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Inaccurate inclusion of nonprofits as core definition of capitalism

@Abierma3: Capitalism is commonly defined as the private ownership of the means of production where they are organized as business enterprises to generate profit. This is how the given sources define capitalism. Nonprofit and non-capitalist activities do exist in actually-existing capitalist systems (such as the United States economy), but they are not a component of the core definition of capitalism commonly used. Furthermore, the opening paragraph should give a brief and vague common definition of capitalism as an abstract concept. The experience of the actually-existing United States economy is not the definition of capitalism. As it currently stands, including this information in the first sentence gives it undue weight (we can just as easily include government enterprise and regulation since that is universal in actually-existing capitalism - but we don't because it is not the common, core definition of the concept). Information on the nonprofit/social sector is appropriate for inclusion elsewhere in the article when actually-existing economies are discussed. Therefore I have removed the inclusion of nonprofit enterprises from the definition of capitalism given in the opening paragraph. -Battlecry 08:24, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Sharing of ideas is a key benefit of freedom. But, sharing is only effective when ideas are well-constructed and communicated. This piece on capitalism is disjointed and fails to communicate important elements of capitalism. The work by Adam Smith and J.S Mill should be at the top and clearly summarized.

It looks like more effort was put into criticism than the benefits. This suggests a bias or ineptitude by the authors. I suggest scrapping this entire page and starting over! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.75.101.14 (talk) 00:24, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Add 3 in "See also"

Could you please add these 3 Wik articles to "See also?" Redistribution of wealth, Redistribution (economics), and Distribution of wealth. And say that 71.2% of American economists support redistribution. Pepper9798 (talk) 02:47, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Heavy bias under "criticism" section

Under the "alternatives" subsection of the "Criticism" portion of the article there is a line about how all alternatives to capitalism have so far resulted in "authoritarianism" when tried on anything but a small scale. The only source given on this is an essay by a heavily biased monetarist economist. Last time I checked this was an encyclopedia that strove to remain neutral, not an encyclopedia written from the point of view of a particular school of economics. This quip has no reason for inclusion above this listing other than to throw in an unsettling shade of "red menace" sensationalism on what should be a neutral article. At the very least I feel like this line is in need of re-wording, maybe with something along the lines of "Monetarist professor Allan H. Meltzer has argued.." rather than stating the opinion of someone who has a very obvious conflict of interests (his job is literally predicated on being pro-capitalism) as undisputed. I get that leftism in not well liked in a lot of circles these days, but I least expected better from a supposedly politically neutral encyclopedia. Really now.2601:681:4002:DF09:C06C:4FC7:4027:EB3C (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:27, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:47, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Suicide risk factors for unemployment

Maybe add Suicide, see Risk factors, is caused by unemployment. Pepper9798 (talk) 03:07, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

And here in Major depressive episode, it says according to the Nordic Journal of Psychiatry, there is a direct correlation betweenMajor depressive episode and unemployment. Pepper9798 (talk) 06:24, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Marx said it's slavery

Could you please say that Karl Marx said that workers in capitalism are slaves, at least 3 times (I haven't read the whole thing)? https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/wage-labour/ch01.htm Thank you. Pepper9798 (talk) 21:38, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Reference does not support text

The reference to the text "Capitalism has existed under many forms of government, in many different times, places, and cultures." is unclear. I have just read the section on Capitalism in the reference : "Scott, John (2005). Industrialism: A Dictionary of Sociology. Oxford University Press." and I can not see that the text is supported in the text. The text should either be changed to some formulation that is supported by the reference, or a better reference found. Star Lord - 星爵 (talk) 23:38, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I changed the text to fit the reference.Star Lord - 星爵 (talk) 00:35, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Max Weber

I would have thought that Max Weber's book "Capitalism and the protestant ethic" would have been mentioned at least. Star Lord - 星爵 (talk) 00:39, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Surplus value and profit

Appears as if the editor is equating (surplus) value exclusively with profit when s/he writes "labor is the source of all value, and thus of profit"

Surplus-value, is not the same thing as profit; surplus-value can take the particular form of profit as well as rent and interest: “Rent, interest, and industrial profit are only different names for different parts of the surplus value of the commodity, or the unpaid labour enclosed in it, and they are equally derived from this source and from this source alone. (Value, Price, and Profit, XI. “The Different Parts into which Surplus Value is Decomposed”) In other words, all profits derive from surplus value but not all surplus value can end up as profits. The second important distinction between surplus-value and profit is that profit is the mask behind which bourgeoisie conceals the exploitation (or the utilization of another person or group) involved in the extraction of surplus value: “Surplus value, however, necessarily assumes the form of profit in the bourgeois mind — and this is not just a way of looking at things. (Marx’s Economic Manuscripts of 1861-63; Capital and Profit, “Surplus Value and Profit” V33, MECW, p. 70) and that “the capitalist knows nothing of the essence of capital, and surplus value exists in his consciousness only in the form of profit, a converted form of surplus value, which is completely abstracted from the relations under which it originates and by which it is conditioned. (Ibid.)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.68.252 (talk • contribs) 08:15, 3 December 2013

Collapse discussion thread started by sock of blocked user

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Natural disasters

~~Mention the profits made not just from wars, but from rebuilding everything after natural disasters: floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, etc? Pepper9798 (talk) 04:14, 2 January 2016 (UTC)~~

Note Pepper9798 has been indef blocked as a sockpuppet of Sundiiiaaa [6]. --TFD (talk) 22:04, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

The difference is that capitalists do not (usually) cause natural disasters to generate profits. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:53, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Disputed paragraph

The paragraph below has now twice been removed as "biased", even though it is referenced to a major academic source.

"Capitalism is the most successful wealth-creating economic system that the world has ever known; no other system, according to economist Joseph Schumpeter, has benefited "the common people" as much. Capitalism, he observed, creates wealth through advancing continuously to ever higher levels of productivity and technological sophistication; this process, known as creative destruction, requires that the "old" be destroyed before the "new" can take over."

reference for the paragraph above: Gilpin, Robert (2000). The Challenge of Global Capitalism: The World Economy in the 21st Century. Princeton University: Princeton University Press. Introduction. ISBN 978-0-691-09279-9.

This article has an entire section on criticism of capitalism, so the critics of capitalism (and sometimes I am one) have their say. But whatever the faults of capitalism, the creation of great wealth is one of its features. I think virtually all economists would agree on the factual accuracy of the paragraph. I will add more references if that is necessary. But I would hope the person or persons who object to the paragraph would explain their objection so we can discuss it here and avoid an edit war.

Rick Norwood (talk) 13:02, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

While it is true that capitalism is the most successful wealth-creating economic system that the world has ever known, the phrasing is biased. It is phrased more like a defense than a description. Also, it is biased to provide just one opinion (the Austrian economist.) It is a utililitarian argument that while highland clearances, colonialism and total war have made millions worse off, on balance common people are better off. TFD (talk) 22:27, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

"that the world has ever known" is peacock language. Perhaps the ancient Egyptian economic system was better - who knows?! It is completely unprovable. We should write the clause in attributed form - I am sure we can find an economist who has made this hyberbolic statement. Oncenawhile (talk) 00:32, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

It is attributed (to Joseph Schumpeter). Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 00:36, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Only the second half of the sentence, after the semi colon. If Schumpeter stated the first half as well, we need to fix the sentence structure. Oncenawhile (talk) 00:38, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

While the information is not in itself problematic, its inclusion in the lead and its current phrasing is quite biased. It is phrased in such a way to suggest that there can be no other superior economic system in the future, as Schumpeter himself believed that capitalism would eventually be displaced by democratic market socialism. -Battlecry 02:01, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Corruption

According to User:Srich32977‎ the NPOV on Capitalism is that there is no corruption in capitalism, it isn't subject to it at all; it is no way a weakness of Capitalism. Rich individuals never pay off politicians to write laws to distort markets. We Wave Been Told. Corruption can only happen under communism or whatever(!?) Apparently he's going to edit war until that's widely accepted.GliderMaven (talk) 22:17, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

You are referring to the reversal of your section on corruption.[7] The problems with that section include that it is unsourced and does not explain the connection between corruption and capitalism. Advanced capitalist countries actually have lower corruption levels. TFD (talk) 23:06, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Firstly, User:Srich32977‎ did not say that. Secondly do you have any reliable sources that say that corruption is more prevalent under capitalism than other economic systems? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 23:14, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I made no claim that is more common, only that it is a known weakness that rich individuals not infrequently pay/finance politicians for favourable laws. Are you claiming that corruption cannot happen under capitalism and that it shouldn't even be mentioned? There's articles like crony capitalism and robber barons about how that happens at least sometimes. You certainly get corruption under (for example) communism, but it's usually of a different form.GliderMaven (talk) 23:26, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I am not saying that it cannot happen, but that doesn't mean that it should be included. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 23:37, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Crony capitalism shouldn't be mentioned in an article on capitalism?GliderMaven (talk) 23:51, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

The material that you added made no mention of capitalism, it was a general look at political corruption, not specific to one economic system. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 00:17, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

OK, then I will add crony capitalism.GliderMaven (talk) 04:22, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Crony capitalism is already mentioned in the article but if you want to expand it, you need to show its relevance. As I understand it, underdeveloped and Communist countries have a history of corruption that continues as they develop capitalism. So a neutral way to put it into the article is to explain the introduction of capitalism into these countries that do not have strong liberal traditions. TFD (talk) 04:32, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Capitalism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090211160820/http://www.cato.org/university/module10.html to http://www.cato.org/university/module10.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:28, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Overuse of Karl Marx

Marx seems very overrepresented in this article. It reads a bit like the communist party have stuck him in at every opportunity; I counted 65 uses of his name, discounting the sidebars and references. Seems rather over the top. What do other people think?GliderMaven (talk) 21:37, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I see the same representation in the academic literature that touches on the term. This degree of representation is also common in other areas where the author of the first widely distributed book included the term and discussed the phenomena extensively. I see nothing strange about this. Star Lord - 星爵 (talk) 11:11, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Karl Marx is arguably one of the most influential economists and critics of capitalism in history, so his representation is fair if not underrepresented, in my opinion. Considering how anyone who is serious about understanding capitalism needs to read Marx's works, it's hardly abnormal for him to be a common feature of an article about capitalism. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 09:33, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps most of Marx's critique of capitalism can be moved to it's own page. If you come to an encyclopedia article on a subject you don't expect to see, mainly, one person's critique of it. Jbmcb (talk) 16:20, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

On the one hand, Marx is one of the most important writers on capitalism, and certainly needs to be included in this article. On the other hand, a great deal has happened since Marx wrote, and for the article to be heavily influenced by Marx is as inappropriate as it would be for the article on psychology to be heavily influenced by Freud. Marx and Freud were great thinkers, but we have come a long way in our understanding since their time. Rick Norwood (talk) 01:08, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

referenced information deleted

"According to economist Joseph Schumpeter, capitalism is the most successful economic system that has existed thus far. Capitalism, he observed, creates wealth through advancing continuously to ever higher levels of productivity and technological sophistication; this process, known as creative destruction, requires that the "old" be destroyed before the "new" can take over.^[1]"

I'm not sure what the objection is to this statement, which can be confirmed by many other references. The reasons for its deletion also seem strange: "too specific" and "according to Marxism capitalism will be replaced." Please note that it doesn't say that capitalism is "good", just that it is the "most successful", which it clearly is. Comments? Rick Norwood (talk) 13:05, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

No, it isn't clear that capitalism is the most successful. There are a lot of criticism about capitalism from thousands of economists. Picking just Schumpeter's opinion and adding it to the lead isn't neutral. His opinion can be added to subsections. emijrp (talk) 19:32, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree the information in the paragraph can be in the article, just not in the lead as it doesn't really summarize the article. Perhaps in "Characteristics" just after the first paragraph and before or in "Summary" or at the bottom of the article in "Economic freedom" (as that is sort of a "Praise" section to offset "Criticism". I also removed the quote by Cassidy. It just restates the first sentence. We should probably avoid any quotes in the lead. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 19:57, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi everyone! I'm the person who originally removed it. I took it out of the intro because it didn't seem like an introductory statement - "creative destruction" is not a general description of capitalism, just one popular theory about capitalism's tendency to create change. I called it "too specific," which was maybe awkward wording, because it would clearly belong better in a body section of the text. It probably wouldn't have looked as out of place as it did if it hadn't been introduced by a subjective statement like "capitalism is the most successful economic system that has ever existed," which did very much read like an attempt to put "capitalism is good" into the introduction of an article that is supposed to be neutral. 74.96.155.160 (talk) 22:39, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Wow, then we seem to have a consensus that it is OK to put in the article, but not in the lead . . . . . . now all we need is someone who cares enough about Schumpeter to do it. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 08:24, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I think almost any modern economist would agree that capitalism is the most successful economic system that ever existed, not as a subjective opinion but as a statement of fact. It is no more subjective than any other statement about the world as it is today. And certainly the success or failure of capitalism is an important property of capitalism. On the other hand, I agree that the "creative destruction" idea does not belong in the lead. I'll look around for a better statement by a major economist of the idea that capitalism, in its various forms, is now pretty much universal. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:04, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

References

^ Gilpin, Robert (2000). The Challenge of Global Capitalism: The World Economy in the 21st Century. Princeton University: Princeton University Press. Introduction. ISBN 978-0-691-09279-9.

Could we not have a page for "a capitalist"?

My suggestion is that the definition of "a capitalist" should be indentified as "a benefactor of capital". I think this is an objective, widely used and to use common language "nonpolitical" description.

It also neither necessitates, nor does it in any way rule out supporters of "capitalism", as such would defend it in terms of their own direct or indirect benefit; Wether through morality, theism, emotion etc.

Do we currently have any way of sourcing this definition, considering both the material referred to on the "Capitalism" page and other potential sources? If so, the original article could also possibly be shortened and cleared up even further.

78.69.217.113 (talk) 09:10, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

By new page I assume you mean a new article. There was an article in 2009: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Capitalist&oldid=323522168 It has since been linked to here with the justification of "All explained in Capitalism article. What is here is a weird hodgepodge". Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary is policy that explains why we do not have articles about words. Like anything else if there is enough written about the word, the word can get an article, but I feel an article about "Capitalist" as a word itself lacks content. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 20:09, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

"Benefactor"? What's a "benefactor"? A "capitalist" is just an owner of capital, i.e. production equipment and raw materials, whether directly or via shares. Just like a "Laborer" is an owner of labor, and a "Landlord" is an owner of land. Walrasiad (talk) 08:21, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

"authocratic China"

The characterization "autocratic China" under the image contradicts the article autocracy where autocracy is defined as the system of government where all the power is concentrated in the hands of one person. I highly doubt that all power concentrated in one person in China.--Reciprocist (talk) 09:08, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Oddly the term was linked to the Authoritarianism article, which is a more apt description. I removed the description. TFD (talk) 16:08, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Economist Allan H. Meltzer has argued that all of these on anything more than a small scale have ended in authoritarianism.

What an absurd lie. What about Spain 1936? It was on a mass scale, and was later crushed by fascists. Please rewrite this phrase.--85.181.195.27 (talk) 23:45, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

It is a quote. It is what he said. It is cited. We are not going to alter a quote. The next section is Marx talking about how capitalism is just a phase. Shall we alter that to satisfy people who do not agree? Richard-of-Earth (talk) 06:41, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

What about a more fair perspective? Or wait, I'll just put a quote in from some political scientists who says that everything Marx said was wrong, I mean, can't change it, it's a QUOTE....--85.180.181.221 (talk) 16:07, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

It is balanced in that Marx is talking about capitalism is doomed in the next section. That said, if you can find some some political scientists saying alternative systems have worked, you are welcome to suggest them. You need to keep in mind WP:FRINGE. That is why we have Marx presenting the opposing opinion, because nobody can claim he is fringe. However, the place for how some other system works belong on that article for that system. So I do not see what we could put in there. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 23:07, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

We have articles like Anarchism in Spain, or similar things. There are enough sources I think. I also think that this Quote I'm talking about should be removed, it should be just stating what other systems exist, not judging them. It's absurd, you read thins whole article about how capitalism is the worst thing, and at the end "every alternative system has led to authoritarianism" with just one guy saying it, so humanity is doomed forever or what? THAT'S RIDICULOUS. Also this doesn't make any sense, why should an alternative organisation of the workplace lead to authoritarianism? As if a change in the workplace would result in a state dicatorship when in the old system you already have an authority. So don't want fringe scientists in this article? Then remove the one you quoted there. Makes no sense. --85.180.180.79 (talk) 21:36, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

If what you say is true then the article is unbalanced and the quote needs to stay there to keep the balance. It seems you want to remove it solely because you do not like it. (See WP:Arguments to avoid on discussion pages#Personal point of view) Readers can judge for themselves the validity of that quote. Do you want to remove it as a favor to them so they do not have to make that decision? Richard-of-Earth (talk) 20:00, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

He didn't say that. He said that it has only been tried under authoritarian governments. It would probably be better to use an article he wrote about the issue than a passing comment to a right-wing think tank. TFD (talk) 07:42, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

And that's also not true, there are many historical examples where this was tried not under authoritarian governments. Can't you use your brain? By the way, a single quote like this seems VERY biased, it's on top of the examples, and it seems like someone put it on purpose there because he/she didn't like alternative systems to capitalism, what about that point of view?? It's like puting a quote on top of an article about electrodynamics which says "This author came to the conclusion that electrodynamics is a wrong theory" --85.181.196.15 (talk) 20:09, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Meltzer said, "The alternatives that have been tried are types of Socialism or Communism or other types of authoritarian rule."[8] Please distinguish between someone reporting what he said and someone endorsing what he said. Also, please not this is not a blog. Your are expected to maintain politeness in your postings. TFD (talk) 16:04, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I am actually not liking the whole section now. The article is about Capitalism. Why have a section about alternative systems anyways? If we had an article about yellow cats, would we have a section listing the other colors cats can be? This section was perhaps added to say: "See how much Capitalism sucks? Here what we could be doing instead." Then somebody came along and add this quote to try to throw a wrench in that plan. But that is just what I think. I do not care enough to go through the history to find out the truth of it. How about we just remove the whole section? Richard-of-Earth (talk) 08:44, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

It is poorly written. It is just a collection of comments. TFD (talk) 16:04, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed it. If people object, we can discuss it more here. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 19:01, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Capitalism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:56, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Distinctions in:

WP:NOTAFORUM - So start a new discussion with "Expert X say Y about Capitalism in this WP:RS, let's include it."

I haven´t noticed any of the individuals with knowledge ever having made the following simple distinctions:

Communism: Common Level parquo at social security levels, in pertinence to an army or military. (IE: All armies are defacto communist, lowering the costs to the most common level being the only form and manner to maintain a standing army [or navy], no matter if that is done through subsidiation or other simpler forms).

Socialism: Labour force, workers, wage level, including bonifications.

Capitalism: Those that go for it themselves, whom set up a venture, fail or make. (IE: commerce, small to medium industry. Large industry caters to communism, some, catering solely to the military).

These three simple distinctions are never removable and exist in all and every society, therefore there is no such a thing as a pure communist state (unless you count a nation whom has an ongoing waract, or is in the grasp of a fast depression cycle), nor a pure socialist state, nor for that matter a pure capitalist state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.44.74.111 (talk) 22:44, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

"Communist state" is an oxymoron because, according to Marx, communism means the elimination of the state. And capitalism is a descriptive term used to describe actually exising states rather than some sort of ideologue's daydream. TFD (talk) 23:09, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Evaluation of Content

Almost each fact is referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference. Almost all of the citations come from books or academic journals. However, this is a citation coming from the website Sparknotes which may not seem to be much of reliable source. Everything in the article is relevant to the article topic and seems to have an overall objective view of the topic and neutral. The article is incredibly comprehensive and each viewpoint seems to be well represented. There does not seem to be paraphrasing or plagiarism in the few citation links I clicked. The citations links all worked.

Would the incorporation of larger opposing systems be beneficial to this article? Are there more subtypes of capitalism?

Alexskupny (talk) 18:55, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Alexskupny, Thank you for your thoughts. I replaced the Sparknotes citation to one to a book by Ernst Mandel. I hope that works for you. There was information on opposing systems, I removed them as this article is about capitalism not other systems. We would end up including descriptions of any system people take a fancy to and that would be an indiscriminate collection of information. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. "Are there more subtypes of capitalism?" Good question. I have no answer myself. Perhaps someone else will take that up. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 11:03, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Good work. I do not think however that it would be a good idea to provide a section on alternatives. Marxian analysis is provided which explains that one alternative is to transfer ownership of the means of production to the workers. The details are best explained in other articles. I think that is how reliable sources would treat it. I can see such a section becoming a POV nightmare, as we argue which systems are truly capitalist and which systems provide alternatives. TFD (talk) 11:23, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Profit Motive Content Eval

The citations overall for this article seem to be from positive sources. What primarily caught my eye was the section on Profit Motive. This section is underrepresented and undercited. It contains only one citation, which only cites a mass quote. I feel this section could be enhanced with more citations. A summary from citations could create a clearer and less redundant explanation of the theory and how it applies to the topic. Partguypartshark (talk) 05:19, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

[1] Gilpin, Robert (2000). The Challenge of Global Capitalism: The World Economy in the 21st Century. Princeton University: Princeton University Press. Introduction. ISBN 978-0-691-09279-9.

[1]