Talk:Capitalism/Archive 22

Liberalism series
Please do not remove the Liberalism series template from this article. Capitalism and liberalism are inseparable. Someone removed it saying that it was "ugly." How about looking at the "Economies" template. Now that's ugly. All Male Action 17:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * What was ugly was the way it was done, side by side with the economics template. Capitalism has survived very nicely in absolutism, cheers, see China.--Red Deathy 08:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * China is not capitalist. It's market socialism, or at best a mixed economy. Capitalism is a liberal idea, not a socialist one. Whether the Liiberalism template is "ugly" or not is irrelevant. Information shouldn't be sacrificed for aesthetics on Wikipedia. All Male Action 12:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not the template that's ugly, it's the way you're putting it on the page, and aesthetics do have a place here, so I'll RV it again - put it furtehr down the page, if you want, though I'm v. doubtful of it's relevence. Capitalism existed in very unliberal germany (under Bismarck)--Red Deathy 12:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree with you taste in aesthetics. So what if capitalism existed in Germany? That doesn't mean it's not a liberal idea. I also disagree with your suggestion to put it further down the page. Capitalism is a prominent liberal idea. All Male Action 12:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The current page layout is absolutely horrible. You cannot put two templates ine next to the other. The liberalism template should definitely be put below the Economies template, since capitalism is more important in the economies context than in the liberalism context. Luis rib 13:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with the previous editor. Place the Liberalism template below the Economics template.
 * (JoeCarson 13:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC))

Supply and Demand
This article needs a section on supply and demand which are the only two forces determining pricing in true, free market capitalism. If no one else wants to take a stab, I can work on it. Netsumdisc 15:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * There is already a (poor) article on free markets, and the supply/demand model is contested by one or two theorists at least.--Red Deathy 15:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Who are these "one or two theorists" that disputes that markets, supply, and demand are are a part of a capitalist system?

I agree that there needs to be a section on supply and demand.


 * see supply and demand Joel Kincaid 06:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Marxists dispute that supply/demand are the only (as Netsumdisc says) two forces, I thik Keynsians would give it short shrift as well.  Supply/demand is a feature of markts and this belongs in the markets article, which is linked to.  It is not a defining feature of capitalism.--Red Deathy 08:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It certainly is a definining feature of capitalism! It's in the definition in this article! There is no way to have capitalism without markets. Goods and services are traded with their prices being determined by supply and demand. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by In Capitalism We Trust (talk • contribs) 13:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC). Tell me, how are you going to have capitalism without markets?
 * no, the dfinition of this article begins with ownership of the means of production, and then looks at markets, but supply/demand is not the defining feature of capitalism - it featured prominently in Mercantilism if nothing else...--Red Deathy 13:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * What on Earth are you talking about?! Just because ownership of the means of production is listed first in the definition it doesn't mean markets are not just as important. They're both essential. Do you understand what is meant by supply and demand? If a business cuts production of a good then the prices rises. If it increases production the price falls. If consumers stop desiring a good then price falls. If consumer demand increases the price rises. Markets are an essential part of capitalism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by In Capitalism We Trust (talk • contribs) 13:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC).
 * Yes, indeed. Now, the article already mentions markets are essential, there is an article on markets where the minutia of supply/demand can be discussed.  it's not relevent or necessary in a general atricle about capitalism to discuss it ehre.  Supply/demand is not unique to capitalism, nor is it the sole or even most important characteristic.--Red Deathy 13:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Who is saying that it is the sole characteristic? I am saying and the definition is saying that it is AN essential characteristic. In order to have capitalism there has to be markets and the operation of supply and demand determining prices in those markets. This page should definitely have a discussion on this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by In Capitalism We Trust (talk • contribs) 13:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC).
 * Netsumdisc did. Supply/demand is an intrinsic part of markets and so should be found on the markets page.  As a proponent of the state capitalism thesis i'd say capitalism can operate without the supply/demand mechanism, but that's an argument for anotehr day, the point is it is stylistically unnecessary on this page.--Red Deathy 14:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * How are you defining "state capitalism"? And how would supply and demand not determine prices? In Capitalism We Trust 14:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Folks, you are all missing the point which is not supply and demand by WP:NOR and WP:V. What sources claim that supply and demand are the defining features of capitalism? I - personally - think that the existence of markets is indeed central to capitalism and that the law of supply and demand is one aspect of a more complex mechanism determining pricing. But what I personally think is irrelevant and so are the personal opinions expressed above. Editors' views do not go into articles. When I took microeconomics in college I assure you we ended up with graphs that included many more factors besides supply and demand to explain pricing. I think that there are two angels we can take here: see what (if anything at all) different theorists of capitalism (including such diverse and opposing views as Marx, Weber, and Hayek) had to say about supply and demand and be sure it is included in the article. The other is to survey dominant economics textbooks in the US and Europe - Samuelson is to my understanding still the leading textbook but perhaps someone has statistics (perhaps compiled by a professional association of economists or economics professors) on the leading textbooks, and see what they say. I would have no objection to incorporating relevant material from any of these verifiable sources. Any other discussion is a waste of time. If you want to vent, do it on your own blog, not here. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 14:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That's more or less what i was trying to say - although I was adding an WP:NPOV angle. Frankly I favour the status quo and don't see any need to look into supply/demand because they are better dealt with elsewhere, as are all aspects of the theory of price formation.--Red Deathy 14:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Unless the government directly dicates prices then supply and demand and nothing else but supply and demand determines prices. And if the government directly dicates prices then it's not capitalism because it's not a "largely free market." In Capitalism We Trust 14:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

If you cannot comply with our policies you are just wasting our time. This page is for improving the articles. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 15:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * If a basic conceptual understanding is lacking then how do you expect the article to be improved? People at least have to have a clue of what the basic concepts mean. In Capitalism We Trust 15:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

This is the third and last time I will say it: comply with our WP:NOR and WP:V policies, or go away. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 15:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Your blustering doesn't impress or scare me. I'll say it again too. People have to understand what the basic terms mean in order to discuss the article in order to improve it. And that's why this discussion is taking place. I'll continue to discuss these terms if I wish and you can't stop me. In Capitalism We Trust 15:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Slrubenstien I suggest you stop interfering with discussions that can help improve this article. People need to discuss and understand the meanings of the terms they're discussing so we can speak the same language and improve the article. You're not helping at all with your interference. In Capitalism We Trust 15:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * "I'll continue to discuss these terms if I wish and you can't stop me." Sorry bud, but we can and will stop you from using this discussion page to air your original research and unverified claims. In other words, base your arguments on reliable sources, or you will be blocked. -- WGee 18:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh really? Let's see you block me then if you think you can. You can't stop me from speaking here. I'll discuss this article and how to improve it all I want. In Capitalism We Trust 23:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Let's remove the emotion from this discussion. Supply and demand are central to capitalism, whether or not you agree with capitalism as the best method of wealth creation. Per comments on mercantalism, supply and demand determine price, but so does government intervention. In a true capitalistic system, supply and demand are the only factors determining price. Because no nation is truly free of government intervention, other factors come into play. That is not necessary, however, to commentary on supply and demand. Those issues can be discussed in other articles or in the criticism section. Netsumdisc 17:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

"Crony capitalism" and "state monopoly capitalism"
I am open to discussion but I wonder why some insist that pride of place should be given to the term 'crony capitalism' in a paragraph concerning the evolution of capitalism? Presently I find this dubious because crony capitalism seems to be a controversial term that has come into currency relatively recently. Moreover it is not so much an established economic theory or sub-theory, let alone a well-articulated time-tested doctrine describing an aspect of the current stage of capitalism, as an observation of a tendency. There is much more I could say, descriptions of the origins and evolution of capitalism are extremely complex matters, and I do not really think that the article gets it right. But for the time being I would simply like to express my skepticism of the insistence to include ‘crony capitalism.’ Based on evidence from an undoubted partisan capitalist perspective, provided by Stephen Haber of The Hoover Institution, usage of the term “crony capitalism” is recent; it is not really part of the extensive body of work that tried to describe the relationship between big business and the state and its wider influence on the mode of production and society as a whole. This body of work should be described, and if there are genuine differences, amounting to different "schools" of thought, an attempt should be made to include all significant views rather than merely push one pov while excluding others.
 * "Cronycapitalism" is a noun, first used early 2002. (as distinct from "crony capitalism", first used about 1998) meaning as above (for "capitalism") but with "by arrangement among cronies" substituted for "by open competition in a free market". (Stephen Haber, The Political Economy of Crony Capitalism)

I don't care about removing that but don't remove the definition preceding that statement. "State monopoly capitalism" is defined as state intervention to protect big businesses from competition. In Capitalism We Trust 04:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * As 172 said, derive your contributions from scholarly sources on economic history. And as Slrubenstein said, start abiding by WP:OR and WP:V. -- WGee 05:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Blackwell Encyclopedia of Political Thought is a scholarly source. In Capitalism We Trust 06:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Scholarly sources on economic history, not political theory. -- WGee 19:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Nope. State monopoly capitalism is a political concept, not an economic one. It's the idea that the state is protecting big business from competition. In Capitalism We Trust 13:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Fortunately for the cartelists, a solution to this vexing problem lay at hand. Monopoly could be put over in the name of opposition to monopoly! In that way, using the rhetoric beloved by Americans, the form of the political economy could be maintained, while the content could be totally reversed. Monopoly had always been defined, in the popular parlance and among economists, as “grants of exclusive privilege” by the government. It was now simply redefined as “big business” or business competitive practices, such as price-cutting, so that regulatory commissions, from the Interstate Commerce Commission to the Federal Trade Commission to state insurance commissions, were lobbied for and staffed by big-business men from the regulated industry, all done in the name of curbing “big business monopoly” on the free market. In that way, the regulatory commissions could subsidize, restrict, and cartelize in the name of “opposing monopoly,” as well as promoting the general welfare and national security.

History of Money and Banking in the United States: The Colonial Era to World War II. p185-185 Murray Rothbard (JoeCarson 20:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC))
 * Murray Rothbard was a well-known libertarian writer. Avoid presenting a minority viewpoint as a consensus viewpoint in the article. 172 | Talk 07:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Rothbard was a scholar who wrote on economics and economic history. Every scholar has their bias, liberal scholars have as much credibility as Marxists. Are you suggesting that monopoly capitalism is not characterized by a high degree of collusion between government and big business? This is by no means a minority viewpoint held only by classical liberals. I believe even Howard Zinn recognizes government-business collusion as a driving force in monopoly capitalism. (JoeCarson 13:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC))

Look you guys who are accusing us of making a "libertarian" point, state monopoly capitalism is originally a Marxist concept not a libertarian one. Libertarians simply use the term too. It means state protection of big businesses from competition. The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Political Though Entry says: "Soviet Marxists now regularly use the term 'state monopoly capitalism' to refer to the most recent phase of capitalism, in which the state exercises its power in behalf of the monopolies against the small capitalists as well as the mass of the population." In Capitalism We Trust 14:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * From what I recall the term monopoly capitalism is hotly disputed in economics anyway - so I'd suggest it doesn't really have a place in a history section, perhaps further down in the criticisms section, which is slightly more open. Lets not forget, Libertarians and Marxists alike are heterdox, which means we should be hesitant in putting undue prominence upon their views, esp. in a general article--Red Deathy 14:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * While I generally reject encyclopedias as sources for content of our articles (we ourselves being an encyclopedia, we should in my opinion draw more on books and journal articles) I think WGee was wrong to reject ICWT's point because it comes from political theory rather than economic history: if political theorists have written about capitalism their views are as relevant as economic historians (as long as their view is proprly identified as the view of political theorists). As to ICWT's other point, I suggest we see if someone has Harry Braverman's Labor and Monopoly Capitalism to see to what extent there is divergence or convergence between the way marxists use the term "monopoly capitalism" (I never heard them use it with the additional modifier "state" though) with Rothbard's view. These may both be heterodox views, as Read Deathy says, but there should still be a place for them somewhere in the article.  As to 172's comment, in general I think we should try to avoid presenting any view as a consensus view. There are multiple views, we should represent all the major ones, and explaine whose view it is, and provide sources. As long as we do this, we should be fine. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 14:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I have read Braverman's book but do not have it in my possession. Although it is seminal, I do not think it is necessarily the definitive statement from the "monopoly capitalist" school as Baran and Sweezy were arguably the first to make "monopoly capitalism" into a full-fledged systemic explanation of modern capitalism. The notion itself has deeper roots. In an essay summarizing the school, John Bellamy Foster writes in a section entitled "The Origins of Monopoly Capitalist Theory" that though Marx assumed in his work conditions of relatively free competition he identified the concentration and centralization of capital as fundamental tendencies of accumulation under (relatively competitive) capitalism. According to Foster, :::"It remained for later thinkers,therefore, to analyze what these developments meant for capitalism's laws of motion. The first to do so was heterodox U.S. economist Thorstein Veblen who, in The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904) and subsequent works, charted the economic implications of the rise of big business, and transformations in credit, corporate finance, and the forms of salesmanship that went along with this. But Veblen's influence on economics did not extend beyond the United States. Within the Marxist tradition, then centred in Germany, the first important theorist of monopoly capitalism was the Austrian economist Rudolf Hilferding in his Finance Capital: The Latest Phase of Capital (1910); soon followed by Lenin in his Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism (1916).

It's worth emphasizing that institutionalist(Veblen...) and Marxist theories of monopoly capital go beyond explanations of the Rothbard type, including most notably putting the factor of capitalism's crises-prone nature at the center of their explanation for evolution towards oligopolies colluding and interbreeding with state structures. The institutionalist Robert Brady specialized in the study of corporate power from the 1920s through to the 1940s (see Business as a System of Power (1943). According to a recent survey of Brady's work by Michael Keaney, Brady explained "the common trajectory of capitalist states during the 1920s and 1930's resulted from depressed economic conditions and the response of business leaders to these. In every case greater emphasis was placed upon consolidation and concentration of business power, in such a way that the state itself was subject to even greater manipulation." This at least hints at a major difference between Rothbardian/free market conceptions of monopoly and that of left heterodox schools. In the Baran/Sweezy/Braverman conception monopolitistic tendencies, including an associated military-industrial complex, and a sales effort oriented to manufacturing new needs, arise as a central part of the attempt to overcome phenomena associated with Overproduction which Marx referred to as "the fundamental contradiction of developed capital."BernardL 16:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * BernardL, you are quite right about Baran and Sweezy, I feel pretty dump now! You also make some important points.  The question is where, if at all, this belongs in the article.  If it does go in I think it is important to be clear about the difference between institutionalist, marxist, and liberal or libertarian understandings/uses of the term (properly sourced of course). Slrubenstein   |  Talk 18:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * ". . . if political theorists have written about capitalism their views are as relevant as economic historians." Certainly many political theorists can write knowledgeably about economic history, but the views of experts or specialists in the field are more relevant, as economic historians can provide a more refined, thorough, and probably more accurate analysis of economic change, continuity, and cause and effect relationships as a result of their specialized research and education. I must clarfiy, though, that I did not reject the source because of who wrote it; I rejected it because its subject is political theory rather than economic history. A source that focuses on political theory discusses economic history only to provide the context in which political theories developed, not for the sake of analysing economic change, continuity, and cause and effect relationships. Thus, the Blackwell Encyclopedia of Political Thought is not necessarily an authoritative source on the causes of the monopolization of capital in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. -- WGee 00:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * FWIW:The entry "state capitalism" in the Blackwell Encyclopedia of Political Thought is written by Bob Davies, who has written extensively on Soviet (economic) history. Intangible2.0 08:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

WGee seems to misunderstand me. I never claimed that political theorists have expertise on economic history equal to economic historians. I only claim that political theorists can have expertise on capitalism equal to that of economic historians. As to the encyclopedia - I do believe that named authored encyclopedia articles carry more weight than anonymous articles. Still, journal articles generally go through a rigorous review process that makes them more authoritative than encyclopedia articles. The differences are relative and I am expressing preferences rather than strict rules. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 15:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Can we agree on a version now? I suggest we use monopoly capitalism; state is implicit and we will be explicit in the description that follows that sentence. Keep the brief explanation of what monopoly capitalism is; this is well referenced. The description should include concentration of wealth, government-business collusion, division of labor, etc. Does anyone have any strong feelings on crony capitalism? I believe the paragraph is fine w/o b/c monopoly capitalism requires crony capitalism but it could be useful to add a blurb about it. (JoeCarson 17:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC))


 * Are we talking about "monopoly capitalism" or "state monopoly capitalism"? In Capitalism We Trust 18:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Is there a difference? Intangible2.0 07:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * For some there is. One theory goes that monopolies start arising and that's monopoly capitalism. Then they join forces with the state and protect themselves from competion, with protectionism, regulations, etc. That's state monopoly capitalism. For example, Dictionary of Marxist Thought: "state monopoly capitalism...In most analyses of this state the state is linked in some way with one fraction of capital, monopoly capital represented by gian enterprises and large financial blocks. The existence of such a stage, distinct from monopoly capitalism..." Lenin said: "That capitalism in Russia has also become monopoly capitalism is sufficiently attested by the examples of the Produgol, the Prodament, the Sugar Syndicate, etc. This Sugar Syndiate is an object-lesson in the way monopoly capitalism develops into state-monopoly capitalism...The dialectics of history is such that the way, by extraordinarily expediting the transformation of monopoly capitalism into state-monopoly capitalism, has thereby extraordinarily advanced mankind towards socialism." In Capitalism We Trust 17:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no page number on that Scott source so how can anyone look it up to see if it's a bastardization? In Capitalism We Trust 17:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The way we identify it should follow the ways the scholars we discuss identify it, starting with the ones BernardL mentions, Slrubenstein  |  Talk 12:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd rather we followed an economic historian who says soemthing along the lines of bernardL. might be more concise.  (I think BernardL's para above would, with small tweaking, suffice as a para in the text proper...)--Red Deathy 15:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem including some of what BernardL wrote if we can find a legit source, but Rothbard is certainly a legit source on economic history. Though perhaps we should qualify this part of the article with, "In the United States". (JoeCarson 13:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC))

supporters of capitalism
It is important that we comply with NPOV and not present views as facts. Not all economists agree that Friedman's explanation of the depression was correct. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 12:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Finance/Monopoly/State monopoly capitalism
First of all this is Marxist theory. Capitalims becomes "finance capitalism," where the investors own a large portion of the capital. Then "monopoly capitalism" comes about where a handful of people control all the capital. Then "state monopoly capitalism" come about when the monopolists have influence in government and they are protected from competition from smaller capitalists. The early 20th century is suppsed to be the ere of "state monopoly capitalism" not simply "monopoly capitalism" so why does it just say "monopoly capitalism". I think a source is being misrepresented. And I'd like to know why information that is being backed up by sources being deleted by the same few people when it's added? In Capitalism We Trust 16:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * From (Scott, 2005): "Marxists have taken a different view. Rudolf Hilferding, for example, maintained that the characteristic form of advanced capitalism is a fusion of monopoly capital in banking and manufacturing into ‘finance capital’, or capital not restricted to one sphere of industry. Banks, insurance companies, pension funds, investment trusts, manufacturing, and other commercial corporations all own shares in each other. Large industrial enterprises are controlled not by managers but by bankers. Cross-shareholdings are reinforced by a complex web of interlocking directorships—and sometimes by kinship and friendship ties—which restricts ‘effective ownership’ to a financial oligarchy, comprising only a few hundred or few thousand individuals, organized into financial groups or knots of financial power. The capitalist class consists of finance capitalists." Intangible2.0 06:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's great. Could you give the quote relevant to the "monopoly capitalism" information that's claimed to be from that source? Can you see if the sentence is truly representative of what that source says? In Capitalism We Trust 02:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Citations in lead
I removed the citation needed tags, for two reasons: --Red Deathy 09:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) I don't think the sentences themselves need citations, they are pretty much cold readings based on the existence of a word - all words and terms exist to control or criticise things.
 * 2) The paragraphs are already cited generally, with refs. to various dictionaries and encyclopaedias.
 * The template was needed because the references did no say that theories of capitalism first developed in the context of the Industrial Revolution and Cold War. Intangible2.0 11:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I've addwed OED to that ref. Capital dates from 1709, Capitalism from 1854, so that's the industrial revolution sorted.--Red Deathy 13:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * A terminology section would be a nice addition to the article, however that does not take away the fact that a suggestive statement is made that theories of capitalism first developed in the context of the Industrial Revolution and Cold War. BTW, the online second edition of OED traces the word "capital" back to Randle Cotgrave's 1611 work A dictionarie of the French and English tongues. Intangible2.0 23:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 8. Of or pertaining to the original funds of a trader, company, or corporation; principal; hence, serving as a basis for financial and other operations.


 * 1709 Lond. Gaz. No. 4534/1 An Act for Enlarging the Capital Stock of the Bank of England. 1776 ADAM SMITH W.N. I. I. ix. 98 The capital stock of Great Britain was not diminished even by the enormous expense of the late war. 1825 SOUTHEY in Q. Rev. XXXII. 41 Compelled..to encroach largely upon its capital fund. 1884 LD. SELBORNE in Law Rep. 25 Chanc. Div. 689 She may commute into a capital sum..the benefit given to her..by way of annuity.
 * hat's teh OED database I have access to (capital is an awkward word with many meanings, 1709 seems to be the rough date for the economic term).--Red Deathy 14:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, you have looked at II (8) instead of III (3) in the OED. Intangible2.0 07:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Some do, some don't
Saying 'Some X think Y' implies that some don't, and the other view should be represented. Otherwise it's undue weight for a specific (possibly minority) view. Considering causes aren't discussed at all, it strikes me as unnesecceary and unhelpful to the flow of text/understanding of the article to include that point.

Please, assume good faith and don't throw around accusations of vandalism, a very serious charge. If you think I am vandalsing the article, report me to the admins, but I'd rather you ddin't go around rules lawyering a genuine textal disagreement (not a factual one, this is a stylistic/content based dispute).--Red Deathy 17:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The section clearly requires an explanation for "movement from laissez-faire". Assuming you know this (it was in the summary for previous edits), I must also assume you intended to vandalize.  If you missed that bit, then I apologize for accusing you of vandalism.

(JoeCarson 17:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC))


 * Well, I could be disagreeing with you on that "need" so even that basis for the accusation of vandalism is invalid. Further, you are only offering a partial, not to say, POV, explanation. To be quite frank the chicken/egg argument of what comes first, state intervention or political proponderance of wealthy elites is something for a different page, the article reads better with just saying it happened.  i'd accept a line saying "the cause of this is subject to debate" or some such, but I think a full complex explanation is not in order.--Red Deathy 17:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Where have we attempted to address which came first? The section states that it happened, this could be how, and moves on. The explanation is neither full nor complex and does not address the chicken or the egg question. (JoeCarson 17:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC))
 * Well, it does by attributing monopolies to state intervention, whereas some would argue the monopolies come first and hence begin to dominate the state - essentially the difference between the left wing and right wing positions. The current version is better, but it would be hard to make more exact without getting complex, IMNSHO, I'd have rather'd that the can of worms was left unopen.--Red Deathy 08:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we could be clear about the fact that monopolies already existed but became stronger during the period, or we could prune that part altogether and add a bit to the previous sentence. How about, "governments began to move away from laissez-faire...". This does not address which came first but merely states the fact. (JoeCarson 14:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC))


 * Focussing on governments moving from the ideology of laissez faire seems to me to be a reasonable compromise...it still focusses on the what not the how/why.--Red Deathy 14:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Unless someone objects, I will make the change I suggested in my previous post in no less than 24hrs. I will remove any reference to explanations for why government moved away from laissez-faire and will merely state that they did. (JoeCarson 18:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC))

Market Forces
I'm not sure if it is correct that liberal historians attribute the rise of monopolies to non-market forces. Certainly, they resulted from non-free market forces but are not these still market forces? You will find criticism of big business and the pressure it places on government among proponents of capitalism as well as among Marxists. The article seems to make a distinction where there is none. (JoeCarson 11:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)) (JoeCarson 11:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC))

State monopoly capitalism
Why do sources keep getting deleted? State monopoly capitalism is the same concept whether it's a Marxist or a capitalists. It means the state intervenes on behalf of large capitalists to protect them from smaller capitalists and at a detriment to the public. Someone keeps putting in that some say it is the "result of" the state intervening but that's not what they say. It is state intervention by definition. In Capitalism We Trust 16:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

And there is a difference between "monopoly capitalism" and "state monopoly capitalism". "Monopoly capitalism" comes first then big business is able to influence the state and join forces with them. That's when it becomes state monopoly capitalism. In Capitalism We Trust 16:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Linkimage
Template:Linkimage has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 23:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Removed monopoly capitalism assertion
I removed the claim that it has been said that the late 19th century and early 20th century is the era of "monopoly capitalism." The source that was alleged to say that does not say that. The rest of the section was a response to that so I've deleted that too. The John Scott source simply defines monopoly capitalism. It doesn't say that that is era of monopoly capitalism. In Capitalism We Trust 18:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

RJII/ICWT wrote in an edit summary, "Scott source does not say that it is the 'era of monopoly capitalism'. It is simply a definition of monopoly capitalism." This pretense demonstrates an incomplete reading of the article, and a lack of familiarity with the academic literature on the subject. In the Oxford entry, Scott described the late 19th century in reference to concepts of "finance capitalism." Anyone familiar with Scott's work is well aware that he discusses concepts of finance and monopoly capitalism conterminously. See for example his 1996 edited volume Class: critical concepts, to which I direct anyone here interested as extensive samples of the book can be read online for free. 172 | Talk 01:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * First of all what does RJII/IWCT mean? Secondly, why should we take your word for it? On what page number from the book may we find the claim that the 19th and early 20th century is the era of monopoly capitalism? Also what country are we talking about? In Capitalism We Trust 03:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This is all Marxist theory. The term "finance capitalism" was introduced by Rudolf Hilferding in 1910. Intangible2.0 10:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No it is not. The term is used from authors of a variety of perspectives, as any of the other terms to which the headings allude. That Marxists use the term is neither here nor there. Marxists have used all of the other terms alluded to in the headings. 172 | Talk 18:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course it is here and now. Scott especially uses these terms coming from a Marxist perspective. These are the references you are using, therefore the section is POV. Hell, even the first entry from Google Scholar, a book by Richard Deeg, references Rudolf Hilferding directly. Intangible2.0 19:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * And the section also discusses authors that use terms from a libertarian perspective. Another article cited comes from the Journal of Libertarian Studies. Murray Rothbard is now cited twice in the section. We are supposed to refer to a variety of academic perspectives on this subject; and Marxian accounts happen to be among them. 172 | Talk 00:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * There are not many libertarians who use the concept of state capitalism; Rothbard wrote about this specifically to give one "answer" to Marxist theorists in their own language. The section remains POV. Intangible2.0 09:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * And Marx adopted concepts from the classical British political economists to give them an answer in their own language. We can keep going in these circles with just about any term that comes up in political economy. Insisting that the article not mention certain terms because they have been used by Marxists is abusurd. By your reasoning just about any article on political economy "remains POV." What is important for NPOV is that a variety of major perspectives on a given subject be presented; and the section does this. 172 | Talk 11:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * If you lack familiarity about a subject, do not expect other editors to do your homework for you. You do not have to take my word on anything; you are free to search the book yourself. You can read much of the book at books.google.com/books. Search for relevant keywords. Do a little reading and you will see that like many writers of surveys on capitalism, Scott has discussed descriptions of the late 19th century in terms of finance and monopoly capitalism. 172 | Talk 10:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This is not correct. Scott is only discussing (Marxist) theories of capitalism. I'm not sure what that has to do with history of capitalism. Intangible2.0 11:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Academic historians of capitalism work within a variety of theoretical traditions in elaborating on the history of capitalism. One of the major traditions is Marxian political economy. The other major perspectives include classical, Keynesian, neoclassical, Austrian economics; and Weberian historical sociology. These perspectives underlie just about all Western academic accounts of the history of the subject. 172 | Talk 09:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, so why intertwine them? It's pretty much POV to start talking about "history of capitalism" in the context of say, "finance capitalism." Intangible2.0 13:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Both finance and monopoly capitalism are POV sections. For example, in Britannica's article about economic systems as stages of capitalism are only recognized mercantilism, commercial, industrial and state capitalism. As far as I can see, in the text there is no mention of either finance or monopoly capitalism. -- Vision Thing -- 12:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Not really. These is no universal, standard periodization of the history of capitalism. The terminology used in sourcebooks and encyclopedias vary to a degree. The discussion of finance capitalism in the Oxford Dictionary overlaps with Britannica's discussion of late industrial capitalism and early state capitalism. Both the Britannica and Oxford outlines of the history are within the realm of major scholarly discussion of the subject. Either outline is acceptable. This discussion is really much to do about nothing. The current outline of our article is best left alone, as an extra heading in the history section merely serves to make the article more reader-friendly. 172 | Talk 09:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Number of headings will remain the same if we add commercial capitalism. I will see what I can do about it in the near future. -- Vision Thing -- 21:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The term commercial capitalism generally refers to the period described under mercantilism before industrial capitalism. There is no problem with changing the mercantilism section to "mercantilism and commercial capitalism." 172 | Talk 23:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you propose to do away with the section completely? JoeCarson 12:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * These views should be mentioned but as part of other sections. -- Vision Thing -- 12:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

This section does cause a lot of trouble. We could just state that monopolies increased during this period as did government regulation and anti-trust laws. JoeCarson 13:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what should be happening to the history section. Maybe it should be partitioned in perspectives as well, like the first part of the article; althought I am not convinced that historians only write about the history of capitalism from a certain political bias - they should be able to write objectively about it. Intangible2.0 16:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * On second thought, I don't think the article needs a history section anyways (nor are those other articles on the history of capitalism very helpful). Intangible2.0 17:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This issue has been thoroughly discussed. There is no need to rehash this question. The article needs a history section. We cannot assume that general readers come to this article fully aware of the historical context. 172 | Talk 09:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Which discussion? I'm not readily finding any in the talk archives. Intangible2.0 13:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

industrial revolution
The "Industrial Revolution" was long "over" before Marx or Sombart started talking about capitalism. I have asked for references to the contrary, they did not come. Why I am being reverted? Intangible2.0 09:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Industrial revolution generally seems to come up to the 1830's-40s, and I suppose for marx it was just starting to kcik off in garmany (i,.e. his discussions on Rhineland peasants) - it's a bit of a nubuklous term anyway, and certainly he was reacting to it, as it were...--Red Deathy 09:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It still took Marx 20 years after Engels coined the term. If Marx said he wrote in response the "Industrial Revolution," that can be added, but it should not be construed as fact that these theorists were developing in the context thereto. Intangible2.0 11:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Weber "positive" view
I can hardly see Weber's "more positive note to the use of the term" capitalism. Weber was, over all, a pesimist about capitalism possible transformation and parties systems, but his metaphora about capitalism as an "Iron Cage" doesn't sound very happy. Generally, you can understand a weberian possitive scope over modernity (specially rational action), but all about specifically capitalism seems to me a sad reflection. The latter is obviously an opinion, but so its too the affirmation on the article. I think we can state Weber has a less "militant" view about capitalism criticism, but not a more possitive view about the subject. "In economics, Weber opposed both capitalism and socialism. The latter simply would not work, as it is technically impossible; the necessary information for running the economy cannot be attained by a central power, and the subjection of workers would merely be transferred from the owners of capital to the bureaucracy of the state. With respect to capitalism, Weber worried about the inescapable impersonality and senselessness of work, as well as the ethos wherein the successful view the poor as morally inferior. Also, for Weber, politics was unquestionably higher than economics. Economics cannot be self-contained, setting its own standards for itself; its guiding concern must be the welfare of the nation, not autonomous economic values such as productivity. Social policy should not be based on charity, but neither should it be based on narrow economic considerations". -Philip J. Harold 2005; Journal of Markets and Morality 8(2). IsmaelPR 04:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Where is Ayn Rand?
Where is Ayn Rand's contribution to capitalism? An entire political party was dedicated to her, she met with a president, two of her books were best-sellers, and yet not a whisper of her on this article? Jcchat66 05:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You could add her to the proponents of capitalism section.JoeCarson 13:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Please do add her. Talking man 14:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Who among those Chicago school and Austrian school people were not influenced by Ayn Rand? Probably all of them were. Her influence can't be overestimated. Not to mention Alan Greenspan was a objectivist. Talking man 14:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I highly agree. However, we must be careful of two things. First, we cannot over-emphasize her. As much as I idolize Rand, in order to be npov, we cannot go too far as past versions have (although this one under-emphasizes her terribly,) which is what resulted in her being removed completely. Secondly, we need to be very careful in representing her properly and in the context of this subject. Note, for example, that although she was highly influential on the libertarian movement, she herself was against what she believed the term meant, and many libertarians disassociate themselves with her, and the party had no direct or official association with her. Considering the consensus in this section and the obviousness of her relevance, I expect I am going to add her pretty soon myself. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by D prime (talk • contribs) 18:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC).
 * I am strongly for the addition of Ayn Rand, and will add her myself if no one else wants to. I believe her influence to be very important. Turgrid 18:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * She is vastly over-rated in some quarters, although she did some good work in a minor key by introducing some young people to the terminology of serious philosophy, and some of them went on wrestle with the books they were now prepared to read. They really had to get over her to do it. As for the momentous fact that she 'met with a President,' -- large numbers of not-especially notable people do. Still, I'm not of course denying her notability or that she ought to be here. --Christofurio 23:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * She's a novelist who writes about philosophy, not an economist, and her popularity is restricted to the US. Should we also include Charles Dickens, because he showed the effects of capitalism on society in 19th century England? At least he is popular internationally and universally acclaimed. Grant | Talk 00:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * On a search of a library catalogue of economics books, I dcouldn't find any about her economics. At most, I'd say, she merits a passing reference of the "...some, such as Aynn Rand, say..." variety, along with all the otehr comm,entators who get passing mention in the article.--Red Deathy 07:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Capitalism=utopia?
This will be a lengthy and somewhat odd posting. Bear with me. I am trying to make a case, while trying to keep it short. Feel free to delete it if see fit.

The liberal idea of a free market is often mistaken for capitalism. A free market is not entirely free. There are rules and regulations in a free market in order to keep the playfield somewhat even.

In a capitalist market/society money is the only yardstick. Everything and everybody is for sale to the highest bidder. I am basically using Ayn Rand's (or that of Capitalism) definition here. There are no taxes. Corporations and the wealthy pay the "mini government" out of the goodness of their hearts. At least that is what they want us to believe. The polis and military (basically the "foreign polis") serve the interests of the corporations and wealthy. So they are in. Public healthcare does not serve the corporations and wealthy. So public hospitals are out. Ultimately capitalism is the merger of state and corporate powers. That is also one definition used for fascism.

Capitalism is undemocratic. In fact, capitalists call democracy "mod rule" (see the capitalism.org site). But democracy is the opposite of mob rule. (Ancient Athens was no more democratic than South Africa under apartheid and should not be used in any serious debate about democracy.) As proven by history, democracy is the best protection against mob rule. Hitler's Germany, Mussolini's Italy and Franco's Spain were mob rule regardless of what the political systems are called.

1960s Hong Kong is the only place I know of that has come close to a full-fledged capitalist society. The region, having an under-developed, decaying infrastructure and nobody who wanted to pay for it, it was fast turning into a cesspool, infested with rats and disease.

No serious scholar would give the semi-literate nonsense of Ayn Rand a second's thought. But she has a following on the fringe right, which is a group that has lots of money, power and influence. It is the same group that helped turn the political ideology of homo economicus into sociology, though there is no support for such a thing. (It is based on circle argument, which is quite ingenious in its stupidity. If person X chooses A over B it is because it serves his interest. If person X instead chooses B, it is because it serves his interest. In other words, it does not matter what person X chooses. Anything person X chooses proves the homo economicus "theory.")

There is no more proof that a capitalist society will work than there is that there is such a thing as a homo economicus. If we use Hong Kong, which is the only thing we have, as example, then we can fairly safely say it will not.

It is pretty evident to me that capitalism is at the very least as much a utopia as communism. You can make a strong case that no communist society has ever existed. Sparta might be the society to have come closest to the communist ideals, though it fails miserably in some regards. If anyone else other than the corporations and wealthy (money, power and influence) had hold on to this capitalist dream, it would have been discarded as a lunatic's dream. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.73.175.238 (talk) 02:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC).


 * (1) It is clear you haven't paid any attention to arguments offered in favor of capitalism, at least no more attention than required to have a superficial grasp of those arguments.


 * For example, you say, "There are no taxes. Corporations and the wealthy pay the "mini government" out of the goodness of their hearts."


 * Such people would finance the government out of necessity. If A and B sign a contract, and they want the government to enforce that contract, they need to pay the government for the service. Extrapolate that out. No capitalist (and I'm talking about intellectuals, not random people in chat rooms) equate voluntary financing of government with charity.


 * (2) Wikipedia isn't a political debate forum. There are plenty of forums on which you can debate the pros and cons of capitalism. I believe there is one on wwww.capmag.com Endlessmike 888 18:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I did start this with saying it will be an odd posting, being that I am fully aware of the inherent problems.

I used homo economicus as an example because it is total bunk. It is a political construct masquerading as sociology. By the same token, capitalism is fascism with a happy face. That is also the premise of my posting, that the image of capitalism we are being sold is a lie. The lie is that capitalism is sold as the opposite of communism, not unlike the current Christian-Islam battle.

Everything I have written here is based on what I have read on capitalism, including capitalism.org. Of course, if capitalism.org is wrong, I am wrong.

Quote from capitalism.org: "For those who are confused by the issue, the essential point is this: is it right for another man to rape, rob and murder another? Capitalism says never; democracy says yes -- if the majority wills it."

That is simply a lie.

I do not know how many times I have heard people living in democracies say democracy is mob rule. Where would anyone get such an idea? It has never happened. But the easiest way for the capitalists to defeat democracy is by undermining it.

Christians do "charity." I am not that Medieval Europe. Indulgences The similarity between the close tie between the Nazis and Catholic Church and Capitalists and Evangelists is quite scary, I must say. But also perfectly logic. Try "objective." Christianity offers the spiritual, the afterlife, nothing that has anything to do with the real world. The capitalists offer just as little real, other than that aborted "experiment" in Hong Kong.

I have paid lots of attention to arguments offered in favor of capitalism, just as I have to imperialism and fascism. (Know your enemy.) All of them are very nice if you are on the "right" side. But I do not believe in the exploitation of others. I do not see myself having that right. "Selfishness is not living as one wishes to live, it is asking others to live as one wishes to live."--Oscar Wilde

This was in no way intended as political debate. But I knew it would get close to it. You may say I crossed that line. (I am obviously not the objectivist here so I will not argue.) This is not the place for political debate, as we both know very well. (I frequently use Wiki. I would not want it to degenerate into political whatever.) Unfortunately, now this has definitely taken the form of a political debate. That is the last thing I want. It makes this an even more mindless rant than it was and nobody is going to pay a mindless rant any attention. Haliburton wins. That is a lie. The capitalists won a long time ago.

Finally, I am anonymous here. It is no loss of prestige for me to delete this. I am not scoring any points here.

Anon, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a forum for personal opinions. If you feel there's some kind of POV in the article please point it out and we can work on de-POVing the relevant section. Otherwise, if you need a soapbox, start a blog. As an aside your remarks are wrong along several dimensions and capitalism.org, whoever they are are not a definitive source on what consitutes capitalism, just like the Communist Party of North Korea isn't either on the other side of the debate. The idea of Home economicus is a bit more nuanced then you present. Also obviously capitalism can coexist with democracy (say, Western Europe), just like it can coexist with authoritarianism (say, Singapore), just like non-capitalism can (maybe) coexist with democracy (this one's harder, maybe 1960's India), just like non-capitalism can coexist with non-democracy (Soviet Union, feudalism, etc.). And of course Hitler, leaving aside what his economic beliefs were, was democratically elected. Anyway. If you plan on editing this article or contributing to it in any significant manner, I'd suggest you get an account and log in.radek 01:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Not only are your arguements terrible, to the point where they are not actually arguements but mean assertions, this is not a place to discuss the merits of capitalism. This is an article to teach people about it, not to debate its ethical status or whether or not it's a good thing. I would also like to tell you that Ayn Rand's followers are not primarily rich businessmen. Most of them are idealistic teenagers, actually (and I don't mean that as a bad thing.) I, for example, am a young lower-middle class supporter of Rand. And she had trouble getting support from businessmen who would rather keep up public perception of them by buying into altruism. D prime 18:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Article has serious flaws
This article, on "Capitalism", makes great strides to present only one world-view on the development of "Capitalism" following the principle pattern of the Anglo world view without respect to the American world-view and the development of "Capitalism" in the leading "Capitalist" nation - namely the United States of America. I see nothing on earlier American "capitalists" who shared the same time-frame with the so-called "Classical" school but nothing of their ideals. There also seems to be a distinction between "Mercantilism" and "Capitalism" that is of distinction only to the "Classical" school of economics which emerged in the United Kingdom and France especially. Such a distinction was not made in American history of economic thought prior to the modern era of "Austrian" and "Chicago" schools of thought which emerged from the Anglo/French physiocrat "Classical" school. Hence a lack of any coverage of American industrialization and economic growth until the mention of the Great Depression and Keynes who can be said to emerge from the American School of thought on Capitalism - ie. government intervention, encouragement, promotion, and regulation of industry to foster growth and sustainability of prosperity over large segments of society (the unique Middle Class society America developed) without control of or ownership of any productive or merchant enterprise which is as much "Capitalism" as the opposition to such policies by the "Classical" economists who favored "free markets" without government intervention. In light of America's, Germany's (under the German Historical School) experience of Capitalism pre-WWI there needs to be accurate coverage of "Capitalism" in its real sense from all schools of thought and actual policies followed by recognized "capitalist" countries like the United States. I am wondering others thoughts on this; and how we can remedy this articles bias and make it neutral and historically accurate. --Northmeister 20:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Contradiction in the criticisms
The article correctly notes that capitialism includes the notion that "all decisions regarding transfer of money, goods (including capital goods), and services are voluntary rather than commanded by government." And yet, under the criticisms section, I see that "some labor historians and other scholars" claim "the use of a labor force comprised of slaves, indentured servants, criminal convicts, political prisoners and/or other coerced persons — is compatible with capitalist relations." This is an obvious contradiction to what capitalism is. One cannot have forced labor while having services voluntarily provided. Either the sentance should be deleted, or better yet, the obvious contradiction should be either noted or reconciled. David Youngberg 22:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps part of the criticism is the claim that capitalism's ideals donot honestly reflect its practice? Slrubenstein  |  Talk 15:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. Perhaps. But that needs to be established so the reader can understand these critics are making this argument based on their own definition of capitalism. David Youngberg 16:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Problem is many of the arguments centre on the fact that such people are 'free'to sell their labour, but not in conditions of their own choosing, so itis involuntarilly voluntary. Obviously, this is non-governmental force aswell...--Red Deathy 10:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

What? Either people are free to sell their labor or not. That they can walk away from an offer--any offer--shows they do. Thus they have influence over the conditions of any labor agreement. I have no idea what you mean by "involuntarilly voluntary" nor do I see what you are trying to get across. The contradiction stands. -David Youngberg 22:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, if unemployment is rife, I'm free to sell my labour, but will not get a high price - were I to find a job I would be highly disincentivised to give it up and seek a new one, especially if I didn't earn enough to have savings to fall back on. It might well be that a single industry predominates in an area, and even if you don't work diorectly in it, your job might well depend on the strength of that industry.  Try it this way, you and a tramp both have the freedom to sleep, voluntarilly, under a railway arch, but it is not the same voluntaryness, is it?--Red Deathy 07:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

What you seem to be getting is not that some people have no choice but that sometimes they are faced with many choices, none of which are ideal or even, by most standards, very good. That's a far cry from the criticism claim of coerced persons (such as slaves) is compatible with capitalism. If one wants to make the claim that firms are coercing those they hire, one must reconcile that with the fact that they are responding to the fact that this person happens to have a series of crappy choices. They did not create such circumstances (as a mugger does when he aims a gun at you or a slaver owner when he threatens to kill you if you quit). Happened to be faced with bad choices is not the same as force. The contradiction stands. -David Youngberg 14:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, we can go further, an illegal immigrant freely chooses to immigrate, and can end up as a bonded worker because they have no recourse to law. A capitalist sweatshop using such labour is still capitralist.  In early industrial Britain miners were bonded workers, frbidden to leave their contracts, those mines were still part of capitalism.  Many capitalist firms deal with debt-indentured share croppers.  Early US capitalism and British industrialism neatly worked with the Southern US slave hodlers to make good profits., etc. etc.--Red Deathy 14:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I noticed you altered the definition of capitalism in the entry. Even though what remains is consistent with popular defintions (via dictionary.com, et al) you should know you did not eliminate the contradiction. If property is privately owned, then that means, by definition, that a person can use that property (including the property of their own person) as they choose. All of the examples you noted are either cases where there's no private property (thus not capitalism) or people engaged in a voluntary agreement (such as a contract). The contradiction stands. -David Youngberg 15:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If someone puts a gun to your head it is still technically voluntary (certainly Sartre would think so) to obey them, you always have the choice of dying. Thuis, I'd suggest voluntaryiness is meaningless.--Red Deathy 16:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Please re-read my entry (from 14:44, 9 May 2007). When someone creates a series of bad choices for a person (as a gun to a person's head), that requires a violation of private property and thus not capitalism. When a firm offers a job to someone who is poor, that's not a violation of private property and thus completely voluntary. (Unless, the firm somehow made him poor, which, again, would violate private property and not be capitalism). Don't confuse a series of bad choices with force. The contradiction stands. -David Youngberg 16:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

You guys are getting way off-track. You are mixing up two different claims about capitalism. The first claim is that what appears to be a free contract between equals - in which a worker sells his or her labor power to a capitalist - is not really a contract between equals; it has the formal appearance of a legal contract but is usually between unequal parties (an empirical claim), dehumanizes the worker (a philosophical or moral claim) and enriches the capitalist at the worker's expense (an empirical claim). You can agree with this or disagree with it, but it is not claiming that the worker is a slave or indentured servant. Do not misrepresent it. It is one criticism Marxists typically make of capitalism. Marx clearly distinguished between workers (who must be free to sell their labor power) and slaves. The second claim is that "the use of a labor force comprised of slaves, indentured servants, criminal convicts, political prisoners and/or other coerced persons — is compatible with capitalist relations." This is an entirely empirical claim made by historians. They are not metaphorically refering to Marx's working class, they are talking about slaves, indentured servants, etc. They are claiming that whatever its ideals in practice capitalism has relied on these forms of labor. Again, you can disagree with this - but it is indeed a criticism some have made about capitalism. NPOV requires us to include even criticisms we do not agree with. But my point is: these are two distinct criticisms. Don't mix them up. if the article mixes them up, let's sort it out. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 16:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why you think that anyone is arguing capitalism is about a negotiation between equals but no one is. I am commenting that what capitalism is (resources under private property) cannot jive with the notion that slavery is consistent with capitalism. Slavery is a violation of private property (and its cousin, voluntary exchange). I am not saying we must remove this criticism, but we must at least either (A) acknowledge the authors have to be working from a different definition of capitalism or (B) reconcile the violation of property that slavery engages in with the the preservation of private property, which is essence of capitalism. Neither has been done. The contradiction stands. -David Youngberg 17:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Your right and your wrong. Capitalism is production/merchants under private ownership not necessarily resources. Although voluntary exchange exists alongside property rights in Capitalism, this is not absolute as through capitalist history rules and laws have governed the exchange of goods - ie. contracts etc. Slavery, meaning in an economic sense - work without pay can also mean work for pauper or poverty wages or serfdom. It depends on whether your talking of the Capitalism that developed in the USA and Germany or whether your talking of the theory of free markets proposed by Adam Smith which isn't capitalism - it is a creature of its own and was never practiced by the USA, Germany, France or any other western nation historically. If your talking of the later - slavery can and does exist as there is no intervention for the working person - if your talking of the former two then no slavery is not consistent as both protect industry through either subsidy or tariff so higher wages could be offered (the middle class lifestyle of America) etc. Read the GOP platform for 1896 for full explanation of capitalism as it was really. Further under traditional slavery, slaves WERE considered PROPERTY, unfortunately. --Northmeister 04:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I was responding to the conversation between Read Deathy and Youngberg, not to one of them individually. Be that as it may, I think David's comment and Northmeister are still off-track. It is unclear to me what David means when he says the criticism has a contradiction. Is he saying that the article is not providing a complete and clear account of the criticism? Or if he is saying the criticism is weak? If he is saying the latter, well, this is just inappropriate for Wikipedia because we editors are not arbiters of what is a good or poor criticism. It seems like Northmeister is assuming David means the latter, because he seems to be responding that it is a strong criticism - but he makes the same mistake: it is not for us to judge arguments. It is only our task to report them accurately and clearly. if this is what David means - that whoever wrote this account of these criticisms may not be fairly representing what the critics claims, then the solution is not for us to do research on the republican platform of 1898 or Adam Smith or anything except the people who have made this criticism of capitalism, so we can ensure that their views are being reported accurately. If their views are reported accurately, there is no need for further decision. Whether we agree or disagree with the criticisms is simply irrelevant. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 11:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * First, when you allow people to own other people against their will, that's a violation of private property. "Resources" (in the economic sense) is not merely coal or land but bodies and minds.


 * Second, I'm raising this point because the argument is stated in such as way that is confusing for the reader since the contradiction is so blatant. Slavery is a clear violation of private property. Capitalism is defined by its respect of private property. The contradiction stands. -David Youngberg 13:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Obviously the historians and others who make the criticism you consider a contradiction do not share your definition of capitalism or your approach to studying capitalism. NPOV demands that we include approaches to the study of, including definitions of, Capitalism we do not necessarily agree with. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 13:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * At best the opening definition is so vague that any claims in the criticism section must be elaborated for purposes of clarity. See earlier talk; I advocate either pointing out this contradiction (slavery as a violation of private property) with the definition (as pointed out in the opening lines of article) or reconciling it (by elaborating on precisely what definition the authors are using). As it is currently written, neither has been done; the contradiction stands. -David Youngberg 15:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I hav eno problem with clairfying eh criticism. Since I did not put it in, perhaps whoever did can go over it? Who has read Van der Linden, and can make sure that his views are accurately expressed? Slrubenstein  |  Talk 15:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If my body is my own, I am free to sell it into slavery (since we're not admitting of the concept of illegal contracts here), my will is always my own (there is no such thing as compulsion, I always have a choice), ergo debt slavery and some forms of chattel slavery are compatable with capitalism (after all, if I am born property, I've never owned my own labour). --Red Deathy 15:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Debt "slavery" is consistent with capitalism, but that is not what the cricitisms sections discuss. Serfdom is not based on a debt grounded in universally respected property rights nor is slavery. Recall that private property is ownership over property (including your own person). Ownership is command over a property. Yes, slaves were de jure owned by others, but obviously people have de facto command over their own bodies. If you define capitalism merely in the context of legalism, then capitalism can be virtually anything. A state can define property as only ownable by a single private citizen; say, Steve. Even if you argue that this scenario is still capitalism (which I wouldn't because of the obvious property rights violation), such a broad definition just removed all usefulness from the word. -David Youngberg 15:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, we are getting off-topic. The article includes a criticism made by labor historians and provides a citation. The article does not include, and cannot include, readDeathy's criticism of capitalism, or his argument about labor and slavery. RedDeathy's comment (and David Youngberg's response) is just a red-herring. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 16:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That's just it, we are not getting off topic. Red Deathy and I are exploring if capitalism can be reconciled with slavery, which is exactly the puzzle I used to start this whole thread. Our discussion here serves as a solid starting point as to how the criticism section should be altered and what it should point out to minimize reader confusion. Until that change is made, confused parties can refer to our discussion (which I think has been quite good). If the change is not made soon and we are forced to reconcile the contradiction ourselves, this discussion will serve as a jumping point for figuring out what to add. -David Youngberg 18:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

It is an interesting discussion - for a chat-room. But it would violate NOR to add your own views to the article. What we need to do is try to understand views expressed n verifiable sources. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 18:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll second the notion above. As below with my long post on Capitalism and as exampled above with this discussion; we've gone into definition vs. definition. What helps is edits based on verfiable sources. If the edit has a source - then it stands. Thus on slavery and its contradiction - Did a verifiable author contribute that notion? Let's go from there. --Northmeister 18:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Since I'm clearly on the side that slavery cannot work with capitalism, I made no plans to alter the Wikipedia article and thus did not read the cited article. I also suspected the author never defines capitalism. Having just read the article (which is really a book review), I was right. The closet we get to an argument is when he argues the bearer and owner of labor need not be the same person (despite what Marx claimed about capitalism). Clearly, this violates private property, unless you stick strictly to de jure property rights (see above) which is a de facto different definition of property that is used both in the article and in normal speech. -David Youngberg 18:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Government agency
Just a thought - governments necessarilly engage in market behaviour (i.e. they purchase goods and services), whilst these are voluntary for the suppliers, the government agency's purchases/sales are commanded by the government.--Red Deathy 09:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Unsure of why you made the comment above but you are right and capitalism is not really free markets - it never was: not in America, not in the UK, not in France, not in Germany...ever. Only in 1840s did Britain start to dismantle their economic system slowly with the repeal of the Corn Laws. However, the USA went the opposite direction, as did Germany and to some degree France. Real capitalism actually demands government support and regulation for encouraging growth and protection of domestic industry, high wages, and jobs. At, the turn of the century two divergent but still capitalist systems developed the Progressive one (ie. Theodore and those that followed him - which meant more oversight over Business and pursuing greater worker rights within the system) and the traditional one which left those alone or called for moderate reform. Neither free markets or free trade were a part of the system. That is a modern invention and the path only the UK followed. Socialism (which I take it your an adherent) main difference is in who owns production and retail. Capitalism favors private ownership and socialism favors public - with all its necessary command economy apparatus etc. Its really that simple. Free Trade was advocated by Marx as a way to destroy Captialist systems or weaken them and free markets are a fancy of theorists in a utopian world - one which we have never lived in - ever. Thus, the moral of the story is: this article forgets German, French, and especially American history if you haven't noticed. Just some thoughts. --Northmeister 04:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Capitalism does not inherently requires state intervention. One could make an argument that some is in order to keep property clearly defined and strictly enforced. But capitalism, in no way, "...demands government support and regulation for encouraging growth and protection of domestic industry, high wages, and jobs." Even if you limit "encouraging growth" to property rights, "protection" of the kind you speak must, somewhere, violate property rights. Free markets require that the government does not interfere with market activity--the two are actually two sides of the same coin. -David Youngberg 13:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If you get through all the below sorry for the length ahead of time. I am looking at Capitalism as it really and still to a large extent throughout the world is. That is how it was practiced historically and how it is practiced today. "Free Markets" is a nice enough sounding expression as it has "free" attached. But, markets have never been "Free" whereas government has not regulated or influenced its potentials. American history, practiced both subsidy and protection to ensure that the domestic "market" could be supervised to the extent that it was inherited by its children rather than consumed by foreign enterprises and so that the nation of farmers who could do nothing else but provide agricultural goods (as Adam Smith wrote in Wealth of Nations was our destiny) could prosper and grow into the world's leading manufacturing power by 1900 to then provide the 'Arsenal of Democracy' in two great wars and dominate the 1950s-1970s in wealth and production of goods which wealth depended for the average citizen. In other words direct government policy, through subsidy, protective tariffs, rules and regulations favoring development of enterprise-inventions-educational pursuits was the Capitalist system of the United States - all those private transactions based on the law of supply and demand were affected by such policies with the result of growth into a wealthy and middle class country - it had nothing to do with 'free markets' at all. Further exchanges between nations have always been regulated by the policy of some entity. Whether that be the Dutch through Amsterdam in the 1600s or prior to that the Venetians, or after that through the City of London - exchanges through a merchant receiving a bill of payment for sale into the country of its destination for goods in the future to be shipped have been regulated by the policies of that Government overseeing the transactions. France under Colbert ended this reliance, America under Hamilton and through Jefferson and Madison did the same; although their were struggles in this direction until the election of Abraham Lincoln (and without Southern opposition) government directly influenced the building of the trans-continental railroad through subsidy and land grants; gave away free land to settlers for the development of farming in the west; rose the tariff to 44% to raise revenue to subsidize and to protect newly formed enterprises for the domestic market allowing higher wages than Europe and elsewhere and internal growth of manufacturing etc. All this was Capitalism as America (and with similar results Germany under Bismarck) practiced. None of this is include in the article. Instead with have theories of 'free market' - which there is not example in history of this being a part of capitalism. As far a property and its inherent rights - this is true a part of capitalism but was governed by the law of contract and other rules and regulations pertaining to eminent domain and community development throughout the West and in the Eastern, USA. This system made men wealthy because they were able to charge profits for the goods they produced - it made inventions possible because the inventor was protected by the law of patent (another government rule on economy) etc. etc. "Free markets" pretends to be an idea of Capitalism but it is an idea of anarchy - not capitalism. Socialism and Marxism go the opposite direction attacking historic capitalism by seizing control of production and retail and subjecting it to government control - thus tyranny. -Thus this article starts out flawed and ends there with the dispute above namely due to all I have mentioned. Red Deathy and yourself argue over slavery being a contradiction - and it is not due to the very fact that slaves were property at the time. You argue its contradicts 'free markets' well - yeah but that is not capitalism. Government abolishing slavery is another form of regulation of economy and society for the protecting of this time human capital - namely human being's from exploitation.  "Free markets" prevent this on theory, Capitalism as it really existed didn't.  That's why most of the arguments against slavery were on "MORALITY" grounds - not economic ones. --Northmeister 17:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * First, please keep your points short. It's hard enough to get people read a whole thread, let alone when each section contains lengthy entries. I also had trouble trying to untangle some bits of your entry so please forgive me if I misrepresent your claims.


 * Second, you are confusing theory with practice. True, in practice, there has never been pure capitalism (or democracy, or communism, for that matter). In practice, economies are mixed economies with varying degrees of capitalism and socialism. However, calling everything a mixed economy doesn't get us far so, as a shorthand, we refer to mostly capitalist societies as capitalist, mostly socialist economies as socialist.


 * Third, be aware of this simplification. Just because a "capitalist" society has socialist elements or trade is historically regulated, does not mean that trade must be regulated for capitalism/free markets to work or that a "capitalist" society must include elements of tariffs or regulation to function.
 * David Youngberg 18:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)