Talk:Capitalism/Archive 28

"Capitalism" should include legal status of actors and money creation?
I propose that the entry on capitalism needs a section on the legal framework that governs capital ownership - limited liability and bank licencing as money creation and the concept of ownership by corporations and value measured in fiat currency are central to capitalism. Links to money include 1) acceptance of the ability to charge interest - ( that is to say I can increase capital by extending credit and 2) that issuing currency is state controlled. Capitalism as it is generally understood and described academically rests on acceptance of fiat currency and monopoly of money. This is not clarified in the article and I think it would add necessary breadth to the topic. (I am open to the idea that the description of capitalism can be separated from the topics above, but would suggest that this is explained in the article with examples of where capitalism functions without them.) The other aspect of capitalism is the legal status of capitalists and firms. Externalities are mentioned in the article but not limited liability. This ability to both externalise and be limited in liabilty affect the risk behaviour of actors in capitalist societies so capitalism as we know it rests on the concept of limited liability of capital owners. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.226.239.90 (talk) 13:08, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, this just shows the difficulty of making this article. There is not a lack of self-idetifying capitalists who are absolutely against limited liability and governmnet monopoly in currency. 80.203.160.34 (talk) 14:37, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Weber
I edited this section of the article in order to give a more accurate description of Weber`s theory of capitalism, connecting and rewriting some arguments. I also took two paragraphs that dealt with bible quotations and how weber`s understanding of free labor relates to Marx. Not that they were completely wrong. But, on the first case, they gave the idea that Weber was somehow in agreement with the theological understandings he was analyzing, when his point was merely how they were pivotal for the significant social actions of those early protestants. So I left one central quotation that related to his central argument about beruf and explained how that evolved into the capitalist spirit. On the second case, I thought it gave too much emphasis to an agreement, when the proper thing to do was to state clearly, at the beginning, that he considered voluntary labor a main tenet of capitalism (which I did, contrary to the previous statement that he thought capitalism was only about markets) and didn`t write about how this fairly common argument among theorists of capitalism was also held by Marx or whoever. I hope everyone is happy with my contributions - but, of course, I know this is not a realistic hope! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marco.natalino (talk • contribs) 14:42, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Ayn Rand
I'm surprised that this article makes no mention of Ayn Rand (though it has). Whenever I search anything about capitalism, I keep stumbling on her name. As a matter of fact, you can try googling “capitalism,” and her picture will pop up at the very top of “People related to capitalism.” Some argue that before her, capitalism had no ethical or philosophical basis. She herself appeared to have been of that opinion: “Objectivists are not ‘conservatives.’ We are radicals for capitalism; we are fighting for that philosophical base which capitalism did not have and without which it was doomed to perish.” This has a personal significance to me because Rand's works were my introduction to capitalism, and I find some amusement in knowing that the founder of Wikipedia is an Objectivist. Everything Is Numbers (talk) 10:06, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Can you provide any serious sources discussing capitalism, for example a university textbook on economics, that provide extensive mention of Rand? TFD (talk) 13:43, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I personally can't, at present time. I was hoping to leave it to other Wikipedians. If you oppose the inclusion of anything having to do with Ayn Rand in this article, I'm not going to be the one arguing with you on this. Rest assured, with or without me, this topic will be raised again countless times. Better start reading Dispute resolution requests now: it's a rocky ride. Everything Is Numbers (talk) 09:12, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Are you oblivious to the search box above? Get a damn clue. 72.228.189.184 (talk) 02:43, 29 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that's the point. Everything Is Numbers (talk) 10:39, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Inappropriate POV sourced 2nd sentence in lede
It's a egregious and false characterization of a list of things that only have a contingent association with the subject. How was that allowed? The named source as well as the list itself, excluding accumulation, are ludicrous. Also redundant with following sentence. 72.228.189.184 (talk) 02:22, 29 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Appears Battlecry addressed this. The article probably should be protected permanently as the twin of socialism. 72.228.189.184 (talk) 10:36, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

counter-counter-counter
A counter-argument to the criticisms of the depletion of finite natural resources consists of the economic Law of Diminishing Returns, opportunity cost, and scarcity in economics (all driving factors of pricing and demand). These principles denote that the more someone has of one product, the less that person is willing to pay for an additional unit of that same product; the finite ability of man to consume is limited to factors such as time - causing one to prioritize production and consumption; and, as scarcity of a commodity increases, higher prices result for that commodity. The self-regulating nature of the marketplace, is what the renowned economist and philosopher Adam Smith refers to as the Invisible Hand. Unfortunately, as the scarcity of a commodity increases so does the market price. This means that it is still economically viable to use those resources up to depletion.

The last two sentences, added today, make the passage incoherent. Yes, scarcity drives up price but it is not an infinitely strong force; diminishing return (i.e. declining marginal benefit of consuming more) simultaneously drives demand down. Unfortunately this is all qualitative hand-waving, with no way to know which of the opposing forces will prevail. —Tamfang (talk) 23:22, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

It also misquotes Adam Smith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lbertolotti (talk • contribs) 17:41, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Removing the clutter
The article seems very overloaded to me including a whole lot of concepts not really related to capitalism per se. The segment about "democracy and capitalism" can be removed in my opinion. Or would somebody like to eplain why capitalism works so well in china under the communist party? 2A01:5C0:2:10E1:EDB8:5C67:9CEB:862D (talk) 14:59, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Scott Illini
Scott Illini is heavily editing wikipedia entries to fit his/her own political agenda. For example, Scott Illini has edited several pages to eliminate the use of the "means of production". Scott's stated reason is that it is too Marxist. He does not seem to realize that Marx coined the term "capitalism. I have undone most of his uncited edits.Sigiheri (talk) 18:23, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Means of production (MOP)
Sigiheri continues to insist that the definition of capitalism is "private ownership of the means of production." Reasons given have been:


 * "capital goods = means of production" This is false


 * Then repeated appeals to reference.com in preference to Oxford English Dictionary and Merriam Webster.


 * Then a claim that Oxford English Dictionary uses this terminology. It doesn't.


 * Then a claim that "most natural resources" is a poor descriptor, when the definition of means of production includes all natural capital. All natural capital is not privately owned under capitalism. This makes MOP a worse descriptor, not a better one. If "most natural capital" is preferred, I don't object, although "most natural resources" is closer to de facto reality.

Means of production is an ideological term used in Marxism and hardly anywhere else. This article deserves an encyclopedic definition, not an ideological one. Scott Illini (talk) 19:57, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree. The term is imprecise and loaded with unstated implications that will encourage readers to apply individual meanings to the article rather. The article should have a simple unambiguous statement. There must be a better way to say it.  SPECIFICO  talk  20:10, 13 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Although the term "means of production" was developed as part of Marxist analysis, so was the term "capitalism." In any case, we use the terminology in reliable sources.  TFD (talk) 20:17, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Capital goods are not "means of production". They are "produced means of production", i.e. factors of production that are themselves an outcome of a production process. That is the formal definition of a capital good. Correct the "produced" detail, and Sighieri's statement is perfectly correct. Walrasiad (talk) 00:12, 14 April 2013 (UTC)


 * That is original research. You need a source for your new definition of capitalism.  TFD (talk) 21:59, 14 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Not sure what you mean. That capital goods are defined as "produced means of production" is pretty standard fare. Look it up.  That capitalism is characterized by private ownership of capital, or a bit more widely, as private ownership of means of production, is also pretty standard.  Look it up in the dictionary (American Heritage, Webster, Collins) or in other encyclopedias (Columbia, Britannica, Collins, Soviet (!)).  Not sure what your quibble is.  Walrasiad (talk) 23:08, 14 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Changed my view. TFD, I now took a closer look at the article and see that "means of production" is consistent with the development of the subject in the body.  Therefore it is a meaningful statement in the lede and should be restored there.  SPECIFICO  talk  18:29, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with Spcifico and I disagree with Scott Illini, who seems Hellbent on deleting MOP from all of Wikipedia.Sigiheri (talk) 19:41, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I disagree strongly with using the term MOP in the main definition as the term is not widely used at all. Means of production has a strong socialist connotation to it and isn't really appropriate as an explanation. It was indeed used by Marx 150 years ago but his definition of capitalism wasn't even accepted as mainstream back then let alone today. There are far better definitions and it seems silly to ignore the mainstream dictionaries on a very well known term in order to sneak in a word like this. There is no problem with using this elsewhere on wikipedia but this is hardly the standard mainstream definition of capitalism accepted by most economists today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.132.22.203 (talk) 07:28, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 'Property' is a weasel term in this context, and obviously, in this section, no consensus could be reached on replacing it with capital goods. Also, please cite your sources - sourced statements are much more likely to be accepted, especially in a difficult case like defining capitalism.--Melody Lavender (talk) 08:27, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

You are deliberately ignoring mainstream sources such as Oxford and Merriam Webster. Secondly the weasel term is 'means of production'. Property is very well understood and consistent with all definitions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.132.186.233 (talk) 18:40, 16 June 2013 (UTC)


 * 41.132.186.233, if you agree that Oxford is a mainstream source, why did you delete it? I've restored both of the references you deleted.  By the way, you should sign your comments with four tildas. Rick Norwood (talk) 21:02, 16 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I only deleted Oxford because the text was directly from Merriam Webster. Happy to have it there as well even though it isn't really being qouted. 41.132.186.233 (talk) 05:30, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Ludwig von Mises, who was a prominent non-marxist economist, begins the first chapter of his book Bureaucracy by saying "Capitalism or market economy is that system of social cöoperation and division of labor that is based on private ownership of the means of production." (p. 20) TFD (talk) 23:04, 16 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Apologies. Must be an era then. I studied economics for three years and only ever heard this term being used by the unions on campus. Perhaps it was more common 50 years ago. The current definition from Merriam Webster sounds far more like the term I assume when someone uses the term. 41.132.186.233 (talk) 05:30, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Wholly-owned Countries
This article should mention that countries owned by one person are capitalist by definition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.103.146 (talk) 18:35, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Large blank area.
Is there any way to avoid the large blank area that appears, at least in my browser, below the table of contents? Rick Norwood (talk) 14:39, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm a Little Confused Here.
When I was in high school economics (way back in the Reagan years) we were taught that the distinguishing characteristic of "capitalism" was allowing investment in and ownership of companies by investors who weren't directly involved in their daily operations. From what I see here, though, the current definition of capitalism seems to just be "any system where companies aren't nationalized."

What I'm wondering is this: Are there distinctly different labels for a business that is privately owned and operated by a single individual, one that is a partnership between a relatively small number of people who have employees but hold all ownership between the partners, a company that can be owned by everybody who can buy shares of its stock, and a business that can be owned only by the workers in that company, or are they all "capitalist" companies because they are privately owned? The One True Dave (talk) 09:35, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


 * A good reference on the many forms of Capitalism is a little book titled "Capitalism: A Very Short Introduction" by James Fulcher. The short answer is that your high school economics teacher got it wrong.  Capital is money used for investment (as distinct for the purchase of goods and services or put in a savings account).  In a capitalist society, those who have money to invest are free to create a business, whether they do it individually or by incorporating.  Sam Walton was a capitalist, though he was directly involved with the daily operations of Wal-Mart. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:06, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Depends on how precisely you want to make your definition. Companies have all sorts of structures which can be differentiated. Partnerships, for instance, are not limited liability (traditionally, although the law has adjusted lately), so if it goes belly-up you lose not only your capital but also your socks and cuff-links.  Some issue shares between a close-knit group which are privately rather than publicly traded (e.g. you might have to ask other shareholders for permission to sell your shares; in publicly-traded companies, you sell whenever and to whomever you like).
 * The critical feature of capitalism, however, is control - that is, he who owns the capital, has ultimate and complete control of the production decisions. How the capital is divvied up, who owns it and the rules by which it is traded can vary immensely.  But so long as the "fact" of capital-ownership translates to decision-power, you're in a capitalist system.  A single-owner-run business is still "capitalistic" - that is, a single man just wears two hats, one as capitalist (owner of capital), another as entrepreneur-manager (he hires himself, as it were).
 * Cooperatives are different from employee-owned companies. Employee-owned companies are where employees own the shares and thus also wear two hats (one as capitalist, another as worker).  Thus they are still "capitalist".  Cooperatives, however, distribute decision-power according to "stakehold" rather than "sharehold". That is, cooperatives are usually structured in a way that employees get a say in production decisions, regardless of how much capital (if any at all) they bring in. So cooperatives are not "capitalistic".
 * Now, it is true that some people use the term "capitalism" in a much narrower sense, esp. in history, to specifically refer only to the period after the emergence of incorporated permanent joint-stock limited liability publicly-traded companies, and refer to everything else as not-quite-capitalism. But that is a rather arbitrary criteria, and far too narrow. Walrasiad (talk) 12:24, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Lede
I see a recent edit to the lede, a section which I'd not previously considered. The text is not a clear description of capitalist institutions and seems to be laden with various analytic or normative concepts implicit in the cited source. Dictionary definitions and a garbled sociology text cannot be the best sources for a description of a capitalist economy. To be specific, both individuals and corporations are private agents. "Creation" is an imprecise and value-loaded term in this context. Prices aren't determined by competition, they are set by agreement between the buyer and the seller, or one might say set by the seller and accepted or rejected by the buyer. To say that prices come from "competition in a market economy" is largely tautological. "Central elements.." are not prescriptions of Capitalism, they are labels for observed processes or results of Capitalism.

I think this could all be improved by considering the central statements in the article body and summarizing them in the lede. As it is, it appears to be a weakly sourced and poorly defined separate statement. SPECIFICO talk  13:55, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Ayn Rand
Recently there's been some addition & removal of Ayn Rand related material. This material is inappropriate for the lede as it adds to the bloat. Whatever Rand material is appropriate should be added to the text first, and then summarized in the lede (if appropriate). – S. Rich (talk) 19:49, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Where in the text? MilesMoney (talk) 19:59, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I can't figure out where is a good place for it in the body of the article, but it really should not go in the lede. (BTW, at the moment I'm about to move the very last lede paragraph (about taxes) into its own subsection.) – S. Rich (talk) 20:04, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Following up on Ayn Rand, did she really have much to contribute to the theory of capitalism? If not, then she should be left out of this article. (Exposition of her thoughts in this area might be expanded upon in her article.) – S. Rich (talk) 20:47, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * As the quote says, she contributed both popularization and a moral defense. MilesMoney (talk) 20:54, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps her views can be put in the "Advocacy" section. But did her popularization or moral defense really have a significant impact? I don't know one way or the other. – S. Rich (talk) 21:00, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * She's legitimized naked capitalism and has had a huge political influence. There'd be no American Tea Party without her. MilesMoney (talk) 21:10, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Her work is often cited by Paul Ryan, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, not to mention Ron Johnson -- the new generation stars of the American Congress. It would be hard to overstate her influence as a rallying point for the emerging wave of American libertarians.  In fact, she has surpassed the previous icons Reagan and Rothbard in popular significance.  SPECIFICO  talk  21:34, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Rothbard who? Reagan is still a touchstone for American conservatives, but he's not so much an influence as a trophy; he represents the moment that the conservatives took your country back and held onto it. MilesMoney (talk) 21:39, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Two words: "Jean" "Chretien". SPECIFICO  talk  21:41, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey, don't look at me! I'm not responsible for Chrétien. MilesMoney (talk) 21:46, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

In addition to placement (which as of this writing seems to be resolved), there is another problem with this passage. There is a "source" cited for it that does not mention capitalism at all or discuss the nature of Rand's advocacy for it. Given that the text pronounces a specific POV, it should not only have a true source cited, the POV should be attributed in-text. --RL0919 (talk) 21:59, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, back to the question that pertains to the article. Did Rand contribute to theory involving capitalism? If so, how? And what RS is there to show these contributions? And even if her work is cited by others, so what? Are the new stars saying "I/we support capitalism because Ayn Rand wrote about it?" Even with RS, mention of her as a popularizer and defender of capitalism seems tangential. Perhaps more about her efforts in this regard could be put in Criticism of capitalism. I still don't see how it fits here. – S. Rich (talk) 22:37, 13 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Rand should not be mentioned in the lead. The U.S. was already capitalist, support for capitalism is a core liberal value, and the concept had already received acceptance by the mid 19th century.  Right-wing groups in the U.S. typically support capitalism and draw their inspiration from American historical figures, such as the Founding Fathers, rather than from atheist Europeans.  Reagan's policies developed out of Hayek and Friedman, who in turn drew on 19th century liberalism.  TFD (talk) 23:59, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * TFD, Hello. I smiled after reading your comment.  I don't believe that Reagan ever read Hayek and certainly not early Milton Friedman.  He may not have read Rand either, but his sponsors sure did.  However I agree with you that her influence was not the primary inspiration for the first wave of reaction against the Trustbusters, Labor laws and the New Deal in the US.  Nevertheless her influence is greater today with the current wave and is growing.  Or it was until last month at any rate.  SPECIFICO  talk  00:05, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Does anyone have the paragraph or so from the cited source? MilesMoney (talk) 00:17, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The entire paper is available online. --RL0919 (talk) 00:21, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * SPECIFICO, hello. Were you smiling as you figured out how to misrepresent me?  I did not say Reagan read Hayek etc., I said his "policies developed out of Hayek" etc.  Do you understand that presidents may support policies devised by other people whose sources they have never read?  In any case, what relevance does this have?  The U.S. was capitalist before Reagan and continues to be capitalist after him.  TFD (talk) 06:57, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi TFD. Sorry you feel I misunderstood you. Perhaps some further clarification or explanation of your view would be helpful.  SPECIFICO  talk  12:18, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * TFD, the US was indeed capitalist before Reagan, but Reagan represents a huge shift to a more conservative brand of capitalism, one which forced even his opponents to endorse the virtues of the free market. Likewise, the US was capitalist before Rand, but it didn't have the aggressively righteous ideology to justify the capitalism and wash away any guilt for the casualties. Remember "greed is good"? MilesMoney (talk) 12:56, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

This discussion is veering way off-topic. E.g., we should be asking "how do we improve the article with material from Ayn Rand" (if at all)? "Did she contribute to theory of capitalism?" "Did she have influence on the spread of capitalism?" Information in this regard may improve the article, and whatever is provided needs RS. So far I've seen nothing that helps the article in this regard so the Ayn Rand material should be omitted. – S. Rich (talk) 13:45, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * This is a discussion about which people are relevant to the article. Unfortunately, the questions you ask are irrelevant. For example, contributing to the theory of capitalism isn't a necessary criterion for inclusion, although it may be sufficient. MilesMoney (talk) 13:48, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I brought up the topic in discussion because I had removed the mention of Rand from the lede. Looking at the Robert Bass article, I cannot find where he talks about capitalism, laissez-faire, Reagan, Hayek, Frieman, etc. So how do we say AR attempted a "positive moral defense of laissez-faire capitalism"? – S. Rich (talk) 14:07, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that the current citation isn't good for this, but good sources are easy to find. You could start with these peer reviewed works from academic publishers:
 * Those would all support the straightforward statement of her defense of capitalism. For criticisms of its validity you could turn to something like this source, which says Rand's approach has "obvious flaws" (p. 132):
 * I'll stop with that, but finding even more shouldn't be difficult. --RL0919 (talk) 15:16, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I updated the section myself. I used the first two sources I listed as citations for Rand's position. For the reaction, I turned to Ayn Rand Nation by Gary Weiss. It summarized the situation (that her ideas are widely rejected but still have influence in some places), rather than repeating the details of individual reactions, which seems appropriate given that this is an article about capitalism and not about Rand or her ideas. --RL0919 (talk) 16:12, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me (but what do I know?). Big improvement on what she said and who's listening and on where her influence has been felt. I do not think mention of her limited influence belongs in the lede. – S. Rich (talk) 16:24, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Given the broad scope of the article, we probably shouldn't be mentioning any individual people in the lead, except perhaps briefly mentioning Marx and Engels to discuss the origin of the term. --RL0919 (talk) 16:32, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed. – S. Rich (talk) 16:51, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll stop with that, but finding even more shouldn't be difficult. --RL0919 (talk) 15:16, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I updated the section myself. I used the first two sources I listed as citations for Rand's position. For the reaction, I turned to Ayn Rand Nation by Gary Weiss. It summarized the situation (that her ideas are widely rejected but still have influence in some places), rather than repeating the details of individual reactions, which seems appropriate given that this is an article about capitalism and not about Rand or her ideas. --RL0919 (talk) 16:12, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me (but what do I know?). Big improvement on what she said and who's listening and on where her influence has been felt. I do not think mention of her limited influence belongs in the lede. – S. Rich (talk) 16:24, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Given the broad scope of the article, we probably shouldn't be mentioning any individual people in the lead, except perhaps briefly mentioning Marx and Engels to discuss the origin of the term. --RL0919 (talk) 16:32, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed. – S. Rich (talk) 16:51, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Bloated introduction that deviates from subject matter
The current iteration of the lead paragraphs are bloated with unnecessary material that go off on tangents about taxation, defenses about specific ideologies within capitalism (Ayn Rand, Welfare economics et al.) and make controversial claims about the "defeat of communism", all of which have little to do with the definition of capitalism. These subjects belong in a section in the article dedicated to the various ideologies in support of capitalism.

The information on Schumpeter is incorrect or taken out of context, and referring to contemporary Western Europe as followers of a "socialist ideology" is extremely biased and inaccurate.

The lead should focus on a definition of capitalism, a brief overview of the different major forms of capitalism, and a brief mentioning of its etymology and multiple uses of the term by different groups. - Battlecry 09:57, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

whoever the idiot is that keeps putting this bit in about ayn rand in the damn intro about how what she said about capitalism "did not stand up to logical or historical scrutiny" and then gives one random citation for it, just stop. does not belong here. - anyonymous — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.66.42 (talk) 06:04, 13 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Without commenting on the biases of the lead, I agree with Battlecry that the lead is too long, contains overly specific information (ie specific economists' names and positions) that belongs in subsections instead. Dialectric (talk) 15:47, 13 October 2013 (UTC)


 * At this point the lead is about 40% shorter than it was, and the removals have taken the more POV interpretive bits about Schumpeter, Rand, etc. At five paragraphs the lead is a bit longer than usual, but the article as a whole is over 9600 words, so it isn't disproportionate. So I'm thinking the "lead too long" tag could come off. Any objections? --RL0919 (talk) 17:59, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I think Battlecry's 3rd paragraph still pertains to the lede. An improved introduction is still needed. Is there a template that is more focused on composition rather than the "too long" one? – S. Rich (talk) 18:09, 15 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I slapped it on, so I'll whisk it off. Nice going, folks! --Technopat (talk) 18:11, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

First Paragraph Contains Incorrect Sentence?
"In a capitalist economy, the parties to a transaction nominally determine the prices at which assets, goods, and services are exchanged."

Does this mean that any economy with minimum wage laws is not capitalist because the parties to the transaction do not determine the price at which the labor, a service, is sold? If so wouldn't that imply that there are virtually no capitalist countries, including some of the most prominent examples (e.g. USA)? This sentence seems specific to the "free market capitalism" section, and should be moved there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.99.86 (talk) 20:43, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

There are no countries that are "pure" capitalist, but almost all countries are capitalist to a greater or lesser degree. The key word in the sentence you quote is "nominally". There are always exceptions. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:54, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

In that case I think "nominally" should be changed to "normally" or "typically", as the word nominally doesn't actually make sense given your interpretation. According to Merriam-Webster, nominally means "existing as something in name only; not actual or real; very small in amount". None of those definitions indicate the interpretation that you are suggesting, that *usually* prices are determined by the parties. Instead, nominally is likely to lead to the confusing interpretation that "nominal prices" are set by the parties (which is not a meaningful distinction because by setting nominal prices at a specific time one also sets real prices). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.99.86 (talk) 16:16, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree. By the way, sign your comments with four tildes. Rick Norwood (talk) 17:05, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Taxation and capitalism
The purpose of this section seems not to be a discussion of the general relationship between taxation and capitalism but rather to argue in favor of a low tax rate, by only mentioning two countries, the US and Singapore, and emphasizing their relatievely low taxes, praising Singapore as "an extremely wealthy developed country with a commitment to low taxes and small government" while removing any mention of the current US economic woes. Maybe the whole section should go until someone has the time an expertese to write a better one.Rick Norwood (talk) 12:56, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The whole section seems to be a synthesis of tax information from primary sources that is connected to "Laissez-faire economics" with no source at all. I'd say delete the entire subsection as original research. --RL0919 (talk) 14:22, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't oppose its removal. MilesMoney (talk) 14:40, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I am in agreement with RL019. The taxation section is not relevant to describing capitalism, but it might merit some discussion in a subsection focusing on specific fiscal policies adopted within capitalist economies. - Battlecry 23:06, 15 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I would take it out. Is there any literature that specifically connects taxation with capitalism?  TFD (talk) 06:00, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I removed the section a few days ago as there was no clear justification for keeping it. An argument could be made for a section covering taxation, but If someone were to write on the subject, they would have to start over, as the content that was there was not usable. Dialectric (talk) 13:35, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Introduction
In the last sentence of the introduction, it is mentioned that "crony capitalism" is considered normal by Marxian economics, but "aberrant" by "certain advocates of capitalsim." Who are these advocates? Can a source be named? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.100.111 (talk) 22:53, 18 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Your point is well-taken. FYI: new posts should go at the bottom of the pages; that's where Wikipedians look for them.  Also, sign your posts with four tildes. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:47, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

AYN RAND???
I find it incredible that Ayn Rand & her book "Atlas Shrugged" are mentioned here.....or anywhere else! It was fiction & incredibly stupid! That "invisible city" was stupid, & most people (capitalists) actually think that all happened! Delete her please! PT10999 (talk) 04:55, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Ayn Rand was recently removed from the article lead. Her inclusion under the 'Advocacy for capitalism' section does seem warranted, because whatever opinion one has of her work, she is notable for her writings as an advocate of capitalism, and authored nonfiction including 'Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal'.Dialectric (talk) 13:47, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Capitalism: a theory?
A recent edit added that capitalism is a "theory". Capitalism is an economic system with various different theories supporting it. An example of a theory in support of capitalism would be neoclassical microeconomic theory (an economic theory suggesting competitive capitalism is efficient) or lassiez-faire (an ideology justifying free-market capitalism). But as far as I know, "capitalism" is not a theory in and of itself, it is an observed economic system. - Battlecry 05:06, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The sources do not say theory and therefore it should be removed. While I think it is correct to call it a theory, it is misleading because it implies that it is a prescriptive rather than descriptive theory.  TFD (talk) 05:59, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * There do exist prescriptive theories of capitalism, but you're right that we probably shouldn't call capitalism itself a theory. MilesMoney (talk) 06:04, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Planned obsolescence
Do you think a link to planned obsolescence would fit here? Or on the upper right hand list of topics? There is a definitie connection. Hillmon7500 (talk) 02:38, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


 * No- planned obsolescence is far too minor an issue. It might possibly find a place in Criticism of capitalism.
 * Gravuritas (talk) 13:41, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Capitalism in Australia
This section has been deleted, and with good reason, since its tone is propagandistic, unlike the cautious tone of the source it references. However, I don't think it is unacceptable solely because it is about a single country, and a shorter section about capitalism in Australia, which more accurately reflects sources, might well be welcome. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:16, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Economic systems
Can we add the New Cuban economy as a capitalist system (in the right-hand banner) ? KVDP (talk) 18:46, 29 March 2014 (UTC)


 * No, because it is not capitalist. TFD (talk) 18:53, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Ferdinand Lundberg
FL said USA has never been a democracy, we've always been an oligarchy. Hillmon7500 (talk) 04:46, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * That has nothing to do with this article. TFD (talk) 18:55, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Capitalism
I read the articles on Socialism and Communism. The articles depicted them as the greatest ideas ever--on paper, that is. It didn't mention the suppression, the human rights problems, and the unrest associated with them, but once as an afterthought in the "critic" section. When I got to the article on Capitalism, there were several quotes, ideas, and opinions from ANTI-CAPITALISTS all through each section of the article....not just limited to the "critics" part. There were virtually NO quotes and opinions from the Founding Fathers...or anyone from the Free World. It isn't an unbiased article.Charlottewalsh (talk) 02:54, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


 * None of the Founding Fathers said anything about capitalism. TFD (talk) 03:12, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

OK. Still, in an article about a subject, the people who are AGAINST it will have personal BIAS--not "just the facts"--information and should not be quoted. It should only be the encyclopedic or dictionary-type information.Charlottewalsh (talk) 02:39, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


 * All encyclopedias not only give definitions, but also give the views of great thinkers on each subject, so an encyclopedia article on capitalism will give the views of Marx, but also the views of those who see capitalism as the road to prosperity. The important thing is to give a balanced view.  If you think the article is unbalanced, then you should suggest specific ways to improve it. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:43, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I do not see that the article presents a view against capitalism. Marxist views are mentioned, but they are so notable that they should be included.  Can you provide examples?  TFD (talk) 15:34, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


 * From the 'Economic elements' section "Capitalism and capitalist economics is generally considered to be the opposite of socialism, which contrasts with all forms of capitalism in the following ways: social ownership of the means of production, where returns on the means of production accrue to society at large, and goods and services are produced directly for their utility (as opposed to being produced by profit-seeking businesses)." This is unsourced, but no doubt corresponds to a large number of theoretical Socialist mantras in books.  Can anyone support this statement with reference to the real world as opposed to Socialist lala lands?
 * Gravuritas (talk) 11:51, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I have a problem with the sentence you quote, but I don't think it is the same problem you have. The meaning of "socialism" has changed so greatly over the past century that to use the word to mean "social ownership of the means of production" sounds quaint. It is, however, the actual meaning of the word. I'll try to find a quote that might be clearer to a modern reader. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:32, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * There is a general problem that enthusiasts for one system or another wish to emphasise the theoretical benefits & gloss over the actual faults. Contrasting actual capitalism as it exists with theoretical socialism is intellectually indefensible.  I think much of your edit is helpful- I've just added 'other' to the list of reasons governments intervene as sometimes their intervention is not for the worthy reasons you listed.
 * Gravuritas (talk) 13:20, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Does the edit I made address your concerns? Rick Norwood (talk) 12:57, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

If I'm an enthusiast for any system, it is for capitalism. In any case, I'm not contrasting anything with anything, I'm citing a source. I'm not sure where your idea that someone is contrasting actual capitalism with theoretical socialism comes from. Where do you find that in the article? Rick Norwood (talk) 14:56, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * There is nothing POV about contrasting capitalism with other possible systems. And "means of production" is a term used by neo-classical economists such as Mises and Friedman.  TFD (talk) 17:14, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Do what? the term I used was intellectually indefensible, not POV.  Legitimate contrasts are real-on-the-ground capitalism with its socialist equivalent, or 'possible capitalism' with 'possible socialism'.  Contrasting real capitalism with 'possible socialism is not legitimate, which this example did before RN's edit.
 * Gravuritas (talk) 18:55, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * But that is what writers about capitalism do. If you think that all of them, from Marx to Mises to Milton Friedman are POV-pushers, then you need to take that up in academic discourse.  We merely reflect what experts say.  TFD (talk) 19:28, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

We have to be careful to respect NPOV, whether it is called that or called "intellectually indefensible". I think the big problem is that some people, in their support of capitalism, which after all has won every battle, confuse "socialism" in the old sense of public ownership of the means of production, which has always failed, with "socialism" in the new sense, which is some government control to prevent monopoly, environmental collapse, the boom and bust cycle, and the extreme concentration of wealth, which has always succeeded. Rick Norwood (talk) 20:07, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

The end of work
Shouldn't you mention the part about automation eliminating all work, for example the book by Jeremy Rifkin "The End of Work? This has been brought up by Marx & many others. Hillmon7500 (talk) 06:34, 28 April 2014 (UTC)


 * If it is tightly focused on the impact the end of work (or at least the decreasing number of jobs) has on the capitalist system, and is carefully referenced, I think it would be a good addition. Rick Norwood (talk) 11:31, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Like this?> In the United States, corporations are eliminating more than 2 million jobs annually. Today, all three of the traditional sectors of the economy - agriculture, manufacturing, and service - are experiencing technological displacement, forcing millions onto the unemployment rolls. While the new sector of knowledge is the only one growing, it is not expected to absorb more than a fraction of the hundreds of millions who will be eliminated in the next several decades. Hillmon7500 (talk) 18:26, 28 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Sounds ok if referenced, preferably with a page number and a quote. Rick Norwood (talk) 18:41, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I'll try Hillmon7500 (talk) 21:03, 28 April 2014 (UTC)


 * As the elimination of all work is a prediction – like, for the future – WP:CRYSTALBALL must be observed. – S. Rich (talk) 15:41, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Despite the title of the book, the citation does not predict the future, but reports on current job loss in three sectors of the economy. That noted, since the book is 1995, more current information is preferable. Rick Norwood (talk) 18:26, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oh, my! Hillmon said automation was eliminating all work, and since all work has not been eliminated, I was thinking future tense. Whew! If all work were eliminated we'd have a slew of new people available to edit WP.
 * Actually, I'm having a little fun. The serious aspect of my comments is a concern about how much we make of trends. Experts in these matters can't predict what's going to happen and we must be careful of what we seek to add to WP when we read their predictions. – S. Rich (talk) 21:39, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually, look at the number of Wikipedia edits from 9 to 5 on weekdays, and the number of Wikipedia edits on weekends. Most people who edit Wikipedia do so at work. Rick Norwood (talk) 00:22, 30 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Actually, S. Rich, if all jobs are eliminated there won't be any people with money, so they'll all be homeless and starving to death. They won't ever be able to have computers or the Internet, so there will be almost no Wikipedia edits. Money doesn't grow on trees. It only comes from having a job, except for the 1%. Hillmon7500 (talk) 04:28, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Egad, it's that 1% again! Let's get rid of them, or at least tax away their wealth. But then the next lower 1% would move up into their place and we'd have to tax them too. Hillmon, in fact I was poking a little fun at the "eliminating all work" comment you made. What you are really trying to say (I believe) is that jobs are shifting from one type of work to other types of work. (But how does that relate to Capitalism as a topic?) And it's an interesting observation – for other articles. I can't figure out how it will fit into this article. The challenge is how can we incorporate Rifkin's observations into the article. If we can't, then perhaps he can be used elsewhere. But if wrath about the 1% is the motivation for any editing, then POV will hamper our editing efforts. – S. Rich (talk) 04:47, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * And source used must explain how it relates to capitalism. Automation has btw increased employment over time.  The U.S., UK, China and India all have vastly greater populations than they did before automation.  TFD (talk) 05:05, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * And, BTW, automation (which is just another term for "technology") eliminated a lot of farming jobs. John Deere (inventor) alone took hundreds of thousands of farm workers out of that job market with his damn plow. And then he joined the 1%! Capitalism at its worst.  – S. Rich (talk) 05:22, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Deere rescued a considerable part of the population from the idiocy of rural life. TFD (talk) 07:32, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

It pleases some conservatives to pretend that people who want the 1% to pay taxes hate the 1%, and that if the 1% had to pay taxes at the same rate I do it would destroy them utterly. But my tax rate is about 35% (25% federal, 10% state) and I'm doing just fine. I suspect that if Mitt Romney's tax rate went up from 15% to 25%, it would not leave him destitute.

The Rifkin quote is not about the end of work, really. Note the question mark in the title. It is about the shift of jobs from the private sector to the public sector, and from manufacturing to information technology. The relevance to this article is that the economics of scarcity is being replaced by the economics of plenty, and that changes capitalism in fundamental ways. I don't think even the conservatives believe that everyone who those with capital do not want to hire should be allowed to starve. Certainly Milton Friedman did not believe that, recommending instead a negative income tax for the poor. Conservatives, in the sense of traditionalists, have trouble adapting traditional beliefs to the new economy of plenty.Rick Norwood (talk) 22:30, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Rick, I need your help, so where do we do this? The sandbox above? Hillmon7500 (talk) 14:43, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * By "sandbox", are you looking at the link in the right hand corner (that's where mine is). Click it and see what you get. (It should open a subpage for you to work on, but it's not a subpage for the article.) – S. Rich (talk) 14:50, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I have not read the book. It sounds interesting, and I think it is a scholarly source, but whoever incorporates what it has to say about capitalism into this article needs to have read it and also have some background in economics. I note that the Wikipedia article The End of Work is largely hostile toward the book.Rick Norwood (talk) 15:18, 2 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes they're hostile, because capitalism is about one thing only: wage jobs. which are all being eliminated. Hillmon7500 (talk) 15:42, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Dissolve Advocacy section
Per the reasoning expressed in this closed discussion, I wish to propose the contents of the Advocacy section be distilled down to the essential points and assimilated into the general article. That an advocacy section does not exist for the Socialism article but does in thIs one represents a conflict of style between two very close topics. Also, it is the current effort of Wikipedia to try to move away from advocacy or praise sections since they are NPOV. Autonova (talk) 18:21, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree. That fact that capitalism spurred economic growth should be mentioned, and does not belong in an advocacy section.  Both conservative and socialist critics of capitalism acknowledged it.  TFD (talk) 17:12, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Superb
This is a superbly written introductory article. I should just like to thank all those who honed it to make it as terse and intelligible as it is. Obviously there are more technical articles, but as an introductory article, I don't think it would be possible to do better.

Thank you once again. From a long-time Wikipedia contributor (not banned or warned) but who is editing anonymously because of abusive remarks: the storm will pass, so just standing aside for a bit. If I could write like that I would be proud. I know it is a collaborative effort; but I thank you one and all. Superb. 78.131.52.37 (talk) 12:10, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 22 November 2014

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page not moved.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 03:51, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Capitalism → Free enterprise – "Capitalism" is a term coined by Karl Marx to fulfill his deluded dialectic vision of society. Our system is properly called "free enterprise", which is free people making free decisions in a free market. When you use the Marxist term, you automatically denigrate us. 76.105.96.92 (talk) 01:24, 22 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, I guess you get what you pay for. Not sure if serious. Who is "us"? Your etymology is incorrect; the word was used before Marx, and he barely used it. Also, I volunteer to move the article for $100,000. Dekimasu よ! 02:03, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Essentially every country on earth practices Capitalism.  No country on earth practices free enterprise in the sense the proposer is using the phrase.Rick Norwood (talk) 03:01, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose prove that "free enterprise" is more common than "capitalism", as people who are not communists also use the term, such as who participate in the system itself. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk)
 * Page Free enterprise (disambiguation) has the line "Free enterprise, an economic ideology related to capitalism." :: do the two names mean exactly the same thing? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:38, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose – As Anthony mentions above, they're not quite the same; "free enterprise" is a concept/ideology, whereas capitalism is an economic system mostly based on that concept. Also, Wikipedia does not decide on titles based on how they make people feel. Most importantly, the vast majority of reliable sources (and people in general) refer to it as "capitalism". Please read WP:TITLE. --V2Blast (talk) 07:34, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose, but disagree with all the other opposers to date. I'd suggest that 'free enterprise' is a concept, and 'capitalism' is a concept.  You can analyse an economy either way- either based on its systems of accumulation of capital, or based on people's freedom to set up enterprises and trade.  While there is some overlap between the two, there's also some truth in the OP's comment that ideology colours one's choice of analysis method.  I'd say that this article is clearly about capitalism, so the title should not be changed.  The shortcomings are that 1) there is no article on free enterprise (Free market is not the same) 2) That 'free enterprise' currently redirects to the capitalism article, and the capitalism article is a piss-poor article on free enterprise. Gravuritas (talk) 11:56, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I do agree with you that "free enterprise" probably needs its own article, separate from this one. --V2Blast (talk) 23:13, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * @Rick Norwood I suggest that you don't doctor any remarks on talk, even your own.  People have responded to your initial remark, so substituting a new remark makes the debate dishonest.  If you want to retract your remark, do so, if you want add new stuff, do so.  Please don't pretend you never made a remark. --Gravuritas (talk) 13:31, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * My original comment was "Why not just retitle the article "Rich People are Job Creators, Poor People are Lazy and Good for Nothing" and be done with it". I decided that was rude, so I changed it to something more to the point. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:09, 22 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose while free enterprise may be the defining characteristic of capitalism, generally there are limits on it and most if not all captialist countries have mixed market economies. TFD (talk) 23:32, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose as there are examples of what have been basically capitalist economies with a fairly high level of government intervention e.g. Nazi Germany, South Korea. PatGallacher (talk) 01:37, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I suppose it's just piling on at this point, but it's worth pointing out that even if you broadly agree with the nominator's criticism of Marxist parody - as I do - the specific name change requested is insupportable. "Capitalism", the word, has tended to become a sort of Rorschach test for how the speaker feels about free enterprise, as you can see by comparing Marx's definition with Ayn Rand's (for example). "Free enterprise" means something much more specific, and it has tended to retain that meaning rather than just become an emotive trigger. That makes "free enterprise" a very useful concept - but the concept it refers to is not quite the same as "capitalism", especially the vague popular sense of "capitalism" that encompasses a realistic view of all human economic activity. If the nominator (or anyone else) thinks the article currently make too much of the Marxist objections to capitalism, I encourage them to edit the article accordingly, but I can't support a move. In fact, I join several others above in believing that we ought to have a separate article on free enterprise, and not only a redirect. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 05:26, 23 November 2014 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

?
Are you sure that capitalism is that? I think no, its capital-ism, I mean a system, a lifestyle, where capital rules, where everything is measured by capital, and workers sell their time to get salary. So the main characterisitics of cap. is producing wares for profit, not private ownership. That's what I cant understand in your article... Kapeter77 (talk) 09:10, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * We use definitions based on what reliable sources say, rather than develop our own. TFD (talk) 18:46, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Marx this, Marx that
Reading through the article, one cannot avoid the conclusion that it was largely written by Marxists. --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 20:07, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Several articles have been merged including Capitalist mode of production and Advanced capitalism. My preference would be for relatively short sections and keeping the detailed information to the separate articles.
 * Another option is the parts of the article not dealing Marxist critique of capitalism need expanding.Jonpatterns (talk) 20:57, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * While I agree with some of the new content (especially the section on "Wage labour" - some good stuff there), I see Ye Olde Gentleman's point that the article now has serious undue weight issues. I believe the first solution JonPatterns proposed is best as the article now is huge.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 22:51, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * There is a problem with Hendrick 99 willy-nilly moving pages around and merging without discussion or consensus, absolutely reckless and frenetic at the moment. Red Harvest (talk) 05:43, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * This page as it is now is 85% a marxist criticism of Capitalism. It doesn´t have any resemblance of neutrality. The section 13 Criticism is a redundance. 190.246.161.247 (talk) 13:42, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

This is a long article. Marx is a major figure. Marx is not mentioned in the lead. In the more than fifty sections and subsections of the article, 18 mention Marx, so at most the page is about 30% Marxist. That may be too much, but it is far short of 85%. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:52, 31 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Plenty of non-Marxist economists recognize that Marx had some valuable contributions to the field; mention of Marx or his work does not mean a particular statement or section is inherently 'Marxist'.Dialectric (talk) 15:55, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Including coining and defining the term. TFD (talk) 16:48, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Ye Olde Gentleman is right; the article does have a serious problem with undue weight. bobrayner (talk) 13:58, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Then you need to find a reliable source that states that Marx is not considered a major figure in the study of economics. Here is what the Concise Columbia Encyclopedia says, "Marxism has greatly influenced the development of socialist thought; further, many scholars have considered Marx a great economic theoretician and the founder of economic history and sociology." Nobody here is saying that Marx is right and that laissez faire capitalism is wrong, only that there are differing views on capitalism and that it would be hard to find an economist who did not acknowledge Marx was a major figure. We need to present both sides, not just the side which apparently seems so obviously correct to some that no evidence is needed, so obviously correct that contrary views should not be given as much space in the article as views favorable to capitalism. Rick Norwood (talk) 11:57, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * While I agree that Marxism is very important in evaluating and critiquing capitalism, terms like Wage Slavery need to be properly tied to their ideology, rather than stated as inherent parts of capitalism. Soxwon (talk) 14:59, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Soxwon: Agreed. That is part of a broader problem affecting many articles that touch on marxism; they present marxist ideas as though they were actually true, in wikipedia's voice. This article should be about Capitalism, not Marxism. Which brings me to:
 * Rick Norwood: It's unclear to me how you've interpreted complaints about undue weight in the Capitalism article as though they were statements that Marx wasn't important. It would be helpful if you could stick to addressing real issues rather than inventing imaginary counter-issues. bobrayner (talk) 18:36, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, you've gone too far back in the other direction. Marxism and its views on capitalism have helped define the last century and a half, we can't just ignore them either. Soxwon (talk) 21:08, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Please be specific. I have no ax to grind here. If anything, I'm a fan of capitalism and a critic of Marxism. But when people delete referenced material (sometimes leaving the references hanging) I expect them to back up their edits with competing references. Rick Norwood (talk) 22:02, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Synthesis
Why on earth would people add fantasy and synthesis, for "balance"? I realise there are many ranters who feel that "wage slavery" is at the core of capitalism, or even that the word "employment" is a capitalist invention, but the more reliable sources don't say things like that. Please, this article is not a venue for people to complain about capitalism or right great wrongs. And we certainly won't get "balance" by adding even more Marxist content to an article already dominated by Marxism. bobrayner (talk) 13:56, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I see that, instead of addressing the problem or discussing it, Rick Norwood has added the policy violations back into the article whilst complaining that other editors must talk rather than revert. That is bad. Stop it. bobrayner (talk) 18:42, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Since you mention me by name, let me point out that I haven't added one word about Marxism to the article that I can recall. It isn't a subject that interests me all that much. What I have done is revert deletions of referenced material. I would have acted in the same way if a Marxist had deleted the many pro-capitalist references in the article. And, as I've pointed out, the article is not "dominated by Marxism". Rick Norwood (talk) 22:06, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Capitalism Wikiproject
There is something wrong with the capitalism wikiproject in this talk page, it doesn't display article assessment.Lbertolotti (talk) 17:04, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Private ownership shouldn't be a defining feature of an encyclopedic entry on capitalism
I say this because most capitalist ventures (today) are owned by global corporations which are (at least functionally) quasi-states themselves. Corporations can even be argued to be internally communistic, which again, undermines the idea that capitalism today is somehow defined by private ownership. Instead, it might be more helpful to define it as an economic system driven and organized around profit/capital, since this is the actual defining feature of capitalistic systems. I mean, the sign of a healthy capitalist economy is the GDP which is, in fact, nothing more than profit on a large scale. A major concern of economics majors is not who owns what or if things are primarily privately owned. In fact, if you talk to a Kynesian, they'll not only tell you that governments are central figure in the economy as regulator but also participant. The only reason to define capitalism by private ownership is for reasons of political bias.76.7.208.79 (talk) 14:32, 24 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Sloppy thinking writ large. First sentence is plain wrong: most capitalistic ventures are single traders or micro-companies. Second sentence is up there in lala land, unless 'communistic' is intended to mean 'dictatorial', which might begin to rescue the sentence but then the rest of the paragraph falls apart even more.  I think the 'economics majors' provides a clue.  Get a job.  Or just work harder on the economics.
 * Gravuritas (talk) 16:04, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Rewrite confusion
The introduction to this article has been completely rewritten since the last time I read it. Capitalism is an economic model based on the accumulation of capital. Now the introduction confuses it with a free market economy - and they are NOT the same thing.---Puff (talk) 15:39, 1 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm trying to understand your comment. I don't see anywhere in the introduction that it says capitalism only exists in a free market.  It does say that capitalism only exists when there is some private ownership of the means of production, but that seems consistent with my understanding.  If the state owned everything, could we talk about capital accumulation?  Please explain what change you would like to see.  Or be bold and make a change and see what happens. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:55, 1 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I'd suggest capitalism is an economic "system" that is and has existed, in a number of variants, and it is not an economic "model". If it's a model then it is whatever some economists define it to be; if it's a system then it is whatever is/ has been out there.  The real world experience is that it doesn't exist without (some) degree of free markets.  I think Midas might be an early example of "accumulation of capital" that was not capitalist and did not involve any free markets.
 * Gravuritas (talk) 16:25, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Capitalism Definition :
Hello, I want to add the Definition of "Capitalism" in the wikipedia page, which I consider the best possible definition for the term after years of study on the subject. The Definition is given by an author named Ayn Rand. Who is best known for her free market ideas and who developed a philosophy she called "Objectivism" which states that Capitalism is the only moral social system and has given volumes of proof for the claim. The definition is as follows :-

Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned.

The recognition of individual rights entails the banishment of physical force from human relationships: basically, rights can be violated only by means of force. In a capitalist society, no man or group may initiate the use of physical force against others. The only function of the government, in such a society, is the task of protecting man’s rights, i.e., the task of protecting him from physical force; the government acts as the agent of man’s right of self-defense, and may use force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use; thus the government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of force under objective control.

--- Ayn Rand, “What Is Capitalism?”  Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, 19

Role of Government in a Capitalist state :- The proper functions of a government fall into three broad categories, all of them involving the issues of physical force and the protection of men’s rights: 1. The Police:-         to protect men from criminals. 2. The Armed services:- to protect men from foreign invaders. 3. The Law courts:-     to settle disputes among men according to objective laws.

--- Ayn Rand, "Nature of Government", Virtue of selfishness.

Kindly let me know if anyone has any concerns regarding the definition. Arjun1491 (talk) 17:12, 2 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The trouble with this definition is that a) only about 10% of economists agree with it and that b) under this definition there has never been a capitalist system, so that capitalism becomes a purely theoretical construct which has never existed in the real world. Rick Norwood (talk) 22:20, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

You have made 2 points claiming some trouble in the definition. I will be answering both of it. But first I will give brief explanation of, 1. What is a concept? (Since we are defining the concept "Capitalism") and 2. What is the Definition of a concept?

1. Concept : A concept is a mental integration of two or more units which are isolated according to a specific characteristic(s) and united by a specific definition.

For example : Tables, for instance, are first differentiated from chairs, beds and other objects by means of the characteristic of shape, which is an attribute possessed by all the objects involved. Then, their particular kind of shape is set as the distinguishing characteristic of tables - i.e. a certain category of geometrical measurements of shape is specified. Then, within that category, the particular measurements of individual table-shapes are omitted. And finally the concept "Table" is formed.

2. Definition : A definition is a statement that identifies the nature of the units subsumed under a concept. It is often said that definition state the meaning of words. This is true, but it is not exact. A word is merely a visual-auditory symbol used to represent a concept; a word has no meaning other than that of the concept it symbolizes, and the meaning of a concept consists of its units. It is not words, but concepts that man defines - by specifying their referents.

For example : In the definition of "Table" - ("An item of furniture, consisting of a flat, level surface and supports, intended to support other, smaller objects"),  the specified shape is the differentia, which distinguishes tables from the other entities belonging to the same genus: furniture. In the definition of "Man" (A rational animal), "rational" is the differentia, "animal" is the genus.

After the above brief explanation of Concept and its definition, now I will address your two concerns regarding the definition of the concept "Capitalism". Your points are :

a) "only about 10% of economists agree with it :-

My answer : - "Austrian school of Economics" is the leading thought of Economics which states that Capitalism is the only proper social system geared to fulfill man's needs and create maximum wealth in the society. It is a social system that recognises “All rational action is in the first place individual action. Only the individual thinks. Only the individual reasons. Only the individual acts.” ― Ludwig von Mises; and therefore upholds Individual rights. Notable economists of this school of thought are Ludwig von Mises, Carl Menger, Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk, Friedrich von Wieser, Friedrich Hayek and many more. This school of economics upholds free market / Capitalism.

The antipode of this school of thought is Keynesian economics developed by "John maynard keynes" who propose government intervention in the economy, i.e who propose socialism. And of course Marxism and any other economic theories that propose state control of economy is complete opposite of Capitalism.

Therefore the differentia among these two socio-political systems is the "Role of state in the economy".

And I do not agree that only 10% of the economists agree with this definition. It's not a concern if they lean towards Capitalism or Socialism for us to define the concept of Capitalism.

b) under this definition there has never been a capitalist system, so that capitalism becomes a purely theoretical construct which has never existed in the real world.

My answer:-

There are 2 types of concepts: 1. Concepts that identify concrete reality. ex: Earth, table, trees, water, Nation, society, culture, etc... 2. Concepts that are purely imaginary and do not identify concrete reality. ex: Fairy, Angles, God, Devil, Unicorn, heaven, hell etc...

And under the concepts that identify concrete reality there are 2 types, a. Concepts that identify the "actual". ex : Earth, Galaxy, water etc... b. Concepts that identify the "potential". ex : Aeroplane had never existed before twentieth century. But the Concept known as "Aeroplane" was present even before it was invented by Wright brothers. Its definition included "a powered flying vehicle with fixed wings and a weight greater than that of the air it displaces." "Aeroplane" was a concept which was "Potential" and later after its invention, it became "Actual".

Likewise the "Communist state" in its purest form never existed in real world. But when people ask what is "Communism" ? we can still define the term and give them the answer. Just because it was a theoretical construct that never existed in real world, does not mean we do not have a proper definition for the term.

This concludes my answer to your questions. Kindly let me know if you have any other concerns regarding the definition of the term "Capitalism". Arjun1491 (talk) 08:45, 3 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I think the editors here can be trusted to understand words, and do not need a lecture on semantics. Moving on to your points about your proposed definitions.


 * Few economists are libertarians. From: The American Journal of Economics and Sociology.  "Abstract.  People often suppose or imply that free-market economists constitute a significant portion of all economists. We surveyed American Economic Association members and asked their views on 18 specific forms of government activism. We find that about 8 percent of AEA members can be considered supporters of free-market principles, and that less than 3 percent may be called strong supporters. The data are broken down by voting behavior (Democratic or Republican). Even the average Republican AEA member is “middle-of-the-road,” not free-market. We offer several possible explanations of the apparent difference between actual and attributed views."  See: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1536-7150.2007.00513.x/abstract.


 * Few scholars of capitalism would agree that it is desirable that "all property is privately owned". Almost all would except public buildings, military bases, and roads (at least in cities).  Most would make exceptions for the high seas, the air, Antarctica, and the moon.  A majority would make exceptions for highways, schools, bridges, canals, and parks.


 * Austrian school economists are not followers of Ayn Rand. The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies often claims that the Austrian school agrees with Rand, but mainstream Austrian school economics journals seldom mention Rand.  Of the economists you mention above, for example, Rand called Hayek a "God damned fool", an "example of our most pernicious enemy", and a "total complete visious bastard".


 * Rick Norwood (talk) 12:45, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

What is required here is thinking in terms of principles. In principle, State control of economy (No matter how much the degree of the control, little or total) it is known as Socialism. In contrast the system where there is separation of state and economy (Just like separation of state and religion), where state does not interfere in the economy is known as Capitalism. The main differential factor is "Role of the state in the economy". If it is state controlled, it is Socialism, if it is not controlled by the state, it is known as Capitalism.

I am not here to discuss the merits or demerits of Capitalism, and I am least bothered of your personal preferences. Neither I am trying to convince you that Capitalism is the only moral system possible (Which it is and in which I truly believe).We are not here to argue and build an ideal system for people to live in. It does not matter how many people approve of the system and what their numbers are. Even if all the people in the world become socialists, still it does not alter the fact that Capitalism means a system where state does not interfere in economy and its definition is as I mentioned in the first passage. Arjun1491 (talk) 13:56, 3 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia uses standard definitions, not the specialized definitions of Objectivism. To give an example from my own specialty, Wikipedia defines a field as an area of land used for agricultural purposes, not as a commutative division ring.  The latter is field (mathematics).  I suppose we might have an article on capitalism (Objectivism) if you could convince people it was notable. Rick Norwood (talk) 11:32, 4 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Agree with Rick Norwood. And Von Mises begins the first chapter of his book Bureaucracy by saying "Capitalism or market economy is that system of social cöoperation and division of labor that is based on private ownership of the means of production."  TFD (talk) 12:21, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree also. No consensus for this change. Abierma3 (talk) 16:07, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

No consensus ? Very well. In this Capitalism article we have volumes of definitions and interpretations of Capitalism given by Karl Marx. Those passages are :

Reserve army of labour, As a mode of production, Defining structural criteria, Comparison to slavery, Capital accumulation, Concentration and centralisation, The rate of accumulation, The circuit of capital accumulation from production, Simple and expanded reproduction, Capital accumulation as social relation, Marxian and Leninist analysis, Criticism, Marxian responses etc... We can even see Karl marx image and links to his Communist economic principles. All through the article we can see : Karl marx said this, Karl marx said that, according to Marx, etc...

1. Even a 1st grade child knows that Karl Marx is Anti-Capitalist and enemy of Capitalism. Why is his interpretation and definition of Capitalism is considered as "Standard" and why Ayn Rand's definition and interpretation which is pro-Capitalism is not accepted ?

2. What is the Criteria to consider the definition of Capitalism as "Standard" ? Is the definition and interpretation by a person who is anti-capitalist, spews hatered towards capitalism and is a socialist, the criteria to consider his writings as "Standard" ?

3. Is being pro-capitalism a criteria to reject that persons definition and interpretation of Capitalism ?

4. I can draw a best analogy for this situation. It is like When one has an article about God, the Devil's definition and interpretation of God is more readily accepted and is considered "Standard", but the Priest's interpretation, who is God worshiper, is outrightly rejected considering his views as "Specialized" !!!

5. In the present article of Capitalism, it is glaringly evident that it has been smeared by communist propaganda denouncing Capitalism. The great leftist editors here, rejecting any interpretations of it by someone who gives a positive view of Capitalism and even a neutral definition by a person who is pro-capitalism.

6. Without Capitalism, there would have been no scientific and industrial revolution and all the technological progress such as, telephone, electric bulb, Aeroplane, computer, cell phones, internet, Google etc.. are the products of Capitalism. Wikipedia would never have existed if not for Capitalism. And this very product of capitalism is being used to spew venom on it. If the society turns left, towards socialism, the collapse to totalitarianism and rise of dictatorship is imminent and the first thing to be curbed is free speech, hence there will be no Wikipedia for you guys to edit. By knowingly or unknowingly (I don't know which is more concerning) you editors here are leading America and the world slowly towards socialist dictatorships such as North Korea, former Soviet Russia, Communist Cambodia under pol pot, Mao's Red china, etc.. which butchered hundreds of millions of people. People look up to Wikipedia for some alternative to the destruction of socialism and what they see here is again socialist propaganda !!!

I hope you people understand the gravity of the situation involved. Arjun1491 (talk) 12:02, 5 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The discussion here is whether Ayn Rand is a major economist. That view is fringe.  Ayn Rand is a novelist.  The question of Marx is entirely different, and I tend to agree with you that Marx is overemphasized in this article, though I note that he is not mentioned in the lead.  This source lists the top ten most influential economists of all time: http://www.thecompleteuniversityguide.co.uk/courses/economics/the-ten-most-influential-economists-of-all-time/ Number One is Adam Smith, but Karl Marx is number Two.  What I suggest, if you think this article places too much emphasis on Marx, is to make a modest edit, removing a few mentions of Marx that seem to you to be undue emphasis, and see what happens.  It may get reverted, but then you can defend that particular edit in Talk, and the discussion will be more focused.  It may not be reverted, in which case you can move on to other instances you think over-emphasize Marx.  Please note, however, that a statement of Marx's influential views does not denote approval of those views. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:12, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

As you said I have removed overemphasis given to marx. And I will be expanding the section in "Counter criticism - Ayn Rand" The section exclusively given for Ms.Rand's ideas. Arjun1491 (talk) 12:54, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I have reverted as there is no consensus to add this material.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 13:47, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

There can be a consensus only among rational men. I quit. Arjun1491 (talk) 14:09, 5 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I've noticed a tendency among followers of Ayn Rand to assume and assert that they and only they are rational. It is not so.  The ultimate test of rationality is the ability to prove an original mathematical theorem.  I've proved (admittedly minor) theorems.  Have you?  Now, leaving aside your final shot across our bows, I'll take a look at your edit, and see if I agree with you or with Griffin, or somewhere in between. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:12, 5 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Arjun1491, your edit was extreme and you know it. Instead of making modest changes, you blanked entire sections.  Also, for someone to claim a fact is "undisputed" when it is disputed shows a serious lack of rationality. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:16, 5 July 2015 (UTC)