Talk:Capitalism/Archive 3

LETTER=C#CAPITALISM]


 * "The winner, at least for now, of the battle of economic &#8220;isms&#8221;. Capitalism is a free-market system built on private ownership, in particular, the idea that owners of CAPITAL have PROPERTY RIGHTS that entitle them to earn a PROFIT as a reward for putting their capital at RISK in some form of economic activity. Opinion (and practice) differs considerably among capitalist countries about what role the state should play in the economy. ==A paragraph that needs some work==

I've removed one rather confusing paragraph from the introduction, hoping that its original author (or anyone else, for that matter) can clarify its intended meaning and help me re-write it into a less ambiguous version:
 * "The term capitalism does not imply any inherent favoritism assigned to capitalists. It is an open question whether capitalists or consumers reap greater benefits from membership in a capitalist system compared to other forms of societal organization. Indeed it is inevitable that all members of society must consume. Arguably, then, it is the distribution pattern of capital among the members of a capitalist society that is the most relevant marker of the success or failure of this model."

-- Mihnea Tudoreanu 17:11, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Vandalism
I consider Shibby01's unexplained deletion of the following paragraph vandalism:

Hi, SlR asked me to take a look at this editorial dispute. I agree with SlR that any substantive account of the theories should go into the body. That said, I agree with RJIII's approach in so far that s/he regards capitalism as a system (which I find key). Incidentally, it should be noted that SlR also agrees with such a defintion himself, but he nonetheless maintains that there are views with challenge this (to my knowledge, widely-held) interpertation, hence, his abovementioned objections of it being untenable. [feel free to correct me at any point if I am misrepresenting positions here – admittedly, I have only taken a cursory glance at the current dispute] What I think would be productive to resolve and carry the dispute forward, is for RJIII to follow SlR's suggestion and provide his definition or changes to the current one. At the same time, if SlR could provide evidence for the defintion of capitalism as a system being (appreciably) disputed (here and in the professional scholarship), then engaging a more comprehensive (and hopefuly long-lasting) compromise and consensus, colegially and in good-faith, will become far more likely. I am tempted to simply rewrite the opening pargraph myself omitting the bullets, which, as I told SlR, I think are out of place in an article of this nature; but now does not seem the time for unilateral action, especially on my hitherto uninvolved part. Hopeful for a positive response from all parties involved. More thoughts soon. (feel free to review the the discussion between SlR and myself on this matter here and here). El_C 21:58, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * You aren't misrepresenting me, El C, but once you move beyond "system" to ask "what kind of system" I think you and RJll disagree. Certainly, even Marxists (e.g. Althuser and Thompson) have disagreed.  Slrubenstein   |  Talk  22:17, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Indeed, but that should not amount to an insurmountable hindrance; the aim is not for any one editor to write how they regard capitalism (as a system), but rather, providing an account as to how notable thinkers have viewed it throughout history. El_C 22:49, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * The only other definition of capitalism I know of is the one used typically by Marxists which is merely "the private ownership of the means of production." So, as far as I know there are two definitions, the simple marxist definition, and the much more widely-held definition that includes that but also refers to how the goods and services are priced and distributed. RJII 23:16, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * There are other approaches: (pro-capitalist)Kenysians for example. They, Marxists, and others do not dispute supply & demand, they dispute that the results = 'balance.' For the sakes of NPOV, we can qualify this accordingly. I've edited the 'system' bullet to account for the dominant role played by capitalists (as owners of centralized wealth); noting that the balance between supply & demand under capitalism is an 'attempt' (its results on that front is disputed by economists); and noting that capitalism historically succeeded and superceeded mercantilism, also tying the latter to the protectionism it entailed and which capitalism strives to do away with. Hopefuly this will be the first step that will eventually lead to abandoning the current bullet structure and supplanting these with normal pargraph format. El_C 23:23, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I disagree that capitalism is a development only from mercantilism or protectionism. Far more important is the contrast to earlier feudal systems. Protectionism is an economic theory about how trade with other nations should be regulated and is contrasted with free trade, not with capitalism. The introduction of capitalism had for greater political, social and economic repercussions than merely advocating free trade with other nations. See Hernando de Soto's excellent article here . Ultramarine 15:14, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * "Revert. Capitalism developed in strongest state in Europe, England. Not all agree with anarcho-capitalists". What does this have to do with anarcho-capitalism? RJII 16:24, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There is also a robust debate between Marxists and World Systems' theorists over whether capitalism comes into existence once there is a market for labor, or when markets expand to a global scale. So there are various definitions of capitalism. As El C says, this is not a hinderance, we just need to provide these different views in the article. My only claim here is that for this reason the introduction has to be general enough to accomodate all these different definitions, and that means not privileging any one definition in the introduction. Slrubenstein  |  Talk  16:38, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)