Talk:Capitalism/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Market without capitalism

I would just like to point out that a market economy can exist without the capitalist system. (anonymous)

That's a valid point. A market in, say, orange soda or its ingrediant can exist in a socialist economy. But the free market approach to enterprise equity ... that IS capitalism. --Christofurio 20:05, July 9, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, a very limited market economy can exist without capitalism. But I have a problem with the "but is not exclusive of it" clause below (from the current article in the Free Market section). A free market is exclusive to capitalism.

The idealized notion of a "free market" where all economic decisions regarding transfers of money, good, and services take place on a voluntary basis, free of coercive influence, is commonly considered to be an essential characteristic of capitalism, but is not exclusive of it (see for example Market socialism).

If you go to market socialism, the first sentence is: "Market socialism is an economic system in which the means of production are socially owned". This implies that not ALL economic decisions regarding transfers of money, goods, and services take place on a voluntary basis, since no one is allowed to buy the goods and services to produce other goods, and thus privately own a means of production without being forced to share the profits non-voluntarily with the workers. By the definition provided in the very same paragraph, that means it's not a free market, since not all economic decisions take place on a voluntary basis. I'm taking out the "but is not exclusive of it" clause, which was added here:

01:09, 2 July 2005 Horzer m

I made the change. --Serge 01:03, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Is voluntary: in an enterprise of one, this one is the only that decides. In a bussiness of two, the two seat together and decide what to do with the bussiness. When I said "socially owned" I was refering to the fact that all the workers in a specific enterprise decide what they do with their company. Maybe I will need to change the phrasing there. And sorry, but free market is not exclusive of capitalism. The only freedom you don't have in Market Socialism is to coerce other people to make profit for you.--horzer 06:58, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Somebody simply deleted all the first paragraph. I think that discussion is possible, the phrase "both predates and..." is not enough. I don't know how to do revert, I'm new here.--horzer 07:24, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Remember that the definition of a market is merely a mechanism where buyers and sellers exchange goods. The existance of a market is in no way an indicator of capitalism; rather, the existence of a market is the indication of people or organizations willing to buy or sell goods. Capitalism addresses how those goods or services are traded. See: Free Market, Laissez-faire. Kp7 08:54, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Property vs. Possession

RJII is right when he points out that possession is not equal to property. I remember now that we were told that in my first law course (I did management, btw). Property means that you have special rights (such as the right to use, to sell, to destroy, blablabla), even though you might not possess it (e.g. you just bought it, but it wasn't delivered yet; or you lend it to somebody). Possession doesn't give you any right per se (which explains why robbers don't have the right to use and sell the goods they steal and thus possess). Thus, private property comes with private property rights and cannot be considered apart from them. Luis rib 20:53, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Here is an interesting example of property and property rights in a pre-capitalist society [1]. Ultramarine 21:00, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That's Antiquity. It's not feudalism. Proto-capitalist societies existed in many parts of the world. In any case, please avoid the confusion between property and possession. In the case of feudalism (dark age style), there was almost no property, even though there could be a lot of possession. Ancient Rome was different, as it had a definition of property more akin to capitalism (with the exception that slaves were property too). I guess China also had some sort of property rights, but I frankly don' know anything about that. Luis rib 21:07, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is bad history to label something "proto-." In some cases A may have preceeded B, but there may be cases where A preceeded C, or D, or E. Also, just because A existed a thousand years ago and exists today does not necessarily prove that they mean the same thing. The meaning and function of things (beliefs, practices) have a lot to do with their context. Change the context, you change the meaning. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:11, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Proto is a qualification I use. Since I'm not historian or anything, you don't have to agree with it or anything. However, this whole discussion just shows what a fuzzy word capitalism actually is. Many economies in history had some characteristics we associate with capitalism. Should we develop a specific word for each of them? Also, capitalism today refers to totally different things: swedish capitalism certainly is different from american capitalism and from chinese capitalism and from japanese capitalism. Each of these countries have such specific characteristics that giving them the same name is an oversimplication. Luis rib 21:17, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ultramarine, you insist on the following sentence: "Similar rights existed in some earlier systems [2], but in much weaker forms, often meaning that the weak had to accept the leadership of a strong patron or lord and pay him for protection." I'm not deleting it just because I don't like what it says. I'm deleting it because I don't think it says anything. It doesn't make any sense to me. There has to be a better way of getting your point across. I would fix it if I could figure out what it was. You provide an example of private property in Rome but then describe it in a way that one might attempt to describe feudalism. What does this sentence mean? RJII 13:05, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actually, a patron system existed in Rome [3]. The justice system was very weak and protection from an patron was essential. Ultramarine 13:17, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What do you mean? That's a voluntary relationship. A patron is not comparable to a feudal lord, at all. RJII 13:19, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It was not voluntary. Rome had no police [4]. In such a system, protection from a strong man is essential. Ultramarine 13:24, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes it was voluntary. No one had to deal with a patron if they didn't wish. Compare it to a lawyer today. No one forces you to take a lawyer. It's a voluntary relationship. RJII 13:27, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You could choose which patron to support as client. But having a patron was essential for protection against violence. There were public courts who decieded cases but there were no official system for gathering evidence, arresting the criminals, or enforcing the decisions of the courts. You needed a patron for all of those things. Ultramarine 13:34, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Having a lawyer today is essential in protecting yourself from the police when they wrongly assault you. That doesn't make the relationship with your lawyer involuntary. There is a difference between taking on a relationship with someone because it's the smart thing to do and an involuntary relationship with someone. RJII 13:42, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Using this line of arguement, you could claim that a slave voluntarily obeys his owner. Anyhow, I do not understand what this has to do with you deleting the information and link. Clearly Rome had property righs, but they were in some aspects much weaker than in the capitalist states with their state controlled courts and police. What is your objection? Ultramarine 13:49, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, this line of reasoning, you could not say a slave voluntarily obeys his owner. What do you think makes interaction with another person voluntary or involuntary? It's coercion. If someone is not coercing you to obey them them then the relationship is voluntary. You're trying to stretch the word voluntary to a degree that it's meaningless. If there are criminals about trying to steal your money, it's your relationship with them that's involuntary, not the relationship with your attorney. They aren't using coercion to try to get you to get a lawyer --they're coercing you in order to get your money. You're entering into a voluntary relationship with a patron to protect yourself from coercion from someone ELSE. My objection is clear and it's what we've been talking about. The sentence doesn't seem to make sense. It looks like it equates private property in Rome with feudalism. RJII 14:12, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ultramarine, what are you doing? Look at what this sentence says: "An essential characteristic of capitalism is the institution of rule of law in establishing and protecting private property including private ownership of most of the means of production." You're inserting the word "most" doesn't correspond with the meaning of the sentence. You're putting the word "most" there doesn't make it say that capitalism includes ownership of most of the means of production. What you're doing is making the sentence say that "most" of the privately owned means of production are protected by rule of law. How about the rest of the privately owned means of production? It's just left to jungle law? No offense to you personally, but your writing and sentence formation is attrocious. It's annoying that basic things like this have to be explained to you. RJII 16:07, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

'atrocious' not 'attrocious'! RJII 16:07, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Rewrite it to a better sentance if desired, but do not delete things in order to push your POV. Ultramarine 16:11, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What are you talking about? You think my POV is that if any of the MOP are owned by government that it's not capitalism? I'm not aware of anyone that holds that position, not even anarcho-capitalists. Stop your ridiculous presumptions of my POV and focus on content. That's your problem. You're so worried about me pushing some POV that you've convinced yourself that I have that you don't pay attention to the quality of the article. The sentence as it stood had absolutely nothing to do with that issue you're trying to bring up. RJII 16:17, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ultramarine, now look at your proposal for the sentence: "An essential characteristic of capitalism is the institution of rule of law in establishing and protecting private property, including the mostly privately owned means of production." What this says is that an essential characteristic of capitalism is institution of rule of law in establishing the mostly privately owned means of production. It doesn't make a lot of sense. It's should say that what is essential is esablishing a right to private ownership of means of production. That doesn't mean that all the means of production are privately owned, any more than it means that all property is privately owned. If you attach that awkward appendage to means of production, then why not attach it to "private property" as well (mostly privately owned property)? RJII 16:35, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Possession as Source of Rights

Luis. I, too, have distant memories of law school classes in property, and I think you overstate a point when you say "Possession doesn't give you any right per se (which explains why robbers don't have the right to use and sell the goods they steal and thus possess)." In Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence generally, it is theft for anyone other than the original owner to steal FROM a thief. If I take your car, I have the right to that car against everybody BUT you as my victim or agents of the sovereign, i.e. it is as wrong for some other party to steal it from me as it was for me to steal it in the first place. Hence the expression "possession is nine-tenths of the law." Also, peaceful possession over a long period of time can eventually protect the thief even from the original owner, i.e. in an adverse possession case ("squatters' rights".) --Christofurio 20:41, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure about "stealing from robbers" in Continental European legal tradition. It might be the same. Of course I was oversimplifying things before, for sake of clarification. Indeed there are certain exceptions (though I'm not sure about squatters' rights... that sounds more like some ad hoc solution by governements that don't know how to deal with the problem. As a matter of principle, though, and as far as it was relevant for the current article, I think that the difference between possession and property should be noted. Apart from the awkward cases you mention, one might think about much more common things like borrowing, leasing, keeping in custody, etc. where possession does not equal property. Luis rib 20:58, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

arbitration case concerning this article closed and dismissed by arbitrators

Just a note to let anyone who's interested know that the deceitful, frivolous, and bogus arbitration case that was launched against me by Slrubenstein and Ultramarine (concerning my edits on this article) has been closed and dismissed. Thanks to those who supported me. RJII 19:01, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations RJII! Your contributions has seen a remarkable increase in quality since the arbitration case opened. For example, no use of personal attacks during the last weeks. Ultramarine 19:24, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have not ceased calling you a liar, which you are. RJII 19:27, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You have used personal attacks during the last weeks? Ultramarine 19:29, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Call it what you want. I and others find you and Slrubenstein extremely unreasonable to work with. RJII 19:33, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

intellectual property

The text says "Before the introduction of the capitalist system there was essentially no protection of intellectual property." Patents existed in the 1400's in England. Are you saying that that the system there was capitalism? Also, why is it included under characteristics of capitalism? Whether a system is capitalist or not is contingent on whether there are intellectual property rights. A capitalist system is a capitalist system regardless of whether there are intellectual property rights. RJII 18:54, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Read the link. The early patent system in England was very weak and ineffective. Ultramarine 19:20, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Intellectual property is not a "characteristic" of capitalism. It shouldn't be mentioned in such a context. For something to be a characteristic of capitalism it requires that if that element was absent then the system would not be capitalism. This should be talked about in another area ..not in this context. A capitalist system can have intellectual property, or it can do without. It's not a characteristic of capitalism. RJII 19:24, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

All modern capitalist states have a strong protection of intellectual property. No such strong protection existed before the industrial revolution. I have presented a study that indicates a link between such protection and the industrial revolution. Ultramarine 19:28, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

China doesn't have strong property rights and is capitalist. Luis rib 19:29, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I guess you are talking about intellectual property. China is not very capitalist on economic freedom indexes. More than before certainly, but they still score very low. Ultramarine 19:32, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That index is not a measure of capitalism, but economic freedom. RJII 19:36, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake. Yes, I was talking about interllectual property. China is not a model capitalist system - far from it - but the parts that misuse intellectual property are the most capitalist ones (region around Shanghai; Guangdong province). In any case, many people (incl. economists) are arguing that int prop rights are much too strong in Western countries nowadays (The Economist, for instance, has repeatedly pointed it out). Indeed, by being too long (decades, sometimes), artificial monopolies are maintained long after the original development costs have been recovered. See Microsoft; music industry; pharma;...Luis rib 19:39, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is already mentioned that there are those who think that patents should abolished and thus do not see patent rights as essential. Others do however see patents as essential. Both views should be presented but not censored. Ultramarine 19:45, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying that patents should be abolished (and neither does The Economist). Just that they sometimes may be too long. Of course a certain level of patents is necessary to have incentives for research - after all it's not the generic pharma companies that develop new medicine. I was just arguing that patents may not be a strictly necessary condition for capitalism, even if it certainly helps it. Luis rib 19:50, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Some think that they are, some think not. Both sides should be presented. Ultramarine 19:57, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sources re poverty

There are countless sources regarding mobilization program in China (it's not "mobilization of the masses", BTW). Google for "eradication of poverty in china 1978" and you will find a plenty. Here is one such source. It's not like this is some kind of a state secret. If you need any further references, feel free to ask. Next time you want to revert something, please take the effort to at least make a google search.

The original text said that "if inequality leads to higher average wealth and higher wealth and income for most people, then wealth inequality may be acceptable.". This is probably true per se, but this is not what capitalism is about in reality. In reality the income for most people is lower. In UK about 25% of people live in poverty, in Brazil 47% live in absolute poverty. In African "capitalist" countries it's even worse. See this link. Capitalism doesn't mean that most people live better, it means that capitalists live better. I thought the name was kinda giving it away... Paranoid 23:39, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your sources are a censored Chinese newspaper and a blog that do not give a source for their claims? Please give a statistics or a peer-reveiwed paper to support your claims. Ultramarine 01:04, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Here are some studies showing that the poor has a higher absolute income and higher standards of living in capitalist countires. [5]. [6].

Oh my god! You are refering to Cato Institute as a source? First, that Chinese program started in 1978 is a fact that is not disputed anywhere (and how do you imagine the Chinese lying about it?) . Google for it and pick the source that you like. Second, Ukraine and Rwanda had economic freedom rating of 5.3 in 2002. Russia (5.0) was between Togo and Burundi. Norway (probably the country with the highest income for the poor [7]) was 36th!! If you believe that this index has anything with the situation of the poor, you are delusional. Paranoid 01:35, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

One country does not prove anything, look at the aggregate statistics. Absolute income clearly rises with more economic freedom for the 10% poorest. Ultramarine 02:38, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Firstly, the welfare, income, and living standard of the poor are affected by many things: social programs, the degree of industrialization, availiblity of natural resources, etc. Suggesting that capitalism does this or does that to the poor is simplistic and inevitably POV. Instead of a strong statement either way, how about:

"While many capitalist countries have experienced significant economic growth, it is unclear how the poorest in society are affected. Studies [Im sure Ultramarine can provide one] have suggested that as average income rises, the absolute income of the poor does too, but the relative share of national income received by the poorest in society usually does not increase and may in fact decrease."

The message should be that significant inequality seems intrinsic to capitalist countries, yet the average income of the poor does seem to increase. Perhaps the mention of China can be left out, as the recent history of China is far more complicated than communism vs capitalism or pre-mobilization vs post. Mgw 02:14, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't think you can be justified saying "as the average income rises". The increase of average income is not a cause, it's a result of some other cause. There can be no causation between increased average income and increased income of the poor, only corellation. Yes, there is some corellation, but as the table here shows, it's rather weak. It's also disingenuous to compare different countries. Yes, the US has higher average income than Cuba. But first, it doesn't prove that by switcing to capitalism Cuba will become wealther (or that US will become poorer by switching to socialism and planned economy), and second, it ignores that fact that the life of the poor is in many respects better on Cuba than in the US. For one, government ensures that everyone is provided with proper nutrition, and there is free medical care for everyone. Some indicators, such as child death rates show that despite the inhumane economic sanctions life in Cuba is in some respects better than in the US. Yeah, life there is not perfect, but you only need to look a hundred kilometers to the East to find out what would happen to Cuba if not for Fidel and the socialist economic order. Haiti is the poorest country in the western hemisphere (according to the WFP). CIA agrees and adds that "80% of the population lives in abject poverty". That's what we should be comparing Cuban socialism with, not with the United States. It's the same all other the world - there is reality. You can take a country into some economic dream dimension and build capitalism there, you have to do it in real world. And in real world it was proven again and again that capitalism and free market increase poverty. Poverty is an integral part of capitalism, read fon Haiek or any other prominent philosopher of Western liberalism. Even the richest Western countries have poverty if they are capitalist. Yes, the average income is higher, but not because of the market, it's because of the exploitation of the third world. If you want to build a just society where people can live in dignity and without exploiting other countries, socialism (communism) is the only way to go. These are facts. Paranoid 16:23, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Paranoid, the only sources you have given are censored chinese newspaper and a blog that do not give a source for their statistics. In return, I have shown several peer-reviewed studies. Ultramarine 16:12, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Cato Journal is a mouth piece of a libertarian think tank. The only thing they review the papers for is the presence of libertarian bias. The articles do not prove what you claim they do. Corellation of higher economic freedom with higher incomes is obvious, because the economic freedom index is based on the ideal model of a western capitalist society, which just happen to be more affluent. However, you clearly lie when you claim that the share "does not decrease". A transition of capitalism decreases the share of the poor in total wealth and increases inequality. This is obvious to everyone even remotedly familiar with the facts. Please stop spreading lies, have some decency. this is the example of Russia - the growth in inequality during the transition from a socialist planned economy to the capitalist market economy. And in case you were wondering about the absolute values, the total production (and thus incomes) dropped about 50%. But may be the poor will just die out and people like you will be happy because once again the economic principles of the free market will trumple the lifes of real people.

It is dishonest to compare the United States with a socialist country and claim that merely by abandoning socialism and building a capitalist society the latter country will become as wealthy as the US. This is lie, this is not supported by reality, this has never happened. The only countries that managed to eliminate poverty are the socialist countries. All capitalist countries have poverty, there are millions of people who are hungry, who are homeless, who don't have access to health care. There is poverty in the United States, despite the enormous amount of wealth in the economy. There was no poverty in the Soviet Union, everyone had access to free education, free health care, a guaranteed job. I understand how you must feel - you must protect the poor defenseless capitalism from communist scum, but please, do it somewhere else. Take your lies with you and spread them elsewhere. Paranoid 16:23, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Please give some peer-reviewed studies that support your theories. Or credible statistics, not a graph without a source. Ultramarine 16:26, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Ultramarine, are you so horribly biased, functionally illiterate or blind that you can't do a simple google search for china poverty eradication 1978? I mean, it's not like you had to think for yourself - I already gave you the relevant keywords to search for. Or are you simply brainwashed so professionally that you can't see the facts and instead the reiterate the gospel of capitalism? Or are you paid by some libertarian or conservative think tank to troll on the Internet and defend the irrational lies? What is the truth, tell us?

Result number 3 to the above search is Poverty Report on China by United Nations Development Programme. You really are stupid for questioning facts that are as non-controversial as they get and instead blindly accepting the lies told by aggressive pro-capitalist think tanks. Capitalism didn't eliminate poverty in China, a decades-old government programme did. If capitalism was ever able of eliminating poverty, surely it would eliminate it in the US, huh? But the population below poverty line in the US is 12%, while it is 2% LESS in China. Stop pushing your lies, please. We are tall tired of your capitalist propaganda. Go somewhere else to more gullible people.

As for the graph, the data source is the official Russian statistics from the Goskomstat. The illustration is taken from [8].Paranoid 16:34, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Please avoid personal attacks when you have no arguments. I will not do your work for you, google yourself and present evidence. You do not seem to understand that what happened in one or two countries (like in Russia) is not very interesting, you need to look at aggregate statistics for many countries. And aggregate statistics do strongly show that absolute income increase in capitalist countries for the poorest. You have not shown any evidence contrarty to that. Ultramarine 16:39, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore, you do not seem to undertand the difference between absolute and relative poverty. Do you actually think that the poverty line in China and the US represent the same abolute income? Ultramarine 16:42, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

1. You have both violated 3RR [9].

2. The edit war you two are waging is not productive or helpful in any way.

3. The topic of your war is simplistic: as I explained above, many things afffect the welfare of the poor, and comparing the most basic statsitics on the poor in Cuba vs. the US, Cuba vs Haiti, or Communist vs. Capitalist China is not going to tell you much about the economic system in those countries. It's just too simplistic.

4. You should instead say in that section something to the effect of "while many things affect the welfare of the poor, the effect of capitalism is a matter of dispute. While some studies have suggested that the absolute incomes of the poor rise, others argue that relative to socialism [or whatever you want to put], capitalism provides little for the poor". Mgw 17:18, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

I have not violated 3RR since I have added more references. If you argue that capitalism do not increase the income of the poor, please provide global statistcs and peer-reviewed studies. Ultramarine 17:21, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

I am not arguing anything, as you will see if you read what I just wrote. I am suggesting a way to end this ridiculous edit war. Mgw 17:26, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree on that. Ultramarine 17:31, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm just one day away from wikipedia and when I come back I notice I started an edit war... Anyway, I believe Mgw and Ultramarine have already stated everything needed to be said in the circumstances, so i'll just add some comments about various countries that were mentioned in the discussion. a) China. That where the whole discussion started. While I don't dispute the existence of the mass movement against poverty (or whatever it was called), I certainly doubt that it had major effects on the Chinese economy. Incidentally, however, 1978 or 1979 were also the years when Deng Xiaoping started to open up the Chinese economy, which led in the end to the boom in the 90's and the current decade. Also, I don't think that poverty was eradicated in China, on the contrary! The provinces not touched by capitalism (Xinjiang, Inner Mongolia, the Nordeast, Sichuan, etc.) are as poor as under Mao, and no mass movement helped eradicate poverty there. Rather, it seems that the provinces where capitalism has taken hold (Guangdong, Shanghai and the region in between) are those where poverty has fallen and where living conditions are the best in China now (whatever that implies...). b)Norway may be the richest country in the world (i doubt that - i've seen no indication that it has passed Luxembourg) but it certainly not the freest. I've lived in Denmark for a few months, and have a few Norwegian friends, and my experience from all that is that the Norwegian economy is pretty much closed and controlled by a few big companies and cartels (pretty much like Denmark, Sweden, or Switzerland for that matter). Also, Norway's wealth comes mostly from its petrol reserves in the North Sea. A better example of economic freedom helping wealth creation is Singapore: it has one of the highest levels of economic freedom, I think, and managed to develop from a swampy island to one of the world's most developped cities. c)Africa. There was some talk about African capitalist countries. Well, I'd like to know one. Just a single one. To my knowledge, most african countries have unfortunately been controlled by cleptocrats and crony capitalists (not to be confused with true capitalism). Also, most African countries implemented socialist-style economic policies after independence (like India and much of South America, by the way), which completely crippled them. While right after colonialism they were ahead of most Asian countries, by the nineties they had fallen behind almost all of them. South Korea, in particular, was much poorer than most of Africa after the Korean war, and managed to develop at breakneck speed when it implemented capitalism, even passing some European countries like Portugal or Greece. d)Cuba. Paranoid's rosy picture of Cuba is less than convincing. True, it's not the worst country in the world. There are worse, like indeed Haiti (rather a model capitalist state though... it is even laughable to call Haiti capitalist) or most of Africa or North Korea. Cuba also has relatively good educational and health systems. Yet people are, since reforms last year, not even allowed to rent rooms to tourists. They are not allowed to own dollars anymore either (which, given their universal acceptability, where favoured to the virtually non-exchangeable Cuban pesos). They don't starve, true, but are they really well-nourished? DO people have a choice what to eat and buy? Hardly. And here's the big difference between Cuba and the US: in the US, even the poor have at least some basic freedoms, even if it's only the choice between a Coke or a Pepsi. Such a freedom of choice doesn't exist on Cuba. Luis rib 21:05, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Actually, Botswana is a relatively capitalist African country. You never hear much about it, but several decades it was actually had the fastest growing economy in the whole world. The left of course never talks about it. Ultramarine 21:29, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

The best comparison between communist and capitalist treatment of the poorest is of course China and Taiwan, North and South Korea, and East and West Germany. They had similar income and culture before being split and capitalist countries score relatively high on economic freedom. That the poorest starved and is starving the death in China and North Korea is without doubt. I have been looking for some studies on the absolute income of the poorest in East Germany compared to West Germany before and after the reunification. Do anyone have any data? Ultramarine 21:29, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't have time to respond to everything, so I will just say this in response to Luis rib. It betrays your irrationality when you start talking about "true capitalist states". Yes, if we define a true capitalist state as a rich capitalist state, than by definition it will have high average income. I am saying that in reality a transition to capitalism (defined as private property on means of production, convertability of the national currency, free foreign trade and the right to incorporate) does not necessarily bring significant (if any) benefits to the society. In those cases when a transition to capitalism coincides with growth of average income, this is often a direct result of capital investment programme. China has economic growth not because it is capitalist, but because it attracted investment, created new industries and new jobs. It doesn't matter who owns these enterprises - the state or western corporations. Furthermore, I don't see how we can claim that China became a capitalist country. And if we admit that it is only partly capitalist, where is the evidence that poverty was reduced because of capitalist elements. You all seem bent on misenterpreting what is said about it - it wasn't a "mass movement", it was a mobilization program by the state, i.e. a large government-financed and government run program to eradicate poverty. Yes, it welcome involvement from everybody, including in 1990s the private companies. But the primary role here was the role of government action. The program started in 1978 - it's a fact. And some results were achieved immediately, not in 1990s, when capitalist elements were introduced.

That's why it's disingenious to claim that capitalism can reduce poverty, see example of China. The truth is (people, read fon Haiek, Spenser, Townsend, Sen, and of course, Smith, Ricardo and Maltus) that poverty is inseparable from capitalism. Claiming the opposing, while 12% of people in the US live below poverty line, is a lie. Paranoid 23:11, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

It is fair to say that capitalism doesn't erradicate poverty, and that inequality is an intrinsic feature of it. But it is a big, blanket statement to say that it cannot reduce poverty or simply that it does. Many things affect the welfare of the poor, as I have argued above. It's fine that you have an opinion, but to conform to NPOV, we shouldn't draw a conclusion in the article either way. There are published peer-reviewed articles on both sides, so the only neutral way to say it is that it is diputed, and perhaps make very general statements about averages and trends. Even if you think it is "a lie" that capitalism can reduce poverty, many people don't, so if you approach this with a NPOV, you can't make the article conform to that POV. Mgw 01:56, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Your comments about China, Paranoid, are puzzling to me. "China has economic growth not because it is capitalist, but because it attracted investment, created new industries and new jobs. It doesn't matter who owns these enterprises - the state or western corporations." What does this mean? It seems to me that many western investors are a lot happier to invest in Chinese equity than in Chinese government securities. Yet to the extent that they get the chance to invest in equity, they by definition become the owners. And, as you say, China's recent successes have a lot to do with "attracting investment". So in what sense does it "not matter" how they did that -- i.e. by opening up to equity? Because they could conceivably have done so differently? That's a non-point, like saying they could conceivably have gotten help from Alpha Centauri. --Christofurio 15:56, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

I decided to ignore this article, because I don't have enough time to deal with hard-line brainwashed capitalism apologists. That's why I haven't read your comment here and you had to ask on my talk page.

What I was trying to say is very simple and you can interpret my words literally (pardon the simplstic language, but I want it to be as clear as possible). There are A) consumer goods, there is B) equipment to produce consumer goods and there is C) equipment to produce equipment. You say your economy grows when it produces more (by definition). To produce more you need more B and C equipment (this is very wide and includes better management practices, etc.). And to produce more equipment you need more C equipment. Now, it doesn't matter how your economy is operated - whether it's a planned economy or a market one, a capitalist economy or a socialist one. What matters is that if you buy/make more C-equipment you will be able to produce more equipment (B+C) which will allow you produce more goods and more equipment and be happy.

Now the big problem is where to get the resources to buy more C (and B) equipment in the first place. For example Soviet Union channeled the resources from peasants in 1920-1930s to build more heavy engineering plants. This allowed it to produce enough machines to build all industries it needed and miraculously it became capable of outproducing Nazi Germany and winning the Second World War. China in 1980-1990s didn't have the peasantry, from which to take the resources. In fact, the peasants needed resources from somewhere to barely survive. So China decided to use external investment, buying equipment from the US, from Europe and elsewhere. The productive capacity went up and the economy improved.

It doesn't matter much where they got the resources and doesn't matter who owns the factories (capitalists or the state). What matters is that their economy needed capital expenditures and it got them. You can argue that a capitalist market economy is inherently more efficient, but this is not the point (and I am convinced that it is not true). The point is that China grew because of additional investments, and capitalism was merely a way to get them. If a starving man is fed by some Christian charity (by converting from some pagan cult to Christianity) and given enough money to attend college, you do not say that accepting his Saviour Jesus Christ helped the guy, you say that food and money did. Accepting JC was only the way of getting the stuff and there are other ways (although it might have been the only option in his particular situation).

Again, sorry for simplistic language, but I it's hard to explain these things to people indoctrinated about capitalism. Paranoid 15:25, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I strongly believe that if someone isn't able to express their ideas clearly and concisely that those ideas themselves are muddled and confused. RJII 15:37, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

1) Style Over Substance fallacy, 2) ad Hominem fallacy.

Would you swear to me that you would make a real effort to understand my arguments if I rewrite them clearly and concisely? I doubt it, that's why I didn't really bother. I see that you are also indoctrinated and would probably use any excuse to ignore anything contradicting your preconceptions. In that unlikely case that you were forced to examine the arguments and compose a reply, it would be filled with logical fallacies for no other reason that you believe in capitalism so strongly. Come on, read the "muddled and confused" text again, it's only half a page, and then try to tell me honestly that you don't understand it or that it's obviously wrong. Paranoid 19:08, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I've been busy and away from wikipedia, so I limit my comments now. Just a few ones though. First of all, Paranoid claimed somewhere above that in the US 12% of people live below the poverty line. That is certainly true, but it is ambiguous, since each country defines its poverty line differently, relatively to its own GDP/head. Thus someone living below the poverty line in the US still has a much higher standard of life than the average African.

Now that you are back to Wikipedia, may be you will find some time to check the Poverty line article. Living in poverty is not ambiguous, it means not having enough money that you need to live. When CIA says that 12% of Americans live below poverty line it means the same thing. And please take the time to do a fucking search for "12%" on this page to find the goddamn reference to the source. Don't make it sound if it's just silly Paranoid claiming that. Thanks. And you are wrong to claim that someone in the US living below the poverty line has a much higher standard of life. This is not so, because the necessities in China are much cheaper.Paranoid 13:33, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Actually it is very ambiguous. Each country defines poverty differently, and defines "enough to live" differently. There is no international standard for a poverty line. There's other standards, like nb of people living with less than a dollar per day (adjusting for purchasing power). And I don't deny the 12%. My phrasing above was poor, my apologies for that. I still think that someone that lives below the poverty line in the US has a better life than someone that lives below the poverty line in, say, Mozambique. Luis rib 18:04, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Concerning Paranoid's latests comments: well, you point out yourself that in the end China was able to get the necessary funds thanks to capitalism. That seems to settle the issue, no? If the Chinese state had attempted to borrow money to finance those capital expenditures, its public finances would have disintegrated in a matter of a few year. After all, China can't simply print money to buy new equipement (several countries tries that - and it utterly failed). So in the end China could only develop thanks to capitalism, in particular thanks to the global financial markets. Quod erat demonstrandum. Luis rib 21:22, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Have you heard about Post hoc, ergo propter hoc, my Latin-speaking friend? It's a common logical fallacy that you just used. There were different sources of funds for investment. The experience of Soviet Union shows that you can achieve amazingly high growth rates using only external resources. There is no reason to believe that it wouldn't be possible for China. However, if you want to make an argument that world finance is closely related to ideology today and that communist countries can't expect to get loans or investments from capitalist countries, I would probably agree. Paranoid 13:33, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

I doubt the "amazing high growth" you claim the Soviet Union had. There was growth, for a short period of time, concentrated in the industrial sector (it failed completely in agriculture). It was not very long lasting. Your assumption that borrowing by the state and then investing by the state is more efficient than foreign investment by independent companies implies that the state must be more efficient at allocating ressources than the markets. This is widely refuted. Indeed, it would require such a huge amount in burocracy to monitor all sectors of the economy. The Soviet Union failed totally at that, esp. when it comes to consumer goods. We have no indication that China would be more efficient at it.Luis rib 18:04, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

One further comment: production of end goods (and of goods in general) is actually a relatively small part of GDP. In all countries (except maybe the least developped ones) services contribute to the largest part of GDP. Luis rib 21:22, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Ultramarine deleting paragraph about private ownership of the means of production

Ultramarine, you are wrong to delete the paragraph of the private ownership of the means of production in the Private Property section. Private ownership of the MOP is absolutely essential to capitalism, and it deserves more than a one-sentence mention. Also, it is does not only contain pro-capitalist views on this but includes the Marxist opposition as well. A section about characterists of capitalism without expanding on private ownership of the means of production would be severely deficient. RJII 05:02, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Your paragraph contain no arguments that is not mentioned elsewhere. It is empty filler. Ultramarine 05:10, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

The "How capitalism work" section

Should be changed to a characteristic section, since it almost exclusively discusses corporations. Any against? Ultramarine 15:15, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Rather silly analogy

First, Paranoid, you said that capitalism wasn't helping China, it was only helping to raise outside money, which was helping China. When I questioned this reasoning, you explained this way, "If a starving man is fed by some Christian charity (by converting from some pagan cult to Christianity) and given enough money to attend college, you do not say that accepting his Saviour Jesus Christ helped the guy, you say that food and money did. Accepting JC was only the way of getting the stuff and there are other ways (although it might have been the only option in his particular situation)."

That is so obviously an unhelpful analogy that one feels silly explaining why. Christianity isn't primarily a view about investment, it's a view about how a soul might be saved. Capitalism, though (as a theory) is primarily a view about investments (and closely related issues). So to say that China's recent policy changes haven't helped, except by way of helping attract investment, is off base in a way the analogous statements about Christianity wouldn't be.

Capitalism claims that allowing profit and loss attracts investment to its most productive employment, and that this is socially useful. When you say that China, newly capitalist in many respects, has managed to attract investment, which has proven useful, and then you turn around and say "but this is irrelevant to the merits of capitalism," you sounds rather blinkered. But have it your way, as they used to say at Burger King. --Christofurio 01:06, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

Don't be silly. Read what I wrote again. Yes, capitalism is related to raising capital. But 1) there are other ways to do that and 2) socialist countries also attract investment. If you want a better analogy (I agree that the first one wasn't perfect, but it still was valid), have this one:

A very poor, but very bright guy starts studying in the library. He learns some skills, gets a job, earns some money. Eventually he goes to Harvard and graduates, which lands him in an even better job. It doesn't mean that he got a good job only because he went to Harvard. Paranoid 13:33, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, this is a better analogy, and it makes my point much better than it makes yours. We certainly wouldn't say in such a case that the acquisition of the "even better job" was irrelevant to the question of whether a Harvard education was valuable for this alumnus. If some third party said "gee, Harvard did him some good," shouldn't we agree with that? As for the notion that socialist countries attract investment ... that is true. They generally attract it to the degree to which they are willing to compromise their professed principles. Exactly what China has done, except that they've done it so long and so completely they've made that willingness their new and brightest principle. Your conclusory sentence is "there are other ways to do that" -- yet a conclusion doesn't constitute reasoning.

But aside from faulty analogical reasoning or conclusory statements, let's think about something else you wrote. "You say your economy grows when it produces more (by definition)." That's a tricky definition. An economy doesn't necessarily grow in value because it is producing more stuff. It grows in value if it produces more of value or more valuable stuff (even if, physically, less of it). This is only true if its a tautology, and its only both of those if we're careful about it! If we understand value in a consumer-oriented way, an economy can be expected to grow if producers are rewarded for giving customers what they want and punished for failing to do so. Profit and loss are good natural ways of doing that. --Christofurio 03:06, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Ultramarine what the hell are you doing?

Why are you taking out a picture of a private factory and putting in a picture of a government-owned dam as an example of private ownership??? RJII 19:20, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I put an image of a bank I saw in Rotterdam. I was pretty amazed by its architecture. The reason to put in a bank is to show that money is treated as a commodity like almost any other in capitalism. Maybe the place is not the best, so it could be moved somewhere else. BTW I don't see why we should delete the factory. It refers nicely to the industrial revolution and the infancy of modern capitalism, as well as relating to Marx's proletariat. Luis rib 19:39, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

About the factory, I thought so too. Also I thought the pollution coming out of the factory was interesting. RJII 19:44, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Ultramarine, what's with the windmill thing? That picture says nothing. There is no indication that it's privately-owned. The land picture doesn't say much in itself either. The factory picture is much better, for the reasons Luis and I have stated. RJII 19:55, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree with RJII. Land is a totally atypical means of production; while power is one of the least free markets in the world. In all, very bad examples, even though the pictures may be ok. Please put back the factory. Luis rib 20:01, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what Ultramarine's motivation is, but now that I think about it, he may be upset that the picture showed pollution, since he's putting in pictures of windmills and dams. He wants to paint a overly-nice picture of capitalism with blue skies, water, and lush land maybe? RJII 20:18, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe you're right. But that's a POV statement, since pollution is an externality and thus exactly one of the things that capitalism can't deal with very well. This factory picture has more and more layers of interpretation and becomes more and more useful... Luis rib 20:22, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

The communist states had more pollution than the capitalist ones. So its is misleading to show dreary picture implicating pollution. Ultramarine 20:31, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Wow, so I was right. RJII 20:34, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

So what? The factory was built in the 19th century. You can't seriously expect it to comply to 21st century ecologic standards. You're being childish, really. Luis rib 20:36, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

You have just stated why the picture should not be in the article. Ultramarine 21:23, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

don't get it. Capitalism existed then as well. If we just put pictures of capitalism from now, it will seem like it's a very recent phenomenon. Luis rib 21:25, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Why not have some pictures of slave ships? Ultramarine 21:30, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Look, everyone knows that pollution exists in capitalist as well as statist economies. It's simply an accurate portrayal of a privately-owned factory. You want to paint an absurdly roseate picture of capitalism ..one that's unrealistic. One could just as easily find a picture of a modern factory with even more pollution. The picture itself is not in any way alluding that capitalism causes pollution. And, your land picture is ridiculous ..portraying private ownership of the means of production by showing peasants manning a communist rice field? RJII 22:02, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

How about adding the picture to the other 2. This would make it balanced. Ultramarine 22:07, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

The picture is of a tea plantation, very capitalist. Ultramarine 22:12, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Then why is it called "rice.jpg"? RJII 22:27, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Read the picture page. Anyhow, Indonesia is not a communist country. Ultramarine 22:44, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

The Indonesian government owns tea plantations. For example: [10] RJII 22:52, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

If there's going to be a picture of land, at least there should be some certainty that the land in the picture is privately ownership of the means of producution. RJII 01:21, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Ultramarine, now what the hell are you doing? You removed a picture of a factory with the explanation: "Removed probably publicly owned company." I suppose you mean publicly owned as in they sell stock to the public. That doesn't make it government-owned ..it's still privately-owned. Jesus. (Anything that is not owned by the government, is owned by the private sector.)RJII 20:29, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Since you removed my picture on similar grounds, I ask the same of you. Present evidence that the company on the picture is privately owned. Also, do not post picture without giving a source so one can check fair use claims. Ultramarine 20:46, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Dude, it's the H.A. Moyers Carriage Factory. It was not owned by the government. Look it up. By the way, I do not have to tell you where I got any particular picture. RJII 20:58, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

You do have to tell where you got the picture. Unless you do, I will mark them for deletion. Also, you removed my picture without giving a source, only that it could be state owned. I will do the same with the factory image. Ultramarine 21:09, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the reason I removed your picture is because it could be state-owned, since the Indonesian government owns tea farms. Why not post something that we know for sure is not government owned? The H.A. Moyer Factory is not state-owned. You're just upset that the factory has a little pollution coming out as you admitted above, and you're trying to find any way possible to make capitalism look squeeky clean. It's ridiculous. By the way, look up copyright law ..old pictures don't have copyright protection. RJII 21:28, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

But you have presented no evidence that my picture was of a state owned tea plantation and no evidence that your picture is of privately owned company at the time. Also, marked picture as copyright violation for deletion. Ultramarine 21:53, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Dude, the name of the company is written right on the building!..the H.A. Moyer Carriage Company of Syracuse New York. It was not a socialist factory. You are a major annoyance. You contribute next to nothing to this article but only pick trivial disputes with people. You had no clue what capitalism was, hence I had to force a definition in the article. I even had to fight you to get in the article that private ownership of capital was essential to capitalism. What purpose do you serve here? Why don't you work on an article about something you have the faintest idea about? RJII 22:17, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous. I wrote most of this article before you even appeared here. I am the one who turned this propagande piece for socialism into an article using empirical evidence. Ultramarine 23:05, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

You wrote most of this article? No wonder it was so horrible. You had no clue what socialism was (nor what capitalism was) until I made the differentiation. Anything you do add is pretty much incoherent and needs to be reworded by someone else if they're able to determine what you're trying to say. We shouldn't have to suffer through your antics. Learn about a subject before you write about it. And alledging that the Moyer Carriage Company might be a socialist enterprise! please... Get a clue. RJII 23:22, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

LOL this convo is hilarious! Sorry, I just had to comment :P Infinity0 12:32, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Images

Many good images. I think we should add some graphs that describes the advantages for capitalism or are otherwise interesting. Here are two from Heritage foundation: [11][12]. The Frazer institute has several good graphs at end of this report [13]. Does anyone know if fair use allows one take one such image? I doubt that the copyright owners would object. Ultramarine 10:05, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

source for Marx quote requested

In the Etymology section, it says: "Marx and Engels refer to the "Capitalist production system". I'd like a source for this. Thanks. RJII 16:00, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

• huh?...if this is not a joke question: you are giving youself the answer, it's Marx and Engels. And there is also no reason to doubt that, as it is widely known. I don't quite understand your question?? Have you not seen the source in the sentence you posted or do you doubt it was Marx/Engels? Are you trying to find out when it was first mentioned?--Fenice 08:56, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

I just read your edit summary where you call it "alleged quote". It is not alleged, it does exist, Marx/Engels really is one of the first sources where you can find this word. The book is called 'Karl Marx/Friedrich Engels Collected Works'. It should be mentioned because it is widely known. --Fenice 09:11, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

It says it's in "Das Kapital." It's not in there. Which "work" is it in, among the collected works? RJII 15:05, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

The term appears (at least) here (in German, scan page for 'kapitalistische Produktionsweise'), this is Volume 22 of the Collected Works of Marx/Engels. Collected Works seems to really be a collection of 43 Books, one of which is "Das Kapital".--Fenice 08:43, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

I know that "capitalist production" is a phrase used, but I've never seen "capitalist production system." RJII 11:56, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

The translation of "kapitalistische Produktionsweise" would be capitalist production system. The german suffix -weise often means -system. Luis rib 13:05, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm looking around and everwhere I see "kapitalistische produktionsweise" translated in Das Kapital, it's just "capitalist production." I asked a german person and he said it's something like "production way" or "way of production." RJII 17:49, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Your German friend was correct. "Way of production" is certainly the most accurate translation. It's just a detail, in my opinion, but we might as well translate it correctly. BTW, just take care that nouns in German have a capital starting letter. Luis rib 19:02, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I can see that problem. capitalist production system would literally translate to 'kapitalistisches Produktionssystem', and that is not in this text. 'kapitalistischen Produktionsform' however is in this text and it is easy and obvious to translate to 'capitalist form of production'. --Fenice 13:47, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Amish farm

I saw in a documentary that the Amish live in quasi-communist communities, where most things are shared. Is an Amish farm really the best example of a capitalist agricultural system? Also, it is my opinion that the initial factory picture was much better than any of the three that replace it now. Finally, where is that windmill from? It has no name or description - not to mention that power production is probably one of the least capitalist industries in the world, since in many countries it is done by state-owned entreprises. Luis rib 17:21, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, a profit-oriented farm would probably be better. I agree that the other factory picture is better, but unfortunately Ultramarine has put a copyright dispute notice on it as a desperate attempt to keep it out for whatever bizarre reasons he has. [14] So, we have to wait for that to get resolved to put it back up I think. The picture is a scan of an old postcard ...predates copyright protection, and besides, it's fair use to take a photo of postcard. And, yes, the windmill picture is ridiculous ..if showing private power it should at least be a private power plant. The picture looks like it would be for an article about alternative energy. RJII 18:23, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

If you click on the windmill image, you'll see that actually it's a rooftop windmill from some guy in Canada. How the hell does that relate to capitalism? Am I allowed to put also a picture of our vegetable garden in that case? Luis rib 20:29, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Role of government and market failures

I deleted some stuff about whether capitalism is "declining" and something about anarcho-capitalism since it didn't really pertain to market failure. The section was lacking focus. Besides that, I think the content in the section should be worked into the Free Market section, as it's about government intervention into the free market to overcome market failure. Possibly, some of the deleted stuff about decline of capitalism or whatever can be made into a new section, or maybe worked into the Which Economies are Capitalist section. RJII 03:33, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

questioning new entry in intro debates section

debates center on whether capitalism ..."can exist without some measure of external governmental control, considering the dependence of the modern free market on legal currency and legislation defining the parameters of property ownership." <- What does this mean? If it says anything substantial maybe we can rewrite it, because as it stands it doesn't seem to make any sense. RJII 23:15, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Crony Capitalism

The term seems to have disppeared from the Wikipedia. It's stil an econmic reality for many people around the world. It would be convenient to put it back, or at least make a subsection of corruption

Hey I fixed it. Looks like someone played a joke and had it redirected to capitalism. RJII 01:44, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Everything for profit?

I have a real problem with the opening line: "Capitalism has been defined in various ways (see definitions of capitalism). In common usage it refers to an economic system in which all or most of the means of production are privately owned and operated for profit"

First of all, historically, proponents of capitalism have never, to my knowledge, believed that families should be run for monetary profit. Thus, I don't know how common usage could refer to an economic system in which ALL the means of production are run for profit. Further, since I don't know of any historical "upper bound" on the percentage of the economy that "ought" to be run for profit advocated by capitalists, it doesn't make much sense either to say that in capitalism, "most" of the means of production are operated for profit. It makes more sense to characterize capitalism - as it has been historically advocated by capitalists - as one in which private ownership of the means of production is allowed. The more possible means of production can be privately owned, the more capitalist it is. I tried to make this change already but it got reverted. And explanation for that would be welcome.

First of all, the definition there is not an attempt at being a correct definition, so to speak, but at presenting the typical definition of capitalism (and therefore since if it is typical, it is therefore correct). If everyone goes for what they think is intrinsically "correct" it just leads to absurd edit war. Everyone has their own definition which they think makes more sense than the next guy's. While it might make sense what you're saying, it's just that saying private ownership of the means of production is "allowed" is definitely not how it's typically defined. See the definitions of capitalism article for common definitions. As far as including "profit" in the definition, your call is as good as mine in regard to typicality. RJII

Well, definitions of capitalism is down for the moment, but I've personally always learned that captitalism was when the means of production are privately owned. Period. For profit, not-for-profit, has never entered the definition. I agree it might be a connotation, but that's still not part of the definition. 63.98.86.134 21:36, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You can still see the definitions if you do an edit history and a compare. Here you go: [15] RJII 22:00, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree with RJII. While there are many "economic systems" (as one could liberally define them) that are not operated "for profit" in a typical capitalist economy, I would argue that the common understanding of "economic system" would include precisely and exclusively the organizations and institutions that are run for profit. Then again, you could just as easily argue that institutions like families are operated for profit, in the sense that they collectively maximize income and minimize costs. Either way, private ownership and operation for profit aren't just allowed in capilaist economies, they are essential (even though some could reasonably disagree about upper bounds of percentages). Mgw 07:01, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

"Then again, you could just as easily argue that institutions like families are operated for profit, in the sense that they collectively maximize income and minimize costs."

That would be a different definition of "for profit" than people assume upon reading the phrase.

"Either way, private ownership and operation for profit aren't just allowed in capilaist economies, they are essential (even though some could reasonably disagree about upper bounds of percentages)."

Essential in what way? If you're saying a capitalist economy can't be sustained unless most organizations are run for monetary profit, you're making an argument, which should be distinguished from an NPOV definition of capitalism. If you're saying that it's "not capitalism" unless "most" organizations are run for profit, then you're wrong, as I've shown above. When people refer to capitalist economies they're inevitably referring to economies that had non-profit families, non-profit churches, non-profit bridge clubs, etc. To claim that "real capitalism" involves most organizations being run for monetary profit would be a radical alteration in the way the term has been used.

Market solution

I believe that, in addition to the well-known "exploiting workers" criticism, there was a second critique of capitalism raised by Marxists (I read it in a book of the collected works of Lenin, but it referred to Marx)

This was the claim that, under capitalism, because of the operation of competition, the continually raising quality bar, and the rising costs of business fundamentals resulting from the growth of existing businesses, inevitably production would wind up in the hands of a few companies and any new entrants would have no chance of gaining a foothold. At that point, they argued, free enterprise in that field was effectively dead (after all, if something is guaranteed to fail you can't be considered "free" to do it) and the market was effectively behaving as a socialism.

For example, take Coke. They would argue that the division of the market into Coke and Pepsi, with little or no opportunities for other companies, was an inevitable result, and that that market is effectively now socialised. Furthermore, they argued, an actual socialist economy could therefore run as efficiently as Coke and Pepsi do now: all that would be necessary is for the study of economics and market development to advance sufficiently far that economists could predict in advance how the soft drink market would reach solution under capitalism, and then set up via legislation a socialism that behaved in exactly the same way.

Is this considered somewhere? Have I flown off the handle and gotten mixed up somewhere?

"after all, if something is guaranteed to fail you can't be considered 'free' to do it" -- you can be free to try. Or, central planners can prohibit you from trying because they can decide you inevitably will fail. The first is freedom, the second isn't. Freedom, as Jefferson understood, involved the "pursuit" of happiness. Nobody has the right to get there, only the right to pursue. Sorry. And that's enough to know that central planning is an infringement on the rights of those whose pursuits don't fit into the plan. And, after all, feel free to start your own cola bottling company. I had to say that. Now I'll get off the soapbox. --Christofurio 19:02, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't agree with that. You might as well argue that you're free to commit murder in the US, because you can shoot someone, you'll just go to jail afterwards. And, starting a new business in many areas is already inevitable, predictable failure, and rather than being decided by "central planners" it's decided by another artifical system, that of capitalism. The fact that there's no individual who you can point to and blame for it doesn't change the morality of the situation. By the way, I shouldn't be anonymous, as I did sign in..

You can agree or disagree as you wish. Starting a cola business is not destined to "inevitable" failure, as the Coke/Pepsi duopoly is far from perfect. Furthermore, even if the duopoly were statistically complete, it would always remain possible that the next entrant would succeed and carve out a niche. No central plan should prohibit that, because this judgment that failure is "inevitable" is not the planner's to make. Your "freedom to murder" example just baffles me. Freedom can mean different things in different contexts, of course, but one important meaning of "freedom to do X" is simply that no agents of a sovereign will be chasing after me trying to punish me if I do X. I have freedom in precisely that respect to open a cola company, as part of my pursuit of happiness. I don't have any right to succeed. By the way, if you want to let us know who you are (without requiring us to use page history) you could simply click the signature button above after writing your graf. --Christofurio 12:54, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

You (anonymous user) point out why socialism would be inferior to capitalism. Take the coke and pepsi example: in this case, only two firms compete. We are thus in a situation of a duopoly. As predicted by economics and game theory, the price in a duopoly is much higher than the free-market price. Indeed, Coke and Pepsi use their brand names to ask a higher price than no-name coke brands. If you consider just one firm dominating a market, such as a monopoly (and in a socialist economy there are only monopolies), the price would be even higher. Historically, the example is telecoms, where (at least in Europe) fifteen years ago state monopolies dominated markets and consequently prices were extremely high. With more competition, prices have gone down a lot, and new innovations have been introduced to lure the customers. In the end, the customers were the big gainers. BTW, consolidation usually takes place in very mature industries (e.g. car industry right now), where no big innovations can be made anymore and economies of scale are very big - favouring big companies and mergers and acquisitions. In new industries (e.g. internet, biotech), innovation is still very important and economies of scale not very important. Therefore there's a lot of competition in these industries. Finally, the role of the state is not to work out a way to run companies as efficiently as Coke and Pepsi, but on the contrary to encourage new players and to foster competition. If the state cares for its people (i.e. the customers) it will wish for low prices, and thus have tough anti-trust laws. If the state doesn't care for its people it will encourage mergers of companies to create national champions, and the customers will bear much higher prices. A socialist economy is the extreme of the latter approach. Luis rib 20:10, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Human rights violations, imperialism, and democracy

There is no equivalent section in the socialism and communism articles, despite the fact that socialist and communist regimes have often been as murderous or even more so than capitalist ones (e.g. Gulags, Great Leap Forward). Do we need to do some rebalancing here? 195.92.40.49 12:42, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

YES!!!

Social capitalism

I didn't really see anything about social capitalism in here. Increasingly people are using ideas from the west such as efficiency in an effort to generate profit - but not for profits sake but to maximally help people.

For example, Dr. V of India was impressed by McDonald's efficency at serving food and then applied the idea to the case of cataract surgery. Dr. V's mission is to maximize profit to enable him to offer more services free of charge. Thus profit is a means to an end (helping people) instead of an end in itself as it tends to be in 'traditional' capitalism.

Is anyone aware of this idea? Is there a better term for it, I believe in the documentary that I linked to above on PBS it was also refered to as spiritual capitalism or compassionate capitalism. --ShaunMacPherson 30 June 2005 05:16 (UTC)

"Profit" means an improvement in a person's life. It is the same thing as "helping people", so this "social capitalism" is incoherent. I guess that doesn't mean it shouldn't be described in the article, supposing it is well-sourced. - Nat Krause 30 June 2005 06:18 (UTC)

Your explanation is an obvious non-sequitir. The category of profit in capitalism reflects private benefits realized after private costs have been accounted for, it does not follow that in capitalism marginal costs and benefits from the perspective of the individual unit of capital necessarily reflect marginal social costs and benefits. In fact market capitalism has a decidedly anti-social bias. Competitive pressures drive producers to "take advantage of external effects in socially counterproductive ways and even to create new ones...manouvering to appropriate a greater share of goods and services produced by externalizing costs and internalizing benefits without compensation are always ways to increase profits. Competitive pressures will drive producers to pursue this route to profitability just as assiduously."(Robin Hahnel, The ABC's of Political Economy) For "compassionate capitalism", or whatever, perhaps the book you are looking for is William Greider's "The Soul of Capitalism." Although Greider's prescriptions to save capitalism are not socialist, they will seem extreme relative to the perspective of the current economic and political establishment, and their worshippers. "Compassionate capitalism" was experimented with during the era of welfare states and mild liberal social democracies. These experiments were failures in the sense that they could not be sustained and did not follow through on their promises. Social democrats tend to blame the right for these failures while never even considering the possibility that their own elitist attitudes and policies might have contributed significantly to the vulnerability of these structures.

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=26&ItemID=7529 http://www.monthlyreview.org/0504lebowitz.htm BernardLJune 30,2005

Well, to counterpose "profit" and "helping people" is still incorrect. It appears that you are contrasting "profit for some people at the expense of others" with something like "pareto-optimal profits". Looking at the articles you have cited here, I don't see the phrase "social capitalism" anywhere, and it is not clear at all that they are discussing the same thing as what Shaun refers to above. - Nat Krause 5 July 2005 18:25 (UTC)

Critiques

Any change made by User: Ultramarine seems to be based in his desire to eliminate any possbile critique of capitalism. Why do that? Don't you want to even consider the possibility of a flawed system? User: Horzer

It's true. I do not know why he does it but he certainly has a tendency not to allow any arguments to stand alongside his advocacy of capitalism, and additionally does not apply his authoritarian editing practices consistently, namely to the positive arguments for capitalism. BernardL

Don't be ridiculous, I wrote many of the arguments against capitalism in many of the sections, like sustainability or inequality or free market. Right now I added some other critical data from a study.Ultramarine 2 July 2005 10:31 (UTC)

Which only explains why the "criticisms" seem so apologetic. You are hardly seriously presenting the best arguments in a lucid manner. For example, there is hardly a hint in your "critique" that capitalism is prone to crises with implications both in terms of immediate consequences for the most vulnerable people but also for the long-term development of capitalism. Yet this subject occupied the thoughts of Ricardo, Keynes, Marx, Schumpeter, Sweezy, etc. in different ways. (But I suppose if I made a contribution you would be inclined to AUTOMATICALLY delete the whole contribution, as soon as you found a few words that did not suit your sensibility). And again there have been many methodological critiques of capitalist economics from Marx and even more so from Veblen and the critical institutionalists, but herein there is no section on methodology. BernardL

I would certainly at least change it in the form you present it, as if it was a proven fact that "capitalism is prone to crises with implications both in terms of immediate consequences for the most vulnerable people but also for the long-term development of capitalism". Please understand that there is an enormous differences between having theories and having experimental and statistical support. Nor is this article the place to write down the whole Marxist and Socialist theory, there should only be a summary and those interested can go to the appropriate Wikipedia article. Ultramarine 2 July 2005 11:07 (UTC)

the article does not contain the subject at all, even though not only Marx wrote about it, but it was a main preoccupation of both Keynes and Schumpeter. Issues are often much in dispute- I have no problem with the presentation of multiple perspectives...on the one hand a Marxist view explaining how the crisis prone nature of capitalism skews its development (through centralization of capital, the sales effort, imperialism,etc.) alongside a Keynesian view, and something like Schumpeter's concept of creative destruction. BernardL

By all means add relevant short summaries of other articles, I will certainly add that they are mere theories without any supporting statistical evidence or studies, unlike the strong empirical evidence for the relevance of the Index of Economic Freedom. Ultramarine 2 July 2005 11:25 (UTC)

I don't think you know what are we talking about (sorry for being blunt, but it seems to me that History of Economic Thought was not a class in your degree). About crises, well, the last 200 years are full of them (do you know how the New Deal was born?).--horzer July 3, 2005 14:18 (UTC)

I recommend for you "The Wordly Philosophers", of Robert Heilbroner, or if you want the full monty (and to be envied by your friends) Joseph Alois Schumpeter's "History of Economyc Analysis"... Have fun :) --horzer July 3, 2005 14:24 (UTC)

Please give the the studies showing that something essential in the nature of capitalism caused these crises. For example Austrians claims that the state, in the form of central banks and state monopolies on paper money, caused these crises and that they thus were caused by restrictions in capitalism. Ultramarine 3 July 2005 14:26 (UTC)

In his book from (i think) 1933, John Maynard Keynes proved that savings (S) is not always equal to investment (I) in capitalism. If many capitalists think that the future is bleak, they throw people to the street (so Agregated Demand - AD - goes down, because there is less Consumption -C-) and so the capitalists fire more people and so on and on. Only the government can break the cycle investing in the economy through the "multiplier effect", bringing AD again up until, Keynes thought, full employment. What Kenyes discovered is that exists (oh my gosh!) involuntary unemployment in capitalism, against the neoclassic economics of his time. This is..., people that is prepared to work at any wage and still, they dont find work. (somebody correct me if i'm wrong, many years passed by).--horzer July 3, 2005 15:28 (UTC)

Keynes didn't prove anything, he proposed a theory, just like for example Mises or Marx. There are many theories and without empirical and appropriate statistics there is no way of knowing who is right. Ultramarine 4 July 2005 00:04 (UTC)

You sure are one to fetishize statistics and quantitative data without realizing the extent to which there is theory and value premises underlying practically any purposeful construction, selection, and presentation of facts. So statistics tells us "who is right"? Not even the World Bank believes that whopper. I'm wondering, does qualitative data fit in anywhere with you? Have you even heard of the term before? [user:BernardL 5 July 2005]

Please read Scientific method. Ultramarine 6 July 2005 10:37 (UTC)

I found Heilbroner's arguments about the causes of the Great Depression lying in the maldistribution of income affecting farmers and workers (and therefore AD) to be quite compelling. (see the Making of Economic Society) As Heilbroner noted, income was distributed in the direction of "those who were potential nonspenders (the 15,000 families at the apex of the social pyramid). [BernardL]

And others have other theories for explaining the Great Depression. Ultramarine 4 July 2005 00:06 (UTC)

duh? You don't have to remind me of that, there's literally hordes of theories about it. I just happen to find Heilbroner's work compelling because it's a close low-level analysis of what happened at various times in various sectors of the economy and how these sectors interacted. An empirically-driven analsis too, I might add. [BernardL]

a dubious statement from our lovely article: "Rich people invest a larger proportion of their income than poor people, and according to the standard consensus from Keynes to the neoclassical consensus, this is more beneficiary for the society as whole." can anyone make sense of this? It seems to be saying that rich people invest more than poor people- well duh? - poor people do not have the capacity to invest! A startling argument. Keynes certainly did not think it was more "beneficiary" (sic) for the society as a whole to distribute income in favour of the rich on account of a supposed natural propensity to invest. For him the rate of investment was a function of other things like interest rates, and the expectations of future returns, in which government policy was to play a significant role.[BernardL]

Again, Keynes have not proved anything, merely formulated a theory. Ultramarine 4 July 2005 00:04 (UTC)

Yawwwwn! much of which was backed up by empirical evidence in his day and since. But you're just sidestepping the issue. What is this paragraph about? What exactly is the standard consensus that Keynes apparently shared with the neoclassicals? I could suggest a great many things which they had in common, but I'm not going to make your argument for you. Unless you can make this paragraph comprehensible,and give it a source it will have to be deleted. I'm being much more cooperative than you would ever dream of being.[BernardL]

You are right that the argument is strange and thus should be removed. Ultramarine 6 July 2005 10:41 (UTC)

Another dubious statement: "One explanation for [the modern decline of capitalism in Western nations] is that the Western nations have increasingly averted or regulated various market failures such as pollution, health care, unemployment, wealth inequality, and education." Pollution is a reality of techonology development, present in any economy and hardly the result of a market failure. Whether 'health care' has been a failure of the free market certainly seems to be a personal opinion, as many breakthoughs in modern medicine have occured in capitalist markets. Unemployment is less a failure than a fact, as is 'wealth inequality'. I have never heard of a capitalist that thought that the free market could eradicate either of these things completely, any more than a doctor tries to keep a person alive forever. I'm almost surprised the article doesn't call scarcity a 'market failure'. As to education, this assertion seems unsubstantiated.

I wonder... who's responsible for that fact that in the Critique section, every single piece of criticism is followed by several statements debunking said criticism. That seems like someone trying VERY obviously to push through his or her personal point of view. Robrecht 19:37, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

A Humourous Aside from a Comedian named Paul Krugman

"Anyone who has seen how economic statistics are constructed knows that they really are a subgenre of science fiction." (quoted in John Ralston Saul: The Collapse of Globalism, and the re-ivention of the world, p.50)

The thing that has collapsed is Communist states. Ultramarine 4 July 2005 00:04 (UTC)

Oh it's just an interesting little book by a left-centre Canadian philosopher keen on reviving the civic spirit. He attacks the nasty commies often enough. Don't be afraid. User:BernardL5 July 05 19:30

I'm bored so-> How many marxist economist do you need to change a bulb? None -> the inherent revolutionary forces in the bulb will do it.

And how many neoclassical economists do you need to change a bulb? Well, any intervention will be demeed by them as negative, so the market will do it, if is really better for society :)--horzer July 3, 2005 16:39 (UTC)

wait there's more! (i grabbed from the progressive economists list)

How many Sraffians? What people? We screw in lightbulbs with lightbulbs! (I forget: what proportion of the standard commodity do lightbulbs compose?

Hayekians? We can't state it in a proposition; we have tacit knowledge. Just don't call the State: that's the Road to Darkness!

Keynesians? In the long run we're all in the dark. We find money helps "defeat the dark forces".

Heideggerians? Like Sein, light is "present in its absence".

Real Business Cyclers? How do you know the bulb's bad. Maybe the light it's emitting is just following a random walk. [user:BernardL]

socialism and capitalism

Where it's mentioned that socialist states have the "means of production" mostly controlled by the state, I think it should be mentioned in capitalist countries it is mostly controlled by capitalists. When it's mentioned government bureaucrats run things in socialist countries, I think it should be mentioned that corporate managers/specialists make production decisions in capitalist countries.

It already says that. The means of production are owned and operated "privately." A capitalist is a private owner of capital. RJII 14:01, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

OK, that means either is technically correct. My main point is that the "means of production" is primarily controlled by capitalists in capitalism, and by the state in socialism. Privately implies that this ownership is widespread, where actually it never has been. For example, the US federal reserve in its last survey of consumer finances said that 46.5% of all bonds in the US are owned by the wealthiest 0.5% of the population. So yes, they are privately owned, but the majority of them are owned by a small minority (55.8% of bonds are held by the richest 1%), and I want this to be pointed out - privately can mean that bonds are owned more or less equally, or are all owned by one person. I want to be more specific. Ruy Lopez 18:56, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Ok, well that may be a good point for the "Unequal distribution of wealth and income" section but not the definition. Capitalism is not defined as an economic system where wealth is concentrated in a few private hands...it's defined as a system where the means of production are privately owned. In theory that ownership could be widespread or concentrated in the hands of a few. If it's widespread, it's still capitalism. The critique, I think, is that the system may lead to the concentration that you're talking about. But, this is a critique, not part of the definition. RJII 19:08, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

But I dispute this definition. A theory of widespread ownership of industry is fine, but I am concerned with reality, not theory. Ownership of industry is not widespread, and never has been. With the US government itself saying things such as that 55.8% of bonds being owned by 1% of the population, and the situation has been like this since the beginnings of capitalism, I think this feature that has always accompanied capitalism is an important one. I would go beyond that and say I see the means of production as a chimera - the real question is labor time - the majority of people work, the owners of capital do not work, and live off of the labor time of others. Regardless, I am not going into that now, and even the distribution of ownership is implicit - the important point is that capital is owned by capitalists. Perhaps everything else I said belongs in the critique, but that the majority of production decisions are made by corporate specialists on behalf of capitalists is the definition of capitalism. Otherwise the definitions are ownership is private (e.g. implicitly meaning possibly the average blue collar worker, which would be wrong) or centralized in the state (e.g. would not be the average person). It seems obvious to me that in capitalism, capitalists control capital. That would seem to be the case not only in reality, but even in theory. Ruy Lopez 19:41, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

You dispute the definition? So if private ownership of capital is concentrated in 5% of the population is capitalism, then what is the system called when capital is owned by 51% of the population? It's still capitalism isn't it? You can't restrict the definition to saying capital has to be concentrated in the hands of a few. Also, the definition says it is how it is commonly defined. Your or my definitions that we may think are "better," don't really matter. The whole point of providing the ordinary definition is to prevent edit wars with every individual trying to get his own specialized definition in. The common definition is by default the correct definition, in an encyclopedia. The rule on Wikipedia is to rehash what's already out there. RJII 20:05, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

The main point is that in capitalism, capitalists control capital, the distribution of wealth is an important, but minor point with regards to that. I don't agree that your definition of capitalism is the "commonly defined", "ordinary definition", and the "common definition". Perhaps in the US it is, or perhaps amongst some quarters in Europe, but the common definition is the one I have given. Ruy Lopez 20:30, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, look at a compilation of definitions from english-speaking sources ((see q:Capitalism). It's hard to dispute that the definition in the article isn't representative of the most widespread definitions. Maybe some non-english language dictionaries and encyclopedias give a competely different definition? You'd need to dig some of those up, and there would have to be enough sources to show that's is how it's commonly defined across the world. I'd be interested in seeing translated definitions from other sources if you have any. RJII 21:39, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

OK, I looked at your source. Definition #1 of your source - "The condition of possessing capital; the position of a capitalist; a system which favours the existence of capitalists." Yes. This is exactly what I have been trying to put into the article. Thank you for proving my point for me. Ruy Lopez 01:59, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

The "condition of owning capital" is already provided as a definition toward the end of the intro. I insisted on putting that one in, actually. But, that's not the definition of the economic system of capitalism. The first definition in the article is the economic system definition. Also, just picking out one definition that you agree with is not good enough. The definition in the article represents the average definition. And, that's easy to see when you look through the various definitions. RJII 02:05, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Also, Ruy Lopez's comment on 1% of Americans owning most bonds is biased, as such comments always are. What about the Asian central banks, that own even more bonds? How do they fit into the "capitalism is bad"-definition? Also, the fact that most people don't own bonds simply has to do with the fact that bonds are riskier than deposits, and people are risk-averse. In the same vein, equities are even riskier, and even less people own them. Another point: where do corporations and mutual funds fit into the 0.5% figure? People may not own bonds directly, but they may invest into mutual funds which themselves invest into bonds. Finally, bonds are debt and not capital and do not give any right to ownership of a corporation. Thus, the bondholders do not own the means of production; the shareholders do. Another point: the belief that big corporations control the economy is untrue as well. In all Western countries, family-owned companies create more than 80% of wealth; in some countries like Italy the figure is even close to 95%. Luis rib 20:34, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

"Another point: where do corporations and mutual funds fit into the 0.5% figure? People may not own bonds directly, but they may invest into mutual funds which themselves invest into bonds." The Federal Reserve report takes this into account. Whether it be directly, through mutual funds, through corporations and whatnot, 46.5% of all bonds in the US are owned by the wealthiest 0.5% of the population. Not according to the looney-tune review, but the Federal Reserve, chaired by Alan Greenspan. Anyhow, this is tangential so there is no need to go into it, it doesn't really matter what your view of wealth distribution is. Ruy Lopez 01:57, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Also saying decisions are made in a "free market" versus a "command economy" is dripping with the Orwellian phraseology of some think tank. As far as the first phrase, we see the word free and we know we are already dealing with a propaganda term. Then we get to market. Huh? What does the market have to do with production decisions? A supermarket that sells potatos is pretty much the same in the US or USSR. The consumers who buy those commodities and consume them are fairly similar in the US and USSR. The only diffence is in the production decisions which decided to get those potatos grown. So why is the differential a "market" when the "market" is exactly the same? As far as command economy, here again we stumble over propaganda on the first word in the phrase. What command does the average blue collar worker in the US have over production decisions? On the contrary, he is commanded to go to work, and do what the boss says, which is to create profit for the owner of the company. This is just another absurd thing in the introduction. Ruy Lopez 19:48, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Getting into a more complex argument, I disagree with the idea that socialist countries have production decisions centralized, but capitalist countries don't. Not that it runs exactly the same, but I do not agree with the idea that production decisions in capitalist countries are completely, or even mostly de-centralized. Ruy Lopez 08:59, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't say that decisions in a socialist country are centralized. It says that the means of production (capital) are owned by the state (or community collectively in communist anarchism). To address your last sentence, capitalism is definined as a system where the decisions are not made by a centralized "state" authority. RJII 14:01, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

At the beginning it says "investments, production, distribution, income, and prices are determined...by centralized state control". So my reading of it is that decisions in a socialist country are centralized. I don't dispute that many production decisions in socialist countries were centralized, but it seems to me production decisions in capitalist countries are centralized as well. Anyhow, this point is vaguer than the above one, which is more important. The differences between the way production decisions are made is more complex, while who owns and controls the means of production seems to be a fairly straightforward proposition. Ruy Lopez 18:56, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

The definition doesn't say anything about socialism when it says it's not determined by centralized state control. You may think that that's supposed to be an implicit contrast to socialism but I don't think so, especially when it explicitly says that it's contrast to a "command economy." RJII 19:08, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

OK forget about command economies, socialism and whatnot. I am saying that production decisions in capitalism are centralized. Ruy Lopez 02:01, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

How could that be? For production decisions to be centralized there would have to be only one business doing production. The large developed economies, whether or not they're capitalism, have a huge amount of businesses making their own production decisions. Centralized decision-making on production would have to be the government making the decisions for all these businesses. RJII 02:07, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Does that mean there was just one department in the USSR doing everything? In the USSR you have different ministries, councils and committees dealing with different aspects of production, like agriculture, metallurgy and whatnot. In the US you have corporations which often focus on one aspect of production (software, automobile manufacture etc.) The ownership of these corporations are highly centralized, and the structure is basically tyrannical - the owners appoint the CEO and board, who have specialists give them production decisions. I don't see what the difference is - production decisions are centralized. Ruy Lopez 02:24, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Ok, so change "centralized state authority" to "state authority" then ..no big deal. As far as production decisions being centralized in an economy where there are hundreds of thousands of business, your claim is ludicrous. RJII 02:27, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

The way the article begins saying "capitalism refers to an economic system in which all or most of the means of production are privately owned and operated" seems biased as this is the Marxist definition of capitalism. It should say something like capitalism refers to a system where the state allows economic freedom, ie the persuit of liberty, where a person can own property and is granted freedom of trade and association.

Fascism and statism

Grant65 gives the following edit summary: "See the article on statism; fascism is not "statist" in the ordinary, economic sense of the word." The idea that fascism is not statist is novel to me. The statism article cited begins: "Statism is a term to describe any economic system where a government implements a significant degree of centralized economic planning, which may include state ownership of the means of production" If we interpret this to exclude fascism, doesn't that make statism a synonym for socialism (or rather, for state socialism, so as to exclude the anarchists? And, in that case, why would it say that statism may include state ownership? - Nat Krause 13:22, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Fascism is not even an economic system. But, indeed, fascist countries tend to have statist or socialist economies. So, I deleted the fascism comparison. Didn't make much sense. RJII 16:56, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Nat, ideals aside, all forms of capitalism, including those led by fascist govts, include some state ownership, above and beyond the level of a "nightwatchman state". IMO it is more accurate to describe fascist economic policy as corporatist than statist. Grant65 (Talk) 00:32, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Fascism is definately statist, power is concentrated to the state. I think some socialists are in denial about this because they want to think their utopian ideals are vastly different. Libertarians like me classify these positions on a circle. On the left are the democrats, on the right are the republicans, at the top are the statists and at the bottom are the libertarians. At the top near statist, just to the left is communism, and just to the right is fascism. To us libertarians there is really no difference between communism and fascism, it's statist hell.

The difference, in a nutshell, is that the Nazi state never owned the likes of Mercedes Benz, and the proprietors did very well out of National "Socialism". Whereas in the USSR, any and all major industry was owned and controlled by the state. Hence statism. Grant65 (Talk) 00:48, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Everything for profit? Part II

Grant65 and anyone with the same position: the common, popular defnition of capitalism is private ownership of all or most of the means of production. The degree to which those private owners decide to go "for profit" is irrelevant. Stating that it's relevant would be your opinion and original research. Please do not re-insert that in capitalism, all or most of the means of production are operated for profit unless you can show a number of sources (I'd settle for five, which should be easy) in which a prominent author makes the specific point that if most of the means of production are privately owned, but their owners decide to go non-profit, it's no longer capitalism. Also, if you're right, you should be able to name the economic system in which all more most of the means of production are privately owned, but most of the means of production are run non-profit. So until you can do these things, please don't revert.

It's an excellent point that capitalism relies in part on the existence and benevolence of non-profit organisations. You appear to doubt whether it can be said that "if most of the means of production are privately owned, but their owners decide to go non-profit, it's no longer capitalism". Errrr, isn't that what happened in 1929, that a lot of companies around the world suddenly and inadvertently became "non-profit" entities? This is like Deng Xiaoping's "capitalist cat" in reverse and equally fallacious. How exactly would this non-profit form of capitalism sustain itself? I suggest that it wouldn't; the whole capitalist system would collapse. Grant65 (Talk) 09:34, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Trade could go on, but, in theory, creation of new wealth and technologies would be excruciatingly slow with the lack of excess capital for expansion and innovation, as well due to the dimunution of incentive --similar to experiences in socialism in its effects. RJII 12:49, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Okay, if you're claiming capitalism would not be sustainable if most of the means of production were not operated for profit, then, like I said above in the discussion you failed to read despite being asked three times, that would be an argument against capitalisms sustainability, not for a different definition of capitalism. Further, your example is ridiculous; failing to make a profit does not make one non-profit, so your point is irrelevant on its face. Newscasters don't say "well, the year was remarkly uncapitalistic because most businesses failed to make a profit." Please meet my challenge (come up with five mainstream sources that make the specific point that if most of the MOP are privately owned but not run for-profit, it's not longer capitalism; and name the economic system in which most of the MOP are privately owned but not run for-profit) or I will report for vandalism for promiting your POV and original research. 24.162.140.213 18:35, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

What is your point exactly? Are you seriously saying that capitalism could survive if nothing was run for profit? Your allusion to sustainability suggests that not even you believe that. It's like saying "well there could be pink unicorns in Brazil, just because no one has seen them doesn't mean there aren't." Grant65 (Talk) 04:38, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

No ... that's ... er, not what I'm saying at all. Don't quite see where you're getting that. Claiming that capitalism would die out if people didn't run the MOP for profit is a claim about capitalisms sustainability, not what capitalism is. A correct analogy would be you claiming that capitalism is "an economic/political system in which the means of production are privately owned and everyone wears pink". The "wearing pink" is not part of the definition of capitalism. You can claim that if people didn't wear pink, capitalism would die out, but that has nothing to do with what capitalism means. Anyway, why are you having such a hard time finding a mere five sources which make the specific point that when most of the means of production are privately owned, but their owners decide not to run them for profit, that's not capitalism? And why are you unable to name the economic system that that describes? Could it be that you're wrong? No, that couldn't be, because, like, capitalism isn't sustainable unless the means of production are run for profit. 24.162.140.213 05:44, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not going to run around finding references for someone who can't even be bothered to register with Wikipedia. Why is profitability not part of the definition? Because you say so? Grant65 (Talk) 08:05, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand your saying that capitalism will collapse if people stop profiting if you define it as profitable. If you define capitalism as being profitable then of course it wouldn't exist (or collapse) if there's no profit, so I'm not sure what's being said there. It seems circular. RJII 16:09, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Ah, the shining example of tolerance on Wikipedia shows his bias against non-registereds. Beautifully ironic. Whether or not the MOP are run for profit (which is different from actual profitability) is not part of the definition, not because I say so, but because most dictionaries say so, and, like the challenge I gave you, no economist that I know of has ever made the point that, well, if the most MOP are privately owned, but as co-ops, that's not capitalism. And if you don't feel like gathering sources, why can't you meet my second challenge, which is to name the economic system in which most of the MOP are privately owned, but not run for profit? 24.162.140.213 16:41, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

If "most MOP are privately owned, but as co-ops, that's not capitalism". It really wouldn't be; if no-one says so, that's because it would be obvious to most people. Such a state of affairs would be generally considered to be a form of socialism.Grant65 (Talk) 22:23, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

I'm so happy! It only took six attempts to get you to justify your position! Of course, your justification doesn't make a lot of sense. No one says that "if most MOP are privately owned, but as co-ops, that's not capitalism" because it's obvious? If something's obvious, no source makes that claim? Sorry, I don't believe you. Some economist must have given an elaborate discussion that makes these distinctions. Wikipedia is about using the common definition: if the definition is so common it should be easy to find a source supporting your view.

Now, as for the claim that if most MOP are privately owned but not run for profit, that's socialism... I don't think so. The Wikipedia definition for socialism is "an ideology with the core belief that a society should exist in which popular collectives control the means of power, and therefore the means of production". That would imply that everyone owns an equal share in each of the means of production. First, that says nothing about profit, and second, in what I have described, for any given MOP, most people do not own a share. In what I have described, persons a, b, and c run co-op C1, person d, e, and f run co-op C2, etc. That doesn't meet the definition of socialism. 24.162.140.213 22:46, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh yes it does.Grant65 (Talk) 01:04, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

In socialism, no individual "owns" any share of the means of production. That would be capitalism. In socialism, the means of production are owned by the state or by society as a collective --there is no individual ownership of a share. If one "owns" a share then that would include the right to sell it and for someone else to buy it (in other words "private property"). That can't happen with collective ownership. RJII 01:47, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, not quite. Owning a share doesn't necessarily imply you have the right to sell it. I own some shares in some small ventures that won't let you sell shares unless you get their approval. But I think you're right in that one kind of socialism that meets the first Wikipedia definition of socialism would be capitalism too. So my point stands: nothing about capitalism says that anything has to be with the specific, solitary goal of converting money now into more money later. You might be able to argue that capitalist societies will die out unless the MOP are run for profit but that has nothing to do with the definition. Oh, and Grant65: how about if I lower the threshold to one source that makes the distinction I asked? Could you do it then? 24.162.140.213 01:56, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I can't be bothered. Your arguments are bizarre. By this logic, it has "nothing to do with the definition of being human" that we require food and water. Grant65 (Talk) 12:35, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

If a human were able to modify his body such that a water input is not necessary for his survival, he would still be a human. For the >3rd time, whether X requires Y to continue is a separate issue from what X is. If you can't even grasp this concept, you have no place inserting your POV. 24.162.140.213 23:18, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

You are wrong. Things are regularly defined by what they do as much as what they are. We can't (yet) modify our bodies to that extent; there is no non-profit capitalist system, nor is it ever likely that they will be. If and when these things come to pass, no doubt they will be addressed in their respective Wikipedia aricles, until then sustenance is an essential part of being human as profit is to capitalism. I can't believe I'm having this debate. Grant65 (Talk) 00:33, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

I can't believe I'm having this debate! The fact that X often correlates with Y does not make X part of Y's definition. The fact that you are having a hard time envisioning a society in which most of the means of production are privately owned but not run for profit does not change the definition of capitalism. Why should we look to for definitions of capitalism? 1) dictionaries 2) economists 3) capitalist proponents. Why proponents? Because the article should define a system that at least someone supports. Most dictionaries include "private ownership" but not "profit" except as something being common. You can't find an economist referring to mostly private ownership as socialism. And the capitalist proponents quoted universally emphasize private ownership, not profit, except in the context of saying it's not harmful. Also, if you look into the history, you'll see that for quite a while, my version was the standard. 24.162.140.213 00:47, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

To call you obtuse would be an understatement. I'm sure I could easily find sources that say that profit is inimical to capitalism; I just don't see the point in "proving" a point so obvious and commonsensical and which is only controversial to you. You seem to think that we shouldn't do anything here that differs from un-named graven authorities, for fear of making an error. Why have Wikipedia at all? Why not just refer everyone to Britannica or Encarta and have done with it?

Does anyone actually agree with this person? Grant65 (Talk) 11:15, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

No personal attacks, now! Okay, again, virtually all economists and capitalism proponents support my definition. Most dictionaries do. Sure, for-profit businesses are something we commonly observe in capitalism, but is that part of the definition? No. On Wikipedia, when we define an ideology, we should define it such that there's someone who explicitly supports it. Now, if the ayatolla of capitalism, Ayn Rand, doesn't even support what is described by your definition, how exactly is it a fair definition? Do we say that "communism is when you starve the country and send millions to gulags"? After all, that's what happens pretty much everywhere we see communism, so that must be part of the definition, communist proponents be damned! Many people have a hard time imagining communism existing without those things, so why not include it?

Maybe the problem is defining what you mean by "essential" or "inimical". If you mean capitalist societies would die out if the MOP weren't mostly for-profit, you're wrong, but more importantly, that's an argument about what conditions are necessary for capitalist societies to survive, not part of the definition. If you mean "essential" in the since that it's "not capitalism" unless most MOP are run for-profit, that would be a relevant point, but wrong, as I've described above.

By the way, I'm not the one who inserted my preferred phrasing, though I did bring up the issue on the talk pages above that you refused to go to several times after being pointed that way. Someone else put that, and it prevailed for a long time. 24.162.140.213 23:12, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

So you think that profit is something akin to gulags? This is getting more and more bizarre. I'll ask you again: where and when has this mainly-not-for-profit capitalism existed in the real world? As for Ayn Rand...I admire those classic economics texts she wrote (not). You have just destroyed your own credibility. Grant65 (Talk) 23:41, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

You really don't understand the point of an analogy, do you, Grant65? My point was that just because X often appears in Y doesn't mean X is part of Y's definition. Such a position would justify saying that gulags are part of the definition of communism. I'm not trying to say that gulags are as evil as profiteering - that's your position, not mine. And I'm not saying I endorse all of Rand's views - I don't. My point is this: if you're going to define capitalism as such and such, and NONE of the major proponents of what they called capitalism supported such and such, something is wrong with your definition. (When Rand said she supported capitalism, what she supported was a regime of mostly private property with no requirement that anything be for-monetary-profit, only that the goal in owning the propert was furtherance of one's freely-chosen values.)

Calling my argument bizarre is not a justification for your position. Neither is doing it twice or thrice. I don't have to show where capitalism has been dominated by non-profit organizations, though I could. Even if I couldn't, that wouldn't prove anything except that the incentive structures of capitalism encourage profit. Again, not part of the definition. 24.162.140.213 02:34, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

According to you, and you alone, that is. You can't show a form of capitalism "dominated by non-profit organizations", because it has never existed. The very idea is ludicrous. Only someone who has a deep ideological commitment to the propaganda line that capitalism is not dependent upon profit could think otherwise, or be so completely in denial. Grant65 (Talk) 13:16, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

No, not according to me and only me. Let's not forget: I wasn't the one who originally put in the definition I prefer. Also, apparently you haven't been to the Capitalism and related political ideologies article, which references profit ... nowhere. And like I keep saying, if we use your definition, capitalism is a system supported by pretty much nobody. Rothbard, Rand, Friedman, von Mises, Hayek, etc. etc. etc. do not support capitalism as you describe it. That alone should tell you you're off somewhere.

And I hate to do this, but: You can't show a form of communism "not dominated by gulags" because it has never existed. The very idea is ludicrous.

Now, if you want to say that the incentives in capitalism are such that people are encouraged to go for-profit, hey, no objection here. But again, we're talking about the definition. I'm not trying to insert any propaganda unless you think "giving people a correct picture of what numerous thinkers actually advocate" counts as propaganda. 24.162.140.213 23:38, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

So Rothbard, Rand, Friedman, von Mises, Hayek were opposed to profit or didn't think profit was an intrinsic part of capitalism? That is nuts. Grant65 (Talk) 00:42, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

The system that those individuals advocated had no requirement that anything be for-profit, and they were totally indifferent to whether individuals decided to run their MOP for profit or not. In that sense, no, profit was not an intrinsic part of capitalism: the only requirement for "capitalism" to exist, as they understood the term, was that things be owned privately, not necessarily for-profit. 24.162.140.213 11:51, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Profit is an emergent phenomenon, just like markets, that occurs under certain conditions of freedom. Whenever people are free to voluntarily exchange (and do exchange) there is profit, each party to a voluntary exchange is in a state afterwards that they prefer to the state they were in before the exchange, in other words, they have profited, otherwise they would not have engaged in the transaction, and incurred the transaction costs.--Silverback 11:43, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

24.162, you are confusing/conflating private ownership with capitalism. Feel free to keep on destroying your own credibility.Grant65 (Talk) 19:09, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Well that's the most basic definition of capitalism --private ownership of the means of production ...the old definition. The modern definition includes how things are distributed --through a free market. And, depending on which dictionary you're getting your definition from, things are run in order to bring in a profit. As, far as being actually profitable, I don't know that that's necessary --things could break even and the marketplace would still go on. But, the pursuit of profit is definitely in some definitions, and not in others. RJII 19:28, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Also, if one regards the U.S. as roughly capitalist system, there are plenty of non-profit businesses operating. The question is, apparently, are these businesses part of capitalism or are they another type of economy that is existing in parallel? Certainly capitalism allows them to exist. RJII 20:06, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Okay, something funny is going on here: when I look at the talk page, it doesn't include anything after Silverback's last post. Grant65, are you doing something to keep me from seeing this discussion? The only way I can get to it is through the history.

Grant65- yes, I'm pointing out that when most dictionaries, virtually all economists, and virtually all people who claim to support capitalism define capitalism as simply private ownership of the means of production. RJII mentioned that some dictionaries talk about pursuit of profit, but that's clearly referring to capitalism from the individual level, which is referenced in the article. Yes, capitalism can mean the practice of pursuing wealth or capital in general, but the focus of the article is on capitalism as a system and as such when talking about the system, it should keep that concept separate.

Grant65 has not offered any response to all the problems with his definition that I've brought up:

1) That, most importantly, it would refer to an ideology almost no one supports.

2) That most dictionaries and economists don't define it that way.

3) That just because X is commonly correlated with Y does not mean X is part of Y's definition.

4) That Grant65 can't come up with sources making the specific distinction he's making. (It's not an issue of effort; they simply don't exist.)

5) That because Y encourages X does not make X part of Y's definition.

6) That there's no reference to profit in the Capitalism and related political ideologies articles. 24.162.140.213 20:24, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

24.162 posting as MrVoluntarist now. Re: latest rv, I do object to mentioning that it's commonly for profit; I object to any mention of profit as part of the definition. However, I'm willing to compromise an allow it to mention that profit is common to at least give the impression that's it's not defining characteristic of capitalism that all privately owned MOP are for-profit. And of course, you would never be such a jerk as to take my willingness to compromise as an indicator that I'm wrong, would you? Showing your bad faith, I feel no qualms about removing the mention of profit entirely. MrVoluntarist 04:39, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Grant65, if you're okay with the current opening, which defines capitalism by private ownership of the MOP and then mentions that most such owners have run them for profit, I'm okay with it too. A great compromise. MrVoluntarist 16:27, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

User:Leon Trotsky 18:27 27 August 2005 (UTC)

liberal capitalism

Any idea where this should redirect to - or do we need to write an article on it? 83,000 Google hits deserves some form of article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:16, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I did extensive search on the web (cause a friend asked me what it is :>) and I still am not certain what to tell her. Here is the answer I sent her, and I'd appreciate any comments (or a stub article :) ). "This term is rarely used and AFAIK it is not cleary defined anywhere. The most common usage seems to be the 'good capitalism' - i.e. the better version of the unregulated, `Wild West' 19th century pre-labour union capitalism or the turbo-capitalism as defined/demonised by the modern anti-globalisation protesters. Unfortunately, as the term 'liberal capitalism' is so rarely used, it is sometimes used incorrectly (or, in other words, it may have more then one meaning). As far as I can tell from what I have read, it can be also used in historical context to refer to 'economic liberalism' (aka Liberal theory of economics). And even if used in the modern sence, depending on the author's views it can mean a 'better, utopian capitalism' (see http://www.cqpress.com/cs/challenge/chapter17.htm ) or 'evil capitalism attempting to hide under nicer name' ( http://miraclerosarymission.org/hab160.htm )." --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:53, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Word "Capitalist" in the Ancien Regime

Because of redirection, I can't add my two bits about the history of the word "Capitalist" prior to the whole Smithian economic system. Originally, from its etymology, "capital" was what you wrote down at the head of a project. During France's ancien regime, the word "capitalist" referred to someone who bought the equivalent of a bond of the state debt. (It might not get paid off; the king often renegued.) Only later was the word used for industrial tools and facilities. --Sobolewski 23:56, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Capitalism is Plutocracy

I've been looking through this article and it doesn't seem at all neutral. For example, it uses the term "freedom" to describe capitalism (free market, free enterprize) which is a loaded and much abused term. Who a country is "free" for depends on who owns the means of production (factories, banks, land etc.). In a capitalist society the Bourgeoisie or capitalist class own the means of production (the Capitalist class is the class that does not produce commodities, hoards great amounts of wealth, owns private property and buys human labour). In a capitalist society a working class (Proletariet), middle class person (Petty-Bourgeoisie)etc. can' criticize their boss because they'll get fired. They can't express their opinions on public television because they can't afford a channel. They can't move anywhere they wan't because many places are to expensive. They can't assemble anywhere they wan't because most buildings are privately owned. User:Leon Trotsky 10:03 5 October 2005

So, add that stuff in :) This is supposed to be a public wikipedia, if you have good points add them. Infinity0 17:23, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

It is simply fallacious to say that every use of the word "free" as an adjective indicates approval, and consequently a POV. A physicist uses the term "free fall" and knows the associated acceleration given earth's gravity (16 feet per second per second, as Galileo discovered). This doesn't mean that the physicist who uses the term is expressing that POV that its a good idea to drop things off towers! Free fall means, well ... unobstructed fall. But you get to say it in one syllable rather than four. A free market means, likewise, that the instruments of soereignty don't, in a specific instance or aspect, infringe upon the market forces of supply and demand. Its no more inherently POV than is free fall. You can certainly work to ensure that the arguments that a particular fall, and/or market transactions, should be checked, i.e. shouldn't be free, are accurately presented. But that isn't served by quibbling with straightforward and accurate word usage. --Christofurio 14:15, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

That's true. A "free market" isn't necessary a good market. According to many, a free market leads to "market failure," so they advocate coercive intervention to make things more equitable --they don't want a free market. "Free" isn't a value judgement. RJII 16:40, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

He's arguing with the definition and usage of the word "free". He's saying that it's an opinion that capitalism gives "freedom", not that the word's usage means approval. Also, that gravity point is irrelevant. Infinity0 19:49, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

It certainly is an opinion that capitalism gives freedom, but the article doesn't argue for that opinion, or imply it, as it stands, so that's no cause for dissatisfaction. What our Trotskyite friend is saying is that the very use of the term, "free market" implies such an opinion. Which is wrong. As the gravity example helps to show. Which makes it relevant! --Christofurio 19:56, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't see the article saying that capitalism "gives freedom" or anything of the like. RJII 20:02, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

employ capital

Infinity0 you took out "employ capital" with the explanation: "whaat... how can you "employ" capital... capital is wealth, not labour." Maybe english is not your language? Employ means to to make use of. If you use land to make a profit, you're employing that resource. See the dictionary entry for "employ": [16] RJII 19:22, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

How is that better than the current sentence? Your version is "Those who employ capital do so for profit." Use capital? How? In what way? Answer: "They purchase or invest in the means of production." But alright, I'll add "pursuit of profit". Infinity0 19:51, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

If you don't have the money to purchase or invest in means of production, you can borrow means of production. So, it's not just owners of means or production that employ them in pursuit of profit. RJII 19:55, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, that's why I changed it to "control of". But won't it be "borrow capital"... I've never heard of anybody directly borrowing means of production in capitalism. Infinity0 20:04, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Happens all the time. One can borrow land from an owner who agrees to let you use it on the condition that you pay him part of your produce when you turn a profit. Also, note that money is capital if it's used for investment rather than consumption. You can borrow money and use it to make your own money, then give the borrowed money back with a rental fee (interest), or if the lender is your parents they may let you borrow without interest. RJII 20:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Let's see if we can't word the final sentence of the first paragraph in a way that makes sense and accords with Wikipedia's policies. As it stands now, after lot of revision, it just says that "the means of production are usually operated in pursuit of profit". Does this mean within capitalism, the MOP are usually operated in pursuit of profit? And if so, is this a matter of historical fact, or is it saying that it's not capitalism unless the MOP are usually run in pursuit of profit? If the former, I'd agree, but it's odd to insert a factoid there about something that's commonly correlated with capitalism. Why not mention the numerous other things correlated with capitalism historically in the first paragraph? It seems like it would just belong elsewhere. If the latter, we've been over this a zillion times. If 30% of the MOP are operated for-profit, and the rest are operated for personal use or non-profit foundations, I don't know of anyone who would call that "not capitalism". Further, of course, there's the thorny issue of how no one who's defended capitalism has listed as a requirement that some arbitrary percentage of the MOP be run in pursuit of (monetary) profit. See "Everything for Profit, Part II".

Then there's the whole use of "means of production". It's a loaded term that brings Marxist baggage and Marxist assumptions. I've studied political philosophy and it's not immediately clear what it's referring to in this context, so I don't hold out much help for the average reader. And look at the means of production article. It's pretty clear it's a term primarily used by Marxists, green anarchists, and feminists. Not something you want to start talking about in the definitional stage. Just say "capital goods and land" or something like that. MrVoluntarist 01:31, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

How about using relatively neutrally descriptive words, such as industrial infrastructure and natural resources? --FOo 01:39, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I think the best thing to do is look at the sourced definitions for capitalism in Wikiquote that talk about profit and use their words. Just rehash what's out there ..no need to theorize. As far as the sourced definitions it doensn't look like there's a consensus either way on whether profit is part of the definition --whether there has to be profit for there to be capitalism. This part of the definition just seems like an eternal battle to me. RJII 01:44, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Feudalism

The feudalism term definition is invalid--Nixer 20:11, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

first use of kapitalist?

"The first use of the word "Kapitalist", "capitalist" was in the Communist Manifesto in 1848 by Marx and Engels" Anyone know if this is true? RJII 03:55, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

• I don't think so, but someone will need to go to sources. I found this online (a history of economics list, I think): A little etymology on "capitalism:" My Larousse, Dictionnaire de la langue francaise (1979 ed) gives the earliest use of "capitalisme" as 1753 and "capitaliste" as 1755 as an adjective and 1759 as a noun. [17] --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:13, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Interesting. So the Thackeray claim may be wrong. RJII 05:36, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Non sequitur?

Is it just me or does the following highlighted sentence not really belong where is is?

"... sometimes referred to as a mixed economy, rather than a capitalist one. [1] If intervention occurs to such a degree that it overwhelms private decision, such an economy is often referred to as statist. Some economists, such as Milton Friedman, oppose all or almost all such state control over an economy. However, such distinctions are disputed. By some definitions, all of the economies in the developed world are capitalist, or as mixed economies based in capitalism. Others see ... "

Its presence derailed my train of thought. Slinky Puppet 16:29, 31 October 2005 (UTC)