Encyclopedia > Talk:Capitalism1

Article Content

Talk:Capitalism1

Has anyone actually read everything below? After all this wrangling, I don't see the capitalism "article" as an article at all. Looks like writing by committee rather than well-edited writing... -Anon.

Would somebody involved in the debate below refactor this so it makes sense? It's meaningless without the corresponding article text and I think it prevents new people from joining the article-writing. DanKeshet

Capitalism is a much overused political term, which has little to do with economics. Terms like capitalist economy are clearly used in the wrong context. This is a very biased, right-wing article, written in a style that reminds me of Goebbels' propaganda. The theorists mentioned (Hayek, Friedman, etc.) are prominent economomisits. Their motives were far from involving themselves in a political discussion of this sort (Keynes had very different views to the gentlenmen mentioned above, but one cannot say that he was anti-capitalist). This looks very much like a cut/paste job from a dodgy source. -- WojPob

When Milton Friedman wrote 'Economic Freedom, Human Freedom, Political Freedom', and 'Capitalism and Freedom', and 'Why Government Is the Problem', and when Friedrich Hayek wrote 'The Constitution of Liberty', and 'Law, Legislation and Liberty : The Political Order of a Free People', I think they were both indicating their willingness to involve themselves in a political discussion.

Exactly.

WojPob, I suggest you simply change the article so that it's more accurate by your lights. I am very curious to see how you would change it. -- Larry Sanger

In an attempt to make the article appear to be less one-sided, I added some anti-capitalist theorists to the list of theorists. I think that the article is mostly good as it stands right now because it doesn't advocate for or against capitalism, but merely defines the term in a way that a broad spectrum of people can agree is accurate. I say broad spectrum because I don't think that everyone will agree.

Perhaps a revised version might acknowledge some other definitions of the term? --Jimbo Wales

As private ownership and private economic decision-making are the bedrock of capitalism, and not expressly mentioned in the article, I plugged that in. Hope no one minds.

Not at all. Indeed, in terms of a definition by essentials, this is probably much better than a definition based on 'intervention'.

Incidentally, 'the absense of government intervention' and 'private economic decision-making' are identitical concepts. By definition, decision-making is private when it is not governmental, whereas if the government intervenes, it can only be to alter the private decision-making that would have occured otherwise. Drawing a distinction between the two is not useful. -TS

It's been a while since this page has been regarded, but since the move brought it to the top again, I say open season. It occurs to me that intervention can't possibly be a basis for a definition of capitalism, because there is a special term for a capitalism in which political intervention is minimal, namely laissez faire capitalism[?]. I suggest that most of the page contents be moved there and something else be put up in its place. Any objections?

I think that logically, laissez-faire capitalism is pure capitalism, and anything else is diluted capitalism. If we want to define our concepts in terms of essentials, then capitalism is a system based on non-intervention. - TS

Checking the quickest to grab sources. Britannica starts out by equating capitalism with a free market but in the same breath says it has been dominant since the decline of feudalism. Encarta mentions minimal gov intervention as one of the primary characteristics, but is talking mainly about modern capitalism, and elsewhere calls mercantilism a different kind. M-W does the same. And a book randomly grabbed off the shelf, A history of Early Modern Europe, places the development of Commercial Capitalism from 1500-1650. All of these care more about private ownership and, in the case of the last, the appearance of a merchant class, and clearly indicate that the system was in place well before Smith. So I think that your definition is non-standard at best.

What we now call capitalism was first systematically proposed by Adam Smith for the specific purpose of refuting mercantlism. So if the standard definition says mercantilism is a kind of capitalism, then the standard definition is wrong. Economic activity can be either economically motivated (broadly defined), or politically motivated: either people act as they choose, or they act as they are compelled to act. The distinction is relevant and should be addressed in the definition of the terms we use to refer to these concepts. The concept 'economic activity that is free of government intervention' is referred to using the word 'capitalism' because there is no other word in common usage for that concept. If you stick other concepts under the umbrella of that word then you destroy the distinction between economically motivated and politically motivated action, which would be bad, because the distinction is relevant. One's understanding of the issues is significantly impaired without it. - TS

Agreed, the distinction between Mercantilism and the system proposed by Adam Smith is important. Therefore we should be careful to use the right words for each. The latter is called laissez faire capitalism because, as is plainly evident from the examples, capitalism does not refer specifically to it. Encarta mentions that the first use of the word capitalism was by Marx, who plainly intended it to cover all economic systems after feudalism, and as shown above that definition is still used in most sources today. So you are claiming that the original and prevalent sense of the word is somehow wrong, and I think you can see how that's ridiculous.

Incidentally, when Lenin attempted to equate capitalism with imperialism (in 'Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism'), he was deliberately attempting to impair your understanding by destroying the aforementioned distinction. Communism involves political control of the economy, likewise imperialism; capitalism does not. So which go together? Clearly communism and imperialism. But Lenin wanted to advance communism as being opposed to imperialism, so the commonality between them had to be played down. To do this he advanced a category scheme in which the distinction between the economic and the political was obliterated. It is high time to undue Lenin's work, and restore a sensible category scheme that classifies by essentials. - TS

I'm not particularly interested in getting in a political debate, but the above is just flawed reasoning. Imperialism refers to a practice by which powerful nations exert control over weaker ones. Obviously a government's control over its people is not an example of imperialism, whereas the mercantilist policies that were the most prominent form of capitalism at the time of Marx' writing are. Moreover note that imperialism involves control by nations or peoples, not necessarily the governments thereof - see the afformentioned sources as examples of the way the word is actually used - so the term also applies to control of other nations via privately owned corporations, which is still a prominent feature of capitalism today.

But mercantilism is very clearly a form of government control of "its" people. If it is a form of imperialism, as the above seems to claim, then the mercantlist form of government control of "its" people is imperialism. In capitalist theory, mercantilism is essentially the domestic corollary of imperialism. - TS

What makes mercantilism imperialistic is not the government's control of trade, but the fact that under that system people were sailing off all over the world taking over and exploiting large chunks of land. That's the definition of imperialism. I suggest you learn it before you make statements about what is or is not imperialistic.

I should also mention that your last sentence, it is high time to undo Lenin's work, is highly unsettling. Terms like capitalism and imperialism have well-known meanings, and what you seem to be proposing is for us to change these away from the standard in order to reflect some particular opinion on what the essentials of different systems are. Redefinition of words for the advancement of an agenda is propaganda, and I would strongly encourage you to abandon such a program right now, because it is both in violent contrast with the goals of an encyclopedia and is quite frankly offensive.

You seem to be redefining Propaganda to suit your agenda. Propaganda refers to information, not definition. Also, the redefinition of words to serve an agenda is precisely what I accuse Lenin of doing, and what I would like to have undone. This unsettles you, but then you accuse me of doing the same thing and say you would like to undue my definitions. Is it ok to redefine words, but only if it advances a socialist agenda? And what is my agenda, exactly? -TS

Redefining words is used primarily to add respectability to new ideas and to transfer their implications, and is actually a very common form of propaganda. Thus the well-known word Aryan was misapplied by Hitler to make it seem as if his master race was an established concept, and thus the term democracy was occasionally applied by communists to their own systems to make them seem good.

Definitions evolve as our understanding of underlying concepts evolve. The concept of charge, as used by Franklin, who coined the term in physics, is very different from the concept as used by physicists today. Should they abandon the term because they do not mean the same thing Franklin meant? Economics has been extended to the study of human action in general. Some people object to this on methodological grounds, but should we say it is wrong because that's not what someone 160 years ago meant by economics. Our understanding of capitalism today is vastly superior to Say's or Marx's. Why shouldn't our definition of the term change to reflect this improved understanding? -TS

Our physics is superior to Franklin's, but charge still means the same thing it always did; our gravity is something different from Newton's, but it is still recognisably akin. The change we are talking about here is of a different nature altogether, where both the fundamental idea behind and the circumscription of the concept are being changed completely - it is like redefining insect to mean ant because we now have a better understanding of what ants are like. In any case, though, my point is not about the original use - see below.

Now you have announced that you intend to impose a new categorization of political systems, that is your agenda. I personally suspect this is mainly with the intent of making certain systems seem more respectable and others seem worse, as in your needless redefinition of imperialism - something generally regarded as negative - from something that applies to capitalist systems to something that applies to communist ones, reminiscent of the above. But that is neither here nor there: as an encyclopedia reports on things as they are and not as they should be, you should leave words with their original meanings. Capitalism was never redefined by socialists, it was defined by them in the first place, and so expresses their particular view of the world, and should. If you want to express a different concept, then for heaven's sakes use different words!!!

Apparently, capitalism as a topic should be generic and provide a list of short definitions of various different forms of capitalism with appropriate links to more detailed pages on each of the topics.

Agreed, and this is my point. Capitalism should be defined the way it is everywhere else; laissez faire should be treated as a subtype. If there is no reasonable disagreement I plan to make this change sometime later this week.

Just made some changes. Article is in Positive tone mode. Challenges and overviews from differing perspectives will no doubt appear. Should the socialist take on capitalism be at Socialism/Capitalism[?] or at Capitalism/Socialist view of[?]?

The main complaint here is not merely the tone, but that the article is using an inaccurate and propagandical definition, while brushing off as 'socialist' what is both the original meaning of the term and the variety found in all sources checked - and I would not consider Encarta a hotbed of socialist rhetoric. In short, this is the meaning of the term, and if you think that it is fair to pass that off as a variant then you are writing partisan nonsense more appropriate for a party newsletter.

So for consistency's sake, Josh must argue we should only use the word 'liberal' to refer to a whig. -TS

If that were what people mean when they say liberal, I would argue such; but they do not. Original meanings only came into things when you had the audacity to claim you had a right to adjust definitions because they were socialist propaganda (and strangely denying at the same time that definitions can be propagandical)...

I did not call Lenin's wordplay 'propaganda'. I wrote most of the Propaganda article so you can go see this is not what I mean by the term. I deny the charge that I contradicted myself. - TS - Fair enough, I'll grant you that.

...My main point, which is unaddressed,...

My justifications for this use of the word 'capitalism' are above, if you care to wade through this mess. Also, as I added to the main page, it is a definition that is used by people who call themselves capitalists, which gives it a certain legitimacy. -TS

The justifications given above are as far as I can tell entirely based upon the term capitalism as usually defined grouping together various systems which have little in common except private ownership and being coined by socialists. Neither of those is a good reason for altering the definition of a word. That capitalists themselves define the word such would be a much better argument - but are there not people who call themselves state capitalists, and do they not also determine what practitioners use the word to mean?

... is that this also the prevalent current usage of the term, as evidenced by citations to a number of current sources. Words are welcome to evolve, but noone decides when and how they should, and they are rarely forced to without propaganda as a motivating force; perhaps someday your definition will prevail, and then should be used here, but not until then.

While I agree with Tim in spirit that definitions evolve and that we should not be constrained by forgotten historical uses of words, I think the purpose of Wikipedia (and any Encyclopedia) is best served by using the definition of a word that is in common use among generally educated people of the time. Here's the test: imagine that a foreign-born person in his fourth year of English lessons see the word "capitalist" in a newpaper article and wants to know what it means, because he's never seen it before. A reference work should give him the meaning that was probably intended by the general-audience text that used the term, not a specialized meaning that some experts might consider more accurate, but that doesn't reflect the general understanding of the public. At this time (2001), I believe a majority of educated English-speaking persons (not necessarily economists) use the word "capitalist" to refer to economies characterized by private ownership of most means of production, whether heavily regulated or not; those same educated English speakers use "laissez-faire capitalism" to refer to lack of government intervention. --LDC

This as a policy could be problematic. Take the definition we use for evolution, "the change in the genetic characteristics of a population over time." This is a more technical definition than the one educated laypersons might use, such as, "change in a species to keep it adapted to its environment." Should we abandon the precise definition because it is not how most non-experts think of it? I don't think that would be desirable. I don't know exactly what the guidelines for other cases would be. -TS

Yes, I agree that there are times when the general public understanding of a term (even among educated persons) may be considered a misconception by experts. I think in that case it's important to point this out immediately, e.g.:

"Many people use the term 'evolution' to mean the same thing biologists call 'adaptation', but it is more properly used to refer only to changes that occur over time, regardless of the reasons for those changes...."

Also note that the broader definition of capitalism is not just used by laypeople but also by economic and political historians, who presumably are those most interested in the variations of said field. In short, by everyone except possibly certain capitalists themselves.

LDC raises an interesting issue. I'd say it's important, however else the problem is solved, that we at least describe the less enlightened uses/meanings of terms. More information (properly organized, of course) is always better than less. (Well, I think so, anyway.) --LMS

There has been no further comment on the issue, but I'd like the record to show that I am not agreeing taking a consensus to have been reached, nor am at all happy with the page as it stands. The prevalent definitions of terms should be given prevalence, or at the very least equality, and absolutely never shunted off as variants as presented here. The language of wikipedia is English, and as mentioned above most English sources do not use this definition of the word, so pretending it is the more prominent flavor is very dishonest. I would change it myself but I strongly suspect any such moves would simply be undone. --JG, author of most of the above complaints.

Josh, I'm a little bit unclear about what you find problematic about the definition. You seem to regard it as somehow ideological or politically motivated, but I don't see how it is. I'm not asking out of idle curiosity -- I want to attempt a rewrite that addresses your concerns, but without losing the essence of what Tim is after, either, i.e. a conceptually sound definition.

One improvement that I can see immediately is the recognition that 'capitalism' is a broader term than 'laissez-faire capitalism', with the latter being the purest form of the former, with the purity determined in precisely the way that Tim's definiton would lead us to suspect: i.e. 'capitalism' is a term applied to systems with relatively little political intervention into the economy, and 'laissez-faire capitalism' has very little political intervention into the economy. Therefore, the U.S. is a predominantly capitalist system, but not purely so.

The main complaint with the definition given is that it has very little resemblance to the definition of capitalism. At least according to all the sources listed above, capitalism has been a dominant system since 15-1600 and includes mercantilism and state capitalism under its aegis - so clearly low gov intervention is not being considered a primary, let alone the primary, characteristic of the system. Even with the acknowledgement that "other definitions" are used, it makes no sense to me why such a relatively uncommon definition would be given precedence, and no real reasons have been given.

I disagree very strongly. The definition is not at all unusual, and it is the one that most economists use, implicitly or explicitly.

All of the sources listed state capitalism has been around since the fall of feudalism. It's not like they were selectively picked or anything - they're two very well known encyclopedias plus a book I picked up randomly since I didn't have a history of modern europe handy. I would assume that laissez faire is simply understood in economic literature, just like numbers are assumed to be integers when counting - not implying that other things aren't examples, just that laissez faire capitalism is cumbersome to say.

What has been said is that the new definition ought to be given to help "undo Lenin's work", and it seems to me that implies an ideological program. Redefinition of words to fulfil such is, if not propaganda in whatever sense we are using, at the very least spin doctoring and I sincerely hope nobody has any such intents.

One might suppose that Lenin's definitions are explicitly and paradigmatically ideological in a bad way, and that avoiding them for that reason, in favor of a more conceptually clear system that is in current use by professionals would be a more in the right direction, no? --Jimbo

An ideological classification might be replaced, sure, but an ideological definition should not. If one doesn't like what the word means one should simply avoid using it altogether. Trying to force a different meaning on top of the word is silly and confusing. Example: Buddhism and Shamanism are both pagan religions, even though they have little in common; should the word pagan be redefined?

However I honestly can't come up with any other way to read said sentiments (especially not with the strong misuse of imperialism above) and barring that do not understand why we would not use the word the same way other sources do.

The reasons for using this definition were given above. They have nothing to do with Lenin. -TS

You claimed that the current system of political distinctions was advanced by him and ought to be abolished because it implies false relationships. Looking back you applied that to imperialism rather than capitalism, but it's still suggests you have a strong agenda. I can find no reasons above other than "that's what capitalism" and "that's what capitalists mean by the term", but as stated other sources use the term differently, and presumably state capitalists do not mean the term in such a manner. If you have any others I would very much appreciate a bullet point recap, like:

Capitalism is taken to have been the dominant system since the fall of feudalism by Britannica, Encarta, and A History of Early Modern Europe, so this is probably standard usage;
Wikipedia uses standard English and so should use the standard meanings of words;
The definition given involves capitalism appearing much later and so can't be standard usage

Those systems are regarded as capitalistic precisely because they involve lesser degrees of political intervention in the economy than previously. I can explain this further if you like. There is absolutely no conflict between saying that capitalism is about freedom from political intervention, *and* in saying that it has been dominant since the fall of feudalism.

Sorry Jimbo, but that rewrite just makes things much worse. No one but you, me, and few other objectivists, libertarians, and others would recite that first paragraph with a straight face. I am a devout Friedmanite myself, and believe every word of that paragraph with every fiber of being, but it would be a serious breach of simple honesty to say that that's what most people--or even many people--believe capitalism is about. Let's face reality: capitalism is about private ownership of idustrial business, period. It has nothing whatsoever to do with individual rights, except the right to own a business. South Africa, for example, when whites could own property and blacks could not, was nonetheless unquestioningly a capitalist economy by any reasonable meaning of the term. The also applies to heavily regulated industries in the US like telecommunications, airline travel, and power distribution (even before some of these were deregulated). What makes them capitalist is not the lack of force, but the fact that their profits go to private owners, and those owners generally run things. --LDC

Yeah, yeah, I see your point. However, I do think it is necessary to put the word 'right' back in there somehow. And the separation of political and economic decision making is important, too. What we want to avoid is an unconceptual listing of inessential characteristics as the _sole_ definition.

Interesting to see the entry evolve, co-operatively. But I think it is a fundamental error to build the definition on a contrast between private decision-making and government intervention.

One of the first achievements of capitalism was to overcome Christian objections to unnatural propagation--that is, unrestricted gain, usury. A second was to destroy the power of merchant guilds, nongovernmental organizations that attempted to control trade.

Relatedly, the notion of private property or private enterprise requires clarification. Workmen owned their tools in the Middle Ages and made private decisions about seeking work, making contracts, and so on.

What makes it capitalism, then? Maybe capitalism involves the creation of class of producing-property owners whose business it is to BE property owners, whose decisions and activities center on this ownership.

And of course they don't hesitate to use governments to advance their interests.

Perhaps all of this is vaguely covered by the remark that a pure capitalist system has never existed. OK, but what would such a system be like--what is the word referring to, if it isn't referring to things that do exist?

A similar problem exists with centering attention on the private decisions that are based on market conditions.

What would a society be like if decisions about production were based purely on the pursuit of private gain under market conditions? One result--the most desirable from the point of view of the individual entrepreneur--would be the destruction of market constraints on his activity. In other words, the end of the market. As Smith noted, the Masters never gather together for a drink without plotting to control wages--or was it prices?

One has in Smith the view that competition puts limits on how far the individual can go towards killing the market. But also an awareness of the constant economic pressure towards doing just that. And under conditions of oligopoly--the conditions of most mature markets--the interaction of the dominant players tends to control prices without conspiracy. Tends, that is, to keep prices from falling.

In Smith, the kind of competition that matters is price competition. It is the market, and the source of the invisible hand. That kind of competition largely drops out of the picture in late capitalist economies such as that of the U.S. But no-one would argue that the U.S. is not a capitalist nation.

Lee Daniel Crocker proposes a sensible test of the definition: what a foreign-born person in his fourth year of English would need to know on first seeing the word capitalism in a newspaper. I have known twenty or thirty foreign-born people over the years and have found that most of them have a pretty good understanding of the word already. For them, it's the political economy that came to dominate Europe after the feudal era and was spread to other regions by colonial invasion and by trade.

Starting there, you can present different notions of how the thing works.

I happened to think this was a damned good aritlce before this "overhaul", and a pretty poor one now, but I'm willing to be convinced that the new structure might work. Alas, the clarity of the text was sacrificed for the new structure. Perhaps this struture might work, but first it has to be done in clear, understandable English prose. For one thing, why the bizarre labels (I.1, P.2) for senses of the word? Dictionaries get by with simple numbers, why can't we? Second, write the definitions clearly and understandably; this is all the more critical if the rest of the text depends on them. Then, each time the word is used in the text, it can reference which senses are meant. Perhaps some external reference for the definitions themselves would be appropriate? Or is this particular set of definitions just one author's personal theory? --Lee Daniel Crocker

Yeh, I'm glad someone else said this because I didn't want to be rude. I don't understand this article, I wonder how many other people do.

Fare: Sorry that you don't like it now. The article as it was was just spewing confusion around between the various meanings of "Capitalism". The current structure can certainly be improved upon, but at least, it is meant to dispel confusion rather than increase it. As for labels, keeping them a bit symbolic (P. for phenomenon, I. for ideology, S. for system) allows to easily add or remove a definition without having to relabel everything. Dictionaries don't dynamically evolve to add or remove definitions; Wikipedia does. I don't pretend that my list of definition is definitive, and actually, I already added I.5 and S.5 (historical definitions) to my original list, after reading comments in here (look for previous revisions of this page before I wroke it).

I am very tempted to add to this sentence:

Critics of capitalism claim that decision-making is made by relatively few rich individuals with little or no democratic accountability, implicitly rejecting the argument for the importance of the coordination of widely distributed knowledge; they don't reject this explicity because then they would need to invoke arguments, and they don't have any.

Anyway, I think this is a pretty good revision. I'm concerned there was some information in the old version that did not make it to the new one; however, reading the new one I had no sense that anything was being left out, so that's a good sign, I guess. - Tim

Fare: thanks for your appreciation. I merged your remark in a further revision, giving it a more neutral tone (classical liberals say that) to make it acceptable.

Josh Grosse: Sorry, that doesn't make it neutral or acceptable, any more than a sentence saying that capitalists are motivated entirely by hatred of humanity and satan-worship would be made acceptable by attributing it to political liberals. I am removing it, the intent is clearly as an insult to critics of capitalism. Out of curiosity, is anyone here motivated by writing a fair article rather than by showing how great/awful capitalism is? I know I'm not, but that's why I've mostly stayed away from the political articles.

Fare: yes, it makes it neutral and acceptable to say "A said B", if "A" did actually say "B", even though "B" may be something completely inaccurate, laden, false, evil, etc. If it is not clear whether A said B, it might be more neutral to say that "C said that A said B". So to take your example, it could be ok to say that some critics of capitalism pretend it is motivated by hatred of humanity, etc. As for fairness, anarcho-capitalists believe it is something to be best achieved by the balance of "egoist" individual forces, than by their "altruist" self-limitation.

Fare: Here's a story on "fairness": a gang of thugs wanted to rape a woman during two days. The woman refused, and asked the wise man of the village to render justice. The wise man said that between conflicting views, it was fair to take the middle path, so that the gang could rape the woman, but only for one day. My conclusion: fairness is not in middle paths. What's a fair account of nazism? of the holy inquisition? of aztec mass human sacrifices? Is it one that doesn't judge them right or wrong? or one that takes into account what people really did, said, and thought about them?

Fare, you are simply wrong here. An article can be entirely factual and still have an unbelievably bias, simply by appropriate organization and selection of material to include. For instance, if I wrote an article about fascism and said nothing but that so-and-so approved and that the trains ran on time, I would have written something entirely correct but very clearly pro-fascist. Likewise, attribution is part of an NPOV but is not the whole thing.

Some pro-capitalists claim that the reason this is not made explicit is because the anti-capitalists don't have any arguments.
Some anti-capitalists claim that the pro-capitalists are simply to wrapped up in self interest to recognize their arguments.
Some pro-capitalists claim that anti-capitalists wouldn't know an argument if it hit them on the head.
Some anti-capitalists claim that the pro-capitalists are morons.
Some pro-capitalists claim that it takes one to know one.
Some anti-capitalists invite the pro-capitalists to step outside and settle this.

This is ridiculous, isn't it? We should report the arguments of both sides, not the insults of both sides, and definitely not the insults of one side. I'll ask again: are you actually interested in writing a balanced article, or are you interested in exposing how much better one side is than the other? If the latter, I kindly suggest that you find a different section of wikipedia to work with, where you won't be tempted to proselytize.

Fare: such a conversation wouldn't be ridiculous if it actually reflected the debate. Only it doesn't. The latter ways of saying things (in revision 33, for instance) were quite neutral. As for balance, I repeat, it is only by confronting point of views, not by refraining from confronting them, that it will appear: someone tries something, and is corrected by someone else, until things settle down. One may try to replace explicit confrontation by trying to forecast its outcome, but only so much. Refraining altogether from expressing opinions doesn't lead to balanced articles, but to content-free articles.

There is more use for information than trying to persuade people to accept particular positions. I think the vast majority of wikipedia stands as a monument to how completely wrong you are in saying this.

This entry makes no sense now; it's descended into semantic absurdity. --TheCunctator

Agreed entirely. I vote we go back to version 20, which was both much clearer and considerably more neutral. In fact, I'm not just voting, I'm doing. Anyone who likes the revised version better is welcome to restore it, but please first make some attempt to make it understandable, and to remove all the pro-libertarianism. --Josh Grosse

I think this was a good move. I'll look at 20,21, etc., to see if there appears to be anything substantive that the rollback may have affected negatively. --Jimbo Wales

Fare: as for balance and clarity, this old version completely confuses the various meanings of "Capitalism", which is but a huge straw man argument against all proponents of capitalism. It also confuses who's who about economists, and gets things utterly wrong about Adam Smith. Its lack of well-defined subsections also increases the confusion, as well as the wild one-sided criticism. I stand by version 33 (http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki.cgi?action=browse&id=Capitalism&revision=33).

Then (1) edit what you perceive as its facutal errors; (2) If you think it needs reorganizing, reorganize; (3) if there are any statements where the "loose" use of the ambiguous term actually makes the sentence wrong, clarify. If you can do that without making the article much longer, without introducing philosophically rigorous but not critically important distinctions that will just confuse a lay reader, and without significantly changing the tone one way or another, I think we'd like that. But pay attention to the audience: this is an encyclopedia, not a jorunal of philosophy. We don't want 20 pages of definitions, we want a simple, concise, answer to the question "what it capitalism" adequate for a high-schooler or foreigner who encounters the word somewhere. If you want to put the rigor somewhere else, that's fine too. --LDC

I agree with LDC here, and with Fare! I'm as big a proponent of capitalism as you're likely to find, but I think it's far more important to have a fair article that will not confuse the lay reader than to attempt to correct every misconception all at once. So, are there problems with the version-20 line of articles? Sure, but the other version was unreadable, especially for the lay person. --Jimbo Wales

How about just moving the new stuff into a new article, something like "Philosophical Arguments on Capitalism"? Then we might be able to simplify this page even further, so that it actually serves to answer the basic question "what is capitalism" to someone interested only in the basics, and lets the advocates fight it out somewhere else? --LDC

I would support such a move. Perhaps Larry has some grand plan for where such things should go. (Although, I hope that we can keep advocates focussed on fighting about how to fairly present the topic, than on fighting about capitalism itself: that's what Usenet is for. :-) ) --Jimbo Wales

I have no grand plans here, and I'd support "arguments for capitalism" and "arguments against capitalism" pages, or something like that. Those would probably spawn further pages for particular arguments. Whole books are written about particular types of arguments for and against capitalism... --LMS

Fare: Separate pages for arguments is great - that was what I planned to do, anyway. What I resent is the current one-sided arguments, that (in one case or the other) don't include any common reply. Arguments were rather short - just the gist of them. Indeed, references to books can be given. I also think it's a fraud to confuse the meanings of "Capitalism", and to dismiss any clarification as a matter of "semantic disputes". Furthermore, Adam Smith isn't the first modern theorist of Capitalism - he is famous, and has contributed a lot, but is neither the first, nor the least questioned, etc. - a historical figure, but no reference to give for an account of capitalist views. Finally, it's dishonest to freely mix pro-capitalist and anti-capitalist economists in a single unsorted list.

Fare: Why is it unfair to list capitalist and anti-capitalist economists together? I say so long as their work discusses capitalism they should be listed, irregardless of what their theories about capitalism were or what their evaluation of it was. Dividing them up by their ideas would be nice, but it isn't neccessary. Also, judging whether an economist is capitalist or anti-capitalist in some cases will end up as a very ideological decision. Certaintly Smith or Ricardo are capitalists, and Marx anti-capitalist, but I can imagine some Libertarians arguing that Keynes is not a capitalist, when many would say he is. -- Simon J Kissane

As I recall, there was a big discussion over whether libertarianism and classical liberalism are the same thing, with the rough conclusion that there is enough disagreement they should be kept separate. This page baldly asserts them to be synonyms. Surely that's a mistake.

Far?[?]: They are the same thing indeed. It's just a terminology problem in the USA. See relevant pages where it's explained.

Well I'm in Australia and I don't agree they are the same thing. So it's not just in the USA. -- SJK

Far?[?]: Cunctator, welfare-state liberalism[?] is not pejorative, as far as I know. The word new liberalism was used a lot in the 1930s, but I haven't heard of anyone claiming to be a "new liberal" in the last 30 years.

Would someone re-write the definition of capitalism? I get the point, but the opposition between individual and collective is false. In the United States (and, I believe, many other countries) corporations, which are collectives, own capital goods. As a matter of fact, such corporations were crucial to the development of capitalism. SR

This article really needs work. Why is the discussion of the definition of "capitalism" on a separate page? Who is responsible for all those different definitions? The list is, surely, extremely contentious, and yet it's not attributed. --LMS

This article is, I'm afraid, a rare failure of the system. There was a good article here once, created after much discussion among many people and meticulously wordsmithed by me. It was then "overhauled" by someone who, while they were very educated on the subject, was, frankly, an incompetent writer who just made things confusing. I reverted at first, but then he and others spun off my text and his into the sub-articles linked from this one, and I'm not really sure how to fix this one so it has both a reasonably understandable explanation itself and also the details. I'm not even sure I have my original around anymore. --LDC

Jimmy might be imposed upon to dig up an old version from an archived snapshot of Wikipedia. About when was the better article in existence? --LMS

Hmm. Maybe a month ago, or 2 or 3? From the commentary above, it seems like a revision number in the 20s. --LDC

The following (the former contents of capitalism/different meanings, with its many enumerated "sense of capitalism," has some useful discussion, but there's no reason for it to be on a different page. Moreover, offering an enumerated list of "definitions of capitalism," without attribution, is inherently biased, and currently resembles a contentious term paper more than an encyclopedia article; no two political theorists would agree on the same list. So, if we're going to have such a list, it's going to need work.

I'm copying the discussion, though, which makes several valid, useful points and pasting it into the main article, where the discussion of the meanings of "capitalism" belongs anyway (if anything does). --Larry_Sanger

The word Capitalism is used for many different meanings.

Meanings of the Word "Capitalism"

Here are various meanings that can be conveyed, either in isolation or in confusion, through the use of the word "Capitalism". In a vague attempt of classification, the "type" of such definitions have been distinguished as "P" for phenomena, "I" for ideologies, "S" for systems.

P.1. the phenomenon by which some riches be saved, accumulated and invested, so as to enable undertakings that wouldn't be possible if such riches were not invested. (etymologically, capital means "ahead of".)
P.2. the phenomenon by which such capital be the private property of some individuals, either alone or organized in businesses.
P.3. the phenomenon by which some set of individuals earn their living entirely thanks to the rent of capital goods.
P.4. the class of individuals who earn their living entirely thanks to the rent of capital goods.
I.1. any ideology accepting or promoting the existence of capital goods, including communism (called "State Capitalism" by many), or any of the latter definitions.
I.2. any ideology accepting or promoting individual private property of capital goods.
I.3. specific classical liberal schools of thought that consider capitalism as a good thing, when done within the respect of private property in general.
I.4. specific mercantilist schools of thought that promote the interests of capitalists on the claim that whatever is good for capitalists is good for everyone.
S.1. any economic system in which there exists capital goods.
S.2. any economic system in which there exists private property of capital goods.
S.3. an economic system, more specifically known as laissez-faire capitalism, that conforms to what classical liberal schools of thought propose, and in which governments do not intervene at all in economic matters.
S.4. an economic system that conforms to the mercantilist views, where governments should politically intervene in economic matters, so as to stimulate and/or regulate it.
S.5. the changing and evolving economic system or set of economic systems that have historically evolved in Europe since feudal times and have come to dominate the world economy in the nineteenth century.
I.5. Any ideology that justifies the capitalist societies as examplified by Western Europe and Northern America. In particular, conservatism in these countries (I.5 comes after S.5 because in the case of conservatism, it is the ideology that complies to the system, and not the other way round).
I.6. An ideology that says that the businesses are accountable only to the people who provide its capital and not to other stakeholders such as workers, community or environment.

Confusion between the meanings of the word "Capitalism"

As with many common words, and most particularly ideologically laden words, "Capitalism" has many meanings, and there is a lot confusion when using it as to whether it means any particular meaning, or whether it is just a slogan or insult used without particular meaning intend (or worse, with confusion intended).

"Capitalism" as a phenomenon (meanings P.1 to P.4) is certainly different from "Capitalism" as an ideology (I.1 to I.5) or from "Capitalism" as a system (S.1 to S.5) - not the same kind of notion at all. Yet, sometimes the confusion is made nonetheless.

Opponents to Capitalism often deny that these represent subtantially different things -- but then, in some extreme case, religious conservatives consider the whole debate for and against capitalism as the same occidental and jewish plot to corrupt their True Religion (be it Christianity, Islam, or whatever). Although it is arguable whether or not two meanings of the word "Capitalism" of the same kind (for instance, I.4 and I.5, or S.4 and S.5) are somehow "equivalent" under someone's subjective notion of equivalence, for the sake of not making a straw man argument when accusing someone else to be a proponent of Capitalism, these different concepts must be clearly distinguished.

For instance, often the term Capitalism is used by communists to dismiss classical liberalism (I.3) by accusing it with the defects of mercantilism (I.4), even though classical liberalism was invented as a opposition to mercantilism in the first place, long before communism (I.1) was ever popular.

The word Capitalism was mostly unknown, and didn't have any ideologic or systemic connotation until Karl Marx used it in his famous book das Kapital. The word became famous, mostly used by communists in a derogatory way while ignoring any distinction between meanings of it. Finally, some classical liberal thinkers (notably after Ayn Rand) accepted this insult as a valid name for their ideology. Actually, some of the most radical classical liberal thinkers now call themselves anarcho-capitalists (incidentally, Ayn Rand was opposed to anarcho-capitalism).

I have removed the following from the article; perhaps it can be put back in, but it needs to be reworked:

For instance, often the term "capitalism" is used by communists to dismiss classical liberalism by accusing it with the defects of mercantilism, even though classical liberalism was invented as a opposition to mercantilism in the first place, long before communism was ever popular.

The word "capitalism" was mostly unknown, and didn't have any ideologic or systemic connotation until Karl Marx used it in his famous politico-economic treatise Das Kapital. The word became famous, mostly used by communists in a derogatory way while often failing to distinguish between any of its possible meanings. Finally, some classical liberal thinkers accepted this insult as a valid name for their ideology. Actually, some of the most radical classical liberal thinkers now call themselves anarcho-capitalists.

I removed it for two reasons. First, the two paragraphs seem to contradict eachother: the first claimst that classic liberalism was invented in opposition to Mercantilism (suggesting that from the start liberal economic theory had anideological aspect from the start), but the second paragraph claims that there was no ideological aspect until Marx.

Second, I do not believe that Marx or Marxists ever ascribed Mercantilist logics to Capitalism; Marx's work, and certainly that of subsequent Marxists, was clear to distinguish between Capitalism and Mercantilism.

By the way, Marx characterized Capitalism as an ideology long before writing Capital.

Otherwise I think this article is much improved. nevertheless, I renew my objection to opposing "collectivism" to "capitalism" since capital has always been held collectively, from the Dutch West Indies Company to Enron. SR

Talk

See also : Capitalism

Yes, agreed, "collectivism" versus "capitalism" is an Ayn Rand ism more or less - corporations are clearly collectives. So, too, are nations, ultimately.

What's difficult about this article is that it treats capitalism as a feature of ideology, rather than a mechanism or moral code or value system that can be contained inside other ideologies.

Not that this is entirely wrong, but it becomes difficult to make the point that capitalism can be a contained feature, rewarded in certain contexts (like say energy efficiency, or creativity in the arts, or transport safety) and disregarded or punished in others (like say drug trafficking, extortion) and that in fact all of the ideologies suggested in the article do this to some degree or another...

Current controversies are also entirely avoided in favor of a general "this is political, run away" type statement at the end.

I don't think it's difficult or distracting to add a few short bullet points about current issues with/in capitalism:

- energy and material conservation and how resources and waste are valued, e.g. Natural Capitalism - focusing mostly on monopolies held by professions that prevent conservation and encourage waste

- "intellectual property" instruments and their role in rewarding artistic creativity, versus their role in legitimizing appropriation of a genetic or cultural commons, e.g. sampling, Napster, etc. - "individual capitalism"?

- debt interest and rents, and whether deeds in land held from colonial powers, or debts owed to such powers, are valid - part of colonialism debate.

I still think those are necessary, but I didn't add them yet. It's hard to state them without some context - else they might look like advocacy.

Instead I asked more basic questions and linked very basic "Yes/No" characterizations of the answers of certain well-known thinkers, most of whom are already in wikipedia except for the currently active ones.

If those are acceptable, I'll take a stab at "current specific debates".

It simply dodges the question to refer the reader to all these various political ideologies with no attempt to unify the questions they ask and answer. At the very least, someone should encounter this Chinese menu of political choices with a couple of questions framed neatly here even if we can't answer them or narrow them down much.

The final section which refers to anti-globalization, Lakoff, Jacobs, is significantly more contentious than the characterization of views... and could be separated into another article on "modern capitalism" or (better) "global capitalism".

I agree that artists rely mostly on copyright law and that the idea of "intellectual property law" is itself an outgrowth of the idea of "intellectual capital" (a rationalization that came after the fact of the various patent, trademark and copyright interests).

However, that debate is worth referencing from here - as it is about the structure and purpose of capitalism.

Also, the paragraph in question mentions inventors who rely mostly on patent law, and "creators" in general who rely also on trademark law to signal unambiguously who they are.

These are three different instrumetns with three different purposes, yes, but they are clearly reflective of a difference between individual, instructional, and social capital - collectively, "human capital".

Rather than avoid that argument here, it should be referenced here. See the article on capital

Another possibility is to focus the article on intellectual capital a bit more on these differences. It already references Stallman and Rand. It could just as easily reference the "Let's Roll" debate re: who owns that phrase, etc..

Then, we would have one article absorbing this controversy ("intellectual capital") without taking a position on whether there is such a thing as "intellectual property law" or whether this is just an ideological term.

That leaves "capitalism" and "capital" the more stable articles with the generally accepted extant distinctions made in the literature, i.e. "individual capitalism" is the thing furthered by copyright, and "instructional capitalism" is the thing furthered by patent.

Beyond that you get into some controversy. Some would say that combinations of these with "social capital" is the thing furthered by trademark. Lev's theory that these have a fourth intangible component, "brand capital" is new as of 1999, not common yet, and probably discredited by sudden devaluations in the dotcom boom adn scuh, which seem to show that there's no actual "capital" there - just a bubble of shared delusions.

OK, the article now references the other debates around human capital and intellectual capital, which should contain the controversy. Issues with valuation and financial capital, banking, etc., generally belong in entirely different articles as this is one of the most controversial subjects - and "financial capital" should be a relatively stable definition, i.e. the most liquid and abstract form... money or units of wealth.

If there's an argument to be made about "intellectual capital" please put it over there... that article is neutral and doesn't pretend to take a stance on what instruments or laws should be in force, if any.

As wiki is a GNU-ish project, we can expect probably more STallmanish than Randroid opinions - but keep them over there, please. It's hard to keep the capitalism article stable, let alone objective.

Much of the material in the above should go back in, as well. But if this article doesn't primarily outline the debates, and give you a guide to thinkers as well as ideologies, and say something about the current world situation as seen on TV, it's going to end up useless.

It's not bad - but what's it missing?

The part about "class war" assumes that it's bad and gives only one picture of what it might mean. Is this NPOV? --Daniel C. Boyer

I made a partial reversion of the first paragraph. I deleted the point that the development of capitalism was the result of evolution rather than theory. For one thing, "evolution" popularly implies a telos. This may not have been the intention of the last contributor, but it is implied and any discussion of whether the development of capitalism was determined or contingent belongs in the body of the text. I also deleted the reference to the Dutch Revolt -- I DO believe this is important, I just think it is too specific for inclusion in the first paragraph -- it should be mentioned and developed, but in the body of the article! I believe that the intention of the last contributor was to point out that theories of capitalism came after the rise of capitalism. I tried to revise the first paragraph in way that makes this point. I hope that I have satisfied the last contributor's concerns. Slrubenstein

This is the second time that that contributor has tried to make the point that there is a coutry out there with the 400 years of experience with capitalism but I suppose my country of birth is too small to count.

I have no idea what you are talking about. The first paragraph (as it was) makes mention of no country, small or large. Are you resentful that "the Netherlands" does not appear in the first paragraph of an article, when the first paragraph mentions no countries? As I said above, the experience of the Netherlands is important and should be developed in the body of the article. What word in that sentence do you not understand?

People use the word "capitalism" TODAY to mean many things. The first paragraph as it stands I think does a very good job of sorting out the different things that it means TODAY.

Of course, when people first started using the word "capitalism," what they meant by it, and whether there were practices and beliefs that we today would call "capitalist" but which were not identified as such when they first developed, are very important but complex historical issues. The body of the article should ultimately provide a relatively sophisticated summary of this history. Perhaps you have something to contribute there.

The other thing I would like to say is that this whole article suffers badly from the fact that all you theorists are missing the point about capitalism completely: the reason it does work (as opposed to some other systems) is precisely BECAUSE it was not dreamt up by some theorist. That is exactly why the history of its evolution is vital for its understanding.

As I said, in American English "evolution" is a loaded word -- if you want to use it in the article, be sure to use it in a way that does not invite misunderstanding. As far as "you theorists" again I have no idea what you mean. YOU are a theorist, you are presenting a "theory" of capitalism that explains its "evolution." You also think capitalism "works" which is a theoretical claim (which you are entitled to make although many would not agree with you). But fine! Incorporate it into the body of the article. If you think the body of the article is missing important history, add it!

To be blunt: I agree with you that the article is lacking history. But making an argumentative claim in the first paragraph is not a solution, it just adds to the muddle. If you know much of the history involved, please add to the article -- in the body.

Nevertheless, there is nothing in the first paragraph that suggested that theory preceded practice. All your change did was call attention to one historical event when the historical development of capitalism involved many historical events in many places (and yes, to say this is not to insult the Dutch; just because you include others does not mean you are exclusing one). Slrubenstein

The segue into Chinese Marxism could be generalized more. I've started to do that, but it's a big subject.

Also, I added a bit on the quibble on communist/capitalist vs. communist/democratic. Pro-communists generally label free world countries as "capitalist", emphasizing the economic system for reasons I don't entirely understand. Anti-communists generally label free world countries as "democratic" (if they hold periodic elections). Maybe advocates of communism don't like to admit that communists countries use force to keep people from leaving communist countries, while the democratic world is the most popular destination for refugees. Can someone explain this better than me, please?

Democracy and capitalism are completely different things, and I don't think there is as much ambiguity as the article currently implies. Capitalism is an economic system which can be run under all kinds of political regimes, including totalitarian ones (such as Pinochet's Chile). Democracies often have a capitalist economic system, but there is nothing to stop them having a socialist one.

There is disagreement over what 'democracy' means (for example, communists may hold that politics in western countries is dominated by those with money and power, so not truly democratic) - that kind of thing is covered in the democracy article. But I don't think there is really that much debate about what capitalist means. Everyone agrees that the US has a capitalist system and Cuba doesn't, any disagreements are over relatively minor details.

In general, I think the article makes the subject of what capitalism is look a lot more controversial than it really is. The article needs a lot of editing to reflect that. Enchanter

Actually, a lot of people would call Cuba's system (and that of the Soviet Union) "state capitalism" since it is the same basic system, but with government ownership of the means of production (in the major markets, at least); so you have a state monopoly, rather than a monopoly of a handful of rich individuals or firms. Supporters of such regimes would say that the government is the Party, and the Party is "the people", so the means of production are owned by the people; hence, there is no such monopoly. -- Sam

I haven't read all of the above arguments, but the main problem seems to be (correct me if I'm wrong) that different people intend capitalism to mean different things. We've had to deal with this extensively at the anarchism page -- and I think we've done a good job.

The first thing to do in this situation is to identify what everyone agrees on; in the case of anarchism, it is that each theory advocates the abolition of governmental authority. With capitalism, I think, the basic tenent is private property in the means of production. This, then, should be the starting point for the article.

Currently the article asserts that "The units of productive capacity are commonly Corporations or Companies." Since the vast majority of businesses are small enterprises -- sole traders and partnerships -- this is not accurate, although companies do play a more significant role.

--Andrew It says (or said) "are commonly Corporations or Companies" not "are always or normally Corporations or Companies", so it is (or was) accurate. When measured by value of product, companies as a whole are dominant in their productive capacity in the currently existing Capitalist economies, so it is important to point out their existence prominently, but as pointed out, there are other forms of organisation involved in production and these may also be "capitalist", and so the word should be "commonly" or something along those lines. --Andrew

The following is a nice succinct definition from The Complete A-Z Business Studies Handbook:

capitalism is the social and economic system which relies on the market mechanism to distribute factors of prouction in the most efficient way.

--Sam

Capitalism refers to a set of economic practices that became institutionalized in Europe between the 16th and 19th centuries, especially involving the right of individuals and groups of individuals acting as "legal persons" (or corporations; see corporate personhood) to buy and sell capital goods (including land and labor) in a free (meaning, free from state control) market; a set of theories that developed in the 19th (in the context of the industrial revolution) and 20th (in the context of the Cold War) centuries meant to justify the private ownership of capital, to explain the operation of such markets, and to guide the application or elimination of government regulation of property and markets; and a set of beliefs about the advantages of such practices.

This, I think, is a better opening. However, it is all one sentence (although it does use semi-colons..). So I think it needs a style edit. Nice work though, thanks to whoever wrote it. Anything else that needs to go in the first paragraph? -- Sam

--Andrew I don't think that it is a better opening. It doesn't point out the key point about capitalism, and that is the trade in ownership of productive organisations - not only trade in capital goods, but trade in ownership of the organisations themselves. All of the economic practices mentioned in the definition immediately above were carried out before capitalism existed. People had been acting as corporations and trading capital goods and other goods and services in free markets for centuries before capitalism. It was only the development of shares (or stocks) that allowed the formation of large companies and easy trade in ownership of companies that capitalism came into being, then the theories and beliefs followed. I'm putting the other start back in.

Many dictionaries and other similar books are very approximate with their definitions of capitalism pointing out many associated practices, phenomena, and theories rather than talking about capitalism itself. And not surprisingly many people use the word refering to the associated things. These common associations should be pointed out in the article, but surely we can start with a succinct and accurate definition the word rather than the associated phenomena and practices. You can see from history that it is the ownership and tradeability of ownership in companies that is the key thing. It was only after this became common practice that the type of economy we tend to refer to as capitalist and the word capitalism itself came into being. --Andrew

I removed this introduction:

refers to particular practices, theories, or beliefs to do with ownership over, or investment in, the means of production. Capitalism often implies a degree of sophistication in non-government or individual ownership and control of production, and trading in that ownership and control. Alternatively state capitalism implies a certain sophistication in government influence or control over the ownership or financing of the means of production. The "sophistication" in either case can be seen as a positive in helping production along, or needlessly complicated, or a negative in helping certain people control, exploit or deny the rights of others, or both positive and negative, or neither, depending on the point of view taken by the user of the word. Capitalism originated in Europe from the 17th century onwards, and the forms of ownership and financing developed then, or forms derived directly from the ones of those times, can sometimes be implied by the word.

because it is simply too vague -- the first sentence could apply to most economic systems, and the rest of the intro is not NPOV, relying as it does on the word "sophisticated;" I think Mauss convinced everyone that non-capitalist/non-market economies were pretty sophisticated. In any event, I am pretty well-educated and have spoken English most of my life and I have no idea what "sophisticated" means here, I think it will confuse other readers. Someone above makes a valid point about "shares" being important to capitalism, but I do not think this should be in the first paragraph because it is a little too specific, especially in that it is making a historical argument (this innovation had to occur before capitalism could esxist). I am not saying this is wreong, I am saying that there is some debate over the mnatter (e.g. between Dobbs and Sweeney). I agree with TYzartzam that the reverted intro is far superior, and I think that the valid popint about shares should be introduced in the BODY of the article, in a section on the historical development of capitalism -- and in a way that signals that there is some debate among historians and economists. Slrubenstein

--(Andrew speaking here) First off, good work I think - on the whole. The article is getting better.

The vagueness in the start you replaced was intended, and was the result of trying to find what is common between the differing uses of the word. But I take the point that it may be confusing to start with a vague statement. There's not that much common ground between the different uses of the word Capitalism, so a common-ground type of statement doesn't seem to say a lot, especially when you are in an environment where ownership is ubiquitous. The existence of ownership relationships between people and the means of production is important and significant, and is somewhere there in the core of Capitalism, so the old opening did in fact say a lot, it just doesn't say so much to people who are surrounded by ownership, and given that that's going to be most of the readers, perhaps it's not the best way to start.

I don't remember mentioning shares in the first paragraph - but maybe I did in one of my older attempts. I agree "shares" might be seen as specific and perhaps should be in the body, but the type of ownership that they represent is an important distinguishing characteristic of capitalism for many users of the word, and is part of the economic systems most people refer to as capitalist. It was historically co-incident with capitalism when many other features of capitalism were inherited from or in common with previous systems. So I think it should be mentioned somewhere very close to the start.

What I see as wrong with the start you like, is that it mentions a set of characteristics that existed together as a set before capitalism. I agree that all of those features can be seen as part of Capitalism, but they are not a set of distinguishing features. So how can that set of features be listed as a definition of capitalism? I guess that if you count the particular place and time as features, then they might be a distinguishing set, but I don't think that relying on place and time describes what capitalism is very much for a lot of readers.

"sophistication" is a fuzzy sort of word normally anyway - again intentionally vague in trying to find common ground - but I'm sure that if you read it sympathetically you'll realise what it means. It never said that other systems aren't also sophisticated. It only said that capitalism has a degree of sophistication in the way ownership is handled. Any discussion on the history of Capitalism will describe increasingly sophisticated ownership arrangements even if they don't use the word sophisticated. Might you agree that the increase in sophistication with regard to ownership does distinguish capitalism from what it evolved from, and we can still agree that there is sophistication in many aspects of other types of systems? Maybe sophistication isn't the best word - but something along those lines. --Andrew

Andrew, I deleted this line:

sets of economic practices built upon or derived from those mentioned above

because it is redundant; otherwise I just changed one "including" to "especially."

So what about the new economic practices that have been developed in the 20th century - are they not part of capitalism? I'm sure that the options markets and futures markets for example would be regarded by many, or probably most, to be a part modern capitalism.

You have got to be kidding. An article has to have an organization - a beginning, a middle, and an end. You can't put everything in the beginning! The beginning provides a basic description of the basic dimensions of capitalism that the article will cover. It remains for the body of the article to flesh things out and develop them. You can have a country without an options market, and it would still be capitalist -- so I conclude that you do not need to mention options markets in the opening. By all means, provide a detailed account of late capitalism ("modern" capitalism sounds dumb, given the main meanings of modern) in the body of the article. I cannot believe that any reader of this article would think that capitalism existed only in the 19th century, or has not changed since the 19th century. I assume any reader would look forward to a berief history of capitalism in the body of the article. 162.83.148.214[?]

Okay, but if anything I think people today, who may think that Capitalism is only that which exists today, are better served by learning that it developed at a particular time. Ireally do not think it is important to say in the first paragraph that capitalism has changed a lot in the past two hundred years, as long as the article itself makes that point clearly. here is the real issue: at what point in a system's change does it turn into something new? Most people I think would say that however different capitalism is today from what it was in the 1820's, it is still capitalism. That means that we can define capitalism in terms of something that is continuous from the early 19th century to the early 21st century.

I agree that when it started is important, and it helps people who might think it's only a newish thing - I daren't say "modern" in light of the comment above. You've brought me round to seeing that having the centuries listed right near the start is good. But also I'm thinking along the lines of something to indicate that capitalism isn't "completed" yet, or maybe more like it's a thing that is evolving, or its practices and theories continue to evolve, rather than relying on readers to know this - like, some of them might get the impression that it is something that was introduced in the 17th century and has been with us like that ever since. This also might be a way to signal that it doesn't have a hard and fast definition, or something about the way it's not so well defined. --Andrew

I didn't suggest mentioning the options market in the begining - I only used it as one example of a development in a discussion about the scope of the begining. I agree that the options market is too specific to go in the begining, but to say something in the begining - just a clause - that indicates that the practices of capitalism are continuing to develop is not so stupid. There are people all over the world who will read this, many of whom will come at this article from different perspectives. Chinese people might not have the same idea about this stuff - nor my nephew writing for his high-school project.

I think we all agree that any introduction must be somewhat vage, when there is debate over what defines something (like capitalism) and how it developed or why. I think the current definition is accurate, and only as imprecise as it must be to accomodate the range of debate. I think your points should be developed in the body of the article, as appropriate. But I do strongly object to your word "sophistication;" proponents of capitalism may find value in this word and in that context, it is worth discussing. But I do not think it is valid in an objective discussion. Perhaps "complex" or "detailed" would be more appropriate? My advice -- since these are points that are important to you -- is that you rewrite the relevant section and try to find substitutes for "sophisticated." In some cases this may be a less value-laden synonym. But in most cases, I think that instead of any one word you (rather, the article) explain clearly what is or was going on. I am willing to let you work on it a while before I unilaterally delegte these passages -- I do think you have important content to add, so just add it, concretely, and clearly, providing enough context so that a non-historian or economist (or businessperson, or capitalist) could understand it, Slrubenstein

I'm not particularly a proponent of capitalism, nor do I generally think that sophisticated things are good - do many people think being sophisticated is necessarily good? I looked up the dictionary, and it doesn't think that being sophisticated is good. Certainly where I live the term is not a particular compliment. The word must have different implications in some places.

I guess it does -- which I think is enough reason to avoid it. Obviously, when you used the word "sophisticated" you had something specific in mind; al I am saying is that you would be communicating your ideas more clearly if you avoided this adjective and simply described (as I think you did, in part) what it is that you were using the adjective to modify, Slrubenstein

Agreed, but I'm having trouble finding a better word - I was half considering "tricky" but that's surely value laden the other way. Anyway, I'll work on it - maybe just rearrange it a bit.

According to Marx, the commoditization of labor led both to commodity fetishism and an expansion of the system of commodities. Marx observed that some people bought commodities in order to use them, while others bought them in order to sell elsewhere at a profit. Much of the history of late capitalism involves what David Harvyue called the "system of flexible accumulation" in which more and more things become commodities the value of which is determined by their exchange rather than use. Thus not only are pins commodities; shares of ownership in a factory that makes pins become commodities; then options on shares become commodities; then portions of interest rates on bonds become commodities, and so on.

There's interesting points in this, but some suggestions: I think that at the first mention of Marx many people turn off, unfairly, but nevertheless his name is associated in many people's mind with "bad evil communism", and people might not trust an article about capitalism that seems to use "communist" terms to describe it. You might move the whole paragraph "as is" into the critisisms section to explain the marxist understanding of capitalism, or maybe better take Marx's name out of it, and perhaps reword it without commoditization, and a couple of other "sophisticated" (no offense intended) phrases, so that my nephew in high school can read it okay. What do you reckon?

I reckon

in general, that an encyclopedia has to aspire to a high level of scholarship. There are some modern thinkers -- I'd include Freud and Nietzsche and Darwin, and maybe Weber and Durkheim, as well as Marx -- that every educated person should be familiar with. And if they first discover that in high school, or in an encyclopedia article, well, fine.
in regards to capitalism, Marx was one of the most important scholars of capitalism during that time when capitalism was first establishing itself as a global system; no historian of capitalism can ignore Marx
likewise I have no idea why one would want to delete the word "commodity" or "commoditization", nouns that name essential elelments of capitalism (no matter whether you love or hate capitalism; these words do not suggest a value like the adjective sophisticated); if you feel the word ought to be defined, well, that is alright with me but I thought every adult English speaker knows what a commodity is.
most specifically, I do not think that these observations of Marx are in any way critical, and they would be inappropriate in a section on criticisms of capitalism. Slrubenstein

Yeah, it could only go in a critisisms section to set up the basis for subsequent critisisms, not as a critisism itself, and probably it's better in a descriptive section.

I agree Marx made many important observations of capitalism, and that it is unfair that he is associated with people like Stalin, Mao, etc. but in many people's mind he is, so certain uses of his name will likely decrease the article's credibility in some people's mind.

I simply disagree

He most definitely should be mentioned, because of the important observations that he made, and the unfair associations are a reason to make his name prominant to try to correct those associations, but care is still needed in how it is done.

I do, however agree, that ALL encyclopedia articles should be carefully-written.

While commodity is well understood, it is a big jump from there to understanding commoditization and then another to understanding commoditization of labour,

I absolutely disagree with this; everyone I know of talks about "the labor market" and "the cost of labor," implying that labor is a commodity.

and then there's another deep association in saying that commoditization of labour caused commodity fetishism,

yes, I do agree with you here, maybe it needs to be highlighted that this is Marx's theory, and only one theory among many.

and also understanding commodity fetishism itself takes a bit of effort if you have not come across the phrase before.

yes, I do agree with you, the term should be linked to the fetishism article so people unfamiliar with the term can understand it.

for what it is worth -- and I absolutely do not say this to be defensive, or to make you defensive -- the portions you have recently contributed presuppose a certain knowledge of the economy that most people do not have. The point is, whether we are talking about stock options (what are those? Many people do not know) or commodity fetishism (what is this? I agree, a complicated idea) any encyclopedia article is stuck between trying to educate people about things they do not know, while doing so with brevity. I think you make some good points and hope we are improving the article. Slrubenstein

These ideas are important, but when they are initially presented compressed into one sentence it seems a bit much. Maybe some expansion or something might make it an easier read for many without diluting the ideas themselves.

Although talking about the "labour market" and "the cost of labour" does imply that labour is a commodity, or at least that the users of the phrases generally have some notion of commodity-type aspects of labour, it doesn't mean that those people have any idea about processes in which something changes into a commodity when it previously wasn't, nor with the particular commoditization involved with the history of labour. It's not a particularly bad thing to use these words straight off, especially if they are explained more later on, but possibly there's room for improvement in presentation here. Although, I must say that I haven't thought of a better way yet. I take your points about other things presupposing certain knowledge too. I'll look for improvements to be made there. --Andrew

As you say, these are points that need to be explained and expanded upon. The only thing I insist on -- as a writer, not as a partisan in some debate about capitalism -- is that the introduction b short, concise, and precise, and general enough to introduce the whole article. All expansion, elaboration, and explanation should be done in the body of the article, Slrubenstein

All Wikipedia text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License

Search Encyclopedia

Search over one million articles, find something about almost anything!