This is an archive of past discussions about Capitalism. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
This entry has been a mess for most of the three years I have been on Wikipedia—disorganized, full of off-topic tangents, and lacking focus. For years, I have been hoping someone with some expertise would rewrite it. Having waited and waited, I eventually got around to rewriting the article myself.
The new article features a general history of capitalism and an overview of its characteristics from the perspective of the leading scholarly traditions focused on the subject. Regarding the references, I deliberately inserted references mostly from major encyclopedias and sourcebooks. Although I have been marking down students for this practice for years (and generally prefer to include references from academic texts on Wiki as well), given the contentious nature of the subject, I'm making an exception. It's probably important to make just about every substantive point in the article as easy as possible for editors with limited background knowledge of the topic.
The new article can still be improved upon considerably, as it is tightly focused enough to provide a much better basis for major expansion upon the various sections than the old article. It is by no means a finished product.
I welcome constructive feedback, comments, and suggestions. I will be watching this article closely over the next few days to address any comments and concerns. 172 | Talk07:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I think this is a huge step in the right direction, bravo! I am not sure how to work this out but I would like to look at more recent discussions on "private" ownership of capital. It is private in the sense that it is not owned by the state. But not in the sense that it is individual - most capital is held collectively. Slrubenstein | Talk09:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Do not make mass deletion of sourced information and long standing consensus. Make small changes and discuss. Ultramarine15:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, there's nothing wrong with large changers per se, or even total re-writes, but User:172 probably should have made an example page somewhere of what his major change would have looked like so we could discuss it here before going forward with it. MrVoluntarist15:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Agree. In addition, a rewrite should certainly not do a mass deletion of the sourced information and arguments in the prior version.Ultramarine15:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I firmly endorse 172's rewrite. In every detail, from factuality to flow of prose, it is vastly better than the earlier draft. LotLE×talk16:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
It is obvious that 172 is well schooled in Marxian ideology. It would've been nice if he had a bit more background in the way capitalism is used today. I think I liked the earlier draft much better. --Todd08:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I am well schooled on all major approaches to the subject, being a historian. What you imply is absurd. This is what another user has to say on that matter: The "Marxist POV" charge is so silly as to be almost comical. My experience with 172 is that he's rather vehemently anti-Marxist (but generally pro-encyclopedic). Of course, 172's anti-Marxism is in an intellectual sense, not in a knee-jerk "say everything bad about Marxism you can, in a purely personalistic way". I guess it's a testament to the quality of 172's rewrite that readers cannot tell the perspective of its author. LotLE×talk 17:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC) The above user, by the way, has made only around a dozen edits. [1]172 | Talk09:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Factual accuracy and neutrality
One editor, 172, has without prior discussion removed the prior long-standing consensus version and inserted his own version.[2] He has deleted almost all sourced information in the prior version. Instead, he has inserted a version containing factual errors and massive POV, essentially only describing capitalism according to ancient nineteenth century Marxist theory. He completely ignores how capitalism is used and researched in modern economic research this century.
For example, the article now states that there is one true defintion of capitalism and ignores the prior neutral text: Capitalism has been defined in various related ways by different economic theorists[1]"
The following section completely removed:
====Index of Economic Freedom====
There are two controversial pro-business Indices of Economic Freedom sometimes used in economic research. The most popular of the two is published by the Washington, D.C.-based Heritage Foundation and the Wall Street Journal. A second such index is published by the Canada-based Fraser Institute. Both attempt to measure of the degree of economic freedom in countries, mostly in regard to rule of law, lack of governmental intervention, private property rights, and free trade. The Index of Economic Freedom defines "economic freedom" [3] as "the absence of government coercion or constraint on the production, distribution, or consumption of goods and services beyond the extent necessary for citizens to protect and maintain liberty itself." (This is otherwise known as laissez-faire).
They use statistics from independent organizations like the United Nations to score countries in various categories like the size of government, degree of taxes, security of property rights, degree of free trade and size of market regulations. Many peer-reviewed papers have been published using this material on the relationship between capitalism and for example poverty, mostly by researchers independent from the think tanks.[4] The Fraser Institute argues that more advanced capitalist countries have much higher average income per person, higher income of the poorest 10%, higher life-expectancy, higher literacy, lower infant mortality, higher access to water sources and less corruption. The share of income in percent going to the poorest 10% is the same for both more and less capitalistic countries.[5] Other studies have shown similar results.[6]
Attempts to decide the importance of the subcomponents of the indices have often yielded contradictory results. Strong property rights may be important - the economist Hernando de Soto has argued that weak property rights, especially for the poor, play a major role in poverty and underdevelopment in developing countries [7][8]. Many developing countries are now trying to strengthen and simplify their property rights system after the successful application of his ideas in Peru [9]. Others have emphasized the importance of a functioning credit system, especially in capitalism microcredit.
Ultramarine, not a single major encyclopedia or sourcebook mentions the Wall Street Journal and Heritage Foundation Index of Economic Freedom in its entry on capitalism. The index should be discussed in a more specialized entry. You complain that "nineteenth century Marxist theory" is discussed in the article; yet this discussion is standard along with all other major encyclopedias and sourcebooks. There are also sections describing the classical, neoclassical, Weberian, German Historical, and Austrian School perspectives on the subject. 172 | Talk17:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
So, you're saying Wikipedia's articles should be modeled off of those of other encyclopedias, or was there an additional premise you forgot to mention? MrVoluntarist17:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
We should take them into consideration, not necessarily model our articles after other encyclopedias and scholarly authorities. 172 | Talk17:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Good. Then you agree that "other encyclopedias do it this way" does not suffice as a reason for using your format. Could you provide additional reasoning now, to prefer your version right now over the one discussed and worked on for months, without further discussion as other major changes would require? Thanks. MrVoluntarist17:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I have. I already addressed why the discussion of the Index of Economic Freedom is a discussion for a more specialized entry. By the way, I don't dislike the index. I've even cited it in Wikipedia articles, such as Cuba. 172 | Talk17:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
No it is used in hundreds of peer-reviewd articles and should be mentioned. Why is Marxist theoreis given great detail and modern economic theories used today excluded? Why do you insist on one true definiton of capitalism? Ultramarine17:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I already answered these questions. You are repeating yourself. Non-Marxist perpectives are given much more attention than Marxist ones: classical political economy, neoclassical economics, Weberian political sociology, the German Historical School, and the Austrian School. The fact that the Index of Economic Freedom is cited in academic articles is neither here nor there. It may be encyclopedic, but it fits better in more specialized entries. 172 | Talk17:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Obviously Wikpedia should mention what most economists use today. Again, the index have been used in hundreds of peer-reviewed articles, so it is a significant POV. You may not like the POV, but that is no excuse for excluding it. In addition, why do you insist on one true definition of capitalism, ignoring the numerous variants? Regarding economic schools, why are citing mostly ancient ones? Why not the modern ones like Monetarist, New-Keynesian economics, and so on. Ultramarine18:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
The perspectives outlined are long-standing traditions, but they are still relevant across academic disclipines. Run a search on a database of academic journals, such as JSTOR and ProjectMuse and sort the results from the most recent to the oldest entries, and note how many articles are still making reference to the classic works, especially Max Weber. Also, there are still Marxists in academia. The American Sociological Association, for example, still has a Marxist Section. [10] (On that note, this article actually is short of references to recent Marxist scholarship, such as the work of Charles Tilly, David Harvey, and Immanuel Wallerstein. Still, I would resist the creation of a new section covering contemporary neo-Marxist sociology, such as a section on World Systems Theory.) 172 | Talk21:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, Marxism is still popular in fields that do little quantitative research. There is almost nothing in the fields that actually have to test their theories to see if they work.Ultramarine21:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I recommend that you read the 1994 Designing Social Inquiry by Gary King, Robert O. Keohane and Sidney Verba, which discusses how social science principles can be applied to qualitative research. While I'm not interested in defending Marxist sociology (I'm not a Marxist sociologist), I have to point out for the sake of reference that your suggestion that qualitative researcher do not "test their theories to see if they work" has been disputed. 172 | Talk22:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Ultramarine wrote, "Obviously Wikpedia should mention what most economists use today." I agree. But it is not clear whether Ultramarine means that Wikipedia should privilege economists over other social scientists. It should not. Sociologists, anthropologists, and historians have also studied and written on capitalism and their views must also be prespresented in the article. None of these disciplines should be priviliged, to comply with our NPOV policy. Slrubenstein | Talk09:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Let us not forget political scientists, environmentalists, and game theorists. Today many researchers use quantitative research and try to disprove or gain support for their theories by empirical methods. The article now has for too much weight given to nineteenth century thinkers and their opinions, as if not an enormous amount of quantitative empirical research has been produced, especially during the last few years.Ultramarine10:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I would certainly include political scientists. I think game theorists often work within political science. There work, when relevant, certainly should be included. I would say one important issue is to distinguish between "capitalism" and "markets." These are two different topics - overlapping, yes, but distinct. There is much research on "markets" that belongs in an article on markets; the article on capitalism should have links to thoat article and summarize its relationship to capitalism as well as major trends in research - but it should not duplicate that article. Slrubenstein | Talk11:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Markets existed under feudalism. It is not the same thing as capitalism. The discussion of this and many other characteristics were completely deleted by 172. See the earlier version which had many interesting discussions: [11]. I would like an explanation for the deletion of these discussions.Ultramarine11:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
So we all agree then. If markets existed in non-capitalist societies, "markets" are not identical to capitalism and there needs to be an article on markets apart from the capitalism article, correct? Slrubenstein | Talk11:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
That some people identify capitalism with economic freedom, and further believe that economic freedom leads to poverty relief, is no doubt a view that should be represented in this article. But it is only one view among many. It seems to me that the view should be presented with citations (e.g. Hayak, Freidman) and links to related articles. An article on this index would be one such related article. Why not? Have you looked at the Jesus article, or the Evolution article? they have links to many other articles that are very closely related and indeed most would say essential to understanding the topic (for example, the evolution article has links to articles on natural selection and gene. One cannot understand evolutionary theory without natural selection and gene. yet, these have their own articles. Surely we will have to do the same here). Slrubenstein | Talk13:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
The Index is not used by one particular persons, but by hundreds in hundreds of peer-reviewed articles. As such it is arguable more important than the POV of a single person. Even more importantly, it what it is used today in quantitative research. As such, it should be prominently mentioned.Ultramarine14:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Mixing references
I am not fond of the use of footnotes simply to specify the abbreviated name of a work. This is exactly what Harvard referencing is good for. It is very distracting to need to jump to the bottom of the page to determine that, e.g. "Jones 1982" is the attribution of a statement, but not find any additional discussion (whether contrasts with other others, clarifications of meaning, or caveats about 'Jones' meaning, or whatever).
Therefore, I am about to convert all the plain author citations to Harvard references. Anything that is a "true" footnote" I'll leave as footnote. LotLE×talk16:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't bothering with either in my reverted try. I just used, e.g.:
In the 19th and 20th centuries, capitalism provided the main, but not exclusive, means of industrialization throughout much of the world (Scott 2005).
The links are nice, but are easier to format wrong. Just naming the source seems like sufficient cite; a later brush could use the full template system, if desired. Of course, exactly what Scott's 2005 book is needs to be listed at the bottom, but it is. I'll give it another try if the edits stabilize slightly. LotLE×talk04:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
As I say above, pretty much every single detail of 172's change is a gigantic improvement over the prior version. It is more factual, more NPOV, better cited, far better in writing quality, better organized, etc. It's not the be-all and end-all of versions, but it's a great start on bringing desired quality standards to this article.
The "Marxist POV" charge is so silly as to be almost comical. My experience with 172 is that he's rather vehemently anti-Marxist (but generally pro-encyclopedic). Of course, 172's anti-Marxism is in an intellectual sense, not in a knee-jerk "say everything bad about Marxism you can, in a purely personalistic way". I guess it's a testament to the quality of 172's rewrite that readers cannot tell the perspective of its author. LotLE×talk17:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Please see the section above. Why was the modern research on economic freedom removed removed and instead completely replaced with ancient nineteenth century theories? Why does the article now state a "true" definition when there are many? Ultramarine17:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
It's an encyclopedia! The lead is not the place for lots of weasly words about "on the one hand, on the other hand, but not really". It does a reader injustice to be thrown into a contentious debate in the lead sentence: 172's lead gives a reasonable and neutral characterization of what the article topic is. Caveats and debates can follow later in the article. LotLE×talk17:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
As noted above, he inserts factual errors and ignores sourced information about modern economic research, instead almost exclusively describing nineteenth century theories. Ultramarine17:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
What you call "on the one hand ..." I call WP:NPOV. 172's intro does not give a neutral characterization of what the topic is. You would know that if you had been following past discussions on this board. For example, the bit about "commoditization" is certainly unjustified the way it's stated. No proponent of capitalism defines it in terms of its "commoditization", so it defines a system no one supports. Perhaps you should take a gander through the archives to aquaint yourself with why things got to be where they are? MrVoluntarist17:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Ultramarine, first, all major encyclopedias and sourcebooks have sections describing Marxist theory. Discussions of Marxism, of course, do not have to be written from a Marxist POV. Note that the article states regarding the labor theory of value, "This theory is contested by most mainstream economists today." Second, I did not include a section on the Index of Economic Freedom because it is not discussed in a single sourcebook or encyclopedia in its entry on capitalism. Thus, the consensus of professional encyclopedists appears to be that the index relates to a more specific topic. 172 | Talk17:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
The index have been used in hundreds of peer-reviewed articles. There is no rule that Wikipedia must have the same content as for example Britannica. In addition, why do you insist on one true definition of capitalism, ignoring the numerous variants? Why is only Marxist economic theory mentioned in great detail and not the many other modern variants actually used by economists today? Ultramarine17:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
First, of course the index has been used in many articles. I've probably cited it in stuff in my work as well. But that's neither here nor there. The topic should be discussed in a more specialized entry. Second, the definition of capitalism offered is so broad that it takes into account all competing definitions. Third, other "modern variants actually used by economists today" are discussed in greater detail than Marxism. There are sections dealing with the following perspectives: classical economics, neoclassical economics, Weberian political sociology, the German Historical School, and the Austrian School. 172 | Talk17:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. This is what most modern economists use today, not an ancient theory from the nineteenth century. In addition, why do you insist on one true definition of capitalism, ignoring the numerous variants? Regarding economic schools, why are citing mostly ancient ones? ~Why not the modern ones like Monetarist, New-Keynesian economics, and so on. Ultramarine17:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
This is not the article on economics. Further, capitalism is not solely studied by economists but also sociologists, political scientists, anthropologists, and historians. Also, to call the theories discussed in the article "ancient" is obtuse. Smith and Weber, for example, are studied by scholars to this day. Their works are still relevant, not dismissed as "ancient." 172 | Talk17:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Economists should certainly also have their place. The index have been used in hundreds of peer-reviewed articles. This is what most modern economists use today, not an ancient theory from the nineteenth century. In addition, why do you insist on one true definition of capitalism, ignoring the numerous variants? Regarding economic schools, why are citing mostly ancient ones? ~Why not the modern ones like Monetarist, New-Keynesian economics, and so on. Ultramarine17:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
You keep on repeating yourself. "The index have been used in hundreds of peer-reviewed articles." You've said that many times already, I have responded again and again. That demonstrates that the discussion of the index belongs somewhere, but not necessarily here. I won't be inclined to change my mind until you show me another encyclopedia or sourcebook that discusses the index in its specialized entry on capitalism. As for montarism and New-Keynesian economics, there's no reason why relevant content related to a broad discussion of capitalism cannot be discussed under the more general heading of classical and neoclassical economics. 172 | Talk18:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Again, there is no policy that Wikpedia must have the same content as Britannica. A pov used in hundreds of peer-reviewed articles is significant and it is a violation of NPOV (Pleas read) to exclude it.Ultramarine18:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
At times it is not helpful to ignore all other encyclopedias and sourcebooks (we're not just talking about Britannica). Re: A pov used in hundreds of peer-reviewed articles is significant and it is a violation of NPOV (Pleas read) to exclude it. That sentence makes no sense. Wikipedia has over a million articles and there is no limit to knowledge. We have to carefully consider where we place certain material. 172 | Talk18:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I seen nothing strange about. A pov used by hundreds of economists, published in hundreds of peer-reviewed papers, is certainly significant. As such, it violates NPOV to exclude it. Again, there is no policy that Wikpedia should have the same content as book encyclopedias.Ultramarine18:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I did not say that the index was not significant. The content can be move to a related and more specialized entry like free market. Re: Again, there is no policy that Wikpedia should have the same content as book encyclopedias. Please stop the legalism. The fact that no other encyclopedias and sourcebooks include something in a particular entry should be taken as pretty strong entry that it should be discussed in a more relevant, specific entry. 172 | Talk18:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
It is only an indication that Wikipedia use more recent material. This is a relatively new field of science. Again, it is used by hundreds of economists, political scientists, and other social scientists. They have published in hundreds of peer-reviewed papers, so is certainly significant. As such, it violates NPOV to exclude it. Ultramarine18:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
The fact that the index is a "recent" development is neither here nor there. The Index of Economic Freedom was established before all the sourcebook and encyclopedia entries cited in this article were published. The topic should be discussed in a more fitting aritcle. 172 | Talk18:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Again, A pov used by hundreds of economists, published in hundreds of peer-reviewed papers, is certainly significant. As such, it violates NPOV to exclude it. Again, there is no policy that Wikpedia should have the same content as book encyclopedias. I suggest you try to make this policy before using this argument. Ultramarine18:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
You keep on repeating yourself. Repetition does not convince me that you're right, and all other encyclopedia and sourcebooks are wrong. 172 | Talk18:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, am repeating, because you are using a policy that Wikpipedia does not have and certainly does not use in practice. You have still not explained why the pov of hundreds of economists, political scientists, and other socials scientists, published in hundreds of peer-reviewed papers, should be excluded. Ultramarine18:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia policy holds that article content be relevant and encyclopedic. That's the policy upon which I am basing my argument, not the one you are incorrectly attributing to me. 172 | Talk19:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
A view used in hundred of peer-reviewed studies and affecting the policy in many nations, is certainly relevant. Peer-reviewed articles fulfill every criteria of reliability.Ultramarine19:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
That's not a question here. Where we insert the content is the question. A discussion of the index is encyclopedia. I am very far from convinced. 172 | Talk19:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Obviously, how many economists, political scientists, environmentalists, and other social scientists, today study capitalism should be mentioned in the capitalism article. Again, it is a view used in hundred of peer-reviewed studies and affecting the policy in many nations, so it is certainly relevant. Peer-reviewed articles fulfill every criteria of reliability. Ultramarine19:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm strongly in favor of expanding the article. Being said, we must discuss expansion on a case-by-case basis. For now I remain unconvinced on the Index of Economic Freedom. I suggest we table this discussion for now, and let other users chime in. 172 | Talk19:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
If you cannot explain why the work and pov of hundreds economists, political scientists, environmentalists, and other social scientists, in hundreds of peer-reviewed studies, should be excluded, and explain how that fits with Wikipedia:NPOV, then I will reinsert the text.Ultramarine19:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters' edit following your reinsertion of the text "rm material of no relevance to this topic." [13] By the way, speaking of "hundreds economists, political scientists, environmentalists, and other social scientists, in hundreds of peer-reviewed studies," Lulu and I happen to be among the small number of social scientists editing Wikipedia. 172 | Talk21:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
That is no explanation. Obivously how quantitative science study capitalism is not off topic. Again, if pelase explain why the work and pov of hundreds economists, political scientists, environmentalists, and other social scientists, in hundreds of peer-reviewed studies, should be excluded, and explain how that fits with Wikipedia:NPOV.Ultramarine21:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
That is not good enough. Those who do quantitative studies also have right to a pov, not only subjective theories with no empirical support and little influence today. How quantitative science study capitalism is not off topic. Again, if pelase explain why the work and pov of hundreds economists, political scientists, environmentalists, and other social scientists, in hundreds of statistical peer-reviewed studies, should be excluded, and explain how that fits with Wikipedia:NPOV.Ultramarine22:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Putting it to rest
Let's please just leave the silliness about the "indices of economic freedom" aside. Yes, this stuff is cited by lots of people, and is verifiable, and so on. It's also completely unrelated to the topic of this article. This isn't an article about "Which countries the Heritage Foundation likes best". Even if we were to all stipulate that we share exactly the same preferences, listing countries in order of "most-Capitalist==most-good" doesn't do anything whatsoever to explain the actual topic of "What is Capitalism?"
Likewise, I can find an article on, say, "peptide sequencing in crops" that has been cited by hundred of experts, is verifiable, and whatnot. That also has not the slightest relevance to this article, as interesting as it might well be in other articles. LotLE×talk21:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually, peer-review includes the methodolody of the index used. So if would have been rejected a long time ago if it was flawed. Most of the researchers have no connection with the think-thanks at all.Ultramarine21:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I think we've discussed this before: Identifying the Index of Econ Freedom with "capitalism" essentially means we endorse the Heritage Foundation's definition of capitalism. But you yourself pointed out the multitude of different definitions of capitalism, and how none of them should be privileged. Clearly, the criteria that make up the IEF are but one definition among many. We can say that countries with a higher IEF tend to be wealthier, and the Heritage Foundation claims that the IEF is a measure of capitalism, according to their definition of the term.
In fact, the Heritage Foundation makes two important claims:
Capitalism is defined by the criteria used to compile the Index of Economic Freedom.
The degree of capitalism in a country is measurable. Not everyone agrees that you can measure capitalism. -- Nikodemos14:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
That is not good enough. Those who do quantitative studies also have right to a pov, not only subjective theories with no empirical support and little influence today. How quantitative science study capitalism is not off topic. Peer-review includes the methodolody of the index used. So it would have been rejected a long time ago if it was flawed. Most of the researchers have no connection with the think-thanks at all. Again, please explain why the work and pov of hundreds economists, political scientists, environmentalists, and other social scientists, in hundreds of statistical peer-reviewed studies, should be excluded, and explain how that fits with Wikipedia:NPOV.Ultramarine14:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
It shouldn't be excluded. It seems you are confusing two issues:
Studies that measure the performance of countries against a number of criteria, collectively termed "economic freedom".
The identification of those criteria with "capitalism".
The first is a matter of scientific study. The second is simply a matter of subjective POV - choosing a name for the things you are measuring. All I am saying is that many people would consider the name to be badly chosen - you could agree with the results of the study but disagree that they were measuring capitalism. They were measuring X, Y and Z, and they believe that X + Y + Z = capitalism. -- Nikodemos14:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Right. Ultramarine, you are conflating two different things: first, the POV of the Heritage foundation, and second, quantitative studies of capitalist economies. This is both unfair and wrong. There are many many quantitative studies of capitalist economies, many many more than the IEF. To misconstrue the claim that the IEF reflects one POV as an attack on quantitative methods not only makes no sense, it gets us nowhere, it in fact only prolongues pointless discussion. We all agree that quantitative research on capitalism has its place in the article. But even in this context the IEF would get but a small mention. Sociologists like William Julius Wilson use quantitative methods. Slrubenstein | Talk14:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I would be happy to examine any other quantitative study you can mention that study capitalism. Economic freedom is usually seen as a synonym with capitalism.[14] Regarding its importance, the Index is not used by one particular persons, but by hundreds in hundreds of peer-reviewed articles. As such it is arguable more important than the POV of a single person. Even more importantly, it what it is used today in quantitative research. As such, it should be prominently mentioned.Ultramarine14:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I still believe you misunderstand us... From the IEF article:
The Heritage index measures how countries score on a list of 50 variables. They include:
Corruption in the judiciary, customs service, and government bureaucracy;
Non-tariff barriers to trade, such as import bans and quotas as well as strict labeling and licensing requirements;
The fiscal burden of government, which encompasses income tax rates, corporate tax rates, and trends in government expenditures as a percent of output;
The rule of law, efficiency within the judiciary, and the ability to enforce contracts;
Regulatory burdens on business, including health, safety, and environmental regulation;
Restrictions on banks regarding financial services, such as selling securities and insurance;
Labor market regulations, such as established work weeks and mandatory separation pay; and
Informal market activities, including corruption, smuggling, piracy of intellectual property rights, and the underground provision of labor and other services.
Many would argue that some of these variables do not measure the degree of capitalism in a country. Therefore, the Index as a whole would not reflect the degree of capitalism in a country. It's really a matter of how you define "capitalism". Does more corruption make you less capitalist? The IEF says yes; others say no. And we can agree that countries with less corruption tend to be wealthier while disagreeing on whether less corruption can be called "more capitalism". -- Nikodemos14:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Everyone who supports a definition of capitalism that does not mention corruption. Indeed, most definitions of capitalism have significantly less than 50 variables. Thus, according to those definitions, the IEF does not measure capitalism in general but a very specific kind of capitalism (the more variables, the more specific your definition). I agree that the IEF measures modern Western capitalism - but 19th century England, for example, would score rather poorly. And some (such as libertarians) often make the argument that the 19th century was more capitalist than the present day. -- Nikodemos15:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
19th century England would probably score very well compared to the other European countries at the time. That the index is quantitative and specific is an advantage when doing research. Again, who is making these criticisms? Ultramarine15:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Why 19th century England would score a lower number than modern ones? In my opinion it was more capitalistic than any country today.--RafaelG20:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
"Moving" content
Please, Ultramarine (or others), do not use an edit comment about "moving content to child article" as a euphemism for "delete without consideration". I noticed that at least twice in the last hour or two, you claimed to move material to the Criticism of Capitalism article, but actuallly just deleted it: one was the Lenin/imperialism stuff, the other was the IWW poster.
In the concrete, I think the Lenin thing can indeed be reduced in length, as long as it's covered in the child. But it does deserve at least a brief characterization. I can get behind removal of the IWW poster, and don't really have an opinion on whether it should be in the child. But moving means something different from deleting, and it's deceptive to try to pass off one as the other. LotLE×talk18:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
No! You did not! You deleted the entirety of the Lenin/imperialism paragraph, and you deleted the entirety of the IWW poster (obviously, there's no such thing as deleting part of an image). As I say, I'm not even really disagreeing with the actions, but be honest. LotLE×talk18:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
The removal of the Lenin/imperialism stuff and the poster is fine. (I can't believe the poster offends Ultramarine. It's odd to find that the silly IWW propaganda poster can still be taken seriously by a contemporary viewer.) As for "moving content to child article," that borders on vandalism and should be quickly reverted. 172 | Talk18:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Keynesian economics
Ultramarine just dumped a section on "Keynesian economics" ripped off entirely from the intro of (you guessed it) "Keynesian economics." [15] This is not how we organize encyclopedias. An intro to the discipline of Keynesian economics is not necessarily a discussion of the Keynesian perspective on the characteristics of capitalism. I'd appreciate it if someone would revert this edit. 172 | Talk18:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I think a bit on Keynes is good. Copying from another article isn't necessarily a bad start, as long as we trim it down a bit in subsequent edits. Such trimming, however, should keep in mind the questino of "what is Capitalism" (and how Keynes would characterize it differently from other thinkers), not digress into technical disputes in Economics or policy issues. I don't think 172's commenting out the whole thing was the best approach; if a bit more verbosity exists for a couple hours, that's not the end of the world. For that matter, I think the Marxian section (and probably Weber too) could all use a bit of compacting. Those topics are all discussed at more length elsewhere, and this article should just give a glimpse of what the school is generally about. LotLE×talk18:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I think it's a good idea to write a section on Keynes. Still, I think copying from another article is a bad start because, as you said, it does not keep in mind the question of "what is capitalism" and "how Keynes would characterize it differently from other thinkers." In the past on Wikipeida, when I've seen similar cut-and-paste text dumbs, I've noticed that the text gets left alone rather than refined. That's why I favor writing new text, rather than using the Keynesian economics as a basis for starting this section. 172 | Talk19:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
In economic and political research two controversial Indices of Economic Freedom are often used. They are published by pro-business organisations. Both attempt to measure of the degree of economic freedom in countries, mostly in regard to rule of law, lack of governmental intervention, private property rights, and free trade. The Index of Economic Freedom defines "economic freedom" [16] as "the absence of government coercion or constraint on the production, distribution, or consumption of goods and services beyond the extent necessary for citizens to protect and maintain liberty itself." (This is otherwise known as laissez-faire).
Many peer-reviewed papers have been published using this material on the relationship between capitalism and for example poverty, mostly by researchers independent from the think tanks.[17] More advanced capitalist countries have much higher average economic growth, income per person, higher income of the poorest 10%, higher life-expectancy, higher literacy, lower infant mortality, higher access to water sources and less corruption. The share of income in percent going to the poorest 10% is the same for both more and less capitalistic countries.[18] Other studies have shown similar results.[19]
Attempts to decide the importance of the subcomponents of the indices have often yielded contradictory results. Strong property rights may be particularly important - the economist Hernando de Soto has argued that weak property rights, especially for the poor, play a major role in poverty and underdevelopment in developing countries [20][21]. Others have emphasized the importance of a functioning credit system, especially microcredit.
It is a well-sourced pov. As it is used in many peer-reviewed articles, it is reliable and significant. As such, NPOV requires its inclusion.Ultramarine22:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Lulu already put this issue to rest: Let's please just leave the silliness about the "indices of economic freedom" aside. Yes, this stuff is cited by lots of people, and is verifiable, and so on. It's also completely unrelated to the topic of this article. The cut-and-paste move above tells us nothing new. Please move it to the entry on economic freedom, where it is much more fitting. 172 | Talk22:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Obviously false. Advantages and disadvantages found in empirical, quantitative research on capitalism are certainly relevant for this article. Those who do quantitative studies also have right to a pov, not only subjective theories with no empirical support and little influence today. How quantitative science study capitalism is not off topic. Again, if please explain why the work and pov of hundreds economists, political scientists, environmentalists, and other social scientists, in hundreds of statistical peer-reviewed studies, should be excluded, and explain how that fits with Wikipedia:NPOV.Ultramarine23:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
The fact that capitalism has been defined in many ways, with many different bases and methods of study is implied in many places throughout the article. The lead sentence does not imply "that there is one true definion." It's broad enough that it doesn't really contradict any of the various ways the subject can be defined. 172 | Talk23:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
That there are many different defintions should be mentioned. Only giving one is the same as stating it is the true one. Please explain why the sourced advantages of capitalism are deleted.Ultramarine23:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
You fail to specify how the lead sentence contadicts any single definition of capitalism. As Lulu already explained to you, 172's lead gives a reasonable and neutral characterization of what the article topic is. Caveats and debates can follow later in the article. Re: Please explain why the sourced advantages of capitalism are deleted. What on earth are you talking about? Are you still referring to the section on the Index of Economic Freedom? That question has already been addressed. You're beating a dead horse at this stage. 172 | Talk23:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
It has not been anwered. Advantages and disadvantages found in empirical, quantitative research on capitalism are certainly relevant for this article. Those who do quantitative studies also have right to a pov, not only subjective theories with no empirical support and little influence today. How quantitative science study capitalism is not off topic. Again, if please explain why the work and pov of hundreds economists, political scientists, environmentalists, and other social scientists, in hundreds of statistical peer-reviewed studies, should be excluded, and explain how that fits with Wikipedia:NPOV.Ultramarine23:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Be more specific. What is is that you are proposing? A section on the Index of Economic Freedom? That has already been ruled out. (By the way, I'll support you if you want to move the above section to the economic freedom article, but not here.) If you have another specific proposal, state it clearly. I can't figure out what on earth is on your mind for the life of me from your above post. 172 | Talk23:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
See the many comments posted by both Lulu and me earlier. Unlike some people, I don't like repeating myself. 172 | Talk23:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
There has been no answers, just blank denial. Advantages and disadvantages found in empirical, quantitative research on capitalism are certainly relevant for this article. Those who do quantitative studies also have right to a pov, not only subjective theories with no empirical support and little influence today. How quantitative science study capitalism is not off topic. Again, if please explain why the work and pov of hundreds economists, political scientists, environmentalists, and other social scientists, in hundreds of statistical peer-reviewed studies, should be excluded, and explain how that fits with Wikipedia:NPOV. Ultramarine00:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
This is a wiki. Use the hyperlinks to follow the links to add information in more relevant entires. I suggest you go work on the economic freedom article if you are interested in writing about the Index of Economic Freedom article. 172 | Talk00:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Again, quantitative research showing advantages of capitalism should certainly be in the capitalism article.Ultramarine00:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
The Index of Economic Freedom deals with dozens of variables, surveying economies of all sorts. You seem to be over-simplying the index. Please include you content in a more specific, more fitting entry. 172 | Talk00:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Although I have no doubt whatsoever that a section on the Wall Street Journal and Heritage Foundation publication is inappropriate in this article, I will offer you the compromise of including a link to the Index of Economic Freedom under the "see also" heading. Beyond that, I cannot compromise the quality of the article. Other editors, I'm certain, will be unwilling to compromise the standards of relevance in this article as well. 172 | Talk00:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Incorrect. The advantages are for the composite score. Again, empirically verified advantages of capitalism should be discussed in this article, not just imagined disadvantages by Marxists.Ultramarine00:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Frankly, I can't make any sense of your comments right now. You're saying nothing new in support of adding a section on the Index of Economic Freedom, which not one other encyclopedia or sourcebook even mentions in its entry on capitalism. 172 | Talk00:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Let me restate. There is no Wikpedia policy that the content in Wikipedia should be the same as in paper encyclopedias. Advantages and disadvantages found in empirical, quantitative research on capitalism are certainly relevant for this article. Those who do quantitative studies also have right to a pov, not only subjective theories with no empirical support and little influence today. How quantitative science study capitalism is not off topic. Again, if please explain why the work and pov of hundreds economists, political scientists, environmentalists, and other social scientists, in hundreds of statistical peer-reviewed studies, should be excluded, and explain how that fits with Wikipedia:NPOV. Why should Marxist be included, who only have hypothetical disadvantages, but not those with empirical advantages? Ultramarine00:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Re: There is no Wikpedia policy that the content in Wikipedia should be the same as in paper encyclopedias. Enough with the legalism. If their entires are relevant and on-topic, and ours are not, we can take their work into consideration. Quit trying to restort to legalisms in order to loosen the focus of this article. Re: Advantages and disadvantages found in empirical, quantitative research on capitalism are certainly relevant for this article. I didn't say otherwise. Re: Why should Marxist be included, who only have hypothetical disadvantages, but not those with empirical advantages? That's a straw man. No one has said otherwise. Quit misrepresenting me. 172 | Talk01:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
You know my position on the Index of Economic Freedom section. Enough with the obscurantism. We already discussed this under previous discussion headings. If you have other proposals, I'll consider them with an open mind. 172 | Talk01:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Please give some other eplanations than blank denial or endlessly stating that Wikipedia should have the same content as book encyclopedias.Ultramarine01:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Copied from above:
I think we've discussed this before: Identifying the Index of Econ Freedom with "capitalism" essentially means we endorse the Heritage Foundation's definition of capitalism. But you yourself pointed out the multitude of different definitions of capitalism, and how none of them should be privileged. Clearly, the criteria that make up the IEF are but one definition among many. We can say that countries with a higher IEF tend to be wealthier, and the Heritage Foundation claims that the IEF is a measure of capitalism, according to their definition of the term.
In fact, the Heritage Foundation makes two important claims:
Capitalism is defined by the criteria used to compile the Index of Economic Freedom.
The degree of capitalism in a country is measurable. Not everyone agrees that you can measure capitalism.
Simply put, there's nothing wrong with talking about the IEF in this article, but we should not endorse the Heritage Foundation's POV regarding the definition and measurable properties of capitalism. -- Nikodemos14:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
That is not good enough. Those who do quantitative studies also have right to a pov, not only subjective theories with no empirical support and little influence today. How quantitative science study capitalism is not off topic. Peer-review includes the methodolody of the index used. So it would have been rejected a long time ago if it was flawed. Most of the researchers have no connection with the think-thanks at all. Again, please explain why the work and pov of hundreds economists, political scientists, environmentalists, and other social scientists, in hundreds of statistical peer-reviewed studies, should be excluded, and explain how that fits with Wikipedia:NPOV.
Ultramarine, you are conflating two different things: first, the POV of the Heritage foundation, and second, quantitative studies of capitalist economies. This is both unfair and wrong. There are many many quantitative studies of capitalist economies, many many more than the IEF. To misconstrue the claim that the IEF reflects one POV as an attack on quantitative methods not only makes no sense, it gets us nowhere, it in fact only prolongues pointless discussion. We all agree that quantitative research on capitalism has its place in the article. But even in this context the IEF would get but a small mention. Sociologists like William Julius Wilson use quantitative methods. Many sociologists do. If we gave every quantitative study equal weight - say, the three paragraphs given the IEF, this article would end up being longer than half of Wikipedia! Slrubenstein | Talk14:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I would be happy to examine any other quantitative study you can mention that study capitalism. Economic freedom is usually seen as a synonym with capitalism.[22] Regarding its importance, the Index is not used by one particular persons, but by hundreds in hundreds of peer-reviewed articles. As such it is arguable more important than the POV of a single person. Even more importantly, it what it is used today in quantitative research. As such, it should be prominently mentioned.Ultramarine14:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I disagree that it should have its own section. Specific econometric instruments for example should not each have their own section. The IEF is clearly related to two different topics: how people study capitalist societies, and ideological claims about capitalism. So, I propose for starts that there be a section on qualitative versus quantitative approaches to the study of capitalist societies, with a very breif discussion of the uses of the different methods, and links to other articles - in this context, there could be a link to the article in the IEF. Also, in a section on ideological views of capitalism, there should be a section on the liberal view (e.g. Hayek) that identifies capitalism with freedom; in the context of this discussion there could be a link to the article on IEF. Slrubenstein | Talk14:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Marx and Weber do not even have sections of there own in this article! The article does have a section on Marxian approaches - which is not the same as Marx. It also has a section on the German/Austrian historical school. Comparing the IEF with Marxian approaches is mixing apples and oranges. You need to learn to distinguish between theoretical approaches and specific methods and instruments, they are on analyticially distinct levels. A particular method is a subset of a theoretical approach (You could instead have written, "I could use exactly the same argument to state that Paul Willis's ethnographic study, Learning to labor should not have a section of its own. And you know what? You would be right! Like the IEF, Willis's ethnographic study should not have its own section in this article). The substantive claims underlying the IEF, that identifies capitalism with freedom, come directly out of the German/Austrian set of approahces (which is already in the article). Let's just put a link in that section to this one (of hundreds if not thousands) of attempts to turn a school of thought into a quantitiative instrument. Slrubenstein | Talk15:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Exactly what policy are you refering to? Let me summarize agian. Economic freedom is usually seen as a synonym with capitalism.[24] The Index is used by hundreds economists, political scientists, environmentalists, and other social scientists, in hundreds of statistical peer-reviewed studies. Peer-review includes the methodolody of the index used. So it would have been rejected a long time ago if it was flawed. Most of the researchers have no connection with the think-thanks at all. Those who do quantitative studies also have right to a pov, not only subjective theories with no empirical support and little influence today. Why should Weber have a section but not these hundreds of researchers? It has had a significant impact on policy.[25] The index is verifiable, reliable, and significant for this topic and regarding its impact on the world. It is probably the main argument used by pro-capitalists. As such, it should have section of its own.Ultramarine15:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Re: Exactly what policy are you refering to? Slrubenstein did not refer to a particualar "policy," but it is clearnevertheless: Wikipedia should be factual and accurate. 172 | Talk20:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Apparently Ultramarine has this weird belief that the word "commodity" is used only by Marxians, and is trying to excise this rather ordinary word from the lead (or surround it by all sorts of unencyclopedic and editorializing disclaimers). In reality, the term is used quite neutrally by Ricardians and neo-Ricardians, by Adam Smith, by Keynes, and by others. For God's sake, the title of the founding work of the neo-Ricardian school is The Production of Commodities by Means of Commodities. The only folks in economics who don't tend to use the word are moneterists, but even they are not so irrationally phobic about it as the Ultramarine silliness. In any case, articles in an encyclopedia should start with a simple declarative sentence giving the broadest sense of the thing to be discussed; starting with circumlocutions filled with caveats and POV is nothing like an encyclopedia.
I'm starting to think the only way we can get this article improved is to get Ultramarine blocked from her high-volume disruptive changes to it. I suppose under 3RR for a short while, but maybe by other means for the longer term. It would be nice to have a good article for this well known topic, rather than a bunch of political screed. LotLE×talk08:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
There are many different attempts.[26] I would just like to point out the diversity and not only state the Marxist definition, which also uses "commodity" differently from how most people use the term.Ultramarine08:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
As I see it, major disruptive edit was the complete rewrite of the article without any discussion. Ultramarine is just trying to balance it out. -- Vision Thing --08:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Agree. Here is the last version, representing a long consensus, before 172 completely changed the text without any attempt to discuss it first: [27]. As can be seen, it has many interesting discussions now missing, like the long "Characteristics of capitalist economies". Deleting this and almost everything else in the consensus version and replacing it with new text was not a good move. Please give a detailed explanation and justification for the changes.Ultramarine09:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Here's the evaluation of the rewrite by two people, who, along with me, are among only a handful of academic social scientists on Wikipedia: I firmly endorse 172's rewrite. In every detail, from factuality to flow of prose, it is vastly better than the earlier draft. LotLE×talk 16:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)think this is a huge step in the right direction, bravo! [Slrubentein]. When I see low-quality articles, I try to change them. That's what a constructive Wikipedia editor does. 172 | Talk21:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
There were no discussion on this talk page before eliminating almost all of the sourced information from the article. Please give a detailed explanation and justification for the changes.Ultramarine21:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I did, as soon as I posted the rewrite. I'm not interested in discussing this any further. Let's talk about present concerns with the article. 172 | Talk22:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
You have not posted any explanations for your massive deletions of most of the contents and the sourced information. Please give a detailed explanation and justification for the changes.Ultramarine22:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I refer to Lulu and Slrubenstein's evaluations. Also note I posted the following here on the talk page at the end of May, referring to the de-listing of this article from the "good articles" list: This article needs a thorough rewrite. I don't know if it's slanted in favor of one point of view. My impression is that the article is a grab-bag of many idiosyncratic points of view. I'd call the article idiosyncratic rather than biased. 172 | Talk 02:13, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[28] No one posted anything objecting to my characterization. 172 | Talk22:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
That is probably because you stated no examples, making your general claim impossible to discuss. Lulu and Slrubenstein have not given any explanations either. I agree with Vision Thing. So, please give a detailed explanation and justification for the changes.Ultramarine23:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
And we now have a couple of people who strongly disagree with 172's major disrupt. This really should've been discussed before a complete rewrite was instituted. Academic Social Scientician or not, the new version had a strong slant to it. Todd 09:53, June 28, 2006
To keep all the fine editors here from violating WP:3RR I have protected the article...as the boilerplate states, This page is protected from editing until disputes have been resolved. Please discuss changes on the talk page or request unprotection. (Protection is not an endorsement of the current page version.) I do not endorse any version.--MONGO08:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Given that defining capitalism is itself s complex task, and contentious, I propose an alternative: describe what it is people who argue over how capitalism is to be defined are talking about. Then, we can review some basic definitions (Marx, Weber, Wallerstein and Gundar Frank, Hayek, etc.)
here is what I propose, as a lead:
Capitalism generally refers to
a combination 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) to buy and sell capital goods such as land, labor, and money (see finance and credit), in a free market (see trade), and relying on the enforcement by the state of private property rights rather than feudal obligations.
I am trying to lay out all the variables under discussion, and also untangle different approaches to discussing - even defining - capitalism. Slrubenstein | Talk12:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Looks very good. I do think that there should be link to this page [29] with different defintions. Has some interesting statements by VIPs.Ultramarine12:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I mostly endorse Slrubenstein's lead. Certainly it avoids the equivocating circumlocution. But the second bullet should include something about "critique private ownership" as well as "justify". Many anarchists, Fabian/Utopian socialists, Narodniks, neo-Feudalists, and of course Marxists, who developed the "theory of capitalism" did so from the perspective of "what we want to get rid of" rather than "what we want to advance". Or maybe the critical versions of theories should be in a separate bullet. LotLE×talk16:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I am glad. I will wait for two other endorsements before making it the intro (also giving people time to raise objections/suggest improvements). Slrubenstein | Talk16:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Hmm :/ I actually like the current one best. At least the "more specific definitions" part (including wage labour, accumulation of capital, etc) should be noted. I'm sorry to say this, but I think I actually agree with RJII that the intro shouldn't be just bullet points. -- infinity016:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I like Slrubenstein's proposal. Still, whatever happens, my main concern is that this horribly amateurish version [30] not be restored. [31] I think that Ultramarine's objection to the current intro is absurd; there is nothing particularly Marxist about the definition of capitalism offered in either of the Oxford texts. 172 | Talk21:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
It is not necessarily Marxist, as Slrubenstein already explained to you, and Oxford is not a "Marxist" publication. 172 | Talk22:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
It obviously uses the Marxist defintion of commodities. No person in the private sector would limit capitalism to only commodites.Ultramarine22:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I disagree, and your comment No person in the private sector would limit capitalism to only commodites makes no sense whatsoever. Please present a source stating that Oxford is using a Marxist definition, rather than just asserting that it is 'obvious.' 172 | Talk23:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Those who actually make decisions in the private sector use commodities for things like oil and wheat. For example, look at things traded at commodities exchanges. The Oxford defintion refers to the ivory tower Marxist academic one.Ultramarine23:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, it looks like some heavy reverting is going on back and forth between the marxian and individualist intros. I think we need to talk about what are the most important characteristics that we should get across in the intro are. I should probably confess my bias towards the individualistic approach.
The production of commodities/goods is certainly not unique to capitalism, nor the sale, exchange, or profit from said goods. In my mind, the private ownership of the means of production and distribution are the hallmarks of capitalism. The references to wage labour, capital accumulation, and finance techniques have a Marxian slant, and should be moved to a lower section on other definitions.
I do not see why commodity must be restricted to wheat and oil, nor why using the word to refer to all things that are bought and sold is a "Marxist" view (Marx himself was just using the word the way others at his time used it, and using "commodity" this way doesn't have any bearing on whether one things capitalism is a good or a bad system). Nor do I see how using it to refer to all things bought and sold is "ivory tower." More importantly, I am concerned about the very fact that any editor here would use "ivory tower" to object to an edit to an encyclopedia. It should be obvious that encyclopedias should draw on scholarly research. I do not think they should draw exclusively on scholarly research, but there is something very disturbing about an encyclopedia editor who disdains scholarly research. Slrubenstein | Talk10:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree, definitions in both Encyclopedia Britannica and Encyclopedia of Marxism [32] are focusing on private ownership of the means of production. Another main characteristic is existence of free markets. So my suggestion is:
"Capitalism refers to a various related theories or socio-economic systems in which the means of production are privately owned and in which prices, production, and the distribution of goods are determined mainly in a free market."
Vision thing, I am not committed to bullet points and if you think my proposal has merit, but should be rewritten without bullet points, by all means go for it. As to your own suggestion, well, I have two initial comments. first, I don't think "private ownership fo the means of production" is the key issue for a marxian definition of capitalism; for marxists the key is the commoditization of labor (i.e. a labor market). Others (Frank and Wallerstein) have argued that capitalism comes into existence with the creation of a global market. For Smith and Durkheim, arguably, it is the creation of a highly elaborate division of labor I would not try to synthesize a definition, I would just say, "According to some, according to others." As to your other point, that some say it is the existence of free markets, who says this? Is it Hayek? My question is sincere, because I think that most economic historians believe free markets existed, to some degree, prior to the existence of capitalism. So if I am wrong, and I know I might be, I would like to know who claims otherwise. But to go back to the definition, the intent behind my proposal was to defe a definition of capitalism because the definition itself is contentious, and we want to provide all major points of view, and we cannot synthesize our own ... I thought my proposal provided an introduction that would provide a context for laying out the diverse definitions. Do you still object to my proposal? If the only problem for you is the bullet points, can you propose a modified version? Slrubenstein | Talk11:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Vision thing, I am familiar with this link. I do not think it solves our problem. For one thing, I think it is very bad form for people writing an enecylopedia article to rely on dictionaries or even other encyclopedias as principle sources. There is a vast amount of scholarship of capitalism, by historians, economists, anthropologists, sociologists, and others. As with other articles this one should be based on high-quality research of high-quality scholarship. A link to a list of definitions is not an encyclopedia article, let alone a good one. This article should go into the different ways Marx, Hayek, Wallerstein, Durkheim, Weber and others have defined capitalism. You seem to miss my point: I object to an introduction that attempts to provide a definition that synthesizes these various definitions. My proposal is for an introduction that leads into a discussion of how these scholars have defined capitalism differently, and why. Slrubenstein | Talk12:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate the constructive spirit. Let me suggest an alternative, and let's see what others think:
"Capitalism refers to a combination of economic practices that became institutionalized in Europe between the 16th and 19th centuries involving the right of individuals and groups of individuals acting as "legal persons" (or corporations) to buy and sell capital goods such as land, labor, and money (see finance and credit), in a free market (see trade), and relying on the enforcement by the state of private property rights by the state. It also refers to several theories that developed in the context of the industrial revolution and the Cold War meant to explain, justify, or question 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. (See economics, political economy, laissez-faire)."
I think this reads better. The first sentence mentions both a free market and private property, but I think it is worded in a way that marxists would accept too. Slrubenstein | Talk12:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
This one looks very good to me. I didn't really like the bullets, but was willing to go along with them. Slrubentein's "12:44 28 June" version as better narrative text, starts with a declarative sentence indicating what Capitalism is (not how it's been defined, or who's debated it, etc), and it also addresses the fact that some theorist of capitalism critique it rather than justify it. I think I'd like "criticize" better than "question" above; but I can live with "question".
A flaw in a number of the other drafts, including Vision Thing's immediately prior one, is that they claim Capitalism is a theory (or theories) of <whatever>. That's really not right. Capitalism is an economic/social/political system, about which different theorists identify differing salient points. But the topic is the thing, not its theories. LotLE×talk17:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Last Slrubenstein's suggestion has two flaws, it claims that labor and money are capital goods and it implies that only state is enforcing private rights. So how about this:
For clarity we should start off with the broadest definition and work our way down to more restrictive ones. The first sentence you proposed, for example, would be to restrictive to cover some economies before the contemporary period that have been described by historians as capitalist. In other words, we should start off with features that are common to all definitions of capitalism. The determination of the price of money in a free market, for example, is not common to all definitions. The requirement of a free market also is not common to all definitions. 172 | Talk20:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I think we should start out with the most generally accepted definition of capitalism: private ownership of means of production/distribution, and from there possibly talk about the development of capitalism. There are a few major problems with the current intro; you are attempting to use various practices associated with capitalism as a definition for capitalism itself. In particular corporatism, finance, credit, and the particular method of private property enforcement are not essential elements of capitalism, at least not from an economic perspective. I think some of us are coming at this from an economic perspective, and others from a historic/socialogical perspective, we need to find a compromise instead of edit warring. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SneakyTodd (talk • contribs)
172, it seems like you have a habit of intrusive edits. You removed Ultramarine's unbalanced tag and added intro with wrong information in it. I reverted back to SneakyTodd. -- Vision Thing --21:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
The tag is groosly non-standard. Insert a standard NPOV tag like everyone else, or don't insert one at all. I will not remove a standard NPOV tag supported (on the talk page) with at least a somewhat reasonable explantion. 172 | Talk21:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Synthesis
I'm definitely not in favor of 172s latest variation. Both Slrubenstein's later prose suggestion, and Vision Thing's modification of it, read far better than the bullet points, as well as avoiding several problems with the content in the bullets.
I suggest, however, a slight modification of Vision Thing's last version. His/hers left off the relevant concept about capital accumulation, and a few other minor wording tweaks clarify. But basically, it's pretty close:
A definition requiring free markets and the determination of the price of money through a free market is too restrictive. It obviously rules out mercantism, and maybe even capitalist economies with fixed exchange rates. Given the objections to the bullet quotes, I'll go ahead and post Slrubenstein's suggestion that does not contain them. 172 | Talk21:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I went ahead and inserted Slrubenstein's proposal that does not consist of the bullet points. I strongly object to Vision Thing's proposal. It's so retrictive, for example, I wonder if it could even describe the U.S. economy under Bretton Woods. 172 | Talk21:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Free market is included in Slrubenstein's suggestion so I don't understand your objection. Determination of the price of money through a free market can be left out, even though I don't think it's necessary since no economic system has ever been 100% capitalistic (or socialistic for that matter). -- Vision Thing --21:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
The version I posted says 'especially involving' free markets; it does not go as far as to imply that it is a necessary condition. I will not support introducting this article with a defition so restrictive that it rules out mercantilism, for example. By the way, quit insering a non-standard NPOV tag. 172 | Talk21:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Vision Thing, here is a compromise for you. [34] Please work toward a lead sentence featuring a descrition of capitalism broad enough that it can fit the great variety of historical cases across time and politcal cultural scope to which the concept has been applied by economic historians. Capitalism and markets are closely related topics, but they are distinct, as Slrubenstein explained earlier to Ultramarine. 172 | Talk22:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
In capitalism, labor and money are capital goods. How are they not? Who says they are not? I thought this was uncontroversial. Would it be better to say they are commodities? Certainly, people buy and sell labor contracts as well as currencies. Slrubenstein | Talk08:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
References
The article is full of stuff like (Scott 2005). Could someone actually convert these to proper references using the <ref> tags? Cheers, -- infinity016:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes. Please also add exact page numbers so I can check it. I will remove all vague references to a whole book.Ultramarine16:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
No, no, no! Don't remove it just because it's vague. The information is good for the encyclopedia. It would just be better if there were specific pointers, for the reader's benefit, not us. Technically the refs are all verfiable, if you bothered to read the whole book. -- infinity016:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
No, no, no, no! .. I did quite a bit of work to add the Harvard style references instead of the indirect pseudo-footnotes that simply link to Harvard refs. See the discussion on the talk page about this. If you like, we can put in place actual templatized {{ref_harvard}} instead of the informal style; but that's easy to add later when the notation is in the right place. Please, please, please do not abuse footnotes for material that is not footnote, but reference. See WP:FOOT and WP:CITE for discussion of the advantages of "mixed style" citation/reference.
It is extremely important to me that this article has the possibility to eventually look like a respectable academic article, rather than one of these sloppy informal things that misuse "footnotes" for non-footnotes. I'm leaving off editing for a day at the request of an editor who saw the recent lead dispute, and my somewhat excessive involvement in it. But please, please, please don't remove the much more professional looking Harvard references in the meanwhile.
Oh, I do agree that finding page nums would be useful. But that an enhancement, not a reason to remove the not-quite-fleshed-out versions. LotLE×talk16:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Also, never remove a reference to a verifiable source, even if it is to an entire book. This is standard practice - peer-reviewed journal articles and books by academic presses often have citeations for whole books. Whether a simple book citation, or an added page citation, is appropriate depends entirely on the context. In some cases a simple book citation is entirely appropriate. In cases where page numbers would be appropriate (e.g. where a portion of text is quoted), the solution is not to remove a citation but to point out that we need the page numbers. Just deleting the citation serves no constructive purpose. Slrubenstein | Talk16:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I have participated in an arbitration case that found that books without page numbers are not verifiable sources. So I will remove them unless there are page numbers so I can verify the claims.Ultramarine16:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
First, what arbitration case? Second, did the ArbCom claim that it was making a general ruling applicable to all foreseeable future cases? Do not delete these citations. They add useful content.Slrubenstein | Talk16:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
This has been stated by the arbcom in several arbitration cases: "Cited references must relate to particular assertions; merely citing a book within which a person, after exhaustive searching, might find a source for information is not sufficient. Citations should be as specific as possible, ideally to the level of a specific passage on a specific page of an identified edition." So I require page numbers so I can verify the claims. I find the value dubious, especially when thinking of the unexplained mass deletions of valuable and well-sourced contents from this prior version.[35]Ultramarine16:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
You may try to dicuss that with the arbitration committee. Here are two cases: [36][37]. All members of the arbitration committee agreed in both cases.Ultramarine16:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
By extension, removing what little citation there is is even worse. I note that it is only a "Principle". It would be best if it were followed, but until that happens, please do not just delete the whole thing because you feel like it. It would be rather spiteful if you did; Lulu used those references in perfect good faith. -- infinity017:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
This ruling is of course common sense. Otherwise I may argue that I have a source and name an extremely thick book. Now someone actually tries to read the whole book to find the support. He does not find anything. I then simply states that he missed it and that he should read the book again. And so on in eternity.Ultramarine17:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
This is complete nonsense. In my three years on Wikipedia I have never heard of a prohibition on the use of paper books. If anything, the use of paper books should be encouraged, as negleting them rules out a wealth of essential scholarly material on all subjects. Paper books are easy enough to verify. Some users, myself included, have access to university library services and inter-library loan as factuly. Many more users (the plurality, I suspect) have access to these services as college students. Unless a book is really obscure, I'd bet I'd be able to have access to it in days. 172 | Talk21:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Fortunately, what you have heard is not the view of the arbcom. Books should certainly be used, with page numbers.Ultramarine21:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Your comments were unclear earlier. At first I'd thought you meant that books should not be used in general. 172 | Talk22:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I'd just like to point out that if we removed everything that is not referenced with a page number, this article would be reduced to a stub... I'm an exclusionist myself, but that's just extreme. -- Nikodemos21:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
No, they are not. Again, this ruling is of course common sense. Otherwise I may argue that I have a source and name an extremely thick book. Now someone actually tries to read the whole book to find the support. He does not find anything. I then simply states that he missed it and that he should read the book again. And so on in eternity.Ultramarine21:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
In a dictionary of political terms, all the entries are in alphabetical order. All that one is required to know is the alphabet. A first grader should be able to find the entry on "captalism" in one of these sourcebooks. Please do not insult the intelligence of Wikipedia editors and readers. 172 | Talk21:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Many of your sources are not dictionaries. If giving the name of the article in a dictionary reference, then the arbcom ruling is probably fulfilled.Ultramarine21:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
All sources without page numbers are encyclopedias and sourcebooks with entries in alphabetical order (Britannica, Oxford Dictionary of Politics, Oxford Dictionary of Sociology, etc.) 172 | Talk21:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Scott = Oxford Dictionary of Sociology. Scott is the editor. Look at the footnotes for the entry. The entries dictionary of academic terms edited by Scott are in alphabetical order. A first-grader who knows his ABCs could find the "capitalism" entry in that sourebook without a page number. 172 | Talk22:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
You are right. Clarify that all dictionaries and encyclopedias use the entry for capitalism. Please state any excpetions.Ultramarine22:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Huh? The inline references correspond to the references found in the footnotes, which cite the particular entry (i.e. "capitalism" for the Oxford texts and "economic systems" for Britannica). 172 | Talk22:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually, "Capitalism." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2006. Encyclopædia Britannica Online (EB)." Please check if there are any more errors and correct them. Please then confirm that all inline references refers to the article mentioned in the Notes section.Ultramarine22:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
No, in Britannica's macropedia, "capitalism" is subsumed under the "economic systems" entry. The citations are correct. 172 | Talk22:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
He only copied your text. Again, for verifiability, please state without any qualifier that inline citations refer to articles mentioned in the footnoes.Ultramarine23:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Check for yourself. Compare the diffs between my original verision and the version following Lulu's change of the reference format. 172 | Talk23:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Do you state that in your original text, all inline citations refer to the articles mentioned in the footnoes?Ultramarine23:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
(dedent) I may have made an error in where I indicated the "EB" abbreviation. There were two editions of EB mentioned in different places. I'll take a look at the details, but don't pretend a minor clerical mistake by me is some nefarious plot to hide or falsify sources, or that it should result in mass deletion of citations. LotLE×talk17:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Let's not remove any cited material...let's do what we can to locate the books and cite the exact page(s) from which the information in the article sources. The only reason to remove cited material is if it is not a reliable source according to that guideline. Thanks.--MONGO06:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
There is no problem with the referencing. I have the page numbers. But I do not list them intentionally. It's pointless to cite the page number(s) for encyclopedia and sourebooks with terms listed in alphabetical order. 172 | Talk09:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Ultramarine, maybe you are new here. let me explain how things work. the ArbCom made rulings in two specific cases. Their rulings apply policies to specific cases. The ArbCom does not actually make policies. You provided two examples where the ArbCom interpreted the situation such that page numbers were appropriate or necessary, but lacking. So what? No one here denies that. no one here denies that there are cases where page numbers are appropriate and necessary. But this is not what is at issue here. You are using these ArbCom decisions to justify your deleting any citation lacking page numbers. Ultramarine, I urge you to take time and familiarize yourself with our policies. No policy prohibits citations lacking page numbers, and you cannot apply an ArbCom ruling to one case to another case. If you want, you can go to the ArbCom with this particular case and ask for a ruling. But the ArbCom made a ruling concerning two specific disputes, not concerning this dispute, and their ruling on one dispute does not apply to this case. Moreover, Ultramarine, surely you can see how sometimes page numbers are appropriate and necessary and sometimes they are not. Look at any peer-reviewed journal or book published by an academic press and you will find both. Slrubenstein | Talk10:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Lots of original research here. Obivously prior situations affects future ones, like in all judicial systems that are not arbitrary.Ultramarine13:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with the issues at hand concerning the article. Sourcebook and encyclopedia citations do not require page numbers. There's nothing left to discuss under this thread. I will be ignoring it. 172 | Talk20:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Censorship
Slrubenstein, stop editing and censoring my edits.[38] You refuse to answer my question, so I repeat them.Ultramarine 13:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Is there something dangerous for the readers about this sourced information? Why should they not be allowd to see it even on the talk pages? Ultramarine13:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I have not censored you. When you say the exact same time three times, and I delete the last time so only two repetitions of your views remain, that is not censorship. Moreover, I have answered your questions, and you have not answered mine. But don't worry, i will not keep repeating my questions. if you cannot answer them, so be it. Slrubenstein | Talk13:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
You have not answered why this article should violate NPOV and exclude giving a good summary of best researched arguments by pro-capitalits.Ultramarine13:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
NOWHERE have I written "this article should violate NPOV." NOWHERE have I said this article should exclude a good summary of well-researched research by anyone. Nowehere. Don't like about me. Slrubenstein | Talk13:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
The exclusion violates NPOV. The argument that it is a research method is ridiculous. The research is probably the main argument used by pro-capitalists. They should also be allowed to have a view in an article about capitalism.Ultramarine13:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Furthermore, the statement that it belongs to the Austrian school of economic is very strange. They reject many empirical statistical methods. You will not find much, if any, advocacy for this research on for example Mises.org. The indices are used by mainstream economists, among other researchers.Ultramarine14:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't see where Slrubenstein said that the index "belongs to the Austrian school of economic[s]." You seem to be attributing to him stuff that he has not claimed. Yet you have not responded seriously to the substance of his comments explaining why the Wall Street Journal and Heritage Foundation index merits any more coverage in the article than the paragraph in which it is currently mentioned (as a compromise to you). 172 | Talk20:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
"The substantive claims underlying the IEF, that identifies capitalism with freedom, come directly out of the German/Austrian set of approahces (which is already in the article)." I have not seen any explanations for the exclusion except stating that is part of the "German/Austrian set" already covered in the article or that it is research method. The first is false as noted above, if the second is valid, then we should also exclude the Marxist views since it uses a method, historical materialism.Ultramarine04:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
You are once again misrepresenting me, verging on lying. You report only half of what I said. I said that you were making two points, one involving the identification of capitalism with freedom, the other involving quantitative methods. i said that your first claim is already in the article. I suggested adding a section on "quantitative versus qualitative researchon capitalism." Such a section would address your second concern. But it would do so in an encyclopedic way, instead of spending paragraphs on one of hundreds of quantitative instruments used to study economies, it would discuss the general issue of methods, summarize or provide links for many quantitative studies, as well as qualitative ones. Slrubenstein | Talk08:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
It misleading to mention all studies of economics. Very few study capitalism as a system compared to others. What other methods are thinking about? Ultramarine15:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Pix
I added a few. I felt von Mises was more iconic of the Autrians than Schumpeter. I'd like to put a picture of Keynes, but I really don't like the one in his article (it's not just Keynes, and it's not portrait style). The individual thinkers don't really do much to illustrate the text and theories, but they add a little splash of... well, not color, since they're B&W pictures, let's say "visual interest". LotLE×talk19:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Nice work, Vision Thing
On this edit. [39] It makes much more sense to move that paragraph to the "criticism" section as a way of offering a response. I think we're starting to make progress. 172 | Talk22:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh well, I don't agree here (that's why I moved it where I think it makes more sense). But I'll go along with the common opinion of 172 and Vision Thing, and leave the "capitalism alleviates poverty" claim under the criticism section. LotLE×talk02:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Property rights
Please explain why this interesting view by a well-know theorist was mostly removed: "Hernando de Soto has argued that an important characteristic of capitalism is the functioning state protection of property righs in a formal property system where ownership and transactions are clearly recorded. This made possible a) greater independence for individuals from local community arrangements to protect their assets b) clear and provable protected ownership; c) the standardization and integration of property rules and property information in the country as a whole; d) increased trust arising from a greater certainty of punishment for cheating in economic transactions; e) more formal and complex written statements of ownership that permitted the easier assumption of shared risk and ownership in companies, and the insurance of risk; f) greater availability of loans for new projects, since more things could be used as collateral for the loans; g) easier access to and more reliable information regarding such things as credit history and the worth of assets; h) an increased fungibility, standardization and transferability of statements documenting the ownership of property, which paved the way for structures such as national markets for companies and the easy transportation of property through complex networks of individuals and other entities. All of these things enhanced economic growth.[40]"Ultramarine05:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
It was not, of course, removed. I reduced it to something of more appropriate size for its significance. This is an article on Capitalism, not one on de Soto. He is indeed one of several hundred notable living economists, but nothing makes him stand out as deserving a whole section of his own. However, I do agree that de Soto's point about the role of the state in protection of property rights is notable enough for brief inclusion; de Soto's not exactly unique or first in this observation, but he's suitable as a source for the idea. LotLE×talk05:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
The interesting thing is the arguments he presents. They should be mentioned. Many governments has consulted him, so he is certainly prominent. Why should Weber have an extremely long section, he has no importance now except among sociologists? Ultramarine05:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I think it might be good to reduce the Weber discussion somewhat. In terms of this article topic, I don't really think Weber is that much more important than Schumpeter. But Weber is quite a bit more relevant here than is de Soto. de Soto might be relevant to the specific issue of deciding best economic policy for countries, but this article isn't about economic policy, or growth optimization, or the like. Rather, it's about the ontological question of "what is Capitalism". Weber actually proposes an analysis, and a significantly influential one, of the nature of capitalism. de Soto only minimally speaks to that ontological issue, and primarily to policy choices within capitalism. LotLE×talk06:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Sure, it's an exerpt from a minor, recent trade book that hasn't had particularly wide influence. As I say, de Soto is a fairly well-respected contemporary economist, who writes intelligently enough about his own analysis of the working of capitalism. But, y'know "Weberian" is a widely used adjective, as is "Keynesian". When or if de Soto gets to the point where you can use his name in adjectival form (and be understood by ordinary intellectuals), we will deserve a similar degree of discussion as Weber or Keynes. LotLE×talk07:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
I certainly think Shumpeter deserves as much room as Weber. I also think there is room for some section on the view, shared by Smith and Durkheim, that identifies capitalism with an elaborate division of (free) labor. de Soto is not theorizing capitalism, he is proposing a development policy. he deserves perhaps a link here, more discussion in an article on Modernization theory or Economic development, and of course his own article. Ultramarine, perhaps your efforts (involving policies that raise the standard of living) would be put to better use in those articles, which are, well, all about policies aimed at raising the standard of living. Slrubenstein | Talk09:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
The content on Shumpeter can be expanded under the section on the German Historical School and the Austrian School, where is he already discussed. Smith on the division of labor definately needs expansion. (I'm surprised I didn't get to that myself, actually.) Durkheim doesn't fit too easily in the economic perspectives section because of how the article was structured. A paragraph or two on Durkheim would help, however, in the section on social theory. I eventually favor mentioning de Soto in the context of Modernization theory in the section on social theory. 172 | Talk10:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Notice the more limited mention of de Soto I retained under the "social and political theory" section. It could possibly go somewhere else, but I don't think it fits too badly there. There is a minimal ontological element in de Soto, inasmuch as he identifies a legalistic framework as a prerequisite of a functioning Capitalist economy. I disagree with de Soto's policy advice, but am intellectually sympathetic with the legalistic emphasis. Of course, prior thinkers—including Weber, for example—have made points along these lines. Hell, John Locke made points along these lines. But a sentence (or two, tops) from a modern analyst isn't unreasonable.
It wouldn't be bad to add a bit on Durkheim. Two paragraphs seems like a bit too much, since the theory of groups isn't necessarily about capitalism per se. Perhaps even such a section can have a clause mentioning Mannheim and Sohn-Rethel, whom I can see as being used in the same breath. Hey, not to snipe: but do you notice that both Slrubenstein and 172 misspelled 'Schumpeter' above :-)... it was enough to make me go look it up again to make sure I wasn't imagining the 'c'.
Oh, one more "special pleading": would anyone object too much if I tried a sentence on Sraffa at the tail-end of Keynes? I think that even though he's rather highly technical, his work is important to "post-Keynesian" thought. LotLE×talk18:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Opps, but I'd managed to spell Schumpeter correctly in my original version of the rewrite. It looks like Slrubenstein made a typo, and somehow I copied his typo. That's ood. Oh well. 172 | Talk20:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Maybe, but the means of production weren't "alienable" under feudalism. But I don't think we're allowed to mention that obvious fact :-). LotLE×talk18:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Also, ownership and trade of commoddities, goods, and services sounds redundant. Why not just "commodities?" Or just "Goods and services?" Or "Commodities, including goods and services?" The point is, goods and services are commodities under capitalism. Slrubenstein | Talk09:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Agreed on both points. Regarding the second, how about just goods and services? The term "commodity" (strangely enough) extremely offends Ultramarine, and it's easier not to argue with him if we don't have to. 172 | Talk09:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
If means of production were privately held under Feudalism 9and I know they are owned privately in many non-Western non-Capitalist societies) then it seems to be we should not include it in the introduction. A discussion of the role of "means of production" and "private ownership" vis a vis capitalism certainly can be developed in a later section of the article. Slrubenstein | Talk10:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Under feudalism, the means of production (land) were owned by the state and managed by government bureaucrats (feudal lords). Feudal lords did not have the ownership rights associated with later capitalist economies. For example, they couldn't sell the land or lease it for more than a short period. Entail legislation reserved the land to specific bloodlines rather than specific people. Feudal lords could not "fire" serfs or "poach" them from other lords. The capital goods used in farming were privately owned and operated, but capital accumulation was low in this period.
You need to remember the concerns of all Wikipedia editors, not just those paying attention when you implemented this massive rewrite. "Commoditization" is not an accepted defining characterization across all disciplines. It shouldn't be in the first definition. It reflects a Marxist bias. MrVoluntarist14:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
While it is true that ownership meant different things and was regulated differently under feudalism, this sentence, "Under feudalism, the means of production (land) were owned by the state and managed by government bureaucrats (feudal lords)" is just wrong. What historians have made this claim? There is plenty of historical documentation of craftsmen owning their own tools under feudalism. And as I added, there are plenty of examples of non-capitalist societies where individulas own the means of production. Slrubenstein | Talk15:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Slrub, I already acknowledged there was private ownership of capital goods. Second, your point about "examples of non-capitalist societies involving individuals owning the means of production (presumably privately)" is pure question-begging. And all historians have claimed that the state (or government) owned the land under feudalism. The also agree with everything else I listed about entail and limits on selling, leasing, and replacing serfs. The ability of a private owner to sell, lease, and manage are defining characteristics of private ownership. If you use the term "private ownership" such that it doesn't include these rights, then perhaps we should specify the difference at the beginning, e.g., "In capitlism, the means of production are privately owned and operated, which means their owners may sell, lease, and make management decisions regarding their means of production." However, that is already how people understand the term. MrVoluntarist15:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
You are focussing on two things: land and labor. And I agree with you about these. But this leads to a different definition of capitalism: one in which land may be privately owned, and in which labor is free (a definition I agree with by the way). What you say about serfs is true, but I am not sure how it is relevant to the question. Surely you are not including people in "means of production" because then you would be saying people can be privately owned, bought and sold. Slrubenstein | Talk15:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Huh? It's simple. Land wasn't privately owned under feudalism in the sense we use it today. Ergo, feudalism is not capitalism. Ergo, capitalism can be defined in terms of private MOP ownership without engulfing feudalism. Which part of that do you not agree with? MrVoluntarist15:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
By the way, I don't know what you mean by begging the question. However, for what it is worth - to follow your more detailed response - the societies I am thinking of (non-capitalist, people own means of production) land is not owned by anyone, although people enjoy exclusive but limited use-rights to land. Slrubenstein | Talk15:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
I think we had this discussion a while back, though that may have been Crotalus Horridus (or however that's spelled). It's unclear what you mean about how those use-rights are specified, but if you're talking about e.g., some kind of open field system, then that would be a kind of public, or collective ownership, not private ownership. Hence, not capitalism. MrVoluntarist15:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
My point exactly - not capitalism, but means of production are still privately owned. It sounds like for you at least the fact that land, specifically, is considered a means of production and is privately owned is crucial to capitalism. I do not argue this. But if this is a key factor, then perhaps the article needs a section on debates over ownership of land and the historical pricess by which it became a commodity (or whatever word you prefer, to describe something that is bought and sold as well as used). Slrubenstein | Talk15:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
What? Are you reading the same thing I am? What you described is not capitalism, AND it doesn't have private ownership. Of course land is one of the means of production -- read the article! If a major part of that economy is not privately owned, it's not capitalism, and in no way is a counterexample to "capitalism involves mainly private ownership of the means of production". MrVoluntarist15:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
If you don't have the right to sell a thing or give it to someone else, then you don't own it. Ownership entails a right to dispose of a thing as one wishes. Land was not owned by private individuals in feudalism because they didn't have the right to trade their real estate amongst each other. Just like if the law prohibited you from selling your own labor, then you wouldn't own yourself. You might own yourself morally in that case but not legally. The state would own you. If there are any means of production communistically owned, then like MrVoluntarist says, it wouldn't be part of capitalism. A free society allows anyone to establish any type of economic system they want. It just so happens that in free societies, the overwhelming majority of people choose to engage in capitalism. Some in the U.S., like some hippies, choose communism and set up their communes out in the country. They operate in a communist system within the free society. They're not part of the capitalist system. C-Liberal19:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Large scale unexplained deletions
Without discussion on the talk pages, most of the prior verions with many interesting and referenced discussions was deleted. There is still not explanation. I again ask for one. The prior version can be seen here.[43].Ultramarine15:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Proposed intro
Could someone c+p the current "proposed intro" here? There are several versions on this talk page, and I don't know which one is the most updated. -- infinity015:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
I strongly object to the current intro. It's way too restrictive in its definition and does not even mention the other definitions. I like this one better:
Capitalism is the name given to the economic system that has been most common across the world since the industrial revolution. It has been defined in numerous, but similar, ways [44]. For instance, according to Encarta, capitalism is an economic system in which private individuals and business firms carry on the production and exchange of goods and services through a complex network of prices and markets.[2] The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics defines capitalism as an economic system based on private ownership of the means of production; and the production of commodities for sale, exchange, and profit.[3][4] More specific definitions of capitalism have noted its association with wage labour; the accumulation of large amounts of capital (such as raw materials and machine equipment); market exchange; and specialized techniques of finance and production such as banking, credit, and insurance (Scott 2005; Burnham). Contemporary capitalism is often described as the free market economy or free enterprise economy, with reference to the distribution of income largely through the operation of markets.[5]
OK, what I have here is meant to *replace* the first paragraph of the current intro.
Capitalism is the name given to the economic system that has been most common across the world since the industrial revolution. It has been defined in numerous, but similar, ways [45].
Contemporary capitalism is often described as the free market economy or free enterprise economy, with reference to the distribution of income largely through the operation of markets.[6]
I think the current intro reflects a pretty decent working consensus. It is no one's ideal, but I think acceptable to most people. I have three problems with your version. First, the first sentence editorializes. Second, I think it is very poor form to use another encyclopedia when writing, well, an encyclopedia. it is derivative (and an excuse for not doing real research, which is what anyone who wants to write an encyclopedia article ought to do). Finally, any definition is going to be controverisal. And there is no reason for the introduction to define capitalism - anyone who has access to Wikipedia can go to Answers.com for a dictionary definition, and for scholarly definitions, well, this is controversial and complex and thus best left for the body of the article. The first paragraph doesn't have to have a definition, but it does have to introduce the article. I think the curring first paragraph does that well - it introduces. It lays out the basic elements and gives every reader a good idea of what topics will be addressed in the article. Slrubenstein | Talk15:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Slrub, what consensus? The current definition was rushed over a pre-existing consensus and supported by only a few people here. There's nothing wrong with referencing Wikiquote, since it compiles a large number of credible definitions. And of course the introduction has to define capitalism. Read the standards for articles! It has to clarify what the article is going to talk about. The current definition is highly inaccurate and POV. MrVoluntarist16:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
SLR, I actually tried hard *not* to define capitalism; I merely say that "Most definitions note some major characteristics." However, I suppose that it is a little too detailed for the intro. The problem with the current version, is that
The first paragraph talks about 3 different things
2nd paragraph goes into the history, which I don't think is necessary in the intro
3rd paragraph maybe is OK.
The first paragraph does define capitalism, although it doesn't mention the word "define". I just think, if we are to say anything about what capitalism *is*, my way ("most definitions note some key aspects, blah blah, other definitions include blah") is the most neutral way of doing it. It may draw upon other research, but so do other encyclopedias.
Infinity, I'm getting that weird feeling where I start to agree with you. I actually like that intro. It covers all the major conceptions without promoting one. Except for one thing: claiming capitalism is the most common system. Is there some way we can change it to clarify that it's a major part of most economies, but not imply that most economies are "fully capitalist"? MrVoluntarist15:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
MrVoluntarist: most people acknowledge modern world economies today to be capitalist; that they are not might be better elaborated on in the details (rest of the article), since it is more of a theory issue than a definition one. The intro doesn't say it's the *most* common, just common, which is what is generally accepted. -- infinity016:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
I changed "free market" link to "market economy" (and removed "market economy" from the other sentence) since capitalism doesn't require a totally free market. -- infinity016:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Infinity0, I appreciate your effort. My reservations about your proposal are essentially the same as Slrubenstein's. I think the current version of the intro is fine, especially given that the page finally seems to be stabilizing. Still, thanks again for the effort. 172 | Talk20:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
The version at the beginning of the week was stabilized, but that didn't stop you from a full scale undiscussed rewrite, now, did it? MrVoluntarist22:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Dipthongs and diacritics
What's the story with that? An editor recently added a slew of such special typography, that's been out of widespread use in English-language publishing for the last 100 years. Stuff like 'œconomics' rather than 'economics'. What's that about? I guess it has a certain historical "verisimilitude" in writing about Smith, but by the time we get to Keynes it seems antiquated. Was the editor actually H.G.Wells, transported to Wikipedia using his famous Time Machine? LotLE×talk19:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I first wondered if it was a joke, with someone editing the article pretending to be an 18th century British political economistæconomist. 172 | Talk21:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
It’s an attempt to make the article a little less America-centric in its spelling. Though American English has all but abolished Œ, œ, Æ, & æ, they remain in use elsewhere (though they are not as widespread as they were). I thought that retaining them here and there would make the article more suitable to an international audience. Doremítzwr19:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
The use of the dipthongs is pretty rare nowadays in Commonwealth English as well (though admittedly even rarer in American spelling). I think you'd have a hard time finding many WP articles that use CE, and also include such dipthongs. I tend to dislike the archaism in a modern reference work, but I won't remove them unless other editors opine. LotLE×talk20:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Just for examples: Taking the rather obvious example of England (which I presume uses CE spelling), forms of "economy" occur twice, neither time with dipthongs. For whatever reason, the word occurs many more times in Australia, all without dipthongs. One of them, in fact, is a link to that very British journal The Economist (i.e. no dipthong). Outside of WP, I took a look at the London Times, a "newspaper of note"; I find that at least in their web edition, they eschew dipthongs for "economy", e.g. [46]. LotLE×talk20:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually, one more bit of evidence pretty much brings me to the point of insisting the dipthongs go: Searching using the Wikipedia engine for 'œconomics' produces zero hits (not even this article). I'm guessing that is a problem or limitation in the search tool; but it is one that matters to readers. FWIW, if you do the same on Google, 'œconomics' produces 9,700 hits; 'economics' produces 590,000,000 hits. Google is probably detecting my USA region, so that may influence those numbers somewhat: but five orders of magnitude difference in frequency sure suggests the dipthong is "non-standard". LotLE×talk20:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, you have a point. Perhaps it is best that most instances of ‘œconomy’ and its derived forms are removed (however, in agreement with your above point, the form should perhaps be used in discussing Adam Smith - not only for that sense of “historical verisimilitude”, but also to show that there is an alternative spelling, be it a minority one). However, I still feel that words like rôle, Mediæval and coördination should stay; the former because they are still very much standard spellings (or at least they are over here in the UK), the latter because it is a good alternative to the unphonetic cooperation and the awkward co-operation. Is this agreeable to you? Doremítzwr21:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, the quick "Google test" on Mediæval vs. Medieval gives 5.8M to 136M. A bit more than one order of magnitude, but less than two. I'll let you do the "London Times" test yourself (I think it will favor the orthographic simplification, but I'm not sure). LotLE×talk21:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
I got 550 articles both times. It seems unlikely that I performed the search correctly. Either that, or it treats mediæval and medieval as the same word. As an an extra justification for its use, mediæval clearly shows that it should be pronounced me-di-æ-val, whereas people who are unfamiliar with the term may be liable to pronounce medieval as me-die-val (id est, as three syllables instead of four). Doremítzwr21:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
This is really silly. The article does not need to be any less "America-centric in its spelling." It simply needs to pick one dialect or another: American English or Commonwealth English. The article was written in American English, so please use spellings accordingly. As for the dipthongs, take them out. They are archaic in both American and Commonwealth English. I bet most readers won't even recognize what they are... I'd appreciate it if someone would revert the dipthongs for me. I'd rather not tread on the 3RR over a dispute as trivial as the dipthongs. 172 | Talk21:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
As could be expected, the last remnants of modern pro-capitalist arguments has been deleted, leaving only Marx and Lenin's ancient views. Now nothing remains of this:
In economic and political research two controversial Indices of Economic Freedom are often used. They are published by pro-business organisations. Both attempt to measure of the degree of economic freedom in countries, mostly in regard to rule of law, lack of governmental intervention, private property rights, and free trade. The Index of Economic Freedom defines "economic freedom" [47] as "the absence of government coercion or constraint on the production, distribution, or consumption of goods and services beyond the extent necessary for citizens to protect and maintain liberty itself." (This is otherwise known as laissez-faire).
Many peer-reviewed papers have been published using this material on the relationship between capitalism and for example poverty, mostly by researchers independent from the think tanks.[48] More advanced capitalist countries have much higher average economic growth, income per person, higher income of the poorest 10%, higher life-expectancy, higher literacy, lower infant mortality, higher access to water sources and less corruption. The share of income in percent going to the poorest 10% is the same for both more and less capitalistic countries.[49] Other studies have shown similar results.[50]
Attempts to decide the importance of the subcomponents of the indices have often yielded contradictory results. Strong property rights may be particularly important - the economist Hernando de Soto has argued that weak property rights, especially for the poor, play a major role in poverty and underdevelopment in developing countries [51][52]. Others have emphasized the importance of a functioning credit system, especially microcredit.Ultramarine03:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
^"Capitalism" A Dictionary of Sociology. John Scott and Gordon Marshall. Oxford University Press 2005. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press.
^Peter Burnham "Capitalism" The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics. Ed. Iain McLean and Alistair McMillan. Oxford University Press, 2003. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press.
^"Capitalism." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2006. Encyclopædia Britannica Online (EB).
^"Capitalism." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2006. Encyclopædia Britannica Online (EB).
