Talk:Capitalism/Archive 33

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.

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Capitalism: proposal for an edit

Hello. One of my edits got rejected and I've been proposed to write a post to talk about what's wrong about my edit, moreover I got asked what I mean by an international taxation system on capital: basically every countries which abide by this system have the same taxation rate on the capital. MDCCCC (talk) 21:46, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Is the replacement of capitalist to free-market warranted? Does Piketty actually argue that even if the means of production are not in private hands, rampant wealth inequality is inevitable under free markets? Bart Terpstra (talk) 21:53, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Piketty explains that capitalism seemed to have been overcome in the 2nd half of the 20th century, but that it never disappeared (although inequalities decreased), which demonstrates that inequalities may be fight over in a capitalist system according to him ; furthermore free-market economies are more keen to blame because they have low taxation rates which will raise inequalities in one's economy (note: the PDF file basically shows the rich (top one) and the average's (bottom one) growth of gross income (therefore leading to a rise in inequalities), whereas this may be counter-striken thanks to taxation (he prospects a decrease in tax progressivity over the XXIst century)).

Moreover I don't understand what do you mean in your 2nd sentence, to me an economy cannot be a free-market if means of production aren't in private hands in the first place. MDCCCC (talk) 22:53, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is literal, he has to actually mean capitalist OR mean free-market.

for non-capitalist free market, see Market socialism or "markets in the name of socialism" (a book) or imagine public means of production but private producers bringing private goods to market.

capitalism is defined by private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit.

free market is defined by an economy where the price of goods and services are governed by supply and demand with little or no regulations, in contrast to a regulated market. Bart Terpstra (talk) 23:20, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Ok I'm sorry I was stuck with Piketty's definition of capitalism, with that definition you are right, however I argue it would be better to replace "capitalism" by "privacy of capital" to be more precise MDCCCC (talk) 15:10, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

secrecy of capital ownership?

doesn't society at large need to know who owns the land and factories for a person to own it?

if you mean private ownership, isn't that just capitalism?

could you link to something giving an explanation of what "privacy of capital" is? Bart Terpstra (talk) 15:14, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Sorry I'm not native; by "privacy" I meant owernship for one's pivate interests.

Piketty defines "private capital" as the goods possessed by someone for an extended period of time (as opposed to "temporary capital"), which goes well along capitalism but it doesn't seem to be capitalism's core (although they are linked) (he wrote at some point "private capitalism", which shows that capital isn't necessarily owned for a very long period of time in capitalist systems).

Piketty's definition of capitalism is confusing and never really stated, it seems to be because of cultural differences between French and American economics ; however he clearly states that capitalist economies managed to reduce inequalities, therefore the rise in inequalities isn't caused by capitalism but by private capital, which got obliterated thanks to very high taxation progressivity and nationalizations in the XXth century and thus transformed private capital to temporary capital. MDCCCC (talk) 16:16, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

But, your opinion might not be that important in the larger scale of things. A free market is one in which exchange is unfettered. It is blind to the nature or circumstances of either the seller or the buyer. So, if the seller is a government and the buyer is some private citizen, does the exchange cease to be free, especially if the sale is by bid, like a treasury bond? I doubt it. The only condition is that the exchange be voluntary and at a reasonable, agreed price. 102.135.172.106 (talk) 23:06, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Capitalism does not mean private ownership at all, but corporate ownership!

In the very first sentence it currently says, as I quote: "Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit (...)" ... But private ownership is a mom and pop shop or a family business, whereas corporate ownership such as in a publicly traded company is a totally different concept. This is not a private business. It is a corporation. The lack of intellectual ability to differentiate between these two concepts seems appalling to me. Capitalism or Corporatism is actually much more similar to Communism than it is to a private economy based upon small-sized family businesses. -- Alexey Topol (talk) 16:35, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources that make that point? Without them we will have to follow what our current sources say. TFD (talk) 16:48, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

IMO "private" in this context means not owned by the government North8000 (talk) 17:54, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

This kind of definition is academic and nonsensical. Government is only assumed to be a "local country authority." Yet, some 'private enterprises' in foreign countries are actually sovereign wealth funds of other countries, for example Norway, Saudi Arabia or Singapore.

Private hands, therefore, correctly, only refers to ownership that is not vested in or controlled by the local national authorities. Boeing Corporation (for example, or Lockheed Martin or Northrop Grumman may be private companies with regard to a country like Sudan, but they definitely aren't private companies in respect to the United States. Because they are strictly restricted in terms of who they can sell whatever they produce to, under the various national security frameworks of the United States. They are state-controlled capitalist corporations. 102.135.172.106 (talk) 23:15, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

My understanding of "private" in this context is the same as North8000's. Corporations of any size privately owned by individuals. That might be just one person, or it might be by thousands of shareholders, or it might even be by other companies (who have their own owners/shareholders). Ultimately, they are all owned by identifiable private individuals. Public ownership is when the state owns something - you can't trace ownership back to a private individual. We've got a funky version of that here in the UK called Crown Estate, which is stuff owned by the crown - not individually by Charles himself, but by the office he holds. I expect there are other weird forms of ownership in other countries, but yeah - just because a corporation is very big doesn't mean it isn't owned by private individuals. Girth Summit _(blether) 18:13, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

You did a pretty good job at original research here, unfortunately, Wikipedia is based on reliable sources. –Vipz (talk) 03:16, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

They essentially went beyond even that, redefining terms in a way that is very different than their technical and common meanings. North8000 (talk) 13:51, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Capitalism is the antithesis of Democracy

Please provide a specific suggestion to improve the content of this article. See WP:NOTFORUM

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

It is amazing that some folks think capitalism and democracy go hand in hand. Capitalism, in its essence, is effected in single transactions between anonymous buyers and sellers. It just happens that the decisions and numbers of participants are so numerous that the whole tapestry appears coordinated - when in truth, it isn't. And that is why Adam Smith describes the market system as working through "an invisible hand." Market based decisions are not democratic, but purely based on merit, capacity or ability (to supply or pay for supplies). Those without these abilities are unable to participate, nor are they invited to. No committee sits down to decide what to produce or even to fundraise for what to buy.

Indeed, democracy requires, at its core, that the primary decision-makers (of asset allocation, production and pricing) be many and equal in stature. That their choices be coordinated, and their outcomes be applicable to everyone. Democratic choices for reasons of legitimacy, essentially, are public and instantly visible (no invisible hands, here). Socialists, therefore, would be the natural creators of democracy. They are the co-operators and unionists who claim to own their labor in common, who share their outputs equally according to their need, and who own resources together as the public. They are more likely to vote for specified choices and to consider themselves 'equal' in solidarity and brotherhood.

Intuition, therefore, would ascribe democracy to socialists more than to capitalists. Even voting for a government to "own and control public resources" is based on the equality of the vote (irrespective of whether people are poor or rich). In a capitalist system, that vote would only be available to property owners, or those who have the means to purchase property. 102.135.172.106 (talk) 23:36, 3 December 2023 (UTC) 102.135.172.106 (talk) 23:43, 3 December 2023 (UTC)@geonal

which countries are considered capitalist?

Since there are only 5 counries now that are communist, is it safe to assume that other 190 are capitalist? Ilya-42 (talk) 17:50, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

How does this pertain to this article? (Talk pages are WP:NOTFORUM) ---Avatar317 ^(talk) 01:15, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

It's more accurate to say that five countries are governed under Communist Party principles. It's safe to say that the other countries aren't, unless you watch Fox. TFD (talk) 02:02, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

"Encyclopedia entries for Capitalism" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Encyclopedia entries for Capitalism has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 22 § Encyclopedia entries for Capitalism until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 22:45, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

"Industrial labour" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Industrial labour has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 22 § Industrial labour until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 22:49, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

"Ultra-capitalism" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Ultra-capitalism has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 22 § Ultra-capitalism until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 22:58, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

"Greedalism" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Greedalism has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 22 § Greedalism until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 23:26, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

"Buyers market" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Buyers market has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 23 § Buyers market until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 23:52, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

"Marcianoism" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Marcianoism has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 28 § Marcianoism until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 20:47, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

"Wage labor and slavery" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Wage labor and slavery has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 28 § Wage labor and slavery until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 20:50, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

"Potential competition" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Potential competition has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 28 § Potential competition until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 20:53, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

"Contemporary capitalism" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Contemporary capitalism has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 28 § Contemporary capitalism until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 21:42, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

"Job creators" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Job creators has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 28 § Job creators until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 21:48, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Recently added Defence section: self-promotion?

The editor 于星 (Xing Yu) has recently added a Defence section to this article. In its current state, it only provides one argument for capitalism, and the only citation is to his own book (A Treatise on the Capitalist Society). At least as I see it, this section is not ready to be included in the full article due to including only the editor's own argument and nothing else. What are your thoughts? Mayhair (talk) 12:44, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree and support removal; that was a really strange addition and I didn't know quite what to make of it. Unless something is well-sourced mainstream, than we shouldn't have it in this article, because if we included every lone scholar's ideas on this subject, the article would be 1000x the size it is now. ---Avatar317 ^(talk) 23:37, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Is criticism warranted?

I raised this issue some time ago but little has changed in the criticism section (although the sources have been updated at least). I think there is a real issue here of whether this section violates the rules of the encyclopedia. A couple of points to consider:

This article is listed as part of a series on "economics". The rules for editing economics articles are no different than any other subject: content, including criticism, must come from experts in the field, not outside sources. If we are treating this subject no different than others, then the opinions of philosophers, political commentators and scholars who aren't economists don't belong in the article.

A separate article on "criticism of capitalism" already exists and covers everything in this section and more. This can be linked in the article without any need for a criticism section.

Jonathan f1 (talk) 22:20, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

There's nothing of great value in the section, so it should be removed.

Typically, criticism should be put into articles in relevant sections, not put into a separate one. Also, what one person sees as a criticism, someone else might see as a plus or at least acceptable or something that can be fixed. For example, inequality caused by capitalism can be seen as a desirable outcome, necessary, or fixable, without being anti-capitalist. TFD (talk) 02:25, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree and support removal. ---Avatar317 ^(talk) 02:30, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

The basis of your argument is derived from a fantastically narrow understanding of political economy; capitalism is not merely an economic system and even the works of Adam Smith would tell you that. Regardless, which site policies are you referencing? Your first bullet point seems to be a vague gesture at some uniform rule on content, but obviously a topic related to economics and politics should not be treated the same as a topic related to the sciences, otherwise there would be no need for consensus-building.

Further, what critiques are you expecting from pure economists? Economists' jobs are primarily to analyse trends in economies at the micro and macro levels; they aren't concerned with offering critiques of the system (i.e. global capitalism) they've spent their entire lives living under and accepting as gospel. There's no such thing as a critique from an economist who isn't political.

I am also unconvinced by the arguments that the section should be removed because there's already a main article for the topic and that some self-proclaimed capitalists actually support inequality under capitalism, so it can't really be generalised as a criticism. Pol Pot was fine with genociding his own countrymen through mass starvation, so I guess the critique of communist policies causing mass deaths through an inadequate accumulation of resources is not really a critique then, just an observation.

If the section should be removed, it ought to be because it's a rubbish section with no specifics and a lack of references to expert opinions, not because we should gatekeep critiques to economists, because there's already more coverage elsewhere on this WikiProject, or because one could argue that every critique is not really a critique because somebody could theoretically agree with it wholeheartedly. Yue🌙 03:16, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

My agreement above is based much on my opinion being the same as North8000 (below): "...the current criticism section is mostly complaints about pretty much everything that is wrong or undesirable in the world and thus not really useful content".

Couldn't almost all of these criticisms have been equally leveled against feudalism? or "Communism in one country" as practiced in post-1917 industrializing Russia/USSR? ---Avatar317 ^(talk) 01:31, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

The last paragraph is at least a GOOD critique "Other critics argue that such inequities are not due to the ethic-neutral construct of the economic system commonly known as capitalism, "...specific and detailed. But I'm sure there are too many like this to include in THIS article (but good for the criticism of capitalism article).---Avatar317 ^(talk) 01:35, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

This is exactly what I'm talking about:

"they've spent their entire lives living under and accepting as gospel. There's no such thing as a critique from an economist who isn't political."

You think no one here has heard this before? If this is a mainstream encyclopedia, you need to stick with what's regarded as mainstream sourcing in a subject. We cite biologists in articles on biology, physicists in articles about physics, historians in articles about history, but in an article that's part of an economics series, you want to cite every philosopher and political commentator under the sun on the reasoning that economists are all biased or brainwashed. This sort of attempt to skirt the rules would never fly in any other subject.

I agree with other editors that some of these arguments against capitalism can be applied to pretty much anything. The term 'inequality' is so vague as to be meaningless -there's inequality in sports, inequality in academics, and it makes sense that there'd be inequality in economic outcomes. Having a concern about income/wealth inequality does not imply anti-capitalism. Jonathan f1 (talk) 03:13, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

The section serves as a summary of the linked criticism off capitalism article. And it is a relatively small section at that, so this is WP:DUE by my estimation. In fact, this was the consensus when the section was radically trimmed years back with large swaths of material being moved to the other article. Now I'm not saying the section can't be improved, but outright deletion is not justified by any of the arguments I see above. And the notion that only "economists" should be cited in the section while ignoring scholars in other fields including history, political science, anthropology, philosophy etc is just absolute nonsense, as Yue points out above.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 13:31, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

I support removal of the section and would like to make notes in two areas regarding that.

It's with good reason that separate criticism sections are concerned. The mere presence of one becomes a coatrack / magnet, distorting decisions on what criticism merits inclusion.
Technically capitalism has a specific narrow definition (in the first sentence of the article) and probably ~95% of the world has that as one of the many components of their systems. But vaguer meanings of capitalism could include pretty much anything related to economic, ownership, business, economic interests in that ~95% of the world and thus anything bad or undesirable in the world that is related to economics, ownership, business, economic interests. As a result of this the current criticism section is mostly complaints about pretty much everything that is wrong or undesirable in the world and thus not really useful content.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:01, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Agreed -things like inequality and exploitation happen in non-economic contexts so it isn't clear why capitalism should be singled out as unique. If people exploit each other in an academic environment (eg benefitting from work that's not theirs, like plagiarism) we don't say that schools are naturally exploitative. The idea that economic exploitation would end in a post-capitalist world is far-fetched, and critics of socialism say the exact same thing. Jonathan f1 (talk) 03:30, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Moral permissibility of profit

The definition made it seem like benevolent or non-profit organizations were not capitalist. Capitalism permits profit, but does not require it.72.204.11.140 (talk) 14:57, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

The statement was straightforward. Your edit had a long list of issues. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:05, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Definition of Capitalism

By all but certain Marxist definitions, capitalism means private ownership of the means of production with prices set by free markets. I deleted the Marxist POV add-on that capitalism must necessarily involve profit-making. Benevolent non-profit organizations are part of capitalism, too. 72.204.11.140 (talk) 19:45, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I accepted the edit (only) under pending changes because it met the low bar for pending changes acceptance. That doesn't necessarily mean that I agree with the edit. I think that it should be discussed. Maybe the profit motive is central to capitalism. North8000 (talk) 21:37, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, we'd need a positive consensus to change the lead sentence of such an important article from the stable version. Not only does "for profit" appear to be backed up by high-quality scholarly sources, but the idea of "free markets" needs to be carefully framed as a spectrum of regulatory intervention rather than a simple either/or as was implied by that edit. No serious scholar would argue that a completely free market has ever existed. Even one of the IP's own favored sources (investopedia.com) states as much. Generalrelative (talk) 21:54, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Agree. And none of the sources used appear to use the term free markets. That's more a goal of advocates of capitalism rather than how the system works in practice. TFD (talk) 22:06, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

> “No serious scholar would argue that a completely free market has ever existed.” Right. Even the scholars that define capitalism as free markets plus sticky property agree that pure capitalism is “an unknown ideal” and that it should be thought of in relative terms. Like peace or justice, we hold the concepts even though perfect world peace or justice has arguably never occurred. Even definitions that don’t use “free market”use equivalent terms.

By all but certain Marxist definitions, capitalism means private ownership of the means of production with prices set by free markets. I deleted the Marxist POV add-on that capitalism must necessarily involve profit-making. Benevolent non-profit organizations are part of capitalism, too. 72.204.11.140 (talk) 19:45, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Capitalism is a term, an attribute that is present (to a full or partial degree) in nearly the entire world. Just because this is true does not mean that everything that exists in the world/ a place that utilizes capitalism is "capitalism". North8000 (talk) 02:00, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

“Maybe the profit motive is central to capitalism.” I think so, but that does not make profit-making a required characteristic. Just as (another Marxist gratuitous add on) employment is not a necessary condition of capitalism. Indeed, many capitalists see the ideal as everyone being an individual entrepreneur. Yes, some of the citations by “experts” add profit as a defining characteristic, but upon examination they are all Marxist scholars using their proprietary non-standard definition. Virtually all dictionaries and economics books define capitalism as free markets (meaning zero government intervention) with private property. Profit-making and employment are merely common results for this economic norm. 72.204.11.140 (talk) 13:32, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Do you have any sources that Marxist definitions of capitalism differ or that there is any dispute about the definition of capitalism? In common usage, some people define capitalism as an ideology so that a capitalist is someone who believes in capitalism rather than someone who owns capital. Its also used to describe an ideal but unrealized state where everything i governed by market forces. TFD (talk) 13:52, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

IMO it is an attribute/component of economic systems. North8000 (talk) 15:15, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Capitalism is a word used to describe at least four related but distinct concepts:

1) the activity of investing for profit (in this usage, the term has become archaic);

2) an ideology that holds up private enterprise and free markets as solutions to many or all of the world's problems;

3) the idealized economic system aspired to by that ideology;

4) the currently existing world system where private enterprise dominates.

Each of these concepts is well attested by reliable, mainstream sources. Our article does a decent job, I think, of laying most of them out, though perhaps not as systematically as I'd like. Generalrelative (talk) 15:31, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Ignoring the outdated (1), all the rest of the definitions require private property, especially in capital goods ("the means of production"). And they all require a market. They do not require profit-making; that seems to be a result of capitalism for some *successful* firms. I found a list of defintions. http://www.anarchistfaq.com/misc/CapitalismDef.html 72.204.11.140 (talk) 16:54, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Let me rephrase that: Are there any sources that Marxist definitions of the currently existing world system where private enterprise dominates differ or that there is any dispute about the definition?

I don't think btw that reliable sources use definitions 2 or 3. TFD (talk) 18:15, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I just absorbed about 8 online definitions. The IMF definition was an excellent summary / said that same thing as all 8 of them: "Capitalism is often thought of as an economic system in which private actors own and control property in accord with their interests, and demand and supply freely set prices in markets in a way that can serve the best interests of society. The essential feature of capitalism is the motive to make a profit." North8000 (talk) 19:57, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

So I think profit motive is something that the system depends on but might not be definitional. North8000 (talk) 20:28, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Hard for me to understand how an "essential feature" would not be definitional. The standard example in philosophy is a bachelor being defined as an unmarried man because "unmarried" and a "man" are the essential features of the concept. Generalrelative (talk) 21:04, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I would leave out "freely set prices in markets in a way that can serve the best interests of society." When Nixon brought in wage and price controls it did not mean that the U.S. ceased to have a capitalist economy. Also, freely set prices do not necessarily serve the best interests of society according to most experts. It's only groups such as the LvMI that see it that way.

But can't we use a standard textbook as a source? TFD (talk) 21:42, 30 July 2024 (UTC)