Talk:To each according to his contribution

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the To each according to his contribution article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 6 months

Politics Mid‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Socialism

	Socialism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

URL error

I would fix it myself, but this entry is locked, can someone please fix the URL error for Reference #3? It is currently: "http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm," the comma at the end needs to be removed so it will direct to the correct page, right now it just goes to a 401 error page. (which is odd because this talk page ignores the comma. *shrug*) Thanks.

Done! Thanks for mentioning this. If you happen to come back and read this, consider making a Wikipedia account. It is very easy, and with their new in-page editor for articles, it's easier to edit the article than the talk page! Vwermisso (talk) 05:29, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sweat Equity

Methinks it would be a welcome addition to the "See also" section, no? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.201.140 (talk) 01:52, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalism

If marx says this is the final stoaway from capitalism dosnt that mean that it is a capitalist princaple 98.250.4.115 (talk) 05:05, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unearned Income

Isn't the unearned income bit in the lead a little POV. I mean, wouldn't a capitalist think such income was earned? 24.13.184.236 (talk) 17:28, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is terrible

Most of the quotations are wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Booboo the dog (talk • contribs) 01:22, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of Capitalism

I had an external discussion on the definition of Capitalism in this Page and I was pointed out that the definition here has been edited out many times in the past to 2 different narratives quoted below -

1. "This is in contrast to the method of distribution and compensation in capitalism, an economic and political system in which property owners can receive unearned income by virtue of ownership irrespective of their contribution to the social product."

and

2. "This is held in contrast to the method of distribution and compensation in capitalism, an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state."

I would like to bring a general consensus that although the 1st definition is now written on the page but to prevent further edit warrings we should, in my opinion, write the first narrative down preceded by the phrase "According to the Socialist perspective," and the second narrative preceded by the phrase "According to the Capitalist perpective,"

The reason being the difference in the Perception of the Capitalist System according to individuals of different thoughts.

As a Communist, the first narrative is true according to me as a Capitalist doesn't earn money through work but rather gets it by virtue of ownership and the second narrative is false as there have been some example of States which owned the trade and industry of the country in a Capitalist manner for the motive of profit. But, as pointed out by my adversary, it can differ according to ideology; if we take a Capitalist Liberal he would believe that he 'is' earning the said money because he believes that owning the property automatically gives him a way to invest and profit from it while seeing the State's influence as a loss for him.

I am eager for more opinions on this as this is a slight sensitive topic and making a speedy edit would only make it worse. Red1922 (talk) 16:21, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The two definitions of capitalism don't contradict each other and actually reinforce each other. Economists recognize the existence of property income and unearned income, this is codified in tax law and there are (non-socialist) mainstream theories of interest and rent that separate it from labor income, justifying passive income has playing an important role. It is usually the less-educated conservative defenders of capitalism (primarily in the US) who think capitalism is about contribution based on labor effort; no serious advocate (i.e. Neoclassical and Austrian school economists) pretends this is the case. I see no reason to alter the wording. -Battlecry 09:53, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why is edit warring going on over the definition of capitalism? That seems a massive waste of time since there’s been a very specific definition of capitalism for some time now. Why don’t you just link to and use the definition provided by Wikipedia’s own Capitalism article (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism)? Forexdemon (talk) 03:41, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with From each according to his ability, to each according to his need

This article just contains a different phrasing of From each according to his ability, to each according to his need and could be more effectively explained and discussed as a part of that article. --Ashawley (talk) 05:12, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]