Talk:Capitalism/Archive 8

page lock

Strange that they locked the page. I thought a general consensus was starting to materialize --that we were going to provide the most common mainstream definition, rather than POV push. RJII 14:26, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Good idea with page lock. As you refuse to consider any sources that do not fit perfectly with the anarcho-capitalist definition, and ignore sources like Encyclopedia Britanica or Alan Greenspan, page protection is good. Note that an arbitration case regarding RJII's use of citations is now open. Ultramarine 14:32, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ultramarine, don't start with your lies again about me pushing anarcho-capitalism. The record is plain to see that you are the one that has been mentioning "anarch-capitalism" and "anarchy" explicity, and I have been consistently deleted it. You are a disingenous individual and I resent your intentional misrepresentation of me. (Clear to anyone who does a search for "anarcho" on the Talk page). I don't think that anarcho-capitalism should be mentioned, nor should a special definition be tailored for anarcho-capitalists. The most NPOV way I know is to provide the "typical" or "maintream" definition. I've said this consistently. Keep it up and I'll bring an arbration case against you for consistently lying to damage another user. This is unjustified. RJII 14:43, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You have written this on anarcho-capitalism on Feb 19 and has since then tried to change the introduction of the Capitalism article to this anarcho-capitalist definition:

"1. It is important in understanding anarcho-capitalism that the definition of "capitalism" to which is referred by the school of thought is one that refers to a free market. For example, Merriam-Webster defines capitalism as: "an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market." This differs from some other definitions that make no mention of a "free market" but instead refer to the private ownership of the means of production." [1] Ultramarine 14:49, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What does that have to do with anything? That's not this article but the anarcho-capitalism article where I was trying to explain anarcho-capitalism. I was pointing out that anarcho-capitalists don't use a Marxist definition of capitalism. RJII 14:54, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

And your are in arbitration for among other things refusing to provide sources for this "Marxist" defintion. Ultramarine 14:56, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You and your buddy are involved in the arbitration thing. Another attempt to misrepresent and harass me with false accusations. RJII 15:08, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

evidence that Ultramarine has been the one pushing for anarcho-capitalism

But why should the communist definition be exluded? Or the anarcho-capitalist? The intro only state "some combination" not "all of the following". Ultramarine 19:22, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The first one does. I am not an proponent of either anarcho-capitalism or marxism but these schools are certainly influential. So their essentials should be listed, not only those of ordinary pro-capitalists. Ultramarine 19:53, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In anarcho-capitalist theory, peaceful, voluntary exchange which is fully realized only without a state; Ultramarine 16:45, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)<--this was an actual statement he was proposing for the introduction.

Need more references? There are more.

As you can see Ultramarine is the one who was been insisting on anarcho-capitalism in the intro. He is lying when he says that RJII has been pushing it. RJII has consistently argued against having any reference to such and that no special definition should be tailored for anarcho-capitalism. Ultramarine, stop your lies. RJII 15:04, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You have repeatedly tried to change the introduction to only state the anarcho-capitalist definition (see section above) and exclude mentioning of the role of the state. Here are examples [2][3][4][5] Ultramarine 15:19, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No, those are not examples of me trying to state an anarcho-capitalist position. Too bad. You've been exposed, Ultramarine. RJII 15:23, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Try that before the arbitration committee. Ultramarine 15:30, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Maybe I will. I'm seriously considering an arbitration case against you given your pattern of harassment and dishonesty. RJII 15:38, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have never stated that you have written "anarcho-capitalism" in the introdcution. But you have repeatedly tried to change the definition to the anarcho-capitalst one. Ultramarine 15:57, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No, I haven't. I'm not even aware of any "anarcho-capitalist definition." As far as I know, they define capitalism the same way the mainstream does. Are you saying that the definition in Merriam-Webster is an anarcho-capitalist definition? That's the most mainstream definition there is ..Merriam-Webster..how middle-of-the-road can you get? Again, you have been the one pushing to get anarcho-capitalism in the article. And I was the one trying to take it out. And, now you're trying to turn it around to make people believe it was me. The evidence is voluminous. Your little game of deception is over. RJII 16:08, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You ignore Encyclopedia Britanica and Alan Greenspan as sources while citing a dictionary? It is you who wrote the definition of capitalism in anarcho-capitalism. And has then tried to change the introduction of capitalism to this, ignoring all sources that do not fit the definition you wrote in anarcho-capitalism. Ultramarine 16:14, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No, I did not write the definition of capitalism in the anarcho-capitalism article. It was s direct quote from the Merriam-Webster dictionary. You yourself put the Merriam-Webster dictionary quote in the intro of this article, and I argued that it shouldn't be there. Need evidence?

I wrote short one using MW, see the article. No interpretation at all in the text so maybe we can agree. :)Ultramarine 18:45, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC) Quoting the Merriam-Webster seems like a copout to me. So what if there is going to be warring on what the common dictionary definitions represent? At least it narrows it down greatly. I see nothing wrong with fine tuning it through edit warring, or even eternal conflict. RJII 19:11, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

So, enough of this. Your deceptions and misrepresentations and intent to impugn my motivations are beyond ridiculous, and now apparent to all. RJII 16:25, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have tried various attempt to compromise with you. Including representing every definition in the intro (including minarchism, anarcho-capitalism), only the mainstream defintions, or only an extremely short including a dictionary but stating that it is not the only definition. You have tried to change all of them to a definition close to the anarcho-capitalist one. Ultramarine 16:37, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Blah, blah. RJII 16:55, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Definition of capitalism

Alright, we need to get this straightened out. No matter what my issues with RJII are, I don't think he's being too unreasonable. The actual definition is somewhere between the two of you. Anarcho-Capitalism definitely should not be mentioned in the definition, but I don't think the state should be either. We're talking about an economic system, which could apply in a monarchy such as the UK, a republic such as France, or any number of other political organizing systems. So we need to work on a way to define Capitalism, without the state in that definition. Within the body of the article, we can have discussion on the role of the state in Capitalism according to different ideologies, but in the definition, that should not be a factor.--Che y Marijuana 16:17, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

Many of the authorities mention the very important role of the state in protection property rights. Why should their view be excluded? But do write something and see if we can reach agreement. Ultramarine 16:41, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes. And, mainstream definitions of capitalism typically don't mention a state anyway. So there should be no problem. I say we provide a definition that is most common among the mainstream definitions of capitalism ..the typical definition of capitalism. It's the most NPOV way I can think of, instead of everybody vying to write that they think is the correct or best definition. The dispute must be narrowed. Narrowing it to how capitalism is "typically" defined, is, I think, the best way to do it --especially in such a politically charged article. Then go off on tangents in the body such as the role of the state. (See typical popular definitions in the definitions of capitalism article) RJII 16:43, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Britanica is certainly mainstream. And few would deny the importance of Greenspan. This is not a popularity contest or a democracy counting dictionaries. We should find good, reputable sources. And EB is one of the best. Ultramarine 16:51, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

How about just a subset of the Alchien&Allen definition. It seems fine without the state part. Capitalism w/state can be differentianted from capitalism without state in the next paragraphs. Here is the subset I propose:

• • • • • • Capitalism is a system of exchangable private-property rights in goods and services.

It seems very succinct. How about letting the state have the succeeding paragraph? and the anarcho the third, and some marxist FUD the fouth?--Silverback 16:53, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You would include hunter-gatherers in capitalism? But I like the idea of briefly mentioning all schools. Ultramarine 16:59, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Frankly, yes, if that is your interpretation of the Alchian and Allen definition. Theirs is a classic text. Micro-economists prefer to start from a few a-priori principles. It would not surprise me if in hunter gatherer societies, there were occasionally specialists in jewelry, weapon or some other tool manufacture, that exchanged their products. I think the first definition should be one friendly to the idealists, I've no problem with briefly mentioning all schools in subsequent paragraphs of the intro.--Silverback 23:47, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The problem is it's not how capitalism is typically defined. The dispute must be narrowed. Narrow it to how capitalism is typically defined, rather than one what each of us thinks is the best definition. Once it's narrowed to that, then it's down to just minor quibles about wording which are going to continue indefinitely (that's the nature of wikipedia. none of us should expect a perfect representation that will be set in stone with no disputes whatsoever). It's plain to see how capitalism is typically defined: definitions of capitalism. RJII 17:07, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It does not have to be narrowed to how capitalism is typically defined. We can decide on something quite different. I hope you do not feel so constrained.--Silverback 17:44, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You have to keep in mind that Wikipedia has a no "original research" policy. So, how ever capitalism is defined there needs to be a source. If you don't restrict it to how it is typically defined, then there is nothing to stop a huge list of characteristics that represent every radical definition under the sun as long as there is a source it, and believe me, there is a source for everything --even if it's from some malcontent college professor's essay. Let's just set our POV's aside and supply what represents the typical popular definition. If it aligns with your POV, great; if it doesn't then that's just too bad. I know of no other way to even attempt NPOV in presenting a definition. One could always put in a statement that there are various differing definitions, but that this represents the typical mainstream one(s). I don't see why anyone would have a problem with that unless their POV is getting in the way. See definitions of capitalism for the most popular definitions. RJII 17:59, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

And a source was provided for "most of the means of production," yet still you deleted it several times, because you insist that only dictionaries be used as sources, as though we are all still in kindergarten and not allowed to read the grown-ups' books. SlimVirgin 21:45, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

That's not true. That's a misrepresentation of my position. I have said several times here that the Encyclopedia Britannica is good source. But, I've gone on to say that it doesn't represent the typical mainstream definition. Look through the definitions in the definitions of capitalism article. None of them say anything like that. They just say that the means of production (or capital) are privately owned. EB is apparently the only one that says "most." Therefore, It's atypical and shouldn't be purported to be typical. Don't misrepresent me again. RJII 00:56, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Stop referring to that definitions article, because it's irrelevant. If I put my mind to it, I am certain I could find other definitions that say "most of the means of production". I asked you this once before, but you didn't answer: are you saying that the UK under Margaret Thatcher did not have a capitalist economy simply because some industries remained in state hands? Please answer this time. SlimVirgin 01:06, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

Then put your mind to it. Don't represent something as a the typical mainstream definition when you only have one source. On your question about the UK, my opinion on that is irrelevant, I won't answer about the UK, but if you must know I would define capitalism as a system where the "overwhelming majority" of the means of production or capital are privately owned (among having other characteristics, such as a relatively free market and private autonomy in economic decisions). But, as it appears that's not the typical definition, I'm not going to insert my POV into a definition and call it a typical mainstream definition. There may be a "better" definition than the mainstream definition out there, but that doesn't matter. We're not supposed to do "original research." We can't make up our own definitions just because we think they're better. I'm the last one who would want to be an "original research" nazi, but for something like this that's so politically charged and with the multitude of definitions out there by various know-it-alls, I think it's the best thing. Everything has to be sourced and no original research is allowed --it's Wikipedia policy. RJII 01:26, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Concerning protection of property rights: The last time I changed the intro I said that protection rights are acknowledged, but did not say by who. I think, Ultramarine, that is clear enough, and that the state does not need to be mentioned. Indeed, in a purely (utopian) capitalist system, private tribunals would protect these rights (I'm not saying this would work, but certain libertarians seem to think it would). In real existing capitalism, however, it is clear that tribunals are part of the state apparatus. Just saying that property rights are important is therefore enough and encopasses both utopian, as well as real world capitalism. Luis rib 19:07, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Capitalism is an economic system where private property and private ownership of the means of production are protected as essentials. Labourers are paid to work the means of production, producing capital and goods, which are traded in a market by the Capitalist to extract profit. Belief in the market itself is strong, particularly in the ideas of the invisible hand, and that only the market, based on competition, should guide production. Businesses are expected to succeed or fail base on the merits of their products, or at least their ability to sell them. The driving force behind this system is considered to be capital itself, which is also the root of the word Capitalism."

How about that?--Che y Marijuana 23:42, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

Labour certainly can be paid to operate the means of production, both sides are free to choose that option, but that is not an intrinsic property of capitalism. Family businesses and sole proprieterships where the owner did the work could also be capitalism. Both parties to an exchange intend to "profit" otherwise they wouldn't do it. When expanded to a mass society, with relatively low transaction and information costs, certain aggregate phenomena develop, such as supply and demand being balanced by price that result in a robust system reflecting the values of consumers and the costs of suppliers without any central planning. The positive effects of this have been analogized to an invisible hand (perhaps the analogy should have been to an invisible computer or brain).--Silverback 23:57, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It isn't "original research" to go beyond a dictionary def. in the rigor which we give to an encyclopedia-worthy definition. The purpose of our definition, after all, is to lead into (to introduce) the article, whereas a dicdef has to stand alone, so its a different creature.

At any rate, on the issue of "pure" capitalism and its existence, its safe to say that capitalism in the fullest sense of the word has both historical and aspirational elements, both of which should be acknowledged in the article. By definition, if something is an aspiration then it doesn't now exist -- which was, I suppose, Rand's point in the above quoted expression about its non-existence.

Likewise, Chomsky's point in the above quoted expression about the non-existence is that those of us who believe in it as an aspiration, as an ideal, are kidding ourselves and so are allowing ourselves to be duped by cynics in power.

Notwithstanding all that, I (an enthusiastic capitalist myself, BTW, but no Randian) think that the most sensible course for an encyclopedia is to work from the history that gives rise to the aspirations. Starting with the historical base is what SlimVirgin's intro/def did, and I don't think anybody else has improved on it. --Christofurio 00:38, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

So is the definition I posted not a good start?--Che y Marijuana 00:59, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

I think it's a decent start. It looks somewhat like a typical definition to me. That doesn't mean I won't edit to hell and back until it represents typical mainstream definitions more closely ..just as everyone else should. I think we already had a decent start until the page was locked and progress was halted. RJII 01:08, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The page was locked because of your revert-warring. SlimVirgin 01:22, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

You were reverting as well. You were involved in the edit war. Don't start pointing fingers. No one was forcing you to participate. RJII 01:28, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That is nonsense and it's the kind of rhetoric you've been deploying for days. Go look at how often I've reverted, then count your own reversions, deletions, dispute tags, misleading edit summaries, and your statements here on the talk page that you're enjoying it, how you intend to go through every sentence in the same way, how at this rate it'll take you 25 years, how eternal conflict might improve the article; not to mention that you're already up in front of the arbcom because of it. There is no comparison between my behavior and yours. SlimVirgin 01:43, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

You reverted a few times yourself. It all adds up and you contributed to the edit war in a substantial way. As far as eternal conflict, welcome to Wikipedia. Anything any of us post in the article will be erased thousands of times over. It's all for naught in the end. And don't start lying now --Slrubenstein and Ultramarine started an arbitration against me because not because of edit warring, but because they're lying about me not providing a source for a post --it's an act of harassment. I welcome anyone to watch the proceedings for a good laugh. My behavior here has been nothing but exemplary. And, if someone lies about me, my positions, or posts, I call them out on it. You're just upset that I'm not editing the article in the way you want. So, cut the personal crap. This personal stuff serves no purpose. Get back to talking about the material ..not me. Grow up. RJII 01:54, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

We are all POV warriors, original-researchers, people who don't understand Wikipedia policy, liars, or people who are harassing you; and we all ought to grow up. Your behavior, on the other hand, has been exemplary. SlimVirgin 03:10, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

Stop harassing me. Can you not handle intellectual conflict without stooping to the personal level? Grow up. RJII 03:13, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What Went Wrong

As long as people think that the article must open with a definition of capitalism, we will get bogged down in needless disputes. There is no one authoritative definition of capitalism, and the page Ultramarine created, on definitions of capitalism, both illustrates that and serves as a good resource. But the first paragraph of an encyclopedia article, especially an article about a complex and contentious topic does not have to begin with a definition. Indeed, I think it can't, and shouldn't. The introduction should -- as is the case with any good article -- introduce the article and orient the reader. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:27, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree, but it's not getting through. SlimVirgin 19:57, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

Excellent introduction, SLR. SlimVirgin 21:53, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. The intro should certainly contain a definition of capitalism. Any respectable dictionary with an entry on capitalism is going to define capitalism. Why should Wikipedia be an exception? It can and should be done. How should it be defined? It should be defined as it is typically defined and noted as such. The intro as it stands is horribly concieved, horribly written, and lacking in intellectual substance. I quote Wikipedia policy: "Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and an entry that consists of just a definition does not belong: But, an article can and should always begin with a good definition or a clear description of the topic." As it stands, it is neither. (Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary) RJII 01:12, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Unprotecting

This was protected with a recommendation of two weeks--I don't agree with long protects, and I'm seeing the names of a lot of people I know are pretty grown up and experienced, so before you all completely lose interest I'm going to unprotect. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:44, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Intro has pro-capitalism bias

For example: "why capitalism can generate so much economic growth" This does not sound encyclopedic, but very POV. RJII 23:52, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Encyclopedia intros don't have to be definitions. I agree that the current intro is clumsy, but instead of assaulting the page with a demand for a dictionary definition, why don't you instead advocate what you want. I've heard you accused of being a randroid POV warrior, if so, then asking for a dictionary definition is bad faith. Frankly, I haven't seen anything that looked Randian in your recent work here, just a bullheaded dictionary mantra. I can't find my old copies of "The Virtue of Selfishness" and "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal", so I would like to know what the rand definition is. Rand and von Hayek lead the moral defense of capitalism in the 20th century instead of just apologizing for it, and are both notable. Give us the Rand definition here on the talk page to see if it is something we can work with, at least for the first paragraph of the intro.--Silverback 01:21, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm not aware of a Rand definition. Does she have a special one? All I've been pushing for is the typical mainstream definition as you would find in sources such as the popular dictionaries and encyclopedias. Good encyclopedias that have an entry on "capitalism," define the term; it makes perfect sense. It can always be qualified as "typically defined as..." RJII 01:33, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Not so. You kept deleting the phrase referenced to the Encyclopaedia Britannica. Please stop changing the introduction. If you want to make suggestions to Slrubenstein, make them on this page, and allow him time to respond. SlimVirgin 01:42, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

How many times does this have to be explained to you? The EB says "most" of the means of production are privately owned. If you look at the definitions of capitalism article, the EB is the only one that says anything like that. If that's the only one then how can that represent the "typical" mainstream definition? You are the one that cited the EB as a source, but one source is not enough to represent typicality. There are certainly elements of the EB definition that are typical, but "most," apparently, is not. If you are going to claim it is typical then you need to find some more sources to back up your, still baseless, claim. RJII 01:46, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I only inserted the "most" to try to qualify your previous edit. The previous introduction was wrong-headed in its entirety; Slrubenstein's is more complete and more scholarly. If you feel you can improve it, by all means leave suggestions here and discuss them with him and the other editors, but do stop trying to insist on dictionary definitions for introductions, unless you can point us to a policy or guideline that explicitly states that as a provision. SlimVirgin 01:59, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

Slrubenstein's new intro is horribly conceived, lacking in understanding of basic economic concepts, and hardly scholarly, not to mention showing a poor usage of vocabulary ("capitalism...valorizes a free market")? The best way to improve it is to wipe it clean and start from scratch. His previous bad intro is what began the edit war. Now he again is insisting on "his" new intro. He should give others a chance, as his way of writing an intro obviously doesn't work. I don't insist on dictionaries being the only source for definitions; I've said here before that encyclopedias are good sources as well. RJII 02:06, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

So long as you agree with them. SlimVirgin 02:47, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

No, so long as you present more than one source if you are going to claim that how capitalism is defined in that one source is how it is typically defined. You can't cite one source and then from that one source extrapolate that that is the typical definition. You need to present other definitions that agree with that one. You still don't get it do you? This is not rocket science. RJII 02:52, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I can't believe Rand doesn't define it, I still can't find my Rand books. I can't find my von Hayek "Road to Serfdom" either. I'm not sure I'm going to get a definition in the book about von Hayek I'm currently reading. I don't want something as bland as a dictionary. The "typical" definition is probably what people think who don't understand capitalism. We don't want an ignorant definition.--Silverback 03:03, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

My point is that it does not matter what the "correct" definition is. I don't think we should be making those value judgements as editors of an encyclopedia. What matter is what the consensus is of what the typical mainstream definition of capitalism is. It doesn't matter if that definition is "wrong" or "right." If Wikipedia was a place for "original research" and we could could inject our own philosophical insight and create a new definition that made sense to all of us editors, but it's not. It's a place to rehash the boring well-established ideas. If the established typical definition is "ignorant" so be it. The body of the article is the place for criticisms that various philosophers have. RJII 03:11, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You have more faith in committees than I do. I can't believe you are going to support a definition from the editorial board of a dictionary over a Nobel Prize winner in Economics like von Hayek, or that of Rand and her co-author Alan Greenspan, a successful chairman of the Federal Reserve for a couple of decades.--Silverback 03:29, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If their definition is allowed, then why not definitions from others who are perceived authorities who define it totally differently? If you like Hayek or Rand, I don't see you as having much to worry about. The mainstream definition of capitalism denotes economic freedom, private property, and private decision...something those are both in favor of. Yes, they are noteable individuals. And, I don't doubt they've had considerable influence on the mainstream definition. So, I think if you used them to come up with a definition, it would amount to the same thing as the typical modern mainstream definition. I have no problem with anyone using them, or anyone else, as a basis as long as it doesn't turn out to be some definition that doesn't represent the typical idea of capitalism. Feel free to come up with a definition. RJII 03:57, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You are right, they should be allowed according to their notability, some even in the introductory paragraphs, but as in the communism and anarchism articles, deference should be given to the "believers" to state what it is they believe in the introductory paragraph, otherwise the non-believers are allowed to set up their strawman definitions and to start shooting first. It seems to me you have developed an obstinacy unrelated to your POV that has you abandoning your POV as if you did not have confidence it was defensible in the realm of ideas. When an article is about a point of view, as the capitalism, communism, anarchy, creationism, intelligent design and other articles are. The POV should at least get stated in the intro. Of course it is not a license to opine, and there should be an introductory element to the whole article in the first paragraph too, but most of the strawmen definitions or legitimate criticisms or alternative perspectives can wait until later in the introductory 4 or 5 paragraphs, which is not an unusally long introductory apportionment.--Silverback 16:06, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

At least the Intro should not be the place to immediately begin pointing out debate and criticisms. The intro is ridiculous as it stands now. I'm not sure exactly what you mean by saying deference should be given to the believers. I was just presenting typical dictionary definitions and was accussed of POV pushing, which is difficult to comprehend. If you're going to present an actual pro-capitalism viewpoint, I foresee problems. I'm sure there are ways of getting the information you want across while still being NPOV. RJII 16:35, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I would not assume our fellow editors are unreasonable. They should also get their say, in fact true believers would not fear what they have to say. Relative stability has been achieved in many controversial articles and there is no reason we can't achieve it here. The main technique by which it seems to be achieve is taking turns, idea first before criticism of idea, purity before impurity, current status before history, etc. The introductory paragraphs, should represent these turns in microcosm, but hopefully with some cooperation in making it a well written organizing introduction to the rest of the article.--Silverback 17:00, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have no doubt we can come up with a good intro. I just don't want us to go down the same path as some apparently have before, where the intro is so vague and incomprehensible that arguing against it is nearly impossible due to the difficulty of deciphering it. RJII 20:39, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Section for discussion of champions of Capitalism, Hayek, Rand, Greenspan,

From secondary sources it looks like Rand's definitions were derivative and so less likely to be useful for our purposes. "When I say 'capitalism,' I mean a full, pure, uncontrolled, unregulated laissez-faire capitalism—with a separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reason as the separation of state and church." This cite appears only available in googles cache rather than directly, so it may disappear soon.[6] Here is a good review/summary of "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal"[7].

Frderick von Heyek's definition is also difficult to discern from secondary sources. It looks to me like he would define it as "Capitalism is the spontaneous order that occurs in a free market where property rights to goods and services are exchanged."

Greenspan appears the most promising with a large body of work both written and in speeches. I've only begun my review, but here are a couple of sites that may be useful for several areas of the article. [8][9]

--Silverback 16:52, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Capitalism is an economic system where private property rights are exchanged in markets that under conditions of relative freedom exhibit spontanous order such as prices which balance supply and demand. The abstraction of unrestricted markets serves as an analytic tool for economists to model real world markets as perturbations of that abstract ideal behavior. Various levels of information costs, transaction costs and other restrictions are imposed upon the ideal behavior in an attempt to replicate the behavior of real world markets. Anarcho-captitalists aspire to realize the low restriction abstract market as an ideal. During the Industrial Revolution, mercantilism was recognized as hampering economic growth and efficiency, and was replaced by less restrained market conditions exhibiting much of the spontanous order of capitalism. Economies throughout history and in various parts of the world exhibiting this market behavior are generally called capitalist or mixed economies depending on the extent of government intervention beyond mere protection of property and contractual rights.--Silverback 18:20, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

intro

I am firm in my belief that anyintroduction shoulod introduce the article as a whole, and does not have to define "capitalism." Moreover, since there are many definitions of capitalism, no one definition will be NPOV. Since there is so much contention around capitalism -- the length of the talk page itself is proof that it is a contentious topic -- the introduction must orient people as to the conflicts. I am not defensive about my own work, and of course do not mind improvements to what I write. I do maintain, though, that the introduction must be NPOV and must introduce the article as a whole. As for specifics: the claim that capitalism provides the conditions for economic growth is not a moral claim, it is an empirical claim -- capitalist economies grow. Moreover, this is not a pro-capitalist remark. Marxists and Greens who are anti-capitalist agree that capitalism generates growth. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:40, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. Respectable encyclopedias define capitalism in the intro. This one should be no different. Definitions are NPOV. It appears to me that the typical mainstream definition of capitalism doesn't jibe with your POV, and that that's why you're against capitalism being defined in the intro. RJII 20:51, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Okay, you have a right to disagree about the intro. I heartily disagree that definitions are NPOV, and in several weeks of discussion on the talk page, it seems that no one could come up with an NPOV definition. As for the "typical mainstream" definition ... well, I have read dictionary definitions I am fine with -- because the purpose of a dictionary is to give people the correct spelling of words, and very simple explanations. What is appropriate for a dictionary is often inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Dictionaries are distillations of how people use a word. Encyclopedias are compendia of articles on various topics, which should reflect the state of the art in scholarly knowledge. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:32, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Respectable encyclopedias define capitalism in the intro. We should as well. RJII 21:48, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Free Market

Not everyone agrees that capitalist markets are free. Traditions such as individualist anarchism have for a long time argued that certain institutions essential to capitalist economics actually interfere with the free market, by introducing coercion into otherwise voluntary transactions. The wikipedia article on free market explains that such a market is one without coercion, so it is not NPOV to state in this article that "Most proponents and opponents agree that capitalism... valorizes a free market". Rather, it would be NPOV to say something along the lines of "... valorizes a particular conception of the free market" or at the very least "... valorizes a type of free market". I would make this change but I see there has been a long series of back and forth edits and I don't want to jump into the middle without getting input first. Kev 08:34, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Also looks like someone didn't know what "valorize" means. Bad use of vocabulary. To valorize is to set the price of a commodity by an arbitrary action (such as government decree) rather than leaving it to the market. It's bad enough that we have to deal with a lack of understanding of the basic concepts of capitalism here, that we have to deal with such egregious misuse of vocabulary. But your point is well taken. One has to be careful how they relate capitalism to a free market. Saying it is defined as being based in a free market is a different thing than saying it is a free market. Another reason why a definition of capitalism needs to be in the intro, instead of all that B.S. RJII 16:23, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have no problem with Kev's point. Of course, RJII doesn't know what "valorize" means. It means "to give value to." RJII is using a very restrictive, jargony definition. It's like saying "short" doesn't mean "small stature," it means "Contract for the sale of securities or commodities one expects to own at a later date and at a lower price." I would not say that capitalism is based on a free market for the reasons Kev provides. I would say, though, that it gives value to "free markets." Slrubenstein | Talk 18:42, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

From the Merriam-Webster Unabridged Dictionary: valorize: ": to determine or set the price of by valorization <the coffee crisis came, and our main product was valorized; we tried to protect its price -- G.D.Vargas>" (complete definition)

From the Merriam-Webster Unabridged Dictionary: valorization: " the act or process of attempting to give an arbitrary market value or price to a commodity usually by governmental intervention (as by maintaining a purchasing fund to buy up surpluses or making loans to producers to enable them to store their products); specifically : price fixing by cartels or agreements -- compare TRUST" (complete definition)

Admit it, you had no clue what the word meant. Didn't we learn that term in Economics 101? RJII 19:12, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Read what I wrote. I did not say that your definition is "wrong," I just said it is not the only one. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:11, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"RJII doesn't know what "valorize" means." The dictionary doesn't agree with you. I'm not aware of any dictionary that does. Of course you'll probably say that dictionaries are not reliable sources to supply the meaning of words. You did not know what valorize meant. I suggest you fix your error in the article if you have any bit of magnanimity about you. RJII 20:17, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I guess I was right, you really do not know what valorizes means. You yourself have said that you believe the OED to be an authority. This is what the OED says:

trans. To raise or stabilize the value of (a commodity, etc.) by a centrally organized scheme; gen. to evaluate, to make valid. Hence valorized ppl. a.

1921 Contemp. Rev. July 53 It attempted both to regulate the output and to stabilise and to ‘valorise’ the prices. 1934 C. LAMBERT Music Ho! II. 79 Artists..have valorized the dream. 1976 T. EAGLETON Crit. & Ideology v. 164 Criticism becomes a mutually supportive dialogue between two highly valorised subjects: the valuable text and the valuable reader. 1976 Daily Tel. 1 Nov. 16 Merely ‘valorising’ specific duties..to recoup inflation since April would bring in £250 million. 1978 Dædalus Summer 48 The Emile and the Contrat social provide the explanation of the positively valorized concepts (virtue, morals, patriotism). 1984 Christian Science Monitor 2 Mar. B8/4 He has actually managed to suggest that the mire and blood, the ‘refuse’ of the embittered heart, is valorized by the poetic artifacts created from it.

Clearly, you are using the first definition given, I am using the second. As examples, OED provides one from 1921 and another from 1976 for the first definition, and examples from 1934, 1976, 1978, and 1984. In your own words, "Admit it, you had no clue what the word meant." The meaning I assign the word is an entirely valid one, and the way I use it in the introduction is entirely valid. Or are you now going to flip-flop, and say the OED no longer counts? Slrubenstein | Talk 20:33, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You've still used to the word improperly. Capitalism makes a free market valid? It's nonsense. RJII 20:40, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Look at the Eagelton quote. Or the Daedalus quote. Just as the "social contract" valorizes such concepts as "virtue" and "patriotism," capitalism valorizes such concepts as "the free market." Slrubenstein | Talk 20:52, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Your sentence is nonsensical. Capitalism does no such thing. It's an economic system based upon a free market. What do you mean it valorizes a free market? RJII 21:08, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

State protection of property rights

RJII, I note that you have again deleted mentioning the role of the state in protecting property rights. [10]. Something considered essential by Alan Greenspan and the influential economist Hernado desSoto. See citations from them in definitions of capitalism. Can you give an explanation or is it simply deletion of views that contradict anarcho-capitalism? Ultramarine 11:05, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I deleted a paragraph. Mention of the state happened to be in it. Mention of a state is not why I deleted it. I deleted it because I thought the paragraph was unnecessary. I have absolutely no problem with a state being mentioned as long as capitalism is not defined as containing a state. That would not be a typical definition. The essence of capitalism is its private nature. My concerns here have nothing to do with anarcho-capitalism. The way the state was mentioned in that paragraph is fine since it's not presented as a definition of capitalism. It's just that the paragraph was unnecessary and should have been incorporated into the previous paragraph. It also contains some duplicate information. RJII 16:12, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What duplicate information? Why is the paragraph unnecessary? Why did you delete the whole paragraph? Ultramarine 16:20, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy on definitions in the introduction

From Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (my emphasis):

Wikipedia articles are not:

Dictionary definitions. Because Wikipedia is not a dictionary, please do not create an entry merely to define a term. Some times an article can and should begin with a good definition; this is often not possible for complex or controversial topics (as definitions themselves become matters of controversy), in which case a clear description of the topic is more appropriate. If you come across an article that is nothing more than a definition, see if there is information you can add that would be appropriate for an encyclopedia. An exception to this rule is for articles about the cultural meanings of individual numbers.

Dictionaries are not appropriate sources for complex topics. Dictionaries are not cited as evidence for the true meaning of complex subjects like intelligence, race, or time. No one would consider a dictionary the best evidence for a mathematical definition or theorem. Dictionaries are secondary sources and inferior to academic sources when discussing complex topics. If there should be a defintion in the introduction, which as the policy above shows is very doubtful, then dictionaries are inferior to academic research in complex topics. Ultramarine 18:45, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You're wrong. Dictionaries are a great source to determine the typical popular usage of terms. So are encyclopedias. And, determing the typical usage of the term "capitalism" is not "complex." And, look who just a few days ago added "this is often not possible for complex or controversial topics (as definitions themselves become matters of controversy), in which case a clear description of the topic is more appropriate" to that article. No one other than your edit-war partner-in-crime Slrubenstein! [11] You guys are unbelievably shady. Guess what? It doesn't say that anymore. Tada! RJII 19:04, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, you have a point that this sentance is new and cannot be considered established policy. Please spare me your personal attacks. Ultramarine 19:16, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Dictionaries are good for typical usage of terms. But that is not a definition, but a statement of usage. No one is citing dictionaries as evidence for the true definition of complex topics like time, race, and intelligence. You actually consider a dictionary to be superior to academic research? Ultramarine 19:16, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Dictionaries don't contain definitions? That's a new one. Dictionaries are an extremely useful source of definitions. I'm not singling them out as the only source. But they certainly are useful for determining the "typical" definitions of terms --the popular encyclopedias are well. By the way, nice "play dumb" act above. RJII 19:21, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Another personal attack. Please avoid them. Again, you actually consider dictionaries to be more important than academic research? Ultramarine 19:24, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As far as supplying the typical mainstream definition of capitalism, absolutely. Dictionary definitions are the result of research aimed at determining that. RJII 19:29, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

So it is better to cite a dictionary than academic research in order to find the true meaning of mathematical defintions and theorems? Or the true defintion of intelligence, race, and time? Ultramarine 19:35, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"True meaning of mathematical definitions"? We were talking about the definition itself, not the "meaning" of the typical mainstream definition of capitalism. What kind of "academic researcher" tries to determine the typical definition of terms? A lexicographer. Where do lexicographers publish their research? In dictionaries. If you want to find the typical definition of a term, look in the dictionary. Duh! RJII 19:40, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Again, you actually think that it is better to cite dictionaries than academic research as evidence for the right defintion of mathematical definitions and theorems? Or for the correct definition of intelligence, race, and time? Ultramarine 19:44, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"the right definition of mathematical defininitions..."? What on earth are you saying? A definition of a definition? Get your ideas together before you talk to me. RJII 19:47, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please stop avoiding the question. Again, you actually think that it is better to cite dictionaries than academic research as evidence for the right defintion of mathematical terms and theorems? Or for the correct definition of intelligence, race, and time? Ultramarine 19:48, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've never said anything about mathematics. I've said that dictionaries and encyclopedias a great place to look in order to find the typical definitions of words. If you want to get a good idea of how capitalism is typically defined, open a dictionary. The better dictionaries are backed up by qualified researchers who do nothing but look at other sources (including academic sources) and determine what they believe to be the typical definition of the word "capitalism." Look at all the "academic researchers" that you want. My guess is after you compile all the information, you'll come up with the approximately the same definition. You would be doing the same thing the lexicographers are doing. Why not save the effort and use the dictionary to determine the typical popular definitions of words? As I said, use any source you wish, but you'd better be prepared for a full-time job of compiling it all. And, I trust the professional lexicographers more than I trust you (not that I trust you at all). RJII 19:56, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe it's appropriate to turn serious articles into a popularity contest between definitions. No one is looking for the "typical definition" of Capitalism, we are looking for the most correct one. Backed up by research, research that, just as they taught you in highschool, comes from books and academic sources, not dictionaries. You looking at gravity? You look in physics field for your answers. Galeons? History field perhaps. Ear infections? Biology. Capitalism? Economics and political science. Not very difficult. You don't go out looking at dictionary definition.--Che y Marijuana 20:02, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

You're looking for the "most correct one"? Don't you understand that what makes a definition correct is that it reflects the typical usage? There is no intrinsic correctness or incorrectness about definitions. They are merely the product of consensus. If people typically define capitalism as X, then the "correct" definition of capitalism is X. Correct and typical are the same thing. RJII 20:08, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Don't you understand that what makes a definition correct is that it reflects the typical usage?" -- this is precisely why we shouldn't open with a dictionary-like definition. What RJII says is true for dictionaries. But this is not true for encyclopedias. Encyclopedias are not compendia of usage (that is what dictionaries are for), they provide state of the art articles meant to expand people's minds, which means going beyond what people already know, beyond what is common or popular. Otherwise, there is no need for an encyclopedia. And this is why anyone who wants to contribute to an encyclopediua needs to do real research, and not just look up a word in a dictionary. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:53, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

All respectable and widely-referenced encyclopedias do open with a definition of capitalism. It makes perfect sense to do so, and is very easily done. RJII 16:07, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

New introductory paragraph that includes definition of capitalism

I put in a new introductory paragraph that contains the definition of capitalism as it is typically and generally regarded. Who ever heard of an encyclopedia article about capitalism that refuses to define capitalism? An encyclopedia article should define capitalism at the outset, as all others do except Wikipedia at the insistence of a few obstinate individuals. This is my entry:

"Capitalism is typically and generally defined as an economic system where the means of production are privately owned and operated for profit; investment, pricing, and distribution decisions are privately made rather than instituted by state control, and a free market exists for goods and services. Though this definition describes an idealized situation, an economy that approximates such a state of affairs is typically labeled as being capitalism, or if the resemblence is significantly divergent but still reminiscent then as a mixed economy that is based on capitalism." RJII 16:03, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What are your sources for this definition and the claim that it is "typically and generally defined" so? Ultramarine 16:58, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

All the sources in the definitions of capitalism article ..dictionaries, encyclopedias, economists, and other theorists. RJII 17:08, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I see many sources that are very different from your definition. Why are you not mentioning them? Like the role of the state in protecting property rights, something considered very important by Alan Greenspan and the influential economist Hernando deSoto? Ultramarine 17:14, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Do you not know what "typical" means? Of course there are sources very different from that definition. That definition is a "typical" definition, meaning not one representative of every definition, but one that represents those most commonly recited. Besides, mention of the state protecting property rights is already in the intro. This is not typically mentioned in a definition of capitalism, but as related information, as it is now. RJII

What is the source for this claim that the definition it the "typical" one? And why should that be in an encyclopedia and not the correct one? Most people believe that "Hydrogen" is an energy source in itself, should this be in Wikipedia instead of what is correct? Ultramarine 17:29, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't need to cite a source to use the word "typical." Don't be ridiculous. You are clearly attempting to use the "original research" policy to an unreasonable extreme as a method of harassment. You ask why should the typical definition be there rather than the correct one? You need to understand a little philosophy behind definitions. Definitions are correct precisely because they represent the typical consensus usage. A typical definition *is* a correct definition. A definition that does not represent the general consensus is an incorrect definition. What makes a definition correct is that it describes how a term is typically used. RJII 17:41, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hopefully we want a definition that is better than "typical", and RJII's probably is. The typical definition is probably "the United States economic system", or as the typcial American when asked would state "We are!!" It reminds me of an Oracle training class, where the instructor was asked "What is a relational database?", he looked really confused and responded "It's what Oracle is." and that was the extent of his knowledge of the term. He had no knowledge that there was an abstract mathmatical formulation and that most of what he was teaching was the practical non-relational aspects of Oracle that were required to make it work well in the real world.--Silverback 17:16, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

So why not use the definition of Alan Greenspan, chairman of the federal reserve and the most influential economist in the world? Or that of Hernado deSoto, consulted by many Governments on how to make capitalism work in the third world? Or Encyclopedia Britannica, cited in supreme court cases? Why should we use the definition of RJII? Ultramarine 17:22, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You don't have to use my definition. Modify it as you wish, as long as it reflects most mainstream published definitions ..the definitions that are most widely accepted. What makes a definition correct, as I've stated before, is that it reflects the consensus. Definitions aren't correct in themselves. A term means what it means because people generally agree to assign it that meaning. RJII 17:29, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

So if most people believe that the Earth is flat, that is what should be stated in Wikipedia and not what is correct? Ultramarine 17:33, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

First of all that wouldn't be a definition, but an assertion about the real world. I'm guessing what you mean to ask is "If the Earth is defined by most people are being a flat object" then we should supply that definition as the correct definition? Yes, if the conensus definition of Earth includes the characteristic of being a flat object, then that is the correct definition of Earth. Do you need to be reminded that we aren't here to do "original research" but to reflect the consensus of what's already out there? If you think the Earth is actually triangular would you be justified in saying that the correct definition of Earth is that of a triangular object? It doesn't matter whether you think the definition of Earth is good or not. Earth is still typically defined as a spheroid object, therefore that's the correct definition. RJII 17:50, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I got rid of this first paragraph for several reasons:

Capitalism is typically and generally defined as an economic system where the means of production are privately owned and operated for profit; investment, pricing, and distribution decisions are privately made rather than instituted by state control, and a free market exists for goods and services.

First, "typically" and "generally" are weasel words. This definition represents RJII's point of view, and violates our neutral poiint of view. Second, I do not agree that capitalism is an economic system; there are many scholars who argue that it is not an economic system, and an NPOV description of capitalism can't make an assertion that represents one point of view. Third, there are non-capitalist societies where the means of production are privately owned, and some scholars argue that capitalism threatens the private ownership of capital, so again this definition is inaccurate or at best violates NPOV policy. Fourth, it is just poorly written, the second and third clauses are redundant. Fifth, it leaves out what many consider the defining feature of capitalism, which is the commoditization of labor. Any definition with this many problems has to go. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:42, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You can't fool us. The reason you don't like the words "typically" and "generally" is because you want to insert your own atypical POV definition. As long as you take out those words, capitalism is anything and everything citeable by every radical source you can find that fits your POV. Your disingenousness is astounding. RJII 17:54, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

And, my entry does not define capitalism as the mere private ownership of capital as a sufficient condition, but one of several other listed conditions that exist concurrently. Your reasoning that there are non-capitalist societies where capital is privately owned and that therefore the definition is bad absolutely absurd --it's downright laughable. Again I have forgotten my promise to myself not to engage in dialogue with you. It is a waste of time. RJII 18:06, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Much labor is too diverse to be commoditized, but a definition like Alchien and Allen's which talks about exchanges in property rights to both goods and services would encompass labor whether it is in the commodity group or not. Why add the complexity of treating labor as somehow separate when it is simpler to include it in services?--Silverback 17:46, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Silverback, it doesn't matter what you think, or what I think. The fact is, there are many people who define capitalism as a system in which labor is commoditized. Our NPOV policy demands that this view be included. From that point of view, "services" are included in "labor." From that point of view, labor is the inclusive category. The commoditization of labor does not refer solely to service jobs, in includes the labor that goes into the goods that are exchanged as well. It really is a different concept, a different approach to capitalism. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:26, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The Greenspan section in definitions of capitalism, is not a definition of capitalism, it is a discussion of factors that contribute to growth. I haven't searched through the Greenspan literature yet, does someone have something more akin to a definition by him?--Silverback 17:43, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Silverback, don't waste your time with Slrubenstein. His insistence that capitalism should not be defined is the root cause of this edit war. It doesn't matter how good the defintion is, he isn't going to stand for it. His argumentation is not intended to be a constructive criticism so as to work out coming up with a good definition, but to prevent a definition from being presented at all. Ultramarine is apparently the same way ..his efforts seem to be aimed at preventing a definition itself instead of working on coming up with one. All the argumentation is just a smokescreen. Just a heads up to you. I'm willing to work with you to get a definition in the intro. RJII 18:16, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It can equally be argued that dictionaries describe common usage, not the correct definition of words. What is more correct, the dictionary description of "spacetime" or the papers of physicists like Einstein? Should dictionaries be used as evidence for the correct defintion of "race" and "intelligence"? Ultramarine 18:11, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Common usage" *is* the "correct definition." Don't you understand how this works? If people start using a word the "wrong" way and it becomes common enough, then that becomes the correct definition. Definitions ultimately follow usage. The typical common consensus definition is always the "correct" definition. RJII 18:29, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

For give my possible naivity, but I remember being taught that the essence of Capitalism is that those who own the capital, i.e. the money, are in charge (at least of the economy). Thus it would be possible to have non-free-market capitalism. Even if we are not going to agree on a strict definition we need to have something in the intro for the ESL readers who actually don't know what the word means at all. DJ Clayworth 18:22, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As stated in definitions of capitalism there are many and contradictory defintions. If you read the history of this page you will find many attempts that have tried to accomodate all or the most important ones. You may also find the ongoing arbitration case against RJII relevant. I also think that a definition would be good. But not one that ignores major theorists and schools of economics in favor of the anarcho-capitalist definition. Ultramarine 19:33, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

How insane is it to try to accomodate definitions that contradict each other into a single coherent definition? We saw your effort at that and it was an absolute incoherent mess, as one would expect. RJII 19:51, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

People don't have to accomodate definitions that contradict each other into a single definition. But part of the purpose of NPOV is to accomodate definitions that contradict each other into the articles of wikipedia for purposes of illumination. Discussion of the various meanings of the word capitalism is essential to this goal, and I have yet to see any compelling evidence that the particular definitions you have selected are "the typical consensus definition" as you indicate. Indeed, your own tendency to flip from one definition to the next, each time claiming that you are using the most common one, seems to indicate that there is no clear evidence as to which definition is "most common". What we do know is that the definitions of the "most popular" dictionaries are themselves contradictory at points, I think that makes it very clear that the intro cannot favor a particular definition above the rest. Kev 21:01, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Other encyclopedias present a definition of capitalism. Why should this one be any different? The evidence I present that the definitions I try to provide are "typical consensus definition" are the definitions in the popular widely-disseminated dictionaries, encyclopedias, and other reference works. These are the result of research from all sources in order to determine what this "consensus" is. We can do the raw research ourselves that the lexicographers do; my guess is we'd come up with generally the same conclusions ..that "capitalism" is usually meant to refer to such and such. That's the only other way I know of to determine the typical consensus definition. If you're up to doing that kind of research, feel free. It would have to be pretty exhaustive though. I say, look at the widely-disemminated reference works out there. The most difficult work of doing all the raw research has already been done. If you're not going to do the raw research and you won't accept these widely-referenced definitions then you really should have no say in what the definition of capitalism should be. You know? I'm completely willing to accept such a throughough research analysis using whatever sources are available, as long as it's pretty exhaustive. Otherwise, just look up "capitalism." It's easy to see the typical usage of the term. RJII 21:20, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. The problem is that you have done no research yourself, and you are the one insisting that a particular definition be used in the intro. It would thus fall upon your shoulders to give evidence as to which definition should be used, and I have seen no compelling evidence from you whatsoever that would suggest that, say, the OED version should be used over the MW version, or that either of these two should be used over any one of a number of other dictionaries. This presents a problem, how are we to gauge which dictionary definition to use over the next? Your answer "look up capitalism... its easy to see the typical usage of the term", does nothing at all to solve this problem.

I have done research. My and the research of others is in the definitions of capitalism article. If there is something about a dictionary definition that is only present in one then that part of the definition is not typical. If you want to see how capitalism is typically and generally defined, you look over the definitions from the most widely-referenced sources on the matter, including dictionaries, and see what they have in common, and put in your own words what generally typifies them. It's all very simple. RJII 13:56, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As to you question concerning why this encylopedia should not present a definition of capitalism, I cannot answer it, because I never proposed that it should not. But as to your question of why this encyclopedia should be different, I think the answer is obvious, this encyclopedia -is- different than all the others, and your presence as an editor attests to that fact better than anything else I can think of. Kev 05:26, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Nice low blow there. RJII 13:56, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Intro needs a definition of capitalism

The Intro needs a definition. Who ever heard of an encyclopedia that doesn't define capitalism in the intro? The intro is very unprofessional and unencyclopedic as it stands.

Here's an intro with a defintion that I propose (subject to consensus modification of course): "Capitalism is typically and generally defined as an economic system where the means of production are privately owned and operated for profit; investment, pricing, and distribution decisions are privately made rather than instituted by state control, and a free market exists for goods and services. Though this definition describes an idealized situation, an economy that approximates such a state of affairs is typically labeled as being capitalism, or if the resemblence is significantly divergent but still reminiscent then as a mixed economy that is based on capitalism." Any other efforts? RJII 22:05, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Seriuously, this whole discussion is getting nowhere. I don't care if we should or should not have a definition. Why can't we have both? Definition + other views + historical perspective + debate? Concerning your definition, RJ, there's certain points that are vague: a) do means of production include labour? If yes, the definition is wrong, since labour per definition cannot be owned but is a service. b)the second sentence (investment,...state control) is useless since the first and the third include it. c)the free market exists also for the means of production, not just for the goods and services that result from production. d) the mention of mixed economy is irrelevant in the introduction, even though it can be discussed in the core article. Still, in general I'm ok with it. The shorter the definition (if we have one) the less matter for discussion and edit warring. Luis rib 22:16, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Of course. I wouldn't want the intro to only consist of a definition. Addressing your points: a) i agree with you. Labor is not commonly considered to be included as means of production; I'm not aware of it ever being considered as such -by either capitalists or marxists. And yes, it doesn't make sense to privately own labor. b) I don't think it's included in the first sentence, unless you want to say that "operated" included making economic decisions. You may be right. It could be unnecessary. c) sure, i agree with that. d) I don't quite agree that mention of the mixed economy is irrelevant, because capitalism is not an entelechy --it doesn't exist in its full manifestation or not at all. It exists in degrees. For example, the Chinese economy has some capitalism but it would not be proper to call the economy capitalism. I agree about the shortest definition the better. I don't think it takes much to come up with a simple typical definition. The thing is, Slrubenstein refuses to allow a definition. He has a personal grudge against me apparently ..even started a bogus arbitration case against me. If I put a definition up he immediately deletes it. So maybe if someone else put one in... RJII 02:17, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The laborer owns his labor and has the power to contract it out. Property rights in services are just like any other property rights, in fact, one perspective that economists sometimes take is to value goods by the present value of the services they can provide over their useful life time. From this perspective everything is a service. I haven't looked into it closely, so I don't know how they evaluate some goods such as collectibles. A '59 corvette seems to be valued higher than the transportation services over its expected life time. --Silverback 22:55, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You misunderstood my comment. Of course, the worker himself owns the power to work. What is untrue, however, is that a company owns a worker just as she owns a machine or a car. In that sense, the means of production called labour cannot be owned by a corporation, contrarily to the means of production called capital. Concerning your comment on value: the '58 corvette has other kinds of value than simply transportation. It has a sentimental value, which is why it fetches a much higher price. It's the same with perfume or luxury goods: who really needs a 1000$ handbag? Showing off is also a service provided by some goods... Luis rib 23:11, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A company can contract for the right to a person's labor and then sell that contract or services produced under that contract. Of course, often workers are not contractually "bound" except by inertia or a requirement to give notice or non-compete agreements. Others will often still do business with companies despite these uncertainties because of a companies proven track record of being able to deliver enough labor to provide the services. None of this requires a special treatment of labor in economic theory. I'm sure there are studies or analyses of labour as there are of other goods and services, but while there may be consequences for labor attributed to capitalism that should be discussed later in the article, there doesn't seem to be anything intrinsic to labor in capitalism's defining characteristics that requires special treatment in the introduction.--Silverback 08:35, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There are different kinds of ownership. What is at stake with labor is whether the labor that a laborer owns is alienabile or inalienable. In capitalism, it is alienable. When a laborer works for wages, s/he is selling a portion of his or her labor to the employer. At that point, the employer owns the worker's labor. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:39, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That's a very biased view of the role of labour in capitalism. Also, it's a very POV version of capitalism. The fact is that every employee has the right to quit a job s/he doen't like. Therefore, no employer owns labour for very long, or against the will of the employee. Luis rib 18:05, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I do not care what your own arguments against this view are, because in writing an encyclopedia article the beliefs of the editors are irrelevant. I do agree with you completely that it is a biased view. But I must point out that Alan Greenspan or Milton Friedman or Hayek's views are also biased. This gets to the heart of our NPOV policy. All of these views are just that -- views -- and no single view can dominate the article. The article must acknowledge all of these views. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:17, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As I have stated previously on this talk page, I do not mind that different views are represented, as long as they are clearly identified as being the views of a certain group. Feel free to include a small paragraph in the intro that explains the marxist view. I may not agree with it, but I will support its inclusion. Luis rib 18:21, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I am glad we more or less agree. But I actually do not think the Marxist view should be mentioned in the introduction. I think there are too many diverse views and to include them all in the intriduction would make it unwieldy. I think an introduction that siignals that there are different views and lays out the topics or variables that different views address is sufficient. I think that specific views should be presented in full form, but in the body of the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:33, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, the problem is that the introduction should clearly point out which topics are contradictory. The current intro is ok in that respect, but the one we had some time ago, which just enumerated a number of elements without stating which ones belonged to which view was pretty bad. My only concern is that we don't end up with an intro which is a long list of stuff which contradicts itself. So feel free to add whatever you want on this topic, but put it in a way that says that is opposite to the view of proponents of capitalism. Luis rib 18:46, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I am glad you think the intro is better now than before. I myself am satisfied. I think the bullet point list of debates is accurate and inclusive, but if you think two points can be combined, or another must be added, or that some should be reworded, well, I am sure it can still be improved upon. I also think the substantive paragraphs mention pretty much everything that theorists of capitalism talk about -- although perhaps there should be a clearer statement on "the entrepeneurial spirit" or something like that? Slrubenstein | Talk 18:58, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think it's ok like it is now. There's no need to mention everything in the introduction. But feel free. Luis rib 19:03, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi Luis, I was wondering what your objection was to the reference to feudalism in the intro, and whether you're okay now with its inclusion. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:35, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

My objection was that "feudal obligations" was a bit confusing and that you could not easily see the connection between state protection of property rights and feudal obligations. Now it is much clearer. Luis rib 23:50, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Disputed tag

I was just wondering what specific factual claims made in this article are disputed. lets work on them so we can get the tag off. thanks Mgw 00:59, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I put the tag there. It looks like what I was having problems with have been fixed for now, so I'll take it off. RJII 01:52, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Slrubenstien refuses to allow capitalism to be defined

Slrubenstein insists on an intro that refuses to define capitalism. Instead he insists on an intro that takes cowardly way out by saying it's "not easily defined." Bull. It is very easily defined. Other encyclopedias don't seem to have any problem defining it. Some of us need to show some balls and put a definition out there. If not everyone agrees with it, then modify it until there's a consensus on how capitalism is typically and generally defined. This statement at the intro that "both the word and the system to which it refers — is an object of considerable contention, and is thus not easily defined (see definitions of capitalism)" is very unprofessional and unencyclopedic. Slrubentstein, please join in the process of coming up with a definition or step out of the way. The intro suffers because of your obstinancy. RJII 19:08, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have to say, it is my impression that Slrubenstein, and SlimVirgin, are both on the right track and that all the "obstinancy" here is yours. The whole entry is a definition of a sort, and needs no microcosm of itself -- the definition should leave people understanding that they know what capitalism is, it is what the article is about! I'm reminded of a story about Brahms. He played a concerto of his on a piano once, and a critic asked him, "but what does that mean?" -- hoping, perhaps, for some short and snappy verbalization. But Brahms answered the question by ... sitting down at the piano and playing it again. --Christofurio 20:40, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

LOL! Good one. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:56, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

"the definition should leave people understanding that they know what capitalism is" Well..what definition? That's the problem. There is no definition. Just a series of vague assertions about "theories." It's an embarrassment. This would never be published by a respectable publisher. An respectable encyclopedia about capitalism defines capitalism. RJII 20:44, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The definition, meaning the whole entry as I had explained in the sentence before, should leave people understanding that they know what capitalism is. Some attention to context, please. Sheesh. --Christofurio 00:23, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

I know what you were saying. But, I think it only leaves a vague idea of what capitalism is. I'm going to try and improve what's there. It doesn't make much sense ....disconnected thoughts, bad sentences, etc. In the meantime, I'm going to keep on pushing for an explicit definition to head off the intro. RJII 00:29, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Silverback, I'm not keen on your latest edit as it doesn't seem to be an improvement. It was: " ... in which value is recognized in the form of price, which is determined by the intersection of supply and demand ..." and you changed it to: "...in which prices, spontaneously adjust to bring supply and demand into balance ..."

First, as it's written, I'm not sure it makes sense e.g. what do you mean by "into balance"; and second, you lose the important point that capitalism recognizes value in the form of price, which in turn is determined by supply and demand i.e. capitalism defines value in accordance with supply and demand. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:34, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

Silverback, do you have a response, or is this no longer an issue for you? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:52, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

I've been trying to understand this use of value, perhaps it is meant as a contrast to the labor theory of value? Price is non-normative. Individuals may put a value on the money represented by price, but when someone exchanges money for a good or service, the assumption is that they value it not only more than that amount of money, but also more than whatever else they could have done with that amount of money, otherwise, they would have kept the money or made a different exchange. However, it would be wrong to say that price is the value they put on the item they purchased, since they may value it much more than that price. The price just sets a lower limit. Similarly, we don't know the value the seller puts on the good or service, but in the sellers case we have a upper limit on the value.

In terms of balance, the situation is complex, because not only does price adjust, but so do supply and demand over the long run. Generally, price can adjust the quickest. An increase in demand may cause an increase in price in the short term, but in the long term supply may respond to the price by increasing capacity and bringing the price back down. Or, a shortage in supply may cause a price spike, because demand is relatively inelastic over the short run, but in the long run, other goods or services may be substituted for the one that became scarce. Individual decision makers may want to take into account not only current prices but expected future prices when making decisions on what to do now or what to plan for the future.--Silverback 08:51, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Capitalism does no such thing. People recognize value. And price is definitely not necessarily a reflect of value. If you knew the slightest thing about such theories you would know that price is a nominal thing. Price can go up and down while value remains the same. RJII 00:42, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Another example in the badly written intro that needs to be fixed: "Most proponents and opponents agree that capitalism provides the conditions for, and promotes, economic growth; that it valorizes a particular conception of a "free market" and a market mentality, in which prices, spontaneously adjust to bring supply and demand into balance"

First, it says that capitalism valorizes a free market?? Capitalism does no such thing. If anything "valorizes" a free market, it's people and their actions, rather than capitalism itself. (Not to mention it's an attrocious use of the word "valorize" which almost always means to set the price of through decree) The sentence just doesn't make sense. I fix it, but then SlimVirgin comes along and reverts it back. SlimVirgin, can you explain exactly what is meant by this statement? RJII 00:40, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Valorize just means to assign value to. It can be a matter of government price setting, but it can also be simply a matter of saying that a certain philosophy or theology gives value to certain acts or character traits. Christianity valorizes humility in a way that would have been, for example, unimaginable to Plato. Mircea Eliade once wrote that the Hebrew prophets valorized history. That is the sense in which capitalism valorizes a free market. --Christofurio 13:49, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

But capitalism is defined as being, among other things, an economic system comprised of a "free market." It doesn't "valorize" anything. On the other hand, philosophies that "valorize" capitalism would "valorize" a free market. I suppose you could be really awkward and use the term "capitalism" to mean a philosophy rather than an economic system, but even then the first part of the sentence would be using the term "capitalism" in the normal sense where it says "capitalism provides the conditions for, and promotes, economic growth." It's just a really screwed up sentence. Anyway, I fixed it. Hopefully SlimVirgin doesn't come back and revert everything as he so enjoys doing. RJII 13:59, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Slrubenstein just did a wholesale reversion of the constructive edits of 3 people without so much as a comment. Slrubenstien, explain your destructiveness. RJII 16:13, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is called "constructiveness." You made destructive changes to the article. Two other editors made changes that tried to alleviate the damage you did. It is simpler to return to the undamaged text. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:22, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You deleted Silverback's edits as well that were intended to correct your flawed reasoning and writing. You need to stop your harassment of me. You wholesale delete contributions I make and you initiate a bogus arbitration case against me. You need to back off. This isn't your article. Give others a chance to modify it in their own wording. RJII 16:30, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Note, I do not think the wording of RJII's most recent addition stands up to scrutiny, but if I understand him I think there is a valid pointthere. RJII, would you accept rewording it as "whether capitalism can exist only in one, pure, form, or can coexist with other economies?" Slrubenstein | Talk 16:24, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Don't patronize me. I said exactly what I meant the statement to say. I don't like your alternative at all. RJII 16:30, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Silverback's definition

Silverback, your opening is POV. There is no reason why an article cannot begin by explaining that the topic is controversial. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:23, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The free market abstraction is the way economists look at it, information costs, transaction costs, and externalities are all understood as deviations from the free market abstraction. It appears to me, that we need to explain why some countries and economies are called capitalist. It is not because labor has it tough, or because there are disparities in income, these are criticisms. The distinguishing elements is what academic economists point to, the efficiency of the spontaneous order that occurs in markets. Markets are able to process the incomplete information about costs, resources, consumer and business preferences and priorities, much better than central planners, who impose their own values on decisions, and can't process as many possible cost paths as distributed individual decision makers who are closer to those costs. Workers will worker harder for what they think they want, than for whatever someone else thinks they should "really" want. Like other controversial topics, they should be introduced before they are criticized. Related topics like anarcho capitalism should be wikilinked away to, from a natural position in the prose. I don't see a need for much more than this sentence about anarcho-captilism in the article.--Silverback 20:13, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Do you have some sources or is this all original research? Ultramarine 20:22, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is not original research it is a descriptive summary.--Silverback 08:24, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ultramarine wipes out the whole Intro paragraph and his stated reason is "Rv NPOV violation by deleting link to alternate definitions"???? Why doesn't he just put the link back in then? This guy is out of control. RJII 20:19, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Deleting the link to the many alternate defintions and replacing with just one definition is violation of NPOV. Ultramarine 20:27, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Silverback, I appreciate your explanation but the view of Western academic economists is itself a POV. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:29, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Let's tell it like it is. You just don't want a paragraph there that you didn't write. And, how dare someone put a paragraph above yours. RJII 20:32, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Another unsuportable statement. The vast majority of paragraphs in the article were ones that I didn't write. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:14, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Most theories of capitalism developed in the 18th century, in the context of the industrial revolution, and 20th century, in the context of the Cold War" I request a source for this statement from Slrubenstein. If he does not provide a source we'll have to assume it's original research. RJII 20:34, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I should change 18 to 19th century. I do not have to provide one source for this. Since it is not making an analytical or synthetic statement (it is just a descriptive summary), it does not count as original research. However, it is verifiable. See Robert Heilbroner, The Worldly Philosophers. The purpose of this sentence, like the whole purpose of the introduction, is to introduce the article. What theory mentioned in the body of the article did not develop in the 19th or 20th century? Slrubenstein | Talk 20:55, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, you replaced the statement "Most proponents and opponents agree that capitalism provides the conditions for, and promotes, economic growth" after I deleted it and asked for a source. I request a source for this statement, otherwise it's original research. RJII 20:49, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)