Talk:Capitalism/Archive 3

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

LETTER=C#CAPITALISM]

"The winner, at least for now, of the battle of economic “isms”. Capitalism is a free-market system built on private ownership, in particular, the idea that owners of CAPITAL have PROPERTY RIGHTS that entitle them to earn a PROFIT as a reward for putting their capital at RISK in some form of economic activity. Opinion (and practice) differs considerably among capitalist countries about what role the state should play in the economy. ==A paragraph that needs some work==

I've removed one rather confusing paragraph from the introduction, hoping that its original author (or anyone else, for that matter) can clarify its intended meaning and help me re-write it into a less ambiguous version:

"The term capitalism does not imply any inherent favoritism assigned to capitalists. It is an open question whether capitalists or consumers reap greater benefits from membership in a capitalist system compared to other forms of societal organization. Indeed it is inevitable that all members of society must consume. Arguably, then, it is the distribution pattern of capital among the members of a capitalist society that is the most relevant marker of the success or failure of this model."

-- Mihnea Tudoreanu 17:11, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Vandalism

I consider Shibby01's unexplained deletion of the following paragraph vandalism:

It should be noted, however, that many economic systems which have existed for significant periods of time have also exhibited economic growth. Thus, although such growth is an aspect of capitalism, it is by no means unique to capitalist economies.

I have reverted to Hauser's last version.--Che y Marijuana 15:08, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

"Very Narrow Arguments?"

"Aside from the very narrow arguments advancing specific mechanisms, it is quite difficult to distinguish critiques of capitalism from critiques of Western European civilization, colonialism or imperialism. These arguments often recur interchangeably within the context of the extremely complex anti-globalization movement, which is often (but not universally) described as 'anti-capitalist'."
I'm not clear what this graf is trying to say. What about the narrow arguments about specific mechanisms? Is he trying to say that there are two general sorts of anti-capitalist arguments: those that are anti-imperialist and those that aren't? and that he regards the former as deeper or more important than the latter? That's what the language suggests. But that's both hopelessly vague and, IMO, POV. I won't change it right now, though. I'm open to instruction. --Christofurio 00:36, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

Anti-capitalist bias

This page on Capitalism appears to have acquired a self-appointed anti-capitalist steward.  How can this be dealt with?  ---68.193.114.0 (13:46, 26 Nov 2004) (from the History file)

Could you please copy here a few sentences that you think are inappropriately "anti-capitalist" so that everyone could talk about it?  ---Rednblu | Talk 19:04, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Characteristics of capitalist economies

There's been some recent action in the section titled "Characteristics of capitalist economies." I agree that neither version is perfect (including my own). However I want to point out a couple things to RJII: First, we don't normally address the reader in Wikipedia. The assumption is that the reader will read the facts and make up their own mind. Second, dictionaries should be taken with a grain of salt - they're designed to define words, not to settle arguments. And if you must use a dictionary to support an argument, OED is a better choice than M-W. Rhobite 06:38, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)
Vandalism of the above comment by User:217.23.230.4 read: "However, socialism is also known as a form of cheese which moulds very easily and can be found at your local supermarket.", I reverted --Che y Marijuana 21:13, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

I still think RJII's paragraph isn't worded too well. It still addresses the reader and refers to wikipedia as "we." The dictionary thing needs to leave, as the most respected dictionary (OED) doesn't even speak on the issue at all. And generally, English dictionaries shouldn't be cited for academic or technical definitions. For these reasons I have reverted it. Rhobite 01:39, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)



"In mainstream economics a capitalist economy is one where most production and consumption is handled through a free market that includes free enteprise, and therefore have the characteristics that could be broadly ascribed to a capitalist economy." <<--- this is circular. What is the writer trying to say? (RJII) Dec 2

You're right, it is circular reasoning and I replaced it. But I also took your paragraph out for the same reasons I removed it before. Rhobite 03:56, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

Not it isn't cirucular. It says that in common use private production and consuption and free enterprise are considered necessary and sufficient conditions to produce the other characteristics of a capitalist economy. Stirling Newberry 16:16, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"Some on the libertarian right assert that no economy is sufficiently unregulated to be considered "capitalist"" <--this gives the impression that it's only libertarians who consider the major industrial economies "mixed economies." (RJII) Dec 3

That's not an excuse to keep inserting your version of the entire paragraph. If you're referring to objectivists, they are part of the libertarian right, but feel free to name them explicitly - I did in an earlier version. As a side note, you may be in violation of the Wikipedia:Three revert rule if you put back your paragraph again. Please be careful. Rhobite 15:49, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

Do a search on google concerning "mixed economies." It's a common position to hold that the many of the major economies are mixed economies. It has absolutely nothing to do with libertarians or objectivists. Even my college textbook said the US was a mixed economy. You can be a full-fledged communist and assert the same of the economies.This is not about what any particular political position says "should be" but "what is." By the way, Rhobite, you may be in violation of the Wikipedia:Three revert rule. Please be more orderly. (RJII)

No, I reverted three times. That is the maximum. It's allowed. You reverted five times in 24 hours, assuming that you (RJII) are 66.32.156.175. Rhobite 16:55, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

"In mainstream economics a capitalist economy is one where most production and consumption is handled through a free market that includes free enteprise, and therefore have the characteristics that could be broadly ascribed to a capitalist economy. There are vocal minorites which disagree with this assessment."  <--What does this mean?  The first sentence is circular.  (RJII)

I agree, Sterling should remove the end of the sentence to avoid the appearance of circular reasoning. Rhobite 16:55, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

It's saying that in general use a predominant private sector with free enterprise and a free marke is necessary and sufficient for what follows. This is no more circular than saying "in mainstream physics the particle nature of an electron is measured by its lack of interference, and therefore where this interference is not present we can treat the electron as a particle." Since capitalism has a large number of other characteristics, it isn't circular. Stirling Newberry 17:03, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It's a really screwed up sentence. First of all, the subject, "a capitalist economy," (singular) doesn't match up with the verb "have" (plural). Secondly, given your explanation, just above, that "capitalism has a large number of other characteristics" wouldn't it make more sense to say something like "some of the characterists" instead of just "the characteristics"? Otherwise, it clearly looks like a circular sentence. It's difficult to apprehend what your point is.  "Therefore have the chacteristics"<--therefore what have the characteristics? (RJII)

Given that the graf is a substitute for your heavily POV and completely unreadable contribution, your complaint merely disputatious. If the verb tense is a problem for you, then that can be fixed. The circularity complaint was asked and answered. The they in the second sentence is implied, if you have problems with that, then add it. Neither of these two stylistic points add up to either logical or material incoherence. Stirling Newberry 22:01, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Wow, a little uptight are we? (RJII)
By the way...what does "graf" mean? (RJII)

Graf is journalistic lingo for "paragraph" --Christofurio 20:27, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)

Looks like everything that was being talked about above has been moved to its own new section called "Which Economies are Capitalist?" (RJII)

Distribution of wealth

"Capitalist economies have shown an uneven distribution of wealth." <--What are these economies? Can someone list them? (RJII) Dec 2

The United States is one: [1] Rhobite 04:01, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

This is true.  But it is not a sufficiently defining characteristic of capitalism, as all stratified societies (including centralized and decentralized tributary societies, like the Inka Empire or Feudal Europe) have shown uneven distribution of wealth.  Better to say that capitalist societies are a subset of stratified societies. Slrubenstein

Or to simply point out that stratification of wealth is not a unique indicator of capitalism. Which has been done repeatedly. Stirling Newberry 17:43, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I wanted to insert figures to illustrate the extent of unequal distribution of wealth in the American capitalist system, however the part was (rightfully) removed because of an adequate source. Here are the figures again: 
" the average annual salary in America adjusted for inflation rose from $32,522 in 1970 to $35,864 in 1999. The average real annual compensation of the top 100 CEOs went from $1.3 million, 39 times the pay of the average worker to $37.5 million, more than 1,000 times the pay of the average worker."
The original source is a NY-Times-Magazine article (see reprint [2]) by Paul Krugman, who himself refers to data from Fortune Magazine. I guess we can re-insert the figures again now. Spitzl 06:54, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Rhobite stop vandalizing the page

The removal of the smith paraphrase shows you haven't read the work in question. In proper work, it is not only direct quotations, but close paraphrases, which must be cited. Since Smith is, indeed, the author of the idea that individuals have a reasonable expectation of profit from the improvements to their stock of capital, it has to be in quotes. Stirling Newberry 17:39, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if you didn't make baseless accusations of vandalism. You're implying that Smith used the phrase "stock of capital," a term he never used. He uses the phrase "capital stock" numerous times. Feel free to insert a quote which he actually used, but your version didn't make it obvious that it was a paraphrase. As for your current version, it is a sentence fragment, a run-on sentence, and it uses inline external links. All of these are against the manual of style, so I'm going to rewrite the sentence. Using "QED" in an article is inappropriate as well. Rhobite 18:15, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

I ended up reverting this. Couple points: First, this is the etymology section. We are concerned with the definition of capitalism, not Smith's various arguments (which are covered in greater detail elsewhere in the article, in Adam Smith, and in The Wealth of Nations). As for paraphrasing, both APA and MLA dictate that paraphrasing must be attributed to the author, but paraphrased text must not be in quotation marks. While Wikipedia doesn't have an official position on this, my strong opinion is that quotation marks should only be used for exact quotes of a source. Furthermore there's no need to paraphrase here- Smith was a quote factory! Wealth of Nations has loads of quotable summaries of his opinions. And last, please don't make assumptions about my qualifications to comment here. Rhobite 18:38, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

Since Smith is the first substantial user of the word "capital" and his defintion of capital stock rests on his meaning of the word, the original citation of the basic theory is appropriate. Your fiddling with the article, not editing it, and by removing accurate and NPOV content without improving either the clarity or quality of the argument, you are driving things in reverse. Stirling Newberry 19:29, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry if that's how you feel. All I did was remove a misattributed quote. If you feel that it's acceptable to write articles and fabricate quotes by subjects, you're not in the right place. The paragraph as it stands now is fine. Rhobite 19:44, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

Not putting quotes around a paraphrase is called plagarism. The quote was not "misattributed". Stirling Newberry 19:45, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Which style manual are you using? Both the MLA and the APA styles dicatate that paraphrased statements should be cited but not quoted. Quotation marks are ONLY used for verbatim quotes. Rhobite 19:47, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

For reference: MLA, APA. Note that neither style uses quotation marks in the case of a paraphrase. Rhobite 19:59, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

Quotation marks are not used with a paraphrase.  Either use the direct quote, or say, "to paraphrase, Smith, ..." and put the citation. (you might want to check the Chicago guide as well, it is more favored by academic journals) Slrubenstein

Characteristics again

About the characteristics paragraph: I believe the longer version is preferable due to its being specific. The two paragraphs don't really have different meanings - if I'm wrong about this, please point out where they disagree specifically. My main objection to Stirling's new paragraph is that it's only two sentences long, both of them run-on sentences. 
However, I'll remove one thing - it is not true that "mainstream economists" believe that the major economies are not capitalist. Specifically the Economist frequently refers to the US and UK as capitalist, and has even ascribed capitalist characteristics to China's economy. Rhobite 20:29, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
Stirling, I'd appreciate it if you stopped reverting to your single-paragraph version. I mean no offense to your writing ability, but it consists of two long, awkward sentences. I also don't think RJII is right to simply delete it. Can we please work toward a compromise here?
In other news, the intro needs a rewrite.. intros shouldn't be lists. Does someone want to integrate the points into paragraph form? Rhobite 05:28, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
Compromise: RJII can learn to write NPOV. Stirling Newberry 23:11, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Nobody's perfect. This whole Wikipedia thing works a lot better if we act civil to each other. You're being somewhat rude to RJII and me, you've now called both of us vandals. We do have a policy of civility here, it helps the editing if we're not at each others' throats all the time. Please don't falsely accuse other users of vandalism. Rhobite 23:30, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

Stirling Newberry is right here. Looking at the page history, this article seems to be subject to constant attempts to insert randroid nonsense. Yet, Stirling has shown sufficient patience. 172 06:06, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That was uncivil and dishonest of you. Stirling Newberry 23:40, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Stirling, are you being facetious?  unless you are joking, I do not understand this remark.  Rhobite seems to be writing in a reasonable and courteous way.  Surely you do not mean that "incivility" merely means disagreeing with you?  We don't want this to degenerate into an edit war.  COuld you explain to me your difference with Rhobite, and what exactly s/he wrote here that is uncivil or dishonest?  I'd like to understand, Slrubenstein

What do you mean? It's just a friendly suggestion. You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar, you know? Rhobite 00:02, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

Forget these debates; they're minor issues compared to the page's other deficiencies - eg the page ignores everything that new institutional economics has to say about the role of the state in creating and shaping "capitalism" (let's just say modern economies predicated on continuous economic growth and not get fixated with the term), both historically and today. Institutions such as rule of law, enforcement of contracts, defence and civil order are fundamental pre-requsities for capitalism. Pure capitalism is not what you have if you abolish the state; that would be an anarchy that would be pretty bad for business. Granting the fundamental role of the state as guarantor of freedom to transact (or decline to) and keeper of a level playing field then opens up all sorts of intensely political questions about what that entails. The state is not optional, it is essential - which is why capitalism first emerged in the strongest 18th-century state (Britain), and remains pitiful in failed or weak states in Africa and elsewhere. (See Mancur Olson's illuminating argument about robber barons settling down and becoming proto-states - but only if they're strong enough to control resources through taxation; otherwise they plunder instead, destroying capital instead of encouraging it.)
Similarly, it doesn't touch on the key feature of modern capitalism - the separation of ownership from management and a largely successful management of the resulting principal-agent problem - perhaps the single greatest key to its success.
Properly developing this would need to look more closely at how capitalism has developed over time, and not get bogged down in definitional arguments. Just some thoughts; don't have time to do anything constructive right now! Rd232 23:24, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

intro

Someone deleted the third part of the definition, and someone added a new third point concerning trade.  I changed it for two reasons.  First, the previous third point is relevant and important.  Second, the new third point concerned trade, which is already a part of the first point.  So the new third point was redundant.  If there was any new content in the third point, it should be placed in the body of the article.  The introduction should be general, and the body is the place to develop specifics. Slrubenstein   |  Talk  20:11, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
There really needs to be a theoretical definition of capitalism, so to speak. An example of this can be found in the Merriam-Webster dictionary where is says that capitalism is ": 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." A theoretical definition wouldn't point to economies, either present or in the past, and say that that is capitalism. It should be possible to define capitalism otherwise. So, I think the two definitions in the intro right now are really deficient in being a real definition. RJII 20:30, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The problem is, any theoretical definition you might propose is one point of view.  There will be other points of view.  The way to comply with our NPOV policy is to present all points of view, stating whose view it is and providing some context.  My point is not that we shouldn't do this, my point is only that we shouldn't do this in the introduction -- there simply isn't room for it.  The introduction should introduce the whole article, but it is in the body of the article that we go into different views. Slrubenstein   |  Talk  21:21, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I can't think of any better place to provide a definition of captalism but in the intro. If you're not going to allow the mainstream definition of capitalism (so common that there's even one like it merriam-webster dictionary) then you should remove both of the other definitions from intro. Those, in my opinion, *are* POV because they make an assumption that capitalism has been implemented. If would be like defining "communism" by pointing to Cuba, and I'm sure you know what the problem would be with that. Why not have a "real" definition of capitalism that doesn't refer to the real world, and then take the usual route of edit-warring until a general consensus is reached as to what capitalism actually is? I don't want to come across as uncooperative, but if that's what it's going to take then that's what I'm going to do. RJII 21:30, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The opening doesn't give any definition -- but it does state that the word is used to refer to three things.  It does not define capitalism as something "implemented," but it does refer to actual practices and institutions.  Inter alia, I would see no problem at all with doing this for communism (with a proviso I will get to in a sec).  The equivalent would not be something like "communism is what they have in Cuba," which is what I think you are suggesting.  The equivalent would be "refers to certain practices that were put into practice in the Soviet Union and China, specifically (and name the practices).  The point is, of course, that there may be other practices in the USSR that had nothing to do with communism (just as there were practices in Europe that had nothing to do with capitalism).
You are just misreading the introduction if you think it is saying "capitalism is the kind of system found in England" or "in the United States."   All it does is give a partial list of practices or institutions that can be identified with capitalism (it is for the body of the article to go into detail about exceptions)


Here is the problem with comparing communism and capitalism.  Communism, in almost any sense in which it is used today, refers to a set of ideals/claims that developed in Europe in the 19th century in reaction to the rise of industrial capitalism.  My point is that communism started as an ideology, and it is easy to come up with half a dozen people who virtually everyone can agree are of fundamental importance to understanding this ideology.  Attempts to put this ideology into practice in the 19th century were for the most part very short-lived, and it wasn't until the 20th century that communist regimes lasting for longer than a few weeks or months were established.  Capitalism is the opposite -- the practices developed beofre the ideology.  This complicates the issue of defining capitalism, since there are many different historians, economists, sociologists, etc. who define capitalsim in different ways.
What you propose as a definition for capitalism is mentioned in the introduction: it is either one of those theories that explains capitalism, or one of the beliefs about the advantages of certain practices.  These two bullet points not only make room for -- they require -- a detailed discussion of these theories and beliefs that could certainly include your definition.  When you say that a "real" definition is of something that does not exist, you are making it clear that you are talking about either a theory or belief.
Now, I do not want to play hardball with you either.  But it still seems to me that your definition violates our Wikipedia:No original research policy, and privileging your definition by putting it in the introduction violates our Wikipedia: Neutral point of view policy.  Can you come up with something that doesn't violate either?  I understand you may not agree with me, but I think the current definition indeed complies with both policies.  The introduction does not define capitalism, but it does identify capitalism with a set of practices and instituitons and/or theories and/or beliefs -- this is a pretty broad way of introducing capitalism that leaves room for many different definitions in the body. Slrubenstein   |  Talk  22:03, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Anyway, I disagree that it would violate either of these policies. The definition of capitalism I want to be there is the modern, commonly accepted definition. I'm not talking "original research." And I would like the definition to be NPOV as much as you would like it to be. Because you disagree with what I think capitalism means that my definition is "POV?" I don't think so. My only POV is my opinion on what the NPOV definition of capitalism is. The into, in my opinion, is bad. So, I'm going to work on it. I may put in another bullet or I may modify the existing ones. What the harm in a little conflict? RJII 22:36, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If it is not original research, okay -- just provide your source.  I think you misunderstand our NPOV policy.  The very claim that your definition is the "modern, commonly accepted" definition is your point of view.  And I am not saying that your definition is POV "because" I disagree with you!  Where did you get this idea from?  For all I know, I may agree with your definition.  But that is irrelevant.  All definitions of capitalism are going to be POV.  And as I keep repeating, that does not mean that your definition can't be in the article.  What it means is that no single definition can be privileged.  The introduction is currently point of view because it Karl Marx and Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek and Gunnar Myrdal could all agree that each bullet point is accurate -- and none of them would agree with it as a definition of capitalism.  Each theorist has a different defnition, and they should all be discussed in the body of the article.  But the introduction shouldn't have any one person's definition.
The definition (if it was one) that I deleted -- I am now guessing it is yours, I don't know -- really had three elements: a system of trade, free market, and private property.  Each of these terms is already in the opening bullet point, with links.  So I deleted that definition because it added nothing that wasn't in the first bullet point.  The only element that is not explicitly in the first bullet point is "decentralized" because there are many who would not agree.  So let's discuss "decentralization" in the body of the article, where all the arguments for it (as a criterion for capitalism) and against it can be laid out. Slrubenstein   |  Talk  22:48, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No, I don't misunderstand the NPOV policy ..believe me. I'm using my POV as much as you are using yours when you assert that the bullet points are true; that is your POV, and my POV is that they're shoddy. So, there are going to be some changes in the intro. Apparently you have something against defining capitalism in the intro. I disagree with your view on that. There's nothing more nauseating than a nebulous intro that's afraid to be explicit. Just because it's going to cause conflicts don't do it? I think that's a cop-out. I don't think these articles should be about us appeasing each other but creating quality articles. RJII 23:21, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What is meant by "institutionalized"? RJII 15:15, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

establishing a given practice as standard in a society, often through a legally recognized organization.  For example, a butcher and a baker trading meat for bread is an informal practice.  Building a marketplace where everyone comes to buy and sell is institutionalizing it. Slrubenstein   |  Talk  20:23, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
You said that Milton Friedman would agree with the statement. I disagree with that. I do not think he would agree that capitalism has ever been institutionalized. I don't agree with that either. RJII 20:41, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Once again you misread or misconstrue what the article says.  The article says that certain practices were institutionalized.  If you think Friedman would disagree with that, you are just plain ignorant.  Friedman certainly believes that there are corporations, stock markets, and banks.  All of these are "institutions" that "institutionalized" certain practices.  Slrubenstein   |  Talk  20:53, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That would be fine if just above that it didnt's say that that's what capitalism refers to. The article is saying that "capitalism generally refers to" that which has been institutionalized. Maybe some things have been institutionalized that are elements of capitalism, but the article is saying that practices that have been institutionalized *is* that to which capitalism refers. See? Friedman would not agree with that. And again, neither do I. RJII 21:09, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Again, you misunderstand the language of the articel and I think our NPOV policy.  Friedman -- and you -- do not have to agree that this is what capitalism "is."  All you have to agree to is that there are people who refer to capitalism in one of these ways.  Friedman's defninition of capitalism, whatever it is, is certainly covered by this introduction.  You want to change it so it represents only Friedman's definition?  That would violate our policy. Slrubenstein   |  Talk  21:26, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
No, I think it's you that misunderstands our NPOV policy. My position isn't just about Friedman. You're the one that brought it up, reasoning that the paragraph is good because he would agree with it. I'm pointing out that he wouldn't. Now how about responding to my last point without regard to Friedman. Again: "That would be fine if just above that it didnt's say that that's what capitalism refers to. The article is saying that "capitalism generally refers to" that which has been institutionalized. Maybe some things have been institutionalized that are elements of capitalism, but the article is saying that practices that have been institutionalized *is* that to which capitalism refers." RJII 21:38, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Okay, but first, can you tell me which of the practices mentioned in this list do you feel are not important components of capitalism?  I ask, because you had earlier seemed to be promoting a similar list.  Or is your point that it should be changed from "institutionalized" to "institutionalized to varying degrees?" Slrubenstein   |  Talk  21:53, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)


I changed the second bullet point.  First, the previous change made the second bullet point redundant with the first bullet point.  Second, there are people for whom capitalism is a theory.  You are welcome to include your point of view in the article (if you can source it) -- but that doesn't mean you can delete points of view you disagree with. Slrubenstein   |  Talk  18:43, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The third bullet point that says "a belief in, and arguments for, the advantages of such practices" covers the assertion that a theory itself can constitute capitalism. But, typically, "capitalism" refers to the system itself that is advocated by these theories. The second bullet point as it stands now is pretty bizarre. RJII 19:29, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Not to mention, the whole intro is bizarre as well. It looks to me like an attempt to do everything to avoid defining capitalism. It's nearly worthless. RJII 19:55, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Many people think capitalism is not a system but an ideology.

The ideology recommends a system. That system, called capitalism, must be defined. RJII 21:41, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I already explained to you why we should avoid defining capitalism in the intro.Slrubenstein   |  Talk  21:24, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes you did, and I disagree with you. RJII 21:41, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Please state your definition here so we can see if it possible to reach a consensus. (that is not original research) Ultramarine 21:06, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ok. Something to the effect of " an economic system where capital is privately owned and where pricing, production, and distribution of goods and services are determined by exchanges of money, goods, and services in a free market." RJII 21:13, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Protected

An edit war has been heating up over the intro. I protected the page in order to give the users a chance to settle the dispute on talk, as opposed to reverting each other. 172 22:19, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
It is true that RJII and I differ, but so far we seem to be communicating, and I don't think either of us have violated the 3RR or any other behavioral guideline.  I am going to unprotect the page, but I do aks that RJII take some time to try to work this out on the talk page. Slrubenstein   |  Talk  22:32, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Okay. Good luck. I'll try to post some comments the next time that I'm online, but I'm running late now for an appointment. 172 22:34, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Intro 2

RJII, present your definition here (with sources/citations) and let's see what others think about it. Slrubenstein   |  Talk  21:52, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
But, typically, "capitalism" refers to the system itself that is advocated [or opposed] by these theories. 
Hi, SlR asked me to take a look at this editorial dispute. I agree with SlR that any substantive account of the theories should go into the body. That said, I agree with RJIII's approach in so far that s/he regards capitalism as a system (which I find key). Incidentally, it should be noted that SlR also agrees with such a defintion himself, but he nonetheless maintains that there are views with challenge this (to my knowledge, widely-held) interpertation, hence, his abovementioned objections of it being untenable. [feel free to correct me at any point if I am misrepresenting positions here – admittedly, I have only taken a cursory glance at the current dispute] What I think would be productive to resolve and carry the dispute forward, is for RJIII to follow SlR's suggestion and provide his definition or changes to the current one. At the same time, if SlR could provide evidence for the defintion of capitalism as a system being (appreciably) disputed (here and in the professional scholarship), then engaging  a more comprehensive (and hopefuly long-lasting) compromise and consensus, colegially and in good-faith, will become far more likely. I am tempted to simply rewrite the opening pargraph myself omitting the bullets, which, as I told SlR, I think are out of place in an article of this nature; but now does not seem the time for unilateral action, especially on my hitherto uninvolved part. Hopeful for a positive response from all parties involved. More thoughts soon. (feel free to review the the discussion between SlR and myself on this matter here and here).  El_C 21:58, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You aren't misrepresenting me, El C, but once you move beyond "system" to ask "what kind of system" I think you and RJll disagree.  Certainly, even Marxists (e.g. Althuser and Thompson) have disagreed.  Slrubenstein   |  Talk  22:17, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Indeed, but that should not amount to an insurmountable hindrance; the aim is not for any one editor to write how they regard capitalism (as a system), but rather, providing an account as to how notable thinkers have viewed it throughout history. El_C 22:49, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The only other definition of capitalism I know of is the one used typically by Marxists which is merely "the private ownership of the means of production." So, as far as I know there are two definitions, the simple marxist definition, and the much more widely-held definition that includes that but also refers to how the goods and services are priced and distributed. RJII 23:16, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There are other approaches: (pro-capitalist)Kenysians for example. They, Marxists, and others do not dispute supply & demand, they dispute that the results = 'balance.' For the sakes of NPOV, we can qualify this accordingly. I've edited the 'system' bullet to account for the dominant role played by capitalists (as owners of centralized wealth); noting that the balance between supply & demand under capitalism is an 'attempt' (its results on that front is disputed by economists); and noting that capitalism historically succeeded and superceeded mercantilism, also tying the latter to the protectionism it entailed and which capitalism strives to do away with. Hopefuly this will be the first step that will eventually lead to abandoning the current bullet structure and supplanting these with normal pargraph format. El_C 23:23, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I disagree that capitalism is a development only from mercantilism or protectionism. Far more important is the contrast to earlier feudal systems. Protectionism is an economic theory about how trade with other nations should be regulated and is contrasted with free trade, not with capitalism. The introduction of capitalism had for greater political, social and economic repercussions than merely advocating free trade with other nations. See Hernando de Soto's excellent article here [3]. Ultramarine 15:14, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
"Revert. Capitalism developed in strongest state in Europe, England. Not all agree with anarcho-capitalists".  What does this have to do with anarcho-capitalism? RJII 16:24, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There is also a robust debate between Marxists and World Systems' theorists over whether capitalism comes into existence once there is a market for labor, or when markets expand to a global scale.  So there are various definitions of capitalism.  As El C says, this is not a hinderance, we just need to provide these different views in the article.  My only claim here is that for this reason the introduction has to be general enough to accomodate all these different definitions, and that means not privileging any one definition in the introduction. Slrubenstein   |  Talk  16:38, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)