Talk:Capitalism

Talk History

A Sincere Attempt

I have posted a complaint about this topic and edited the page to no avail. I would like to try to explain here what I think is a very serious problem with this page, primarily in the intro, but pervasive throughout the rest. Regardless of whatever moral, philosophical, legal, or historical baggage capitalism carries, it is simply a method of organizing economic production. It is characterized principally by the private ownership of the means of production, and the determination of production in free markets. Accordingly, economic production (i.e., how much of what to produce at what prices) is determined by private individuals making (largely) unrestricted choices. What do you imagine the alternatives to be? Obviously, there is socialism and/or communism, in which a central government authority organizes economic production, but I believe you would be hard pressed to come up with another method of organizing production. Someone suggested on this page that “mercantilism” is an alternative, but this is nonsense. The author suggested that mercantilism “says to liberate property but restrict trade for the short-term good of the rulers.” This refers to economic policy, not economic production. Likewise, the section of the page entitled “How Capitalism Works” is severely misguided, because it describes a modern example of how, in OUR legal and cultural constuction, one would operate in business. It reaveals only how a modern business in our legal system would be founded, and nothing about capitalsim as an economic system. Likewise, the reference to Europe in the 16th century is sloppy and biased. If this was an introduction to democracy, we would surely not begin by saying that it was institutionalized in ancient Greece. First and foremost, democracy is a method of government, and the times and places we associate with it should not be in the introduction. Likewise, 16th century Europe has no place in the capitalism introduction, because it tells us nothing about capitalism as a system. What, I challenge you, was the system of economic production in Europe in the 15th century? The lack of modern style corporations and shareholders does not imply a lack of capitalism, because those things are legal constructions that are not necessary to conduct economic production through private ownership and decision making. It would be appropriate to have an article about modern, cultural interpretations of capitalism, one about the shortcomings of capitalism (of which there are many), one about industrialization in Europe, etc., but to jumble the article on capitalism with modern renditions of it (especially in the intro) is not precise and not neutral. China, for example, has in recent decades moved to the private ownership of capital and private determination of production, though it is still considered politically communist. You would surely not describe China as a capitalist country, because it does not conform to the cultural understanding we have of capitalism. Seriously, think about the alternatives to capitalism, that is, the alternatives to the private determination of production. If you come up with any (real or theoretical) other than communism, please do let me know, I would be interested. I would like to edit this page, but I'm sure it will be reverted, so I am bringing it up here, becuase I think that an honest evaluation will lead us to see that, among other things, the refence to Europe is not neutral. Mgw

Hunter-gatherers and Feudalism are examples of alternatives. Your interpretation of capitalism is not shared by many other economists and philosophers. Most agree that the economic system that arose in Europe was different from the earlier feudal system and have given this system the name capitalism. Ultramarine 23:38, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Firstly, hunter-gatherers would not be considered by many to be engaged in economic production. They are producing food for themselves, but how exactly would a modern western economy operate as a hunter-gatherer economy? This is not an alternative to capitalism. Secondly, Feudalism involved complicated legal arrangements among individuals who were still free to produce as they saw fit, though they were subject to the arrangements they made. Neither of these are alternatives economic systems; they are different cultural and political manifestations. Thirdly, as an economic system, most economists would agree that capitalism is chiefly characterized by private ownership of the means of production (capital) and the ability of private individuals to determine production. If philosophers do not generally agree on this, there should be an article about philosophical interpretations of capitalism, since it is first and foremost and economic system. The cultural and legal aspects of capitalism that arose in Europe were new, but they were not the invention of a new economic system. I still think these are not alternatives.

Many economists and philosophers disagree with you. And the article is not supposed to represent our opinion or original reserarch. Ultramarine 00:51, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm with you. The intro is pathetic. Feel free to edit it. Don't hestitate because you think it will be reverted. I'll be right there working to fix the shoddy thing. And don't fall for that guy's "original research" crap. RJII 01:02, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ultramarine: Many people would disagree about many things, and you have not responded to my points. Firstly, academic economists rarely, if ever, use the word capitalism. You will not find the term in economics textbooks, nor is it frequenty discussed in professional literature. Try it out, search for capitalism on JSTOR (www.jstor.org) and see how many hits you get from the hundreds of thousands of economics articles on that site. You'll find a few, but the overwhelming majority will be from political, historical, sociological, or philosophical journals. I'm not sure what scienific study you conducted to discover the consensus among economists, but if you are going to state supposed facts like "many economists would disagree with you", you should cite a survey or a broad, obvious theme in economic literature. Secondly, and again, philosophy is not the basis for this article, that should be a separate one. I made many points, and you didn't respond to any of them, you simply repeated your sinlge one.

1) Many economists use much more complex definitions than your very simple one. See for example Index of Economic Freedom, used in numerous peer-reviewed articles [1]. Or this article by the very influential economist de Soto [2]. Marx and his followers certainly consider capitalism to be a different economic system from feudalism. 2) Why is philosophy, sociology or history less important? Rand was one of the most influential theorists during the last century, which should her opinion be censored from the main article? 3) Primitivism consider hunter-gatherers to be an alternative to capitalism. Other variants of left-anarchism think there are many other alternatives to capitalism, many of them not communistic. 4) Finally, do you have an external source that supports your theory of capitalism and how it should be presented? Ultramarine 12:39, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ultramarine is right. Mqw does not recognize that his/her view of capitalism is not the only view. I am sure Mqw thinks it is an "objective" description of capitalism, but that belief does not make it an objective description of capitalism. Marx too thought his definition of capitalism is objective. The body of the article must provide all of these different views. Period. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:37, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ultramarine: "Why insist on a definition when there is no consensus?" <--What do mean by this when you deleted the definition I provided but keep the first definition? If you are against definitions being there then why not delete that one as well? RJII 14:52, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The first bullet point is not a defintion, just a description of economic practices. Ultramarine 14:54, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The intro says that capitalism "refers to one or more of the following" bullets. The first bullet says "a system consisting of a set of economic practices involving..." I'm sorry to have to state something to you that is so obvious, but that constitutes a definition. Now, another prevalent definition should be supplied as an alterative to the first. Not everyone agrees that capitalism is a system that involves a free market. RJII 15:05, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Changed wording somehat. Again, there are dozens of theories and definitions, with no consensus on which are the most important or on how they should be sorted. Ultramarine 15:16, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

How does your change in wording make it not a definition? The fact is, it is a definition. All you've done is added the assertion that capitalism as defined in the sentence has been institutionalized or implemented. Again, there is a significant amount of people who disagree that capitalism is a set of practices that involves a free market. RJII 15:27, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Cite your sources on those who disagree.

If you you insist, all theories and definitions should be mentioned in the introdcution. Not just those two you seem to prefer. Ultramarine 15:31, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

One source is the Webster Dictionary of the English Language: "Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production, distribution and exchange are privately owned and operated for profit." Now, before you go off saying that dictionaries aren't relevant, they certainly are. Dictionaries are authorities on how people typically use words. This definition exists precisely because there is not universal agreement that capitalism is a system that involves a free market (many think that capitalism involves exploitation...hardly a free market when a free market is voluntary interaction), however there is universal agreement that capitalism is a system that involves private ownership. See? RJII 15:40, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

MW's definiiont 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". There dozens other definiionts by other dictionaries, economists, philosphers, historians and so on. Ultramarine 15:46, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Exactly. You know this, yet you are insisting that only definition of capitalism, as an econmic system, that is in the intro is the one that says capitalism involves a free market. If the intro says there are alternate definitions then at least provide one alternative to how capitalism as an economic system is defined. RJII 15:52, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The into now has a desription that involves much more, including property rights. But we can add private ownership and profit to the desription. If you insist on definitions, there should either be a listing of all in the introudction or on a separate page. Ultramarine 15:56, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Why even mention that there are competing definitions if you only provide one of capitalism, as an economic system, in the intro? If you're only going to provide one then it had better be one that "everyone" agrees with. If you can work in that some definitions involve a free market and that some don't into a single definition, then go for it. But just adding "private ownership and profit" to the definition won't cut it, because it would still say that capitalism involves a free market. RJII 16:02, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

How about this descriptiption? I think few would disagree with such a description.

a set of economic practices, most of which became institutionalized in Europe between the 16th and 19th centuries, especially involving the right of individuals and groups of individuals acting as "legal persons" (or corporations) to own and trade private property, especially capital goods such as land and labor, in a free market, for profit, and relying on the protection by the state of private property rights and the adjudication by the state of explicit and implicit contractual obligations rather than feudal obligations.

Ultramarine 16:12, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Many would disagree with that. Because, still, it asserts that capitalism involves a free market. Many think that exploitation and coercion is an essential practice in capitalism. This is antithetical to a free market --since a free market is about voluntary interaction. And, many say that capitalism is by definition essentially based in a free market. This is a significant divide in conceptions of capitalism. Both of these views need to be represented, whether in one definition or two. I think the easiest way is to provide an alternate definition: "Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production, distribution and exchange are privately owned and operated for profit" That's one statement that everybody can agree on. And leave the first definition for those that insist that capitalism involves a free market (the most common definition). RJII 16:58, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Cite your sources please. (MW includes free market). Ultramarine 17:01, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I already did above. But again for you, Webster Dictionary of the English Language: "Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production, distribution and exchange are privately owned and operated for profit." RJII 17:07, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Acrually, MW collegiate dictionary 11th Edition "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". But even your variant does not prohibit a free market so you must find a different source that does. The description now mentions a free market, private ownership, profit and property rights which should satisfy all. Ultramarine 17:12, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't satisfy all, nor "should" it. Not everyone agrees that capitalism is based on voluntary interaction (a free market). One thing my "variant" is however, is a statement that "all" agree on --unlike the definition you're supporting. You're neglecting and censoring a pretty common definition of capitalism (one that makes no reference to how goods and services are distributed or the nature of economic decisions), apparently to push your own POV. RJII 17:29, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Again cite your source that do not think a free market is part of capitalism. Your old quote do not prevent that. And as shown there are are other dictionaries that state this positively. Ultramarine 17:38, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ok, again: Webster Dictionary of the English Language: "Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production, distribution and exchange are privately owned and operated for profit." As far as this definition is concerned, capitalism has absolutely nothing to do with a free market. As long as capital is privately owned and operated for profit, it's capitalism. A definition that says capitalism involves private ownership AS WELL AS a free market is a definition that is not compatible with that popular one. The M-W includes the WDOTEL, but the WDOTEL does not extend to the M-W --it is incompatible. If business and government join forces (and override or prohibit individual voluntary decision -engage in coercion), then it is still capitalism according to WDOEFL and according to many. In this conception, capitalism does not involve a free market. They are two different definitions. You appear to be attempting to push your POV by only allowing the definition that says capitalism involves a free market. RJII 17:55, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That's not bad, so perhaps now's the time to remove from the intro, on the basis that capitalism is an economic system and not a set of theories or beliefs, the "competing theories..." and "a belief in...." bullet points. Rd232 16:40, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes, let's do get rid of those ridiculous bullet points. RJII 16:58, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Listing of definions of Capitalism

I have created a new page, definitions of capitalism. There we have the space to quote the many different definitions of capitalism.

Ok, but that doesn't fix the problem with the intro. RJII 18:18, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I see little problems. What do you propose? That only your definition(s) should be in intro? Ultramarine 18:22, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Note also that the collegiate dictionary quote is more recent than your quote and is thus not a subset Ultramarine 18:23, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You already know what I propose. Two definitions. One that defines capitalism as involving a free market, and another that satisfies those who define it has having nothing to do with a free market (this conception of prevalent enough that it needs to be taken care of). If it's not me there's going to be others that have this objection. Why not take care of it? It's easy enough. RJII 18:33, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

But this sorting is original research. Or do you actually have a source which supports this taxonomy of the defitions? Ultramarine 18:38, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's not "original research." This is not a matter of "original research." Looking up a definition is secondary research. The definition is common enough that it should be there along with the other common definition that you insist on being there. My reasoning may be my own, but my reasoning isn't going to be in there. Putting in another common definition of capitalism to supplement the first does not constitute "original research." How is it original research to put "my" definition in there, but not original research to put "your" definition in there? RJII 18:58, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If your reasoning is without external sources then it is original research. You have a point about the description also being original reserach. However, it is not a definition and thus a far weaker statement and there seems to be a general consensus, something not true of the definitions. I propose that we try to agree on a common desription and leave the definitions to the new page. Alternatively, remove all descriptions and definitions from the introduction and simply state that there is no consensus on a definition and that the article will desribe various aspects of capitalism. Ultramarine 19:02, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's my opinion that capitalism, the economic system, should be defined/described on the intro. I provided an "external source" of another common definition of capitalism, therefore it is not original research (How many times does something have to be drilled into your head before you get it?). That conception is what I'd like to see reflected as an alternative definition/description. You are wrong to say there is a "general consensus" on the definition/description in the intro. Many people do not define, describe, or conceive of capitalism as involving a free market. You are plainly POV pushing. I find it contemptible. Moreoever, your claims of "original research" are obviously a smokescreen. You know damned well that providing a description of capitalism as referenced from external sources is not "original research." And, you know damned well that what I want to put in the intro is not "original research." I tire of your disingenousness. RJII 19:22, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

So how about removing all descriptions and definitions from the introduction? I see this as the only alternative if we cannot agree on a weak description. Ultramarine 19:27, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've seen good articles with much longer intros, what's the problem?--Silverback 19:09, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think the introduction is quite good now. But I see no reason and no need why just some of the many definitions should be included. Ultramarine 19:24, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I do not see any need to remove the current introduction -- it is not original research; it has been modified to address RJII's concerns; and aside from insisting on characterizing capitalism as a system, he hasn't specified any other objections. I do think that Ultramarine's new article on definitions is a very constructive idea; I have just added a few. I also put the word "competing" back in -- this isn't original research either, Sweezy, Brenner, and Dobb all discuss ways that different definitions compete. Good job, Ultramarine! Slrubenstein | Talk 23:11, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

RJII, where on earth do you get the idea that "most people" define capitalism in terms of private property? In any event, what purpose is served by adding another bullet point when private property is already mentioned, prominently, in the first bullet point? It's just redundant. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:21, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Read everything in the section called "A Sincere Attempt" above to understand the problem with that. By the way, I ever said "most people" but "many people." Read the above section please --particularly the bottom 2/3 of it. Also read everything in this section. RJII 00:22, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

RJII, anarcho-capitalism is mentioned in the introudction, be content. You are not going to get an introduction that says that anarcho-capitalism is the best variant of capitalism. If you insist, this will end as before. With a very short introduction with no mention of anarcho-capitalism at all. Ultramarine 00:39, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What are you talking about? My intention is not on getting anarcho-capitalism represented --I even deleted the mention of it the first time you put it there. You're the one that put it back. My intention is making sure that a definition that is compatible with a marxist or similar conception of capitalism is there. It is POV to only present the pro-capitalist definition that says capitalism involves a free market. That definition is incompatible with the conception of capitalism that many have. An alternative definition must be presented if you are going to present that one. That alternative is one that says it is system where capital is privately owned, and has absolutely nothing to do with a "free market." You have not been out much if you're not aware that those who oppose capitalism have a different definition. If you think all this time I've been trying to get anarcho-capitalism in the article, then you need to lay off the bottle. Obviously you haven't been cognizant of anything I've been saying about all day. Go back and read everything in the section above and this section. Good grief. RJII 00:58, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Not a single Marxist has protested. The practices section is very compatible with the view of most Communists. Furthermore, there is no opposition between a free market and private ownership, you have shown no source that claimed this. That they do not mention this in the same sentance is not the same thing. Ultramarine 01:04, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm protesting. If you think that Marxists think that capitalism is a free market have you ever taken the time to read the Marxist Critique of Capitalism in this very article? Capitalism is not a free market to Marxists but an unfree one, rife with coercion and exploitation. A free market is one that has no coercion. To describe capitalism as a free market is so obviously POV to anyone who understands the critique of capitalism. Stop pushing your pro-capitalist POV. RJII 01:13, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Most marxists do not mind using the word "free market". Ultramarine 01:20, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes they do. RJII 01:44, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

They dislike the "free market". But they can use it in their critique. The word "free" is not a value judgement, as you seem to think, but refer to unchecked market forces. Ultramarine 01:56, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A free market is one where there is no coercion influencing decisions in the marketplace. It's not that they dislike free-markets but that the conception of free-markets used by capitalists is not truly a free market since private property exists by coercion. RJII 02:00, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I still have no idea what RJII is talking about. Marxists do not define capitalism as a system based on private property. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:11, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No surprise there. RJII 17:14, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If you admit that Marxists do not define capitalism as a system based on private property, then why did you write, above that "My intention is making sure that a definition that is compatible with a marxist or similar conception of capitalism is there... That alternative is one that says it is system where capital is privately owned ..." Since Marxists do not define capitalism in terms of private ownership of capital, why do you keep talking about the need for a definition of capitalism in terms of private ownership of capital? What does this have to do with your "intention" to provide a definition "compatible" with Marxism? Slrubenstein | Talk 17:54, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm not admiting that Marxists don't define capitalism as private ownership of capital. I was saying that it's no surprise that you "have no idea what RJII is talking about." That's it. RJII 19:53, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, if you are not admitting that Marxists do not define capitalism as private ownership of capital, that just means that you have not done real research. On what basis, then, are you justifying your changes when you haven't done research? Slrubenstein | Talk 20:05, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That flawed logic is why I'm not surprised that you don't understand what I say. I make myself clear. And, the last thing I want to do is get involved in a protracted discourse when the other person is oblivious to the meaning of anything I say. I've made my points. Read this talk page for more information. RJII 20:11, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

deleted "free market" from definition of capitalism

it's POV to say that capitalism as an economic system involves a free market. Many believe it involves coercion. Either NPOV this or ad another definition that doesn't describe capitalism as free market. RJII 01:06, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Those opposing a "free market" can still use this word, meaning that the market forces are unchecked which they see as bad. Ultramarine 01:28, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Capitalism can't be coercive and free market at the same time. A free-market by definition doesn't have coercion. That's why the common definition exists that says capitalism is "the private ownership of capital" or similar definitions. If you're going to say that capitalism involves a free market, then you should also allow another common definition or description that doesn't say that capitalism involves a free market. Allowing that common definition, with the introductory sentence saying that capitalism refers to "one or more of the following" should take care of any objection on the matter. "A system where capital is privately owned" should take care of it. Why should only your pro-capitalist "candy-coated" definition be there? If you insist on one definition/description then make it NPOV. RJII 01:57, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Here is an exmaple of critics of capitalism using the term "free market". [3] Ultramarine 02:01, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Actually, how about enclosing free market in "free market" in the description, as in the article above. Ultramarine 02:31, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Still it would not be consistent with the basic Marxist definition of capitalism --the private ownership of the means of production. Why not just add that definition in there? If you have one then you need to put this one in also or you disenfranchise a significant segment of people who have a different conception of definition/description/conception of capitalism. What are you afraid of? People are going to see the truth about the exploitative nature of capitalism? RJII 03:10, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You do not understand Marx's position or definition on capitalism. You have no citation as support for your statements regarding Marxism and seem mostly intent on trollng. Here is another recent Communist text that uses the words "free market", in a speech by Castro. [4] Ultramarine 11:48, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In Marx, a capitalist is someone who owns capital, and capitalism is the private ownership of capital. This is basic to anyone who has a clue about Marxism. So, if you are going to supply a definition in the intro that says capitalism involves a free market, then you had better supply the one that says it is the private ownership of capital without including the term "free market" in the description. For every criticism of capitalism that assumes it involves a free market there are a hundred others that do not assume that and do not assert in their descriptions of capitalism that it is a free market. As far as Castro, he's using "free market" to mean laissez-faire. There is a difference. That's an improper usage. An economy can be laissez-faire and at the same time an un-free market. Also, since it's a speech, do we know that he didn't gesticulate quotes around the term? RJII 15:28, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Unless you can cite a source, this is just your imagination regarding Marxism. Please understand that things are not necessarily true just because you believe so. Cite your sources. Again, here is a current left critique of capitalism using the word "free market". [5] Ultramarine 15:36, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Go to Google, put in the phrase "Marxist critique of capitalism" and pull up the first dozen or so. No mention is made that capitalism is a free market. Again, you may be able to find a few here and there that improperly equate free market with lack of government involvement, but the overwhelming number of critiques are intelligent on this matter and do not do so. They assume that the private ownership of capital is antithetical to a free market, granting that it involves coercion. RJII 15:42, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Just add "free market" to the search and there are numerous examples of communist texts containing the words "free market". [6] Ultramarine 15:48, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Duh! If you put "free market" in the search then that's what you're going to find! If you want to be objective then don't put free market in the search, then see how many say that capitalism is a free market. RJII 15:51, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Your theory is proven false. There are numerous communists who use the term free market. Ultramarine 15:52, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This is it for you and me buddy. I find your mentality and reasoning ability abysmal. From here on out, I'm not dealing with you. RJII 15:54, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Another original research theory biting the dust. :) Ultramarine 15:59, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Have another beer. RJII 15:59, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This silliness is based on two contradictory definitions of the term "free market" - absolute (not an ounce of market force impeded anywhere) and relative ("freer" compared to some standard eg another country or what I would like, or whatever). The latter may have a place in a definition of capitalism, but at the risk of confusing rather than clarifying, because it will either be highly ambiguous or need quite a bit of effort to pin down.

As a footnote, much of this is based on the widespread acceptance of the use of the polemical and ambiguous "free" in the term "free market". The term "unregulated market" (or "unrestricted market" if that sounds too negative) would be rather more helpful, if less motherhood-and-apple-pie sounding. Rd232 16:28, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The adjectival use of free to mean unrestricted is perfectly appropriate idiomatic English. Heck, chemists speak of "free expansion" of a gas, a "free electron" such as here or "free oxygen" (that not bound into a molecule) etc. That's not polemics, its description. --Christofurio 14:13, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

Define "free market": --Ben 06:05, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Is that question for me? If so, I'll give it a shot. A market is free if the decisions to buy, sell, lease, borrow, etc. are made there without concern about the potential or actual interposition of agents of the sovereign. I don't think such freedom is part of the better definitions of capitalism as a historical fact, but it does have a lot to do with capitalism as a continuing ideal. Some people see us capitalists as cynics, whereas we tend to see ourselves as idealists. --Christofurio 13:26, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

Ultramarine and three revert rule

Congratulations Ultramarine. You just violated the three revert rule. You reverted four times. RJII 18:41, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

the introduction to the article

Every time someone has raised an objection to the opening, I have compromised or responded -- and still someone wants to delete valid information. As for the first bullet point, RJII insisted that capitalism is a system, so we put in the word system. RJII argued that not all of the practices mentioned are necessarily part of capitalism, so we put in "one or more of the following." RJII claimed that my reference to "relatively free markets" is original research, so I provided a source. This is how people work together to improve an article -- not by unilaterally deleting valid content. Now, some people claim that capitalism must be understood historically, while others claim that it is an abstract system. Guess what: the introduction makes room for both views -- the first bullet point accomodates the first view, and the second bullet point accomodates the second view. This is inclusive, and NPOV. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:52, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In regard to "free market" verus "relatively free market." One source doesn't make a consensus. I'm going to change it to "free market" unless you can give us some reason to believe that the consensus of definitions out there say "relatively." You can find a single source to say anything. RJII 20:04, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Stop changing your story. You deleted it because you claimed that it was original research. Now I show you that it is not original research. That is enough.

No it's not enough. It's not enough that something is not original research. If your secondary research is presented as being representative of consensus and you only have one source then it's not enough. We're supposed to be presenting the consensus of what's out there, rather than finding one source and then presenting it as the consensus. Eventually you'll get a grasp on what we here at Wikipedia are trying to do and what we mean by "original research." But then, maybe you won't. RJII 20:33, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You don't like it? Take it to mediation then. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:48, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I did not "unilaterally delete valid content", I reverted to Ultramanrine's version from yesterday, which links to many definitions of capitalism, instead of clinging to one in the intro. Secondly, I did bring up my objection to the Europe reference in the above section 'a sincere atttempt'. Though you and Ultramarine responded to selected portions of that, you did not defend the inclusion of the Europe refence. If you dont respond to my complaints, then you should not complain if I edit. User:Mgw

Fair enough. I do hope my explanation now satisfies you. I do believe that the three bullet points taken together, as well as the way the first one is phrased, can accomodate Mommsen's view as well as Marx's. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:23, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Slrubenstein: Is the above a response to me? I dont know what it means. Is it a response to my objections about Europe? IF so, I would ask again that you look at what I wrote above and respond to those objections. Aside from the problem about Europe, the first sentence has a syntactical error. Examine it without the dependent clause abotu Europe, and you will see that is doesnt make sense: "a system based on one or more of the following economic practices...involving the right of individuals and groups of individuals acting as "artificial legal persons" (corporations) to own and trade private property..." What are the practices? Are they corporations, etc., or are those things what is involed in the parctices? The sentence in unclear. I have complained again and again about the intro, and am still waiting for responses. Mgw

Slrubenstein: Having not heard from you again, I will go ahead and edit. Mgw 21:20, 12 March 2005

Guess what -- I am not always at my computer. Yes, it was a reply to you. I understand your point about Europe, I know Momsen's arguments. But other people have other views, and the article must include all views, and the introduction to the article must accomodate all views. As I say, it acommodates both Momsen and Marx. You are right about the syntax, I look forward to seeing how you corrected it, Slrubenstein | Talk 18:43, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hey, have you guys noticed the first sentence, how it says "one or more of the following"? This is nonsense: if a hypothecial economy had only prices determined by suply and demand, but none of the other features listed, nobody would call it capitalism. Mgw

This is an attempt to accomodate the various definitions of capitalism. Many of the definitions can be constructed by taking some of the statements in the current description. Ultramarine 18:03, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Slrubenstein: I think thats a reasonable compromise, and I added a comma for syntax. Ultramarine: That phrase in the first sentence may be an attempt to accomodate differnt views, but, as Ive stated, its inaccurate. You would not call an economy capitalist if it had only one of those characteristics. Mgw 20:26, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It could be changed to "a system based on certain combinations of one or more of the following economic practices" Ultramarine 21:25, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think it would be better to do away entirely with "one or more", becuase that still implies than any one of those characteristics makes an economy capitalist. If agents in an economy lacked the ability to buy and sell land and capital (one of the charcteristics listed), it would probably not be considered capitalism. I think It should be: an economic sysytem "usually incorporating" or "often defined by" or somthing like that. Also, not all of the practices listed are economic: the ability of corporations to act as legal persons is a legal practice. I think it should be "an economic system based on the following practices" instead. Also, do you think we should archive some the older stuff here? The page is getting really big. Mgw 23:28, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Actually just one of those characteristics can make an economy capitalist. That condition is the private ownership of capital. I've tried to make the point here before. There is a common definition of capitalism that only denotes the private ownership of capital ..it's sometimes called the Marxist definition. In Marxism a capitalist is someone who owns capital, and capitalism is that state of affairs --free market, etc. doesn't even enter the picture. A few people here can't seem to get it that through their heads and insist on this horrible introduction. RJII 15:07, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

RJII continues to be a POV warrior thinking that his view is the only view (he says it is "sometimes called the marxist definition" but this is just clear evidence that he doesn't know what he is talking about. It is not the Marxist definitions, and RJII refuses to Wikipedia: Cite sources — who calls this the marxist definition?). Mgw, I appreciate your attempts to reach a compromise and I also think the points you make are valid. I suggest deleting the word "system." Some people of course do think that capitalism is a specifically "economic" system, but some do not. To use just the word "system" is the more inclusive phrasing, and the difference between these views can be explored in the body. As for the "one or more" ... I have no objection to "based on." But let me suggest one other possibility: "consisting of some combination of the following ..." What do you think? If you don't like my suggestions, I am happy to go with "based on." Slrubenstein | Talk 15:21, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Capitalism as the condition of privately owning capital

Thackery uses "capitalism" to mean the private ownership of capital. Others use it in the same way. This use of the word should be in the intro. RJII 16:06, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please give the exact quote from Thackery. Explain why this is not already covered in the first bullet point. Ultramarine 16:07, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There is no quote saying anything like "capitalism is defined as..." But capitalism is the word he uses to refer to the ownership of capital. A capitalist is someone who owns capital and capitalism is the state of affairs of him owning that capital. It's very simple. It's also how Marx uses the words "kapitalist" and "kapitalisten." This usage of the word was around before "capitalism" started referring to the economic system that is usually described and that usage still persists. RJII 16:39, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

So now you are saying Thackary is a marxist? As Ultramarine points out, private ownership of capital is already mentioned in the introduction. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:09, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I never said that Thackery was a Marxist. You're beyond belief. Again, why I dismiss you of being worthy of having a conversation with. RJII 16:15, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You stated: "There is a common definition of capitalism that only denotes the private ownership of capital ..it's sometimes called the Marxist definition." I asked you for a source. You came up with Thackery. If you are not claiming Thackery was a marxist, then I ask you once again, what is your source for claiming "There is a common definition of capitalism that only denotes the private ownership of capital ..it's sometimes called the Marxist definition?" Slrubenstein | Talk

Whatever you say dude, you only listen to yourself anyway. RJII 16:44, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Capitalism as in "owning capital" sounds simple to me. As for the Thackary is a Marxist comments, Slrubenstein is being dense just so he can start a fight. Don't bother trying to crack this nut. --Ben 05:55, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Are you fellows discussing the novelist Thackeray here? Just wondering. William Makepeace Thackeray -- the bearer of history's best middle name. --Christofurio 16:38, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

3rd bullet point in intro redundant

The third bullet point is covered by the second isn't it? By the way, I have to say, the organization and theme of the intro looks like it was devised by a schizophrenic with ADHD. It's abysmal. Yet, somehow a few individuals on here vigilantly guard it as if it's something of value. It's garbage. RJII 17:44, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You refuse to take seriously or respond to anyone's attempt to explain to you why no one here supports your changes. Now you resort to personal attacks. You have shown no regard for three fundamental policies, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Cite sources. Now you show that you have no respect for Wikipedia:No personal attacks. If you disagree with everyone else here, try convincing us through reasoned arguments, not insults. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:53, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

See talk. I've given more than enough reasons to show that the intro is garbage.RJII 17:54, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Again, the 3rd bullet point "a belief in, and arguments for, the advantages of such practices and/or theories." is covered by the second "competing theories often meant to justify..." so it should be deleted. RJII 17:56, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ideologies and theories are different things. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:00, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

First sentence of intro makes no sense in context of the rest of the intro

"Capitalism has been defined in different, sometimes competing, ways (see definitions of capitalism). Generally, it refers to one or more of the following:" <--This gives the impression that the descriptions in the bullet points are competing with each other, but they're not. They are altogether different ways of using the word "capitalism." If there were two bullets offering different definition s of capitalism as a system then it would make sense. But as it stands one bullet refers to the system of capitalism, and other two refer to a belief or advocacy of the system. Why I need to be spell this out is beyond me. The intro is obviously incoherent. RJII 18:07, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wrong again. The word "generally" implies that what follows is true for most if not all definitions of capitalism. Even if they are competeing or on conflict, they may nevertheless share various elements (this is common -- that two ideas may be in competition or conflict does not at all imply that they have nothing in common -- on the contrary...) By the way, does your shift in attention to the first sentence mean that you won't provide the specific citation for Thackery, or for the "marxist" definition of capitalism? Slrubenstein | Talk 18:37, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

To be expected. That went totally over your head. And no, I'm not going to spell it out to you in any more detail. RJII 18:39, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please avoid ad hominem. Cite your sources adequately. Ultramarine 18:55, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Cite sources to say that the intro sentence makes no sense? What? RJII 19:03, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

People have asked you to provide sources several times. Why don't you go back over those requests -- and finally, respond to them?Slrubenstein | Talk 19:30, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've provided multiple sources many times. But, apparently, if they conflict with your POV, they're not sources. RJII 19:49, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration?

When looking at the latest edit by RJII [7] it is obvious that he/she is uninterested in reflecting many of the definitions of capitalism in the intro. He/she generally avoids citing sources for his statements adequately, refuses to explain the edits, and uses hominem attacks. Is it time for arbitration? Ultramarine 19:24, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes, let's call you into arbitration. No matter how much explaining is done and no matter how many sources are cited, you are intent at keeping the status-quo in the intro, as far as content and bad, incoherent, writing. RJII 19:29, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"no matter how many sources are cited?" Really? And how many sources have you provided citations for? Slrubenstein | Talk 19:53, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

See Talk. RJII 20:02, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Many changes have been made in the intro in order to appease you. You still seem determined to change the intro radically to your own definition. Most seem to agree on the general form of the current introduction, although the details may still be debated. Note that while your where banned for breaking the 3 revert rule there was little change. Ultramarine 20:07, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No, most don't agree that the intro is good. Many people have argued otherwise here. It's just that they don't want to engage in an edit war because they know you and rubenstein stand guard 24/7 to revert changes and keep the intro as vague, uninformative, and incoherent as possible. Note that you broke the 3 revert rule and were banned. That happened because I reported you and it was found I had as well. Don't think I won't report you again. RJII 20:28, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thackeray

I removed this sentence:

The first use of the word "capitalism" in English is by Thackeray in 1854, by which he meant having ownership of capital.

because it is unverifiable. Let's have a proper citation, and a fuller paraphrase, if not an actual quote. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:01, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Specifically, the word appears in a Thackeray novel called The Newcomes, which first appeared in serialized from 1853 to 1855. The sentence is "The sense of capitalism sobered and dignified Paul de Florac." I doubt WMT would want too much heavy ideological baggage placed upon this, but he did mean that it was the character, de Florac's, business responsibilities, i.e. his ownership of capital, that sobered him. You can confirm this, if you wish, simply by googling that sentence. What you wish to do with it in terms of the text of this article is another matter! --Christofurio 23:25, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

We are going to be seeing a rash of text removed from Wikipedia as undocumented "original research" or "unverifiable" in the near future: follow some of the behind-the-scenes discussion at Wikipedia talk:No original research. Let us be sure that our censorship is not based on our ignorance. --Wetman 23:30, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I am familiar with The Newcomes. The reason I took out this passage is because I wasn't sure and thought that perhaps this was referring to something else Thackeray wrote. It is the first known use of the word "capitalism" and as such I do not object to including it in the article, but it has to be identified. Also it should be presented as the first usage, not the first definition (as the second clause suggests). He does not actually define the word. And I am not sure if "ownership of capital" is what Thackeray meant! My recollection is that de Florac uses his "capital" to buy shares of ownership in some company. In this context, "capital" seems to refer to money, not ownership of a corporation. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:49, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Intro

What does this mean?: "virtually all definitions of capitalism include, or are based [on] theories [that] may be a part of schools of thought advocating a different system than capitalism." ??? RJII 14:54, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This is not the actual text. Note that capitalism is defined and used in various descriptions and theories by both supporters and opponents. Ultramarine 15:34, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It is the actual text. I just joined the intro sentence to the second paragraph so it can be clearly seen what is being said. You are saying that all definitions of capitalist "include, or are based on elements" of "one or more" of those three paragraphs. One of those paragraphs says "schools of thought advocating a different system than capitalism." If all definitions of capitalism "includes, or [is] based" on THAT paragraph, what does that mean???? Definitions of capitalism are based on elements of schools of thought that advocate something other than capitalism?? Huh? Now, if you can't explain that then of course you could always say that the intro sentence says "one or more" and that that paragraph doesn't necessarily apply, but then why have it there? There intro is so bizarre that it defies even describing here what's it's trying to say. There is something fundamentally wrong with the "logic." You've got it set in stone for yourself that the intro is going to be 3 paragraphs and the intro sentence says something about "one or more" and it just doesn't work. It needs a radical change. It's not that I'm a person of low intelligence and that I just don't understand it ..I'm actually somewhat intelligent and can read very well. And I have to say, this intro looks like it was written by third grader who can't get his thoughts together. I doesn't make sense without wild intellectual manipulations and stretches. It's horrible. RJII 16:01, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

labor is exploited

RJII added this to the introduction. Some people believe this, some people do not. It is better handled in the body of the article. The purpose of the intro is to accomodate all views, not to promote one view. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:23, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It is better handled in the intro. The intro definition is biased. RJII 17:30, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Why is it better handled in the intro? Are you saying it should not be handled in the body? Slrubenstein | Talk 17:33, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

RJII's lack of sources

RJII just made a change and wrote in the edit summary "Thackeray and Marx." He then added "private ownership of capital." RJII, in what book and page number does Thackeray say this? In what book and page number does Marx say this? Slrubenstein | Talk 17:50, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Dude, as I said above, there is nothing in these sources that says "capitalism is defined as the ownership of capital." It's a given. It's common knowledge..it's how the term is used. Why is this new to you? A capitalist is one who owns capital, and capitalism is, as the Oxford English Dictionary says: "The condition of possessing capital" Don't you get it? There is an economic system called capitalism, and then there is just "the condition of possessing capital"...capitalism. What planet are you on? RJII 21:48, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

theories

Ultramarine, I rolled back your latest change for two reasons, first I think the historical context of any such theories is important. Second, I am not sure we want to include theories that suggest other systems as theories of capitalism. Before you just revert me, can you explain your thinking about this in more detail? Slrubenstein | Talk 17:56, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Communism has theories about the functioning and future of the capitalism. Thus, it is not only used as a describtion of a historical system.

Maybe we should skip the advocacy and theory part? It seems unnecessary, other -isms do no have a section stating that some people advocate them or that the -ism has theories. How about this?

"Capitalism has been defined in different, sometimes competing, ways. Nevertheless, virtually all definitions of capitalism fall under one or more of the following categories: A system composed of some combination of the following conditions, many of which became institutionalized in Europe between the 16th and 19th centuries: the right of individuals to own and trade private property including capital goods such as land and labor; the right of groups of individuals acting as "artificial legal persons" (corporations) to do so; a free or relatively free market where price determined by supply and demand; profit is pursued; the state is relied upon to protect private property rights; explicit and implicit contractual obligations are adjudicated by the state or contractually specified third parties rather than by feudal protections and obligations." Ultramarine 18:39, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Oops. Removed some redundant text. How about this?

"Capitalism has been defined in different, sometimes competing, ways. Nevertheless, virtually all definitions of capitalism describe a system composed of some combination of the following conditions, many of which became institutionalized in Europe between the 16th and 19th centuries: the right of individuals to own and trade private property including capital goods such as land and labor; the right of groups of individuals acting as "artificial legal persons" (corporations) to do so; a free or relatively free market where price determined by supply and demand; profit is pursued; the state is relied upon to protect private property rights; explicit and implicit contractual obligations are adjudicated by the state or contractually specified third parties rather than by feudal protections and obligations." Ultramarine 18:51, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If it doesn't have bullets in it, he's not going to like it. RJII 19:45, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think thats good. I think "the state is relied upon to protect private property rights" should be "a reliance on the to protect prviate property rights" becuase this is a condition, which the begining says will be listed, and not a verb, which "the state is relied..." is. Mgw 23:33, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ok the last bullet has gone off the deep end.

"A belief in and advocacy of the advantages of such institutions" 1) you don’t advocate advantages, they don’t need to be advocated. you advocate the institutions that you believe to be advantageous. 2) What institutions? does this refer to the list in the first bullet? "...or similar but more optimal institutions derived from such theories" 3) ok this is totally unclear. "sometimes advocating reduction of government regulation of property and markets, and in some cases advocating elimination of the state itself (the last almost always referred to as anarcho-capitalism rather than capitalism)." 4) i think anarcho-capitalism is sufficiently obscurely connected to capitalism as a whole that it does not need a place in the intro. If we include that, we should include every little extension and modification of what is generally considered capitalism, which would be untenable. This bullet should either be totally redone, or simply deleted. Mgw 23:53, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

New intro :)

How about reducing the intro to only the following? Other -isms do not state that some people support them or that there are theories. Any objections?

"Capitalism has been defined in different, sometimes competing, ways. Nevertheless, virtually all definitions of capitalism describe a system composed of some combination of the following conditions, many of which became institutionalized in Europe between the 16th and 19th centuries: the right of individuals to own and trade private property including capital goods such as land and labor; the right of groups of individuals acting as "artificial legal persons" (corporations) to do so; a free or relatively free market where price determined by supply and demand; profit is pursued; a reliance on the state to protect prviate property rights; explicit and implicit contractual obligations are adjudicated by the state or contractually specified third parties rather than by feudal protections and obligations." Ultramarine 02:35, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Im all for it, with the exception of the last line, which I think should be "a reliance on the state (or contractually specified third parties) to enforce explicit and implicit contractual obligations, rather than a reliance on feudal protections and obligations" becuase i think the wording as in the paragraph is very clumsy.

Mgw 04:14, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's not perfect but, yes, it makes more sense that that "one or more of the following" nonsense. RJII 13:40, 16 Mar

2005 (UTC)

Changed as suggesed. Tried to compress last two conditions.

"Capitalism has been defined in different, sometimes competing, ways. Nevertheless, virtually all definitions of capitalism describe a system composed of some combination of the following conditions, many of which became institutionalized in Europe between the 16th and 19th centuries: the right of individuals to own and trade private property including capital goods such as land and labor; the right of groups of individuals acting as "artificial legal persons" (corporations) to do so; a free or relatively free market where price determined by supply and demand; profit is pursued; a reliance on the state (or contractually specified third parties) to protect private property rights and to enforce contractual obligations, rather than a reliance on feudal protections and obligations." Ultramarine 14:20, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

New intro is much better than the old one, thanks Ultramarine

Mgw 08:50, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have a problem with "reliance on the state to protect..." In all the definition of capitalism I come across, none of them mention a state protecting things. At most, a state is intimated, but not in regard to protecting things, but in regard to the private nature of the system ..the separation of economy and state in that decisions are made "privately". So I don't think it's proper to have such a statement in there. RJII 16:06, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

See the quote from Greenspan in definitions of capitalism. Ultramarine 16:37, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Greenspan doesn't mention "capitalism" in that quote, and probably for good reason. I would guess that he would label the US economy a "mixed economy" as does Rand who he agrees with on many issues and wrote some essays in her book Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal. RJII 16:42, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

From Rand "The recognition of individual rights entails the banishment of physical force from human relationships: basically, rights can be violated only by means of force. In a capitalist society, no man or group may initiate the use of force against others. The only function of the government, in such a society, is the task of protecting man’s rights, i.e., the task of protecting him from physical force." Ultramarine 16:50, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That's not a definition of capitalism. That's just saying that if capitalism exists that the only function of government is to protect rights. What capital is, is not contingent on government. It exists whether or not government exists. If government exists then, for capitalism to exist, it must not coercively intervene but must limit itself to protecting the liberty necessary for capitalism to exist. RJII 17:00, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Rand's definition is clear: " "A social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned" RJII 17:04, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Rand consider the state an essential part of capitalism.

Where does she ever define capitalism as having a government? All she does is clarify what a government is limited to doing if capitalism exists. She doesn't say that it is a logical necessity for a government to exists for capitalism to exist. Capitalism is what it is. Government is what it is. If they coexist, then governement's role is limited to protecting capitalism. RJII 17:20, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Rand "Anarchy, as a political concept, is a naive floating abstraction ... a society without an organised government would be at the mercy of the first criminal who came along .... even a society whose every member were fully rational and faultlessly moral, could not function in a state of anarchy; it is the need of objective laws and of an arbiter for honest disagreements among men that necessitates the establishment of a government." Ultramarine 17:29, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Exactly, she says a government is a practical necessity for capitalism to function. But, that's not saying that government is included in the definition of capitalism. Capitalism is what it is ..a system of freedom and private decision. She is just saying that it's smart to have a government in place to insure it functions since "criminal" are standing ready to thwart it. RJII 18:27, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You are ignoring a whole economic school. See for example, "INSTITUTIONAL ECONOMICS: PROPERTY RIGHTS – THE FOUNDATION OF CAPITALISM" ... " For property rights to work, other mechanisms (the state) are required." [8]. Ultramarine 17:16, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There is nothing about "rights" that says they only exist if government exists. There is such a thing as "moral" rights. In Rand, for example, moral rights are foundational --not political rights. Recognition of moral rights exist first, then government, if it exists, limits itself to protecting them. It's not true that "for property rights to work" that a state has to exist. It could just so happen that people respect each other's right to property voluntarily. Not to mention, a right to property can also come about by simple contract between two people, regardless of whether anyone's enforcing the contract. RJII 17:26, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That is your theory. There is at least one complete school of economics that consider the state to be essential. Ultramarine 17:31, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Essential in what way though? Essential in regard to protecting capitalism. I think the most you could properly say is that many maintain that it's prudent to have a governmental authority to protect capitalism so that it doesn't degenerate, and of course that would be something for the body of the article, rather than the intro that purports to represent definitions of capitalism. RJII 17:35, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

From the above citation "The Property Rights School argues that externalities, such as pollution and traffic noise, are best dealt with through government intervention. Instead a solution is found by developing and enforcing a system of defined individual property rights. Those inconvenienced by pollution and other externalities, would sue those responsible for the inconvenience." Ultramarine 17:39, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

So? "best dealt with through government intervention" isn't the same thing as "necessarily dealt with through government intervention in order for capitalism to exist." Much less that capitalism is defined as having a government. Besides, of what importance is someone's term paper? RJII 17:43, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Here is some brief explanation of New Institutional Economics with references. This is a recent and growing economic school [9]. Ultramarine 18:01, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"The legal property rights are the property rights that are recognized and enforced by the government." Ultramarine 18:04, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Where do you see a definition of "capitalism" in there? RJII 18:17, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Look, why don't we just say this: "The activities of government are limited to protecting the above liberties" or something like that. That's what Rand says. It assumes government is around and that it limits its intervention, rather than saying the existence of government is part of the definition of capitalism. RJII 18:35, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It is a theory about how the economy works. See this for a longer explanation and how they justify the state [10].

"one cannot conceive a capitalist economy without an explicit role of the State." [11]

Anyhow what is the problem with "a reliance on the state (or contractually specified third parties) to protect private property rights and to enforce contractual obligations, rather than a reliance on feudal protections and obligations." This can be interpreted as completely compatible with anarcho-capitalism (only contractually specified third parties). Ultramarine 18:51, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, first and foremost, it doesn't say that in any of the definitions of capitalism. As far as anarcho-capitalism goes, we shouldn't be trying to tailor a definition to appease anarcho-capitalists, but supplying the consensus of definitions of capitalism. Anarcho-capitalists do not define capitalism in a different way than Rand or the others. They just think that a state is unnecessary for capitalism to function in practice. Rand and many others think it is necessary. But not necessary in regard to being a necessary part of a definition of capitalism, but rather, necessary for capitalism as it as defined to function in the real world. RJII 19:01, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

From [12] about new institutional economics "It is important because it has challenged the dominant role of the market in economic policy of the 1990s. The NIE provides a new justification of the role of the state and state intervention." Also, what is the quote for your new addition to the introduction? Please give an citation. Ultramarine 19:07, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Where do you see a definition of "capitalism" there? As to your "Also" --I have no quote. I'm fine with not having such an addition. I'm saying that if you insist that there is, you should not word it to say that one of the ways capitalism is defined is reliance on a government. There are no definitions of capitalism that I'm aware of that say that a government must exist. All there are are assertions that implementing capitalism the real world would require a government. That's a much different thing than defining capitalism. RJII 19:13, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Since you require that I provide an exact quote containing "capitalism" I demand the same from you. Please give such an citation or remove your addition. Ultramarine 19:17, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"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". -Merriam-Webster. Decisions are made "privately" which means government isn't making them. RJII 19:20, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I see no mention of "rather than by a centralized governmental authority preempting those decisions". Ultramarine 19:25, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I do. "Private decision" means decisions not made by government. It's just another way to say "private decision." Says the same thing. RJII 19:28, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No. That is your interpretation of the text. Just as it my interpretation ist that New institutional economics refer to capitalism. Please give an exact quote, as you require of me, or remove the text. Ultramarine 19:31, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I asked you where "capitalism" was being defined. The quotes your giving don't even mention the word "capitalism" so how can they possibly purport to be definitions of capitalism? I am not asking for a "exact quote" to counter you saying something in the article because it's not a direct quote. It makes no sense for everything in a Wikipedia article to be a direct quote. It makes more sense to put what is out there in our own words ..paraphrase etc. What you're asking of me is not what I'm asking of you. I provided a definition of capitalism from Merriam-Webster that said the decisions were "private." You're not just paraphrasing or putting something in your own words. You're outright making something up if you put in there that the definitions of capitalism out there include the assertion that a state exists. There are no such definitions that you are I am aware of. RJII 19:39, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Could we change the "artificial legal persons" sentence? It sounds strange... What about: the right of corporations (groups of individuals pursuing an economic activity) to have a "legal personality" and associated rights? Or some sentence similar to it? Also, in the sentence before: labour is not usually considered a capital good, especially not one you can own! I have never seen an economic theory that actually merges labour and capital (though land is nowadays often merged with capital). The rest id fine, though. Thx to Ultramarine for the effort. Luis rib 16:02, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Change it however you like it. There is no authority here. RJII 16:11, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Still, the purpose of wikipedia is not the promote one view but to write good articles. So a discussion using arguments might be preferable to edit wars in controversial areas.

How about changing to "the right of individuals to own and trade private property including capital goods and land" and "free or relatively free markets where price is determined by supply and demand, such as the labor market". Ultramarine 16:37, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It ain't perfect, but the intro is much better without the bullet points and conflicting statements. I know this has been a hell of a dispute, but it does seem to have resulted in an improvement. Rhobite 00:36, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

Reisman and Capitalism

From George Reisman's Capitalism: A Treatise on Economics [13]:

"Thus, while the existence of freedom requires the existence of government, it requires the existence of a very specific kind of government: namely, a limited government, a government lmited exclusively to the functions of defence and retaliation against the initiation of force - that is, to the provision of police, courts, and national defence.

In a fully capitalist society, government does not go beyond these functions."

"In short, in its logically consistent form, capitalism is characterized by laissez faire. The government of such a society is, in effect, merely a night watchman, which whom the honest peaceful citizen has very little contact and from whom he has nothing to fear." Ultramarine 19:54, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Look at the first sentence. "The existence of freedom requires the existence of government." Think about this: Freedom is what it is. The definition of freedom has nothing to do with government. He is saying that for freedom, as defined, to exist in the real world requires government, in his opinion. He is not saying that included in a definition of freedom is government. He's not saying that at all. The same thing for capitalism when people make similar assertions. And, yes, as he says "capitalism is characterized by laissez-faire." That's just saying that government does not interfere. It's not saying that an assertion that government exists is a necessary part of the definition of capitalism. Far from that. As I said above, feel free to put in there that the actions of government are limited to such and such, but don't say that government is "relied upon" or that definitions asser that it exists. There are no such definitions of capitalism, and clearly not such a definition from that guy. RJII 20:03, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Anyway, doesn't what I put in there cover laissez-faire? RJII 20:10, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In addition, "The Property Rights School argues that externalities, such as pollution and traffic noise, are best dealt with through government intervention. Instead a solution is found by developing and enforcing a system of defined individual property rights. Those inconvenienced by pollution and other externalities, would sue those responsible for the inconvenience." [14]. By Dr Balihar Sanghera.

[15] about new institutional economics "It is important because it has challenged the dominant role of the market in economic policy of the 1990s. The NIE provides a new justification of the role of the state and state intervention."

"one cannot conceive a capitalist economy without an explicit role of the State." [16]

Also earlier quotes from RandUltramarine 20:20, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Exactly. They cannot conceive of capitalism existing in the real world without a State. Apparently, some also cannot conceive of freedom existing without a State. Does that mean that included in a definition of freedom is the assertion that that a state exists? Of course not! The same for capitalism. There is no definition of capitalism that says a state exists. There are, however, as you pointed out many claims that what is defined can't be implemented in the real world without one. But definitions themselves of both freedom and capitalism do not assert that a state exists. RJII 20:25, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Most, but not all, consider the state (or contractually specified third parties) an essential part of capitalism in order to protect private property rights and to enforce contractual obligations." I don't know. It seems to be going out of it's way to cater to anarcho-capitalists which I don't think is necessary. Also it seems like something that would be better said in the body, because I don't think that's part of the definition(s) of capitalism. Why not just something like this as an added condition: "the role of government is limited to protecting the aforesaid liberties." ...that's laissez-faire. RJII 20:41, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Many republicans and democrats would consider themselves to advocates of an capitalist economy while still arguing that the government should be bigger than minarchism. How about this:

Capitalism has been defined in different, sometimes competing, ways. Nevertheless, virtually all definitions of capitalism describe a system composed of some combination of the following conditions, many of which became institutionalized in Europe between the 16th and 19th centuries: the right of individuals to own and trade private property including capital goods; the right of groups of individuals acting as "artificial legal persons" (corporations) to do so; a free or relatively free market where price is determined by supply and demand; pursuit of profit. In addtion many consider the state (or contractually specified third parties) an essential requirement in order to protect private property rights and to enforce contractual obligations.

You would have to separate that sentence from that paragraph for good writing's sake, since the paragraph is talking about definitions of capitalism, not the practicality of implementing capitalism. How about just qualifying what I said above with "generally limited to" or something like that? Also does it really matter if some politican thinks socialism is capitalism? If he explicitly defines capitalism has having government intervention, then fine, but then i don't know how much a single politician's definition of capitalism would count for much. RJII 20:53, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

How about this, I think the contrast to earlier feodalism is important and should be mentioned:

Capitalism has been defined in different, sometimes competing, ways. Nevertheless, virtually all definitions of capitalism describe a system composed of some combination of the following conditions: the right of individuals to own and trade private property including capital goods; the right of groups of individuals acting as "artificial legal persons" (corporations) to do so; a free or relatively free market where price is determined by supply and demand; pursuit of profit; direct state or third party protection of basic rights and enforcement of contracts rather than feodal protection and obligations. Ultramarine 21:08, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You insist on saying that the existence of legal enforcement is included in the definitions of capitalism out there, but it's not. There are only assertions that a governmental system is necessary to implement capitalism in the real world. There is a distinct difference. I don't have anything against mentioning fuedalism..do you have any sources that defines capitalism in regard to that? RJII 21:15, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Probably not with the word definition in it. :) Still, people as diverse as Mars and Smith considered capitalism to be an evolution from the earlier feodal system. But I can live without it. I think that your last choice of words is quite good. Ultramarine 21:20, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Why should feudalism be necessarily opposed to capitalism? One could argue that the Republic of Venice was capitalist (or at least proto-capitalist), but retained distinctive feudalist traits. In general, medieval Italy functioned as a proto-capitalist society, with contracts, etc., while the political system remained pretty much feudal. Luis rib 22:12, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

became institutionalized in Europe between the 16th and 19th centuries

Anyone know exactly what is meant by this? Is it trying to say that the conditions were insitutionalize then but are no longer? Or is it saying that they were institutionalized then and remain to this day? Also some clarification on what exactly is meant by "instituationalized"? Thanks. RJII 16:03, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You might find this article interesting [17]. Although I agree that it is somewhat doubtful that it should in the introduction.

Also, I am doubtful about the text: "Other than describing an economic system, the term "capitalism" often simply refers to the private ownership of capital". Ths definition may be in OED but may be obsolte, is it mentioned in any contemporary dictionary? Or in phrases like "the bull market increased his capitalism"? Ultramarine 17:40, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Ultramarine that the "private ownership of capital" doesn't belong, it is obscure and obsolete. About 16th-19th centuries: one of the main points of contention among theorists of capitalism are those who see it as an ideal system, and those who see it as historically specific (having developed in Europe between the 16th and 19th centuries; different theorists argue as to when, specifically, but these represent the outer limits of that debate -- I am thinking of Hobsbawm, Dobb, Sweezy, Wallerstein, Brenner primarily). NPOV means we must represent both views and however this is rewritten, the view that some see capitalism as a system that developed in Europe somewhere between those years should be included. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:00, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't know how you can say that that usage is obsolete. It's used all the time. For example, ask Marxists what they means by "capitalism" and most of them well tell you that they're referring to the private ownership of capital. It's in the dictionary and it's not obsolete. So, cut the crap. RJII 19:06, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As far as the "16th to 19th century thing": That's fine if some think capitalism existed then. Some think it existed then and no longer exists. Some think that is has yet to exist. But, I concur with Ultramarine that it is doubtful that it should be in the into. If it is in the intro, then at least it shouldn't be there in the definition. It's a supplemental assertion to say that that state of affairs has been established. Why not just talk about that in the body instead of clutter up the intro? RJII 19:14, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Again, please give an reference for this Marxist definition. Please note that the OED defintion do not refer to an economic system. Ultramarine 19:18, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's not an economic system. It's just the private ownership of capital. When Marx talks about "capitalists" he's not talking about people that favor capitalism ( the economic system), but simply, to individuals who own capital. Likewise, "capitalism" in this sense is an extension of that, and is often used in that sense. It is the private ownership of capital (not an economic system). As far as a source that actually explicity defines it, I gave you one ..the well-respected Oxford English Dictionary. RJII 19:24, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

But the OED is not talking about an economic system in this case and certainly is not evidence for the Marxist definition. Ultramarine 19:26, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Look at the line in the intro. It says right there that the word is used in a way other than to describe an economic system. I don't understand what the problem is. RJII 19:30, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It is obsolete. Not mentioned in any contemporary dictionary and not in common use like "the bull market increased his capitalism". Ultramarine 19:34, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It is not obsolete. It's used that way all the time. Maybe you're just not familiar with the term being used to refer to the private ownership of capital. RJII 19:38, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Could you please give an contemporary example of where it is used in the sense mentioned by OED (not an economic system)? Ultramarine 19:40, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Most of the time, capitalism is defined as the private ownership of the means of production..." -Dictionary of Critical Sociology RJII 19:48, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This not the sense mentioned by OED which excludes an economic system. Ultramarine 19:50, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes it is that sense. The Dictionary of Criticial Sociology is saying that that the definition "the private ownership of the means of production" is not a systemic definition and that that's a problem. RJII 19:54, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No, they state that this is an incomplete definition regarding the system. Anyhow, where are the definitins for the OED usage in other dictionaries? For example, you beloved MW? And if it is in common use, please give some other examples. Ultramarine 20:15, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The Oxford English Dictionary is good enough. It's a well-respected NPOV source. You'll find that with dictionaries, that they all don't list all the alternative meanings. That doesn't mean that the alternative meanings aren't real or they're wrong. M-W doens't give the meaning that the OED gives, and the OED doesn't supply the meaning that the M-W supplies. That doesn't mean they are conflicting, but that they're two different uses of the word. They're both right. One describes a system, and the other just describes the condition of owning capital. RJII 20:25, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Can you find some other dictionaries than OED that have this not economic system definition? To show that this usage is not obsolete. Ultramarine 20:33, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What other major dictionaries are out there? There are only a few major ones and the OED is one of them. I'm not going to go looking in inconsequential dictionaries. RJII 20:40, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, can you find one other "major" dictionary that supports OED's not economis system definition? Ultramarine 20:43, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Maybe I can, but I'm not going to go looking for one. The Oxford English Dictionary is a well-respected NPOV source. RJII 20:47, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

RJII continues to misrepresent the Marxist view. As I have explained countless times, Marx did not define capitalism in terms of the private ownership oif capital. RJII is simply making this up. He has shown no evidence of real research (where exactly does Marx define capitalism this way?) Far more important to Marx and marxists than "private ownership of capital" is their claim that capitalism is historically specific. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:32, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What have I been telling you all along? Apparently you can't read. Marx never uses the word "capitalism." He never defines "capitalism." He uses the word "capitalist." And by capitalist he means someone who owns capital. "Capitalism" is an extension of this usage --the private ownership of capital. This usage is of the term is defined in the Oxford English Dictionary --the most respected dictionary in the world. How many times does such a simple thing have to be explained to you? Jesus Christ. RJII 17:45, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What you write here is disingenuous. Marx may not have used the word "capitalism" but he does refer to "the bourgeois economic system," "the bourgeois relations of production," and "the capitalist mode of production," phrases that are synonymous with "capitalism." And he does define these terms. And when he does define the capitalist mode of production, he does not define it as "the private ownership of capital." How many times does such a simple thing have to be explained to you? If you want to provide the OED definition, fine, call it the OED definition. But if you want Marx's definition of "capitalism" (capitalist mode of production" read Marx, not the OED. How many times do I have to repeat this? You must do real research. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:07, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Marx does not define the word "capitalism" --just as Adam Smith doesn't. I don't have to do research for a damned thing that I haven't posted in the article. I never posted anything in the article that was labeled as a Marxist definition. You're out of line. RJII 19:15, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I am quoting you right here: "...the basic Marxist definition of capitalism --the private ownership of the means of production." So yes, you obviously have posted something that you yourself labeled a "Marxist definition." The problem is, your Marxist definition is wrong. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:23, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You're a liar. That was taken from the Talk page. That was never posted to the article. Again, I find over and over you to be a reprehensible disingenuous individual who is a complete waste of time to have a discussion with. So, this concludes my wasting my time talking to you. I forget that I had come to that conclusion before. RJII 19:41, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I am not a liar -- it is telling that when confronted with facts you retreat into personal insults. You have posted this definition in the article, and here on the talk pages -- and talk pages are for discussions about how to improve the article, and explanations for chantes to the article -- you have claimed that this is a marxist definition. Yes, the quote was taken from the talk page -- but so what? It is the "talk page" of the "Capitalism" article!!. Slrubenstein | Talk

Moreover, in this edit summary [18] you explicitly provided "Marx" as a source for your definition, "private ownership of capital." Slrubenstein | Talk 19:56, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Exploitation of workers

I fail to see how "exploitation of labourers" could be part of any serious definition of capitalism. As far as I know, only Communists employ such a definition. This should be made clear. As it is now, it just looks like "exploitation" is a neutrally accepted view adopted by most people - which it is most definetely not! The question of exploitation could be explained and treated in the criticism section, but should not be included in the definition. Luis rib 19:20, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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)

Because of this sentence: Nevertheless, virtually all definitions of capitalism describe a system composed of some combination of the following conditions. Exploitation of workers is certainly not part of virtually all definitions. Luis rib 19:26, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Right, "exploitation" is a criticism of capitalism, but apparently it's not part of definitions out there. Besides, definitions themselves, to be good, reliable definitions should be NPOV. I don't think "exploitation" is an NPOV term since in this case it would refer to an "unjust" use of people. RJII 19:28, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Exploitation is part of some definitions. And there is certainly no consensus on some essentials which are part of all definitions. Either remove the intro completely or allow listing of the essential parts of all definitions, not only the pro-capitalist ones. Ultramarine 19:33, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please cite a reputable definition of capitalism that says exploitation is a condition. RJII 19:40, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

David Harvey defined capitalism in terms of three features: it is growth-oriented ("a steady state of growth is essential for the health of a capitalist economic system"); "growth in real values rests on the exploitation of living labor in production;" and it is "necessarily technologically and organizationally dynamic."

This is hearsay. What are David Harvey's words. This may be a criticism of capitalism rather than a definition. RJII 19:52, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Eric Wolf defines capitalism in terms of "three intertwined characteristics:" First, capitalists detain control of the means of production. Second, laborers are denied independent access to means of production and must sell their labor power to the capitalists. Third, the maximalization of surplus produced by the laborers with the means of production owned by the capitalists entails "ceaseless accumulation accompanied by changes in the methods of production" (Sweezy 1942: 94; Mandel 1978, 103-107).

Again, may be hearsay. What are Wolf's words and are they a definition of capitalism or a criticism? RJII 19:52, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Dictionary of Critical Sociology: "A system which separates workers from any property rights in the means by which they produce culture by their labor. The system transforms the social means of subsistence into capital on the one hand and the immediate producers into wage laborers on the other hand. Most of the time, capitalism is defined as the private ownership of the means of production but that definition does not encompass the great harm done to humanity by the system. By claiming all (or most) of the means to produce culture as private property, a small class of owners preempts material culture to their own comfort while denying the vast majority the means to subsistence as well as the means to produce ideological culture when they are not working." Ultramarine 19:43, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Strangely, I always believed that capitalism was the system that actually allowed workers also to own capital, should they wish and have the means to do so. The last source also seems quite biased to me. Not to mention that none of those definitions uses the word exploitation. Luis rib 19:49, 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)

Its not because their biased view is influential (is it really? it seems to me that marxism doesn't have a broad appeal in the population) that it should get the seal of respectability and neutrality by wikipedia. By all means, mention it later on in the article (actually, I find this whole article already rather POV, in the pro-marxist sense), but not in the definition. Luis rib 19:57, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If we are going to define capitalism then that definition should be NPOV. The sources we reference should be regarded by consensus as NPOV as well. The NPOV sources for definitions are some of the major dictionaries out there. Merriam-Webster, for example --commonly regarded as a generally NPOV source. We can't just pick any definition that some college professor (such as David Harvey) happens to make up and put out on the net. We wouldn't be doing our job. And, "exploitation" is not an NPOV term. RJII 20:03, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Some would argue that MW is the product of an american capitalist company and is not NPOV. Why should Communist dictionaries and scholars be excluded? There are still several states that embrace Communism and Communist parties are inflential in many nations. And the definitiona above are cited and in one case an exact reference is given. Ultramarine 20:12, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I guess it comes down to what the consensus is of what definitions are NPOV and which aren't, as well as what sources for definitions are widely-regarded as NPOV and which aren't. But if college professor happens to define capitalism as "exploitation" it's irrelevant. RJII 20:15, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I didn't have any college professor that included exploitation of workers in any definition of capitalism. Luis rib 20:25, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes you do. David Harvey is Professor of Geography at The Johns Hopkins University. RJII 20:31, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I meant that I personally didn't have any professor like that. But what you say explains it all: what does a professor of geography have to do with economics, for god's sake? I could as well ask a finance professor to comment on Shostakovich's Leningrad symphony. Luis rib 21:27, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. I thought you were Ultramarine. But, yes. RJII 21:31, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Be glad for that :). But some theorists definitions are important and widely used by other scholars. And the "Dictionary of Critical Sociology" is an example of how capitalism is thought of in much of the Marxist literature. Ultramarine 20:29, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

All the capitalism stuff in there is from a guy named "Cobb." Who is he? RJII 20:45, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

First, this discussion -- in which people point out that each others' definitions are POV -- was precisely the reason why a year ago or so people agreed tothe three bullet-point definition, as an inclusive basis for a more complex discussion. Second, Luis rib's point that Harvey is a geography professor and not an economics professor is irrelevant. Economists do not have a monopoly on analyses of capitalism, nor do they have any particular authority. Yes, views of economists shouold be represented, but scholars from many disciplines have provided detailed analyses of capitalism (including Harvey). Finally, RJII's claim that the definitions by Wolf and Harvey is "hearsay" is a ridiculous objection. These are paraphrases of Wolf and Harvey which is completely legitimate in Wikipedia. RJII is grasping at straws because he has done no research while others have done serious research. The sources for these definitions are Wolf, Europe and the People Without History page 78; Harvey comes from The Condition of Postmodernity page 180. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:42, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Blah, blah. RJII 18:17, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

some contradictory

What is contradictory in there? RJII 21:37, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

economic system dominant in the Western world since the breakup of feudalism

Ultramarine: You put the above back in after I deleted it, saying "Is it NPOV to only represent the pro-capitalist definitions?" I don't understand what you mean. How is not putting that in there pro-capitalist?? Anyway you asked for a citation that there is not consensus that the modern economies are capitalism. Here's one: "What we have today is not a capitalist society, but a mixed economy" -Ayn Rand (from Playboy interview). She is a very published, influence, and noteable author ..unlike the geography professor you quoted above. Need another? "There's nothing remotely like capitalism in existence" -Noam Chomsky RJII 21:59, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

" Communist parties still rule several nations and get many votes in many other nations. Their views are widespread." <-what are you talking about? RJII 22:08, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Communist parties still rule Cuba, Vietnam, North Korea and China. Communist regularly get around 10% of the votes in many countries. This is certainly a more widespred view than those of Rand, anarcho-capitalits or minarchists. The Libertarian party only got under 0.5% of the votes in the US and much less for similar parties in other nations.

So you're saying that communist label the modern economies as "capitalism"? They're probably using "private ownership of capital" definition, as is typically used by Marxists. In that case any country where capital is privately owned is capitalist, regardess of the modes of distribution, freedom of the market etc. RJII 22:18, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The private ownership of capital definition is not a Marxist definition. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:46, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You have still not shown any references for this "Marxist" definition of capitalism. And no, MW and OED are communist dictionaries. Ultramarine 22:21, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You still don't get it. Marx never defines "capitalism." He USES the term "capitalist" to refer to people that own capital. And Marxists use the word "capitalism" to refer to the condition of being a capitalist. RJII 22:23, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You are wrong. Marx characterizes capitalism as a structure, and explains what structural features define capitalism. Just because you are ignorant of Marx does not mean that Marx didn't have a definition -- it means only that you are ignorant. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:46, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

So you have repeatedly stated without ever producing any references as required by "cite your sources" policy. Ultramarine 22:29, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Oxford English Dictionary has a definition. RJII 22:34, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As I stated a few lines up, OED is not a marxist dictionary and not evidence for how Marxists define capitalism. (And no, nor is MW a marxist dictionary). Ultramarine 22:38, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You don't need a "Marxist dictionary." They don't use the word in any uncommon way. The definition in the OED is common. That's how they use the term. RJII 22:42, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

So you claim. But without sources as required in "cite your sources". Ultramarine 22:44, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What the hell are you saying? Sources for what exactly? RJII 22:47, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please read "Cite sources". Please read the above section again to refresh your memory. Ultramarine 22:53, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What is it that you would expect such a source to say, generally? RJII 23:14, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please read the above section again. You have attributed various statements and definitions to Marxists. Please cite sources. (And no MW, OED are not sources for what Marxists think.) Ultramarine 23:16, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No I haven't. RJII 23:24, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You wrote: "They're probably using 'private ownership of capital' definition, as is typically used by Marxists." and "Marx never defines 'capitalism.' He USES the term "capitalist" to refer to people that own capital. And Marxists use the word 'capitalism' to refer to the condition of being a capitalist."

Please cite sources for your claims. (No, OED and MW are not marxist dictionaries). Ultramarine 23:31, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No. I'm not required to cite sources for what's posted in Talk. RJII 23:32, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ok. Please never use these claims as support for changing the article itself. Ultramarine 23:35, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I cite sources for what I post. RJII 23:38, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

RJII is covering up for his own ignorance. Ultramarine is completely correct -- OED does not provide "Marx's definition." If you do not know what Marx's definition is, RJII, then just do not go around claiming you know what it is. But if you insist on claiming you know what it is, you must provide a source from Marx himself!!! Slrubenstein | Talk 17:46, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There is no "Marx's definition." He never defines "capitalism." Again, things just go in one ear and out the other with you. You're a complete waste of time to talk to. RJII 18:20, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Marx does explain what capitalism is, and he does not say it is "private ownership of capital." Just because you do not know what Marx's definition of capitalism is does not mean that he does not have one, it means only that you are ignorant. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:54, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

How old are you? RJII 19:05, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What difference does it make? What is important is that contributors to this article be committed to our NPOV and NOR policies. Marx explains what the capitalist mode of production is -- and it is not "private ownership of capital." If you are going to present a "Marxist definition of capitalism" you must do research and provide sources. Appropriate sources for a Marxist definition of capitalism is not a dictionary, but a book by Marx. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:17, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What does any of this matter if I've never made any post in the article that claimed anything was a "Marxist" position? Dude, get a clue. RJII 19:21, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You did make such a post to the article. In this edit summary [19] you explicitly provided "Marx" as a source for your definition, "private ownership of capital." And as I have explained, you are wrong. And although I have asked you to provide the actual source for this definition (you write "Marx" but neglected to say what book or chapter or page), you still haven't backed up your own claim. From this I infer that you have not done serious research. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:56, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Distribution of wealth

Now that the intro question seems to have been resolved, could we discuss the distribution of wealth paragraph, which makes lots of assertions that seem wrong to me? In particular: where is the source for this sentence: Typically between 0.5% and 1% of people own more than half of productive capacity, if not half of all wealth? Where are the various studies? Luis rib 12:16, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the quote from Rand, I will add it. Ultramarine 22:13, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

New Intro

I've put together a new intro that is hopefuly less disputatious and more rational (an explanation follows):

Capitalism is an economic or social system typically regarded as being comprised of the following conditions: 1) The "means of production" or capital are privately or corporately owned and operated in order to obtain a profit. 2) Investment, distribution, and production decisions are privately determined. 3) Prices are determined by trades that occur in a free or relatively-free market. 4) A competitive environment exists that is favorable for owners of capital. (see definitions of capitalism for various published definitions)

Some maintain that capitalism was institutionalized between time frames approximately corresponding to the period between the 16th and 19th centuries in Europe. Probably most assert that it exists in some economies today. Some assert that capitalism has never existed. Others hold that it has existed in the past but no longer exists. Noteable economists and political philosophers differ broadly in this regard.

Explanation... I used the term "typically regarded" so that stray definitions by malcontent college professors don't count. I think I've obviated any need for government to be mentioned (typical definitions out there do not mention government anyway), by pointing out "private" ownership and "private" decisions --private means government is not involved --so that takes care of laissez-faire. "Free market" is there as that is very typical in definitions. And, 4 is something that I think both Marxists and pro-capitalist individuals can agree on ...life is better if you have capital. Not only this, but it also accords with a definition of capitalism in the Oxford English as well as according to other definitions that mention competition. Finally, I took the assertion that capitalism has been established out of the definition, as that goes beyond defining capitalism, and put it in a separate pararaph noting the lack of consensus. I also added a note about Ultramarine's definitions of capitalism article. Finally, I put the conditions in sentence form as a way to help force or guide people to make coherent statements. Any objections or recommendations? RJII 14:25, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

RJII writes, "I used the term "typically regarded" so that stray definitions by malcontent college professors don't count." -- This is laughable! All you are saying here is that "Since I have not done research, what I say is true, and anyone who has done research is wrong!" This is not the way to write an encyclopedia. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:48, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The research is right there in definitions of capitalism, buddy. Stop your disruptive behavior. RJII 18:01, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes, you are pointing to research that I and Ultramarine did. What research have you done? Slrubenstein | Talk 18:52, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I consulted your research. Why should I do the grunt work? That's your job. RJII 19:24, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, we know what Slrubenstien and Ultramarine feel about it. Slrubenstein vandalizes the intro and seems more intent on playing nerd-style "king of the mountain," and Ultramarine insists on an intro with bad writing and incoherent thoughts. RJII 17:59, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If you think I am a vandal have the guts to say so on the "vandalism in progress page" and request mediation, arbitration, or some other action against me -- and try to prove it. Put your money where yor mouth is. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:14, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Go to bed, little boy. RJII 19:28, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi RJII, I've just wandered in here, so I'm not sure what the main issues are. What in your view is wrong with the introduction that Ultramarine reverted to? SlimVirgin 18:50, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I'd like to answer you in full, but we've been going at it for awhile. In fact this entire Talk page is an attempt to get the intro to make sense. So, you could read some of that to get an idea. I think most people think the intro was bad ..didn't make much. I've suggested a version which I provided just above. What's in there now is a new suggestion of Ultramarine's. Personally, I think it's attrocious. RJII 18:58, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've done a light copy edit of it just to tidy it. If I've inadvertently edited in any factual errors, feel free to revert. SlimVirgin 19:24, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Briefly looking through the recent versions of the intro, I prefer this one myself. SlimVirgin 19:30, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Feel free to put it in there if you like. I'll edit it to hell and back though. RJII 19:35, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please say why. SlimVirgin 19:43, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

That's all explained on this Talk page. No reason to go through it all again. RJII 19:45, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Slrubenstein's edit has just improved it, in my view, though personally, I'd get rid of the minarchist/Marxist paragraph only because it's probably too detailed for the introduction. But that's a minor point. SlimVirgin 19:47, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with SlimVirgin, the second paragraph is bizarre and not helpful in the intro. Will take it out, but, RJII, im not vandal. Mgw 19:55, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore, RJII, I would like to know why you fell so strongly that Anarcho-Capitalism should be in the intro. You keep putting it back in, but its really an obscure point that doesn't belong in the intro.

Mgw 19:59, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Mgw, you must have me confused with Ultramarine. He was putting anarcho-capitalism in, and I was removing it and accusing him of pushing anarcho-capitalism.

My own belief is that the introduction should introduce the article as a whole, and discussion of specific definitions and theories belong in the body of the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:19, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It looks good as it currently stands. SlimVirgin 20:23, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

"From your mouth to God's ears." Slrubenstein | Talk 20:31, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've looked at the intro, and tried to follow the Talk: pages. The intro as it stands seems reasonable and compehensive to me. It looks better than previous versions; significiantly better in some cases. Jayjg ^(talk) 08:50, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[A]re the ruling ideas

God has nothing to do with it. I have a problem with how this intro speaks of most definitions, then proceeds to legalistically illustrate one favourable to capitalism out of it (which I realize is the aim and POV of most involved here, so no suprises on that front). Well, it isn't the number of definitions, qunatitatively, but the impact each had, that the definition (the definition that claims it is a summary of definitions) should encompass — not one pro-capitalist definition based on this most factor.

1. Capitalism is not simply a system, as I already stated here, strongly, it is an economic system with particular economic charachteristics. As the New Webster Dictionary for the English Languages (print) pointedly states in its one sentence definition: "Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production, distribution and exchange are privately owned and operated for profit."

2. The role of capitalists remains omitted (!). The role of wealth being highly centralized and concentrated (250 billionaires own as much wealth as 2.5 billion poorest people - a factor of a million to one), within a tiny segment of the population. This isn't merely a demographic footnote, it's absolutely pivotal as to how capitalism operates, socially and economically.

That is 10 million to one. Elected leaders, patriarchs, dictators and oligarchs control tremendous wealth and power also, and act far more coercively. Probably not all the 250 are capitalists, and there are millions of capitalists that are not billionares. Perhaps you should look at what capitalists do with their wealth, there is no way they can consume even a fraction of it. If they were to take it all and buy gold with it, they would probably be doing the owners of the gold a favor by taking a relatively useless metal off of their hands. Instead they use if for something far more valuable than gold, they productively employ it to produce goods and services for billions of people, providing opportunities for millions to be productive. The world is a richer place because wealth is producing wealth rather than sitting statically, or just changing hands in a zero sum game. How many of those 2.5 billion people live in capitalist countries? What makes you think this concentration of wealth is intrinsic to the capitalist system? Can you cite a theory that proves that wealth concentrates like this? Although the "capitalists" seem to be much better at productively employing wealth than traditional coercive power regimes, I suspect that much of this concentration is due to the intervention of government. The Saudi billionares received favored treatment from the Royal family. The Royal family itself nationalized wealth that it had no right to. Even a seemingly benign billionare like Bill Gates, relied on artificial government protection of intellectual "property". Still, however these people got their wealth, they have little choice but the productively employ it. If instead they find some way to spend it on worthless trinkets like jewelry, gold faucets, paintings, etc., then they no longer have the wealth. Someone else does who probably probably employ it more productively.--Silverback 13:06, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

3. That modern Political economy is fundamentally based around approches to capitalism, as I stated a few weeks ago: the Left seeks to reverse it revolutionarily, the Moderate Left seeks to reverse it evolutionarily, the Moderate Right seeks to retain it in a reformed form, the Right seeks to retain it. That the article is somehow incapable of outlining this broadly and instead using the specific theories as pretext to 'give up' and opt for the most summary (which sneaks one of these through the backdoor), is not an approach I find credible.

I suggested a few weeks ago (no comments in response were provided) that the intro should aim towards something between the Economist and Monthly Review, instead (predictably), it appears to go with the former. I'm not sure why I expected more (I didn't, really, it was largely rhetorical): A definition of capitalism, written under capitalism, by a website owned by a capitalist (whose own ideological affiliation, Rand, is grossly overrepresented here, as in elsewhere in other articles, as per her own historical/political/economic/etc., impact; 'ideas of the ruling class remain, as always, the ruling ideas,' with NPOV being a mere buzz word for ours is neutral). This is all to be expected, as are the objections I posed and continue to pose, as is the fact that they are going to make no difference whatsoever, with the exception of, perhaps, making a few people think a bit more critically – that, too, is an accomplishment of sorts. Sorry, SlR, I think you are a fine anthroplogist, but this opening paragraph is one that I find highly lacking. At least it isn't original reserach, though, it's just very, very selective. Until a few decades ago –one third of the planet– was officially committed to reversing capitalism, but apperently this isn't even worth being mentioned as a minor footnote in this intro. Intellectually, historically, a grotesquely political omission.

On the other hand, we have RJII who makes an original research, abstract contradistinction which I don't find has basis in fact. S/he writes: The other, somewhat prevalant, set of definitions do not refer to the nature of economic decisions or methods of pricing and distribution but, instead, define capitalism as the private ownership of capital. I'm sorry, RJII, I have never heard of that distinction made by anyone (and I just noticed your comment now on my talk page, sorry I overlooked it the day you sent to me). Ownership explicitly intimates decisionmaking (and I don't mean just in the abstract, but historically it has and continues to) on some and/or all of these fronts; I don't know anyone that sees this (superimposed, I argue) distinction as even remotely mutually exclusive as you phrase it. On the contrary, the two fit quite well together, and have been written on extensively as an interconnected whole; so, it is my understanding that this do not refer bit is made-up stuff. I see no evidence that any of the major theories from the Left, M Left, M Right, and Right, treat it in this way.

Argh, I don't blame you SlR, but had it not been for your request, this would have remained one of several articles in the enecyclopedia that I would never, ever read, because I know, for it, NPOV is mere lip-service and it would just upset me, pointlessly, which it has. But I do hope my points above resonate, somewhat (you've heard it all, I know, but it's the context which matters). And RJII, no offence, but you need to do more research on the subject, you're treating complex theories far to simplistically and reducationistically, and originally. Yet, depite this (and I argue, because of this) unfamiliarity with the material, you are able to highlight some truths which those with greater expertise (ironically, to the left of you) are dogmatically b(l)inded (chained, even) to overlook and ommit. But such glimpses are, of course, not nearly enough. El_C 23:52, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

My first reaction to your comment was to laugh out loud, since this whole article is already way too much POV in the opposite sense (i.e. pro-marxist). If you want to see totally biased articles, look at Communism or The Black Book of Communism. Reading those makes you wonder how all the states that embraced communism could fail, and why voters in Russia and Eastern Europe have consistently rejected Communism in all elections since 1989. Paradise lost? It seems more like there never was a paradise. Luis rib 11:04, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have no interest in engaging with polemics with you, especially on such a superficial and antagonistic level. I am disheartened that you opt merely for combativeness rather than addressing the specific items I raised. If you wish to discredit my argument (which I did expend some effort into formulating, though that seems of little consequence to you) in such a dismissive, abrasive manner, well, naturally I find that a dispiriting (but far from an unexpected) response, that remains your prerogative. El_C 11:32, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't mind discussing with you, and am glad you remain open to discussion. The previous comment was, as noted, my first reaction, though I guess you can infer from it my general position. Of course I'm willing to engage in civilised and hopefully constructive discussion. I will take your own structure, if you don't mind.

1)I agree that capitalism is just an economic system, and that it should be pointed out.

2)I disagree with this point. Inegality exists, and there's no doubt about that, but the numbers you cite are misleading. The billionaires you cite reside mostly in the US, which has a rather extreme version of capitalism (though admittedly sopme claim that it is the purest capitalism in existence). In Europe, inegalities are much lower, especially in the Scandinavian countries. Also, the 2.5 billion poor you cite live mostly in countries which are not capitalist, or which have only become capitalist in recent years. India, for instance, had a planned economy until the early nineties, which might (and in my opinion does) explain the wide-spread poverty that still exists there. China too only embraced capitalism in the last 20 years, and the regions that remain untouched by it (the interior provinces) are, of course, very poor. Africa has certainly the highest levels of poverty, but again almost no African country is truly capitalist. Botswana, Mauritius and South Africa are exceptions, and are also the African countries that managed to develop most. Most other countries have maintained dirigist state-controlled economies, on the Indian model. The lack of infrastructure is also a huge problem in Africa, and one that global capitalism has indeed failed to address. Latin America, finally, has the highest levels of inegality, but again in Latin America interventionist politics have prevented real free markets from emerging. Wealth is concentrated among very few people which have strong links to politicians, which prevents the competition that is necessary in true capitalism (NB: the US also partly have this problem, if you think about the shocking monopoly that Bill Gates' Microsoft is allowed to enjoy).

3)You are right that the article is messy and mixes all the ideas instead of clearly stating which political wings adopt them. Maybe a new paragraph/section should be added, which could explain these different approaches.

4) I don't know the Monthly Review. Is it an American news magazine (I live in Europe, btw). The Economist is certainly right-wing, but usually relatively neutral (at least they give arguments for their positions). In some previous version, I had suggested to add a different paragraph in the intro that would explain the marxist or left-wing definition of capitalism. Somehow, this disappeared in the following edit war. After all, why should the intro only have a single paragraph? It should, i think, have two or three, where the different positions relative to capitalism are explained. On the other hand, I don't think there is any need for the minarchist (what the hell is that anyway?) or anarcho-capitalist versions. I agree with your proposal of 4 views: the marxist, the moderate left, the moderate right, and the libertarians. Concerning your comment on Communism, I maintain my rather aggressive view of it, which I wrote in my previous comment. Fascism also once controlled a big chunk of the world, yet that does not mean that the views of Fascism should be granted the same importance as other, more pacifist, views.

5) I don't think that this article is highly imbalanced, at least if you consider it as a whole. Some sections are clearly POV from a marxist point of view (worst of all, in my opinion, the Distribution of wealth section). Other sections are POV from a right-wing position. Yet if you compare this article to the article on Communism, it is a totally neutral article. Any contribution to the Communism article that tries to criticise it will immediately launch an edit war that will end with numerous counter-criticisms to the initial critique. Any single critique one makes has to be weighed by sources. I would like this to be the case in this article as well, especially, again, concerning the Distribution of wealth section, which claims without citing any sources that a handful of people own half the wealth in the world.

Well, now I took some time too to answer your comment. I would gladly read your reply. Luis rib 12:34, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Alright. An (amicable) word of advise, though, try to always aim at a diplomatic intro to such contentious subjects, when deeply-held convictions are involved. You know, it is a fact that there are certain items within your own exposition above that make me, sort to speak, cry out loud (and I mean, profoundly so, as was the case in your lol case, I gather), but I still wouldn't phrase it in that way (though I just did, but only to illustrate this point), and instead aim for collegial and professional delivery from the outset.

With that preamble out of the way, I'm writing in haste so, regretfully, I will not be able to respond to your substantive comments above as I have to get going in ~5 minutes; even with what I intend to say now, I have to be brief. A word of caution first: in light of the wide-ranged scope of your comments, my response may end up being rather lengthy – perhaps we should continue the discussion on a subpage and link it here as (hopefuly) a must-read (?). Anyway, before I go, If I could quickly respond to/reference your very last sentence/query, which reads:

I would like this to be the case in this article as well, especially, again, concerning the Distribution of wealth section, which claims without citing any sources that a handful of people own half the wealth in the world.

"[T]he recently published UNRD report ... provide[s] a snapshot of what is going on in terms of economic development patterns around the world ... The staggering disparity between the richest and the poorest is illustrated by the observation that 225 billionaires own more than the disposal income of 3.5 billion people, while 1 billion people do not have the purchasing power to meet basic human needs." (Sustainability and Profitability: Conflict or Convergence?, Univ. of Cambridge Programme for Industry, 1998 PDF).

Of course to those billions, disposal income is their wealth, thus, the figures are rather similar when it is measured as such. Note that the following UN study is from 1996, the above from 1998. Since class inequality has risen so much in the last ~decade, I believe my 255 viz. 2.5Bn example is valid, but I wasn't able to trace the source for it on-the-fly, nonetheless, it is still a few hunderd individuals versus 2.x billions, so in a general sense, it makes little difference either way.

"The world's 358 billionaires own as much wealth as the world's poorest 2.3 billion people, 45% of the world's population." (Human Development Report, United Nations Development Programme, Oxford, 1996).

So, indeed, not a handful — as I claimed in my first comment, a few hundred. El_C 14:25, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

El_C, I didn't put original research into the article. It's not surprise that you think I have given some of the falsehoods a certain individual here has been perpetrating. I put in the definition of capitalism that says it is the private ownership of capital. I provided a source. The source was the world's most respected dictionary in the world. The Oxford English Dictionary: ""The condition of possessing capital; the position of a capitalist; a system which favours the existence of capitalists." As you can see, the word is not only used to refer to an economic system, but also merely to the ownership of capital. I noted in Talk, that when Marx is referring to a "capitalist" he's referring to someone who owns capital. And, that the definition in the Oxford was an extension of this usage of this word. But, I've never mentioned anything whatsoever about Marx or Marxism in the article. The claim above that I did was a lie. The "original research" claim is just a diversion from someone who has nothing better to do spend his time arguing irrelevant crap. RJII 15:52, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

RJII, could you I ask you to stop the personal attacks and reversions, please, because it's just making people mad at each other. The version you've reverted to is not particularly well written apart from anything else, and the second paragraph is very woolly: some maintain this, others hold that. Notable economists and philosophers are referred to but not named. Perhaps instead of reverting, you and El C could say what you feel is missing from Slrubenstein's version (below) that needs to be in there as well; or how to reword the sentences you're not happy with. SlimVirgin 16:17, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

You're wrong to single me out. The last person who was banned from violating the 3 revert rule here was Slrubenstein. Before that, it was Ultramarine, and then me when my record was researched afer reporting him. The version I just put in there was there before it was reverted to the version I just reverted. So, don't point your finger at me. This edit war is from all sides. Why don't you just reword what you don't like about the version I just put in? RJII 16:28, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Capitalism is a system that rose to dominance in Europe between the 16th and 19th centuries and replaced feudalism and mercantilism. There are many, sometimes contradictory, theories and definitions of capitalism that developed in the 19th century, in the context of the industrial revolution, and in the 20th century, in the context of the Cold War. Most definitions of capitalism include some combination of the following: the right of individuals, or groups of individuals to act as corporations with distinct legal personality, to own and trade private property including capital goods and land in a competitive environment in the form of a free or relatively free market, where price and wages are determined by supply and demand, and where there is investment for profit, with risks being assumed by the investors and investment decisions being made privately; the state is relied upon to protect private property rights; explicit and implicit contractual obligations are adjudicated by the state or contractually specified third parties.

There is not enough consensus among notabeable theorists to assert in the intro that capitalism was implemented at any time or that it exists today. For example,Noam Chomsky says "There's nothing remotely like capitalism in existence. To the extent there ever was, it had disappeared by the 1920s or '30s." "And, Any Rand says, "What we have today is not a capitalist society, but a mixed economy." Rand also believes capitalism has yet to be implemented, hence the title of her book "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal." So this latest version of the intro takes the unqualified assertions out of the definition (where they do not belong) and puts in it a separate paragraph that states that lack of consensus. RJII 16:59, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The views of Chomsky and Rand are tiny-minority views that need not be referred to here according to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and certainly not in the introduction, as neither of them has any expertise in this area. Capitalism certainly does exist; it's simply not unfettered. Who are the economists and philosophers you refer to? SlimVirgin 17:23, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)