Talk:Capitalism/Archive 4

Capitalism and the State

There seems to be an attempt to define the primary characteristic of capitalism to be the absence of a state. This would of course suit the supporters of anarcho-capitalism. However, this is a minority position. Most economists who claim to be capitalists do not advocate an anarchy but at most minarchism. Many think that that strong property rights and rule of law are the most important characteristics of capitalism. Ultramarine 16:30, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't see such an attempt. The primary characteristics of capitalism include minimal government intervention. I don't see anyone saying capitalism requires a total lack of government. RJII 16:39, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"an economic system where capital is privately owned and where pricing, production, and distribution of goods and services are determined by exchanges of money, goods, and services in a free market. Unlike statism, centralized authorities such as governments or Crown corporations exercize limited control over this system in general, and capitalists in particular. (See economics, political economy, laissez-faire)."

This says nothing about the rule of law and property rights. A person who uses the threat of violence to extract money from others is allowed with this definition. Ultramarine 16:46, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You don't see the term "free market."? By definition that's a market of voluntary transactions free of coercion. RJII 16:50, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This definition of a "free market" is also a controversial defintion. Some might say that people are forced to work for capitalists and that this is not a voluntary decision. To die from starvation or from a gun wound is not so different, some might argue. Both could have been avoided by yielding to the person with superior power. Ultramarine 17:00, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There may be some controversy about what is voluntary and what isn't, but any definition of capitalism that you see almost always uses the terminology "free market." We're an encyclopedia and are supposed to represent the established definitions. For example the Merriam-Webster dictionary defines it as "an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market." You can parse each word and dispute what each one means, but that doesn't negate the definition. RJII 17:07, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

MW is not the final arbitrator of English, although a good dictionary. Here is a different definition from a different source which might be better since it only deals with economic terms. [http://www.economist.com/research/Economics/alphabetic.cfm?But everyone agrees that, at the very least, for capitalism to work the state must be strong enough to guarantee property rights. According to Karl MARX, capitalism contains the seeds of its own destruction, but so far this has proved a more accurate description of Marx’s progeny, COMMUNISM." Ultramarine 17:22, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That definition has its benefits as well. But again, it defines capitalism as a "free market" system. I think that if anything is essential in an encylopedic definition of capitalism it is that terminology. If anyone wants to dispute that that's how it's commonly defined, I think their efforts are going to be futile. Let's work on a supplying the definition in the intro instead of trying to be intentionally vague and doing everything we can to avoid defining it. The common definitions are quite similar enough to dispell any fear of doing so. RJII 17:40, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

How are you going to reconcile the Marxist and anarcho-capitalist definition? Ultramarine 17:45, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The Marxist definition is "private ownership of the means of production." There could always be a bullet point for that one. As far as I know these two are the only definitions of capitalism. I don't think anarcho-capitalists define capitalism any any differently. What they do is say that what is described in the definition can only be achieved if there is no government at all --that a truly "free market" can only exist if there is no government. Whereas, the traditional capitalist says you need a government to protect the free market. RJII 18:01, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That is at least 3 different definitions. And there are more. So I think that they should be discussed in the body, not in the introduction. Ultramarine 19:13, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That is essentially two definitions. The marxist and the more widely-used definition. Regarding the "free market" definition, no two definitions are going to be identical, but they are saying essentially the same thing. There are many definitions for word in the english language but they have commonality between them. Hence, we can provide a definition that enscapsulates the main concepts just as every other dictionary and encyclopedia. It's really diminishing the value of Wikipedia to not define capitalism for the reasons you state. One might as well pick up an Encyclopedia Britannica in book form to get a definition. It's ludicrious to not have a definition of capitalism in what purports to be an encyclopedia. And, the intro is the place to do it. Otherwise, delete the intro entirely. RJII 19:22, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

For Marxists the commoditization of labor is at least as, if not more, important than private ownership of the means of production. Also, World systems theorists, and some marxists like Sweezy and Braverman, have a different definition of capitalism. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:13, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

RJII keeps missing the point. He states "It's really diminishing the value of Wikipedia to not define capitalism for the reasons you state," when no one -- not Ultramarine, not I -- are suggesting "to not define capitalism." We both agree that the article should give definitions of capitalism. But we are not going to give just one definition (which violates our Wikipedia: Neutral point of view policy, and we are not going to use RJII's definition -- or even try to work out a consensus definition (which violats our Wikipedia: No original research policy. We are going to provide as many definitions that major theorists have presented as possible, and we are going to explain the context in which each definition was developed. This is a complicated task best left for the body of the article. But RJII don't you dare to suggest that we are refusing to define capitslism. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:06, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've made it clear that I disagree with your idea on this. I think it should be defined in the intro. And, yes we are going to do so. RJII 21:00, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Please present your definition here so we can see if it is possible to have a consensus that is not original research. Note also that many other things do not have a universal defintion that all agree on. Like intelligence, love or human rights. Ultramarine 21:09, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ok. Something to the effect of " an economic system where capital is privately owned and where pricing, production, and distribution of goods and services are determined by exchanges of money, goods, and services in a free market." RJII 21:18, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

One problem is that different people have different definitions for a "free market". See earlier discussion. Another problem is that there is no way of determining which system is more capitalistic with this definition. Or are all systems with such a system equal? A third is that the size of the market is not defined. Is two people voluntarily making love capitalism? A fourth that it says nothing about the power structure of the society and how the use of force is regulated by laws (or not), something essential for the structure of the economy. It slavery, debt peonage or a society of hunter-gatherers capitalism? A fifth is that privately is unclear. Is a joint ownership of a company and joint ownership of commons both capitalism? Ultramarine 21:57, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm not so sure there is any significant difference in definitions of "free market." It think pretty much everyong agrees that's it's a market where all the transactions are voluntary. Now, whether particular actions are voluntary or not is where some dispute may come in. But I don't think that matters as far as a definition of capitalism goes. Like I said the term "free market" is so ubiquitous in definitions of capitalism that I think it's essential. If the article that says something like "capitalism is defined as ...blah blah...in a free market," what's the problem? It's just saying that that is how it is defined, and that's the truth. To your second point "no way of determining which system is more capitalistic", why is that relevant. We don't have to make a determination of that ourselves and tell the audience which countries are closer to capitalism than others; I think it would be a bit presumptuous if we did. We just tell them how capitalism is defined. On your third point "size of the market is not defined" it does say "economic system"..i think an economy constitues more than one transaction. To your fourth point "it says nothing about the power structure of the society....", that's something that could be put in, definitely. As to the rest of your questions, is slavery consistent with a free market? Who would agree that slavery is voluntary? ..etc Don't assume that I'm implying the definition I provided above is perfect. It's just a basic definition..i would expect it needed some more elaboration. So, that's hopefully what we're working on. RJII 18:48, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"Free market" may be a necessary (with qualifications) but it is definitely not a sufficient element of a definitio of capitalism. Free markets existed long before the rise of capitalism, in systems no one would consider capitalist. Moreover, I still return to my objection that RJII's definition counts as "original research" -- unless he will provide his source. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:47, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I look at the article about the prohibition against "original research" and nothing applies to me. I'm just relaying what I've seen about capitalism and how it is defined. I'm not coming up with any original theories or terminologies. If you need a couple sources, just off the top of my head how about the definition in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary? Or the Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith that is typically regarded as containing a description of capitalsm? I'm not doing anything "original"..i don't understand what would make you think I am. RJII 21:14, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It was only your lack of sources that led me to think it was original research. Okay, if it is not original research please see the policy on "cite sources" and "verifiability." A dictionary is not an appropriate source for an encyclopedia article. Smith certainly is -- but does he actually define "capitalism?" If so, the definition shoulc certainly be incorporated into the article with a citation. But if Smith is your source (or main source), this is all the more reason not to put it in the introduction but rather in the body, as there have been fierce debates over the way he characterized capitalism. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:56, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Smith advocates a marketplace where people interact on a voluntary basis and where government does not intervene offensively or override private decisions; the common term for this is a "free market." While he doesn't use the term "capitalism", it's almost universally acknowledged that what he describes is what is today referred to as "capitalism". Hence, almost all definitions of capitalism one comes across refers to capitalism as revolving around a "free market." RJII 22:16, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Problem is, a. I don't believe the term Capitalism was used by smith or anyone till later b. Smith's ideas on the markets also espoused a belief that it is necessary for the government to manage goods that businesses would become far too corrupt to provide properly. Public goods. He also believed a state was absolutely necessary to keep the businesses in check, who again, he saw as having massive potential for corruption if not for some counter-weight. So smith doesn't really work for a single sentence or a quick two or three, for a definition.--Che y Marijuana 22:30, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

Che y Marijuana beat my to it. RJII, I really wonder where your reading of Smith comes from. My understanding is that for him the essence of (whatever you want to call his"system") is not a "free market" but rather the elaboration of the division of labor, and international competitive advantage. The Wealth of Nations provides numerous examples of cases where government investment and regulation of markets was required to make the system work. Isn't his argument that competitive advantage leads to an increase in individual wealth which enables individuals to be free -- which is very different from seing "freedom" as an ontological precondition for markets. He is very explicit that he views economic growth as the cause of freedom rather than its effect. I do grant that he argues for something like a free market in international commerce -- but isn't this because he sees restricted trade as encouraging the hoarding of gold rather than reinvestment of wealth? In other words, for Smith the "system" does not at all revolve around the "free market;" it revolves around the division of labor (which, in an international scale, leads to competitive advantage); indeed, the "free market" revolves around the division of labor, not the other way around. RJII I want to take you seriously when you say you have done research. Can you please tell me where in The Wealth of Nations "Smith advocates a marketplace where people interact on a voluntary basis and where government does not intervene offensively or override private decisions?" What is your citation? Slrubenstein | Talk 22:53, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

My citation is the Wealth of Nations as a whole. If you think it's about the division of labor then apparently you never got past the first chapter (or was it the second chapter that explains the division of labor?). He clearly opposes offensive government intervention into marketplace. He advocates laissez-faire because he think it's in the best interest of society that markets are free so that wealth can be accumulated. This is not saying he opposes intervention, but offensive intervention ..that which restricts private liberty. That intervention he supports is defensive in nature...that which is necessary to maximize freedom. If government intervenes, it intervenes to repel those forces that diminish economic freedom. Granted he supports some public works, but that's only the few projects that the market may not be able to provide. The basic idea behind Wealth of Nations is the advocacy of laissez-faire so that the market can be as free as possible, in turn so that life can be better and easier by the wealth generation that this makes possible. Uneccesary restrictions on economic freedom interfere with this process according to Smith. He provides many examples of how government restrictions on the marketplace are useless or counter-productive (government-decreed limits on interest rates for example). It is clear to anyone that has actually read that book that he wishes for economic freedom to be maximized ...a market that is free as possible. In common parlance, a "free market." (Or if you're an anarcho-capitalist, for example, you would say that that's a relatively free market rather than an absolutely free one. It's important to know that when most people say they favor a free market they are actually referring to a relatively free market. So if you want to avoid disputes you could always say "relatively free market" in a definition. But, to my knowledge we're not supposed to make new definitions here but those which reflect the definition already out there.) RJII 05:54, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Citing a book as a whole is not scholarship, it is dogmatism. Yes, I know many people claim that this is what Smith argues. But how can we tell whether this is what he actually argues, or whether it is an ideologically motivated and anachronistic reading? If you can't provide more precise citations, you do not have much of a case. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:46, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Read the book, dude. Frankly, I'm not interested in being drawn into an argument about Adam Smith. I'm more interested in assisting in providing a definition of capitalism in the intro that people can generally agree on. RJII 22:00, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Once again, you reveal that you do not understand our "no original research" policy. Our task is not to come up with a definition "people can generally agree on." Our task is to come up with those definitions -- whether one, two, three, or ten or fifteen -- that people have already put forth. As yet, you haven't come up with anything. And this isn't about an argument about Adam Smith -- this is about how to improve the article by presenting accurately those definitions of capitalism that are in circulation. You brought up Smith, not I, and so far you haven't shown any evidence that you understand him. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:46, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Once again, you reveal that you haven't a clue of what is going on here. We are not trying to do "original research", but coming up with definitions that reflect what's already out there. Either join in the process or step out of the way. (as far as Smith goes, I may have not convinced you that I understand him, but you certainly have convinced me that you don't. And, I haven't the slighest inclination to indulge you any further on this). RJII 23:02, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Some other attempts to define capitalism. http://www.solohq.com/Articles/Bachler/Capitalism_-_Is_it_time_for_a_change.shtml

Key to the intro

The key to the intro, I think, is to begin to mention those charachteristics of capitalism that all the political-economic currents agree on, those do exist. Then, proceed to touch on their particularities (so far as to lead us towards the more substantive discussion of their differences/similarities in the body). One problem that I see with RJII's approach is that s/he is placing rather severe restrictions on space; but as I mentioned to him/her elsewhere, we do need to be somewhat expansive in the intro. Because otherwise we can only devote enough space for the Wall Street Journal version, or the Monthly Review version, etc. (or, the parts from each that are acceptable by each, but that in itself would be grossly insufficient). I am hopeful that I can persuade RJII & others here to rethink the desirability of that approach for such a topic. But I agree with him that we cannot let the intro go on for paragraphs and paragraphs, that clearly would be excessive. We still have to attempt to be representative of (within and between) the political-economic continuum: the Left (revolutionary socialists), the Moderate Left (evolutionary socialists), the Moderate Right (Reform Liberals), and the Right ('Classical' and/or Neoliberals). The intro needs to end up leading-into the particularities, definitionally, with the fundamental universalities serving as a basis. El_C 08:03, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Here we go again

See the article on how Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The task of this article is not to define a word, it is to provide an account of a complex and controversial topic that does justice to what makes it complex, and to the controversies. The introduction is not meant to "define" (especially not a definition you made up); it is to introduce the article as a whole. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:44, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

We all know that you don't want capitalism to be generally described (maybe that's a better word than "defined") in the intro. But some of us would like it to be. Either join in the process or step out of the way. Or, if you insist, feel free to revert back to the vague useless excuse for an intro that was there. We'll just revert back. Conflict is great for Wikipedia. RJII 00:54, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Why should your definition of capitalism be in the introduction? And not the definition of Rand, Marx, de Soto or any of the other definitions mentioned previously? State your definition here to see if there is the consensus which you claim. Avoid useless edit wars. Ultramarine 01:08, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't presume that "my" definition should be in the introduction. I'm merely insisting that some definition is in the intro. I think the best way to start is to put one in there so they people can start editing it. As far as avoiding "useless edit wars", from my experience they're very productive. RJII 01:23, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place to design a new definition. Publish in some external sources and see if you can get a consensus on a short definition. Then get back here. Ultramarine 01:35, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It's certainly not the place to plagiarize one. Here are some: RJII 02:08, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

http://www.bartleby.com/59/13/capitalism.html regarded as an NPOV source by many.

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=capitalism&x=0&y=0 Merriam-Webster dictionary ..a well recognized authority.

Dictionary definitions are not authoritative. It would be much better to cite an expert. Rhobite 02:18, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

You cannot claim that MW is more authoritative than de Soto, Rand, or Marx. Or specialized economic dictionaries. Should MWs definition be in every introduction in Wikipedia? Ultramarine 03:26, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Of course not. You asked for some sources and I provided some. If you want to consult "Soto, Rand, or Marx" then do so. RJII 03:48, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what it is that you're getting at. Are you wanting to pick one source's definition and copy it over word for word here? If so, I don't think that's the proper way to go about this. I think we should simply come up with two definitions. One that covers the Marxist view. And other that covers the other view --the "free market" view. I don't see any reason that we can't come to a general consensus as to what these definitions are saying collectively (of course with intermittent disputes about minor points). We shouldn't presume to think that we can come up with anything whatsoever on Wikipedia that's going to be set in stone that everybody is going to agree with. Dynamism is what's special about Wikipedia. We're not writing a book, and no matter what we write it is going to be erased millions of times over in time. So, let's start defining capitalism in the intro, where it belongs and let the edit "warring" begin. Expansion on what capitalism is, of course, is what the body should be for. RJII 04:08, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There is no consensus on your so called "free market" view. It is not the definition of for example de Soto or Rand. Persons who have actually had a great influence on theory of capitalism. Write a new paragraph in the body. There we can have a list of different definitions. Hundreds of years of discussions about capitalism has not yielded consensus definition. So there certainly should not be one in the intoduction, especially not one you have created. Ultramarine 07:08, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It would be ridiculous to have a long list of definitions of capitalism if they're essentially saying the same thing, but in different words. There are two definitions of capitalism. There is the common one (which usually uses the term "free market) and there is the marxist one. Certainly there are variations in the wording for each definition among different authors but they are saying essentially the same thing, as anyone can recognize that has the most meager perceptive and integrative abilities. RJII 14:29, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

De Soto "In The Wealth of Nations, Smith emphasized one point that is at the very heart of the mystery we are trying to solve: for accumulated assets to become active capital and put additional production in motion, they must be fixed and realized in some particular subject "which lasts for some time at least after that labour is past. It is, as it were, a certain quantity of labour stocked and stored up to be employed, if necessary, upon some other occasion." What I take from Smith is that capital is not the accumulated stock of assets but the potential it holds to deploy new production. This potential is, of course, abstract. It must be processed and fixed into a tangible form before we can release it—just like the potential nuclear energy in Einstein's brick."

What's the "mystery we are trying to solve"? The mystery is certainly not whether or not the system Smith advocates is a laissez-faire system --that's a given. RJII 17:28, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ayn Rand "A social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned"

Wallerstein (neo-marxist) "production for sale in a market in which the object is to realize the maximum profit" is the essential feature of a capitalist world-economy. "In such a system production is constantly expanded as long as further production is profitable, and men constantly innovate new ways of producing things that will expand the profit margin" Ultramarine 15:53, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

RJII's Criticism

I am tired of RJII telling me to "step out of the way" because I do not agree with him. No editor should "step out of the way," not even RJII. But the current introduction is the product of a consensus that took a long time to develop. This fact does not mean that the introduction must not be changed -- of course it is open to improvement. But if RJII thinks he can just change it to please his own idiosyncratic views, it is no surprise that several people raise objections. My main objection all along has been that the points RJII wants to add should be added -- but in the body, not the introduction. I am not trying to keep RJII's views out of the article. I only want to make sure that they are put in in a way that complies with our policies. No original research, and cite sources, are two important ones that RJII seems not to care about. NPOV is the major policy he disregards (of course he claims that his view is the "common" one. Almost everyone thinks their view is right. But this is precisely what the NPOV policy is meant to protect us agains. No one view can dominate a Wikipedia article. Period.) Finally, I think that given his obsession with a "definition" he should read Wikipedia: Wikipedia is not a dictionary as well. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:10, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You're the one that should read Wikipedia: Wikipedia is not a dictionary. It says in the first sentence of that article: "Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and an entry that consists of just a definition does not belong: But, an article can and should always begin with a good definition or a clear description of the topic." All I'm attempting to do is make this article conform to it says how an article should begin. You're the one trying to prevent it and insist on an intro that both lacks a defition and a semblance of clarity as to what capitalism, the system, is. I'm sorry if what's there took a "long time to develop" but maybe it took someone such as me who wasn't involved in the process to take an objective look at the intro and point out that it sucks. RJII 18:46, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The current introduction provides a clear description of the topic -- because it is inevitable that this article will not just be "about" a system called capitalism, it will also be about theories and ideologies of capitalism. There is absolutely NO policy that requires an article to begin with a definition. Your claim that "all" you want to do is conform to that policy is disingenuous. I know you have other reasons for wanting to begin with a definition, although I disagree with them -- but have the integrity to stick to those reasons rather than suggest that "all" you want to do is conform with a policy that doesn't exist. You have every right to think the opening sucks -- just as I and apparently several others have the right to think your suggestion sucks. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:09, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I've had it up to here with you. You're stooping so low as to say my efforts are "disingenuous." Like I said, either join the process of defining capitalism for the into or step aside. I'm done bickering with you. RJII 20:14, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

By the way, I have said this before and since you never responded, I must say it again: Marxism does not define capitalism as an economic system where the means of production are privately owned. That you would try to put this into the article is just one more piece of evidence that you think you can contribute to an article without having done research. As with any other definition of capitalism, you must conform to our policis of verifiability and citing sources. SO please tell us, where does Marx define capitalism this way? I suspect that you will answer with the same feeble reply you offered concerning Smith, "read the whole book." That is not an answer. What is your basis for presenting this as the Marxist definition of capitalism? Slrubenstein | Talk 20:31, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Did you not understand? I'm done dealing with you. RJII 21:10, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

many of which

I reverted a recent change to the intro, because I have this question: which practices, necessary and sufficient for a "capitalist systm" to exist, were not institutionalized between the 16th and 19th centuries? I can't think of any, which is why I reverted the "many of which." "Many of which" would be true only if there was at least one practice essential to "capitalism" that was not institutionalized during this period. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:01, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Now you've returned to your old exchange with Susan on precisely this point. You acted puzzled when I disinterred that subject not long ago, because you thought it had been satisfactorily buried. So I consented to a re-burial, and here you go agitating the same old bones. What is "essential for capitalism" and how early in human history can we find it? Voluntary contractual relations and indebtedness would certainly seem to be prerequisites of capitalism on most accounts of it, and they are very old indeed. --Christofurio 03:54, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I see -- you are claiming that they were institutionalized prior to the 16th century. (I read the comment to suggest that they were institutionalized later). Then, how about "some of which were institutionalized before, and many of which were institutionalized after" or something like that? Slrubenstein | Talk 17:08, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sounds fine. I'll leave the exact wording to you. --Christofurio 19:42, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

Okay, but first, can you tell me which of these practices were institutionalized in Europe prior to the 16th century? Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 19:54, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In the heyday of the Hanseatic League, the merchants of many of the league cities had established their own prerogative of trading across sovereign boundaries (in their case, outside of the realm claimed by the Holy Roman Emperor). Shouldn't we call this the institutionalization of the principle of free international trade? (Put the 'national' part in quotes, if you like, since nation-states weren't involved yet. Still....) That heyday was the 13th and the 14th century. The fifteenth century saw the rise of the Medici family in Italy, with its extensive banking/mercantile connections. In general, I believe (POV alert) that capitalism is the recognition of enduring realities about human nature, and that although this recognition waxes and wanes, and has since at least Hammarabi's day, it would be foolhardy to stick to any absolute periodization. Christofurio 22:17, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

Well, this particular paragraph is talking about practices, not "enduring realities of human nature" which I think is covered in the third bullet point. It is a POV, and one many reject, but it should still be prepresented in the article. To get back to institutionalized practices, you are pointing our features of mercantilism. Now, some of these features are still of importance today. Some of these features existed before capitalism. But I would argue that they were not institutionalized in a way required by a capitalist system at that time. But I do not want to quibble. If your point is that trade and credit have existed for a long time, you are right. I think the correct way to deal with this is to point out that capitalism is, taxonomically, one kind of market system (and thus shares features with other market systems), and historically, developed out of a market systm (and thus has some continuities with that earlier market system). You may consider this formulation to be a POV you do not agree with. In that case, I would again suggest that the presentation of these points of view are better left for the body of the article. I hope that the current intro, which just says -- deliberately vaguely -- "many of which," is something people with opposing points of view (mine, yours, others) can agree with (thus maintaining NPOV). Slrubenstein | Talk 22:57, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

First bullet point in intro should be deleted

How do you know if capitalism has been "institutionalized" unless you can define it? There has to be a definition with which to compare the state of affairs. The assertion that capitalism has been "institutionalized" reeks of POV. It doesn't belong in the intro as an unqualified given. I quote from Wikipedia: Wikipedia is not a dictionary, "an article can and should always begin with a good definition or a clear description of the topic." This is neither. RJII 02:38, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As your own quote shows above, there is no requirement that the introduction should have a definition. So stop endlessly repeating that claim. What is POV about "institutionalized"? Even the ideal anarcho-capitalist society would have institutions. Everything more complex than primitivism will have institutions. And some would argue that even hunter-gatherers have institutions. Ultramarine 16:29, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Read what I said. My personal judgement that it should have a definition. The article I quoted above said it should have a "definition" or a "clear descrption." I commented that the intro as it stands is neither. Since it contained no definition, and my belief is that the intro is vague, my opinion is that it should be fixed. The way it should be fixed, in my opinion, is that it should define capitalism. Please read more carefully. Now, on to your point. It looks like you don't understand that either or didn't really read it. Let's see if I can break it down for you as well. I didn't say that the term "institutionalized" is POV. I said that stating that capitalism has been institutionalized reeks of POV if it is stated as an unqualified given. Other points of view assert the opposite --that it hasn't been institutionalized. Ayn Rand, for example has this POV in the book cited in this article called "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal". Just as it's POV to say that capitalism hasn't been institutionalized, it's POV to say it HAS ..especially if there no definition of capitalism supplied. If there is no definition of capitalism then how is one to know if it has been institutionalized or not? ...I'm not sure how to make my point any clearer. No offense, but I think you should just read more carefully. RJII 16:55, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You will have a hard time finding an authorative source who claims that capitalism has not been institutionalized already, at least to some degree. Many will of course say that there has never been an ideal capitalist society, but not that no historial or current societes have some degree of capitalism. There is no consensus on the definition of capitalism, but there is a consensus that some degree of capitalism exists or has existed in society. Ultramarine 17:22, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Exactly. "There is a consensus that some DEGREE of capitalism exists or has existed." The intro as it stands now says the capitalism has been institutionalized. That's definitely not the same thing as saying that it has been institutionalized to a degree, or that some or many aspects have been institionalized. Now you see my objection. RJII 17:57, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There is not a single sentence in the article that states that capitalism has been institutionalized. The first bullet point accomodates people like Friedman and Marx. The second two bullet points apply to Rand. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:01, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This is what the bullet said before I changed it: "* a system consisting of a set of economic practices that became institutionalized..." The article said that capitalism had been institutionalized. Don't try to make it look like I objected for no reason. As I said, I don't like to converse with you because I find you really unreasonable. Talk about "disingenuous." RJII 18:14, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"A system consisting of a set of practices that had been institutionalize" is not the same thing as "a system that was institutionalized." According to the first bullet point, it was not the system that was institutionalized, it was certain practices that were institutionalized. When people started thinking of them as a system, or when, if ever, they were articulated to form a system, is something that should be discussed in the body of the article. In the meantime, which of the practices mentioned in the first bullet point were not institutionaliuzed during that period? Slrubenstein | Talk 18:26, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No, it did not say "certain practices" were institutionalized; it said that capitalism is a set of practices and that that set of practices had been institutionalized. I edited it to indicate that that set of practices had not necessarily been institutionalized by saying "many of which had been institutionalized" ..that at least a SUBSET of that set of practices had been institutionalized. Again, this disingenuousness is why I don't like to deal with you. Our little exchange is over. RJII 18:39, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

sources for assertion that there are various definitions of capitalism and noting what they say

"Rv original research. Authorative sources do not agree as shown in the discussion. Your opinion is uninteresting. Cite your sources"

What is your point? You want sources that say that various definitions of capitalism exist and that say what those definitions say? That's ludicrous. The definitions themselves say what they say ..I'm just relaying them. What is it you want? RJII 16:16, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

How about a listing of the all definitions? From Rand, Wallenstein, de Soto, Marx, Keynesian and so on. Ultramarine 16:19, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

How many constitute "all"? It's not the definitions that vary but simply the wording in almost all cases. There are two definitions of capitalism. This is obvious and common knowledge. If you weren't aware of it that's not my fault. There are many differently worded definitions of what an apple is but does that mean they are all different definitions? I mean REALLY...of course not. And should we refrain from describing what an apple is in Wikipedia because various sources have various "definitions"? Of course not. We know what the "definitions" of capitalism say. It doesn't constitute "original research" simply to relay the two typical definitions of capitalism. If you don't believe it, then search for definitions that do not fit into the archetypes I provided. I think you'll be hard pressed to find any from established sources and so called authorities that don't. And if you manage to find only one that doesn't count, because my edit said "typically." RJII 23:00, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

All of this is your personal interpretation of what is common for the different definitions. And that interpretation is original research. Why should your interpretation be in the introduction and not another one, for example one that says that property rights is the fundamental underlying principle in all the definitions? Ultramarine 23:21, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)l

Well it's my "personal interpretation" inasmuch as it's my interpretation of what the definitions of "apple" say that an apple is without having to list every definition of different wording I can find. I really think you need to lighten up when it comes to something so obvious when it comes to throwing around claims of "original research." Everybody knows that there are two definitions of capitalism --One that says it is the private ownership of capital, and all the others that go on to say how good and services are distributed and economic decisions made (privately rather by government). Duh! RJII 23:50, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

One of the most influential philosophers during the last century, Ayn Rand, define capitalism using property rights. The very influential economist DeSoto has similar thoughts. Why should your interpretation be more important than theirs? Have you published some widely cited material on this subject? Ultramarine 23:58, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Rand says "Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned." This is totally consistent with the broad definition I supplied. If you've read any of Rand's books, you would know that what she means by "recognition of individual rights, including property rights" is that it is a system that embraces a free market, meaning one where everyone is free to do what they wish with all that is theirs without being subject to coercion. A free market is one where all interaction is voluntary. So, if you want it say it in different words, what she is saying is essentially "Capitalism is a system where property is privately owned and all interactions between individuals take place in the context of a free market." It's the same thing as the other definitions...just different wording in order to accentuate certain ideas. If you can't see that, I don't know what to tell you. In response to your question about what I have published, I don't release personal information here, and I certainly wouldn't publish information on something as elementary as this. RJII 02:14, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This is one of the best written introductions I've read on Wikipedia. Even the Cold War fit in there somehow... ;) ==SV 18:22, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

RJII claims that there are only two definitions of capitalism, but leaves out Karl Marx's definition, and Gundar Frank's definition of capitalism, two very important approaches to capitalism. You do not have to be a Marxist to agree that an article on capitalism, for the sake of NPOV, should include the Marxist view! Slrubenstein | Talk 17:34, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)