Talk:Capitalism

Recently added Defence section: self-promotion?

The editor 于星 (Xing Yu) has recently added a Defence section to this article. In its current state, it only provides one argument for capitalism, and the only citation is to his own book (A Treatise on the Capitalist Society). At least as I see it, this section is not ready to be included in the full article due to including only the editor's own argument and nothing else. What are your thoughts? Mayhair (talk) 12:44, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree and support removal; that was a really strange addition and I didn't know quite what to make of it. Unless something is well-sourced mainstream, than we shouldn't have it in this article, because if we included every lone scholar's ideas on this subject, the article would be 1000x the size it is now. ---Avatar317^(talk) 23:37, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Is criticism warranted?

I raised this issue some time ago but little has changed in the criticism section (although the sources have been updated at least). I think there is a real issue here of whether this section violates the rules of the encyclopedia. A couple of points to consider:

• This article is listed as part of a series on "economics". The rules for editing economics articles are no different than any other subject: content, including criticism, must come from experts in the field, not outside sources. If we are treating this subject no different than others, then the opinions of philosophers, political commentators and scholars who aren't economists don't belong in the article.

• A separate article on "criticism of capitalism" already exists and covers everything in this section and more. This can be linked in the article without any need for a criticism section.

Jonathan f1 (talk) 22:20, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

There's nothing of great value in the section, so it should be removed.

Typically, criticism should be put into articles in relevant sections, not put into a separate one. Also, what one person sees as a criticism, someone else might see as a plus or at least acceptable or something that can be fixed. For example, inequality caused by capitalism can be seen as a desirable outcome, necessary, or fixable, without being anti-capitalist. TFD (talk) 02:25, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree and support removal. ---Avatar317^(talk) 02:30, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

The basis of your argument is derived from a fantastically narrow understanding of political economy; capitalism is not merely an economic system and even the works of Adam Smith would tell you that. Regardless, which site policies are you referencing? Your first bullet point seems to be a vague gesture at some uniform rule on content, but obviously a topic related to economics and politics should not be treated the same as a topic related to the sciences, otherwise there would be no need for consensus-building.

Further, what critiques are you expecting from pure economists? Economists' jobs are primarily to analyse trends in economies at the micro and macro levels; they aren't concerned with offering critiques of the system (i.e. global capitalism) they've spent their entire lives living under and accepting as gospel. There's no such thing as a critique from an economist who isn't political.

I am also unconvinced by the arguments that the section should be removed because there's already a main article for the topic and that some self-proclaimed capitalists actually support inequality under capitalism, so it can't really be generalised as a criticism. Pol Pot was fine with genociding his own countrymen through mass starvation, so I guess the critique of communist policies causing mass deaths through an inadequate accumulation of resources is not really a critique then, just an observation.

If the section should be removed, it ought to be because it's a rubbish section with no specifics and a lack of references to expert opinions, not because we should gatekeep critiques to economists, because there's already more coverage elsewhere on this WikiProject, or because one could argue that every critique is not really a critique because somebody could theoretically agree with it wholeheartedly. Yue🌙 03:16, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

My agreement above is based much on my opinion being the same as North8000 (below): "...the current criticism section is mostly complaints about pretty much everything that is wrong or undesirable in the world and thus not really useful content".

Couldn't almost all of these criticisms have been equally leveled against feudalism? or "Communism in one country" as practiced in post-1917 industrializing Russia/USSR? ---Avatar317^(talk) 01:31, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

The last paragraph is at least a GOOD critique "Other critics argue that such inequities are not due to the ethic-neutral construct of the economic system commonly known as capitalism, "...specific and detailed. But I'm sure there are too many like this to include in THIS article (but good for the criticism of capitalism article).---Avatar317^(talk) 01:35, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

This is exactly what I'm talking about:

"they've spent their entire lives living under and accepting as gospel. There's no such thing as a critique from an economist who isn't political."

You think no one here has heard this before? If this is a mainstream encyclopedia, you need to stick with what's regarded as mainstream sourcing in a subject. We cite biologists in articles on biology, physicists in articles about physics, historians in articles about history, but in an article that's part of an economics series, you want to cite every philosopher and political commentator under the sun on the reasoning that economists are all biased or brainwashed. This sort of attempt to skirt the rules would never fly in any other subject.

I agree with other editors that some of these arguments against capitalism can be applied to pretty much anything. The term 'inequality' is so vague as to be meaningless -there's inequality in sports, inequality in academics, and it makes sense that there'd be inequality in economic outcomes. Having a concern about income/wealth inequality does not imply anti-capitalism. Jonathan f1 (talk) 03:13, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

The section serves as a summary of the linked criticism off capitalism article. And it is a relatively small section at that, so this is WP:DUE by my estimation. In fact, this was the consensus when the section was radically trimmed years back with large swaths of material being moved to the other article. Now I'm not saying the section can't be improved, but outright deletion is not justified by any of the arguments I see above. And the notion that only "economists" should be cited in the section while ignoring scholars in other fields including history, political science, anthropology, philosophy etc is just absolute nonsense, as Yue points out above.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 13:31, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

I support removal of the section and would like to make notes in two areas regarding that.

• It's with good reason that separate criticism sections are concerned. The mere presence of one becomes a coatrack / magnet, distorting decisions on what criticism merits inclusion.
• Technically capitalism has a specific narrow definition (in the first sentence of the article) and probably ~95% of the world has that as one of the many components of their systems. But vaguer meanings of capitalism could include pretty much anything related to economic, ownership, business, economic interests in that ~95% of the world and thus anything bad or undesirable in the world that is related to economics, ownership, business, economic interests. As a result of this the current criticism section is mostly complaints about pretty much everything that is wrong or undesirable in the world and thus not really useful content.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:01, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Agreed -things like inequality and exploitation happen in non-economic contexts so it isn't clear why capitalism should be singled out as unique. If people exploit each other in an academic environment (eg benefitting from work that's not theirs, like plagiarism) we don't say that schools are naturally exploitative. The idea that economic exploitation would end in a post-capitalist world is far-fetched, and critics of socialism say the exact same thing. Jonathan f1 (talk) 03:30, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Criticism in the lead: RFC before

I recently added a paragraph to the lead summarizing the "Capitalism#Criticism" section of the article. The text in the lead was taken straight from the body. Foolishly, I did not check the talk page first, as I assumed that the omission of any criticism from the lead was just an oversight or a sign of underdevelopment of the article. I now see the discussion above at #Is criticism warranted? and was pointed to an earlier 2021 discussion, Talk:Capitalism/Archive 32#Criticism.

I believe that not summarizing the Criticism section of the article in the lead violates global consensus of MOS:LEAD, which guides us to summarize all of an article in the lead. For this reason alone, I don't understand editors objecting to summarizing the criticism section in the lead.

As a separate grounds, WP:NPOV requires as policy that all significant viewpoints be summarized in articles in proportion to RS. Without a doubt, criticism of capitalism is a significant viewpoint (perhaps even the majority view!). Omitting any criticism of capitalism from the lead violates NPOV because it omits a significant viewpoint. Criticism is due for the lead because criticism of capitalism is prominent in RS.

After reading the prior discussion, I do not have any hope of convincing the participants in those discussions to change their minds on this. So I am inclined to launch an RFC, and I ask what the RFC question should be. We could do something specific like: "should this edit be reinstated?" or something general like "should the criticism section of the article be summarized in the lead?" The problem with the latter question is that the answer is "yes duh" because we always summarize all sections of an article in the lead.

Thoughts? Levivich (talk) 16:16, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree that we always (should) summarize the entirety of an article in the lead. As you see in the discussion directly above, myself and others feel that any criticism of Capitalism from NON-economists doesn't belong in this article AT ALL. My opinion is that most criticism directed toward "capitalism" is not truly criticism of the capitalist economic system, but criticism of the current state of the world (or country), in which people blame capitalism for their current life experience when they are in fact experiencing capitalism CONFLATED with racism, sexism, and other cultural norms (gender roles, etc.) set by the dominant class in society, not PURE capitalism. Externalitys are an example of true scientific/economic criticism.

I feel that a good subject for an RfC would be "Should this article contain criticisms of capitalism from NON-economists? (like religious criticism)" - as such, that would gain consensus on what we have been discussing directly above, and then answer the lead question. ---Avatar317^(talk) 23:35, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining that, the situation makes more sense to me now. As a starter, I think the right word isn't "criticism," but "critique." There are, of course, many and varied critiques of capitalism, just as there are critiques of communism and other economic systems and ideologies.

That said, I do not believe that critiques of capitalism are limited to economists. I can't off-hand think of any RS non-economist critiques of capitalism, but I bet they're out there.

That said, I'm not sure the question even needs to be answered. If we were to collectively gather the WP:BESTSOURCES for the article Capitalism, some of those may not be written by economists, I don't know. For any given source, the author's qualifications are certainly relevant in determining if it's an RS. But I think it's far more productive to talk about specific sources than to talk about setting rules like "economists only."

So with that said, I'm damn sure that if we gathered the best sources about capitalism, those sources would include critiques of capitalism. But I can see how the existing body section is more of a collection of criticism of capitalism, rather than a summary of critiques of capitalism from the best sources about capitalism.

And, finally, I agree that the body should be straightened out before we worry about summarizing the section for the lead. I think the best approach would be to identify some WP:BESTSOURCES for this article, see what they say about critiques of capitalism, and summarize that in the body, and then summarize the body section in the lead. Accordingly, I will not launch an RFC about the lead at this time. Levivich (talk) 00:29, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Moral permissibility of profit

The definition made it seem like benevolent or non-profit organizations were not capitalist. Capitalism permits profit, but does not require it.72.204.11.140 (talk) 14:57, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

The statement was straightforward. Your edit had a long list of issues. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:05, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Definition of Capitalism

By all but certain Marxist definitions, capitalism means private ownership of the means of production with prices set by free markets. I deleted the Marxist POV add-on that capitalism must necessarily involve profit-making. Benevolent non-profit organizations are part of capitalism, too. 72.204.11.140 (talk) 19:45, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I accepted the edit (only) under pending changes because it met the low bar for pending changes acceptance. That doesn't necessarily mean that I agree with the edit. I think that it should be discussed. Maybe the profit motive is central to capitalism. North8000 (talk) 21:37, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, we'd need a positive consensus to change the lead sentence of such an important article from the stable version. Not only does "for profit" appear to be backed up by high-quality scholarly sources, but the idea of "free markets" needs to be carefully framed as a spectrum of regulatory intervention rather than a simple either/or as was implied by that edit. No serious scholar would argue that a completely free market has ever existed. Even one of the IP's own favored sources (investopedia.com) states as much. Generalrelative (talk) 21:54, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Agree. And none of the sources used appear to use the term free markets. That's more a goal of advocates of capitalism rather than how the system works in practice. TFD (talk) 22:06, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

> “No serious scholar would argue that a completely free market has ever existed.” Right. Even the scholars that define capitalism as free markets plus sticky property agree that pure capitalism is “an unknown ideal” and that it should be thought of in relative terms. Like peace or justice, we hold the concepts even though perfect world peace or justice has arguably never occurred. Even definitions that don’t use “free market”use equivalent terms.

By all but certain Marxist definitions, capitalism means private ownership of the means of production with prices set by free markets. I deleted the Marxist POV add-on that capitalism must necessarily involve profit-making. Benevolent non-profit organizations are part of capitalism, too. 72.204.11.140 (talk) 19:45, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Capitalism is a term, an attribute that is present (to a full or partial degree) in nearly the entire world. Just because this is true does not mean that everything that exists in the world/ a place that utilizes capitalism is "capitalism". North8000 (talk) 02:00, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

“Maybe the profit motive is central to capitalism.” I think so, but that does not make profit-making a required characteristic. Just as (another Marxist gratuitous add on) employment is not a necessary condition of capitalism. Indeed, many capitalists see the ideal as everyone being an individual entrepreneur. Yes, some of the citations by “experts” add profit as a defining characteristic, but upon examination they are all Marxist scholars using their proprietary non-standard definition. Virtually all dictionaries and economics books define capitalism as free markets (meaning zero government intervention) with private property. Profit-making and employment are merely common results for this economic norm. 72.204.11.140 (talk) 13:32, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Do you have any sources that Marxist definitions of capitalism differ or that there is any dispute about the definition of capitalism? In common usage, some people define capitalism as an ideology so that a capitalist is someone who believes in capitalism rather than someone who owns capital. Its also used to describe an ideal but unrealized state where everything i governed by market forces. TFD (talk) 13:52, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

IMO it is an attribute/component of economic systems. North8000 (talk) 15:15, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Capitalism is a word used to describe at least four related but distinct concepts:

1) the activity of investing for profit (in this usage, the term has become archaic);

2) an ideology that holds up private enterprise and free markets as solutions to many or all of the world's problems;

3) the idealized economic system aspired to by that ideology;

4) the currently existing world system where private enterprise dominates.

Each of these concepts is well attested by reliable, mainstream sources. Our article does a decent job, I think, of laying most of them out, though perhaps not as systematically as I'd like. Generalrelative (talk) 15:31, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Ignoring the outdated (1), all the rest of the definitions require private property, especially in capital goods ("the means of production"). And they all require a market. They do not require profit-making; that seems to be a result of capitalism for some *successful* firms. I found a list of defintions. http://www.anarchistfaq.com/misc/CapitalismDef.html 72.204.11.140 (talk) 16:54, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Let me rephrase that: Are there any sources that Marxist definitions of the currently existing world system where private enterprise dominates differ or that there is any dispute about the definition?

I don't think btw that reliable sources use definitions 2 or 3. TFD (talk) 18:15, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I just absorbed about 8 online definitions. The IMF definition was an excellent summary / said that same thing as all 8 of them: "Capitalism is often thought of as an economic system in which private actors own and control property in accord with their interests, and demand and supply freely set prices in markets in a way that can serve the best interests of society. The essential feature of capitalism is the motive to make a profit." North8000 (talk) 19:57, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

So I think profit motive is something that the system depends on but might not be definitional. North8000 (talk) 20:28, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Hard for me to understand how an "essential feature" would not be definitional. The standard example in philosophy is a bachelor being defined as an unmarried man because "unmarried" and a "man" are the essential features of the concept. Generalrelative (talk) 21:04, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I would leave out "freely set prices in markets in a way that can serve the best interests of society." When Nixon brought in wage and price controls it did not mean that the U.S. ceased to have a capitalist economy. Also, freely set prices do not necessarily serve the best interests of society according to most experts. It's only groups such as the LvMI that see it that way.

But can't we use a standard textbook as a source? TFD (talk) 21:42, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

A sea of blue

Stylistically, this article lead is so dense with blue links and refs that it does not fulfill the purpose of a lead; it is an ocean of blue. The first sentence has five refs. the second sentence has twenty blue-links and six refs.

Overall, this lead has thirty-seven blue-links. World War II is blue-linked! Credit card is blue-linked!

A lead so difficult to get through fails to fulfill its purpose when it discourages reading the article itself. So now I think I'll join the discussion. — Neonorange (talk to Phil) (he, they) 00:29, 23 August 2024 (UTC) —