Talk:Capitalism/Archive 21

Intro and caption

Ultramarine has again inserted the photo of the Sigapore skyline in the article. He did so earlier on July 1. [1] The photo included the following caption: The central business district and hub of economic transactions in Singapore, often seen as one of the world's most capitalist economies. But, as I explained on later that day in hidden text placed in the article, that the photo was not very germane to the subject, writing: The caption is highly over-simplistic. Singapore is often regarded as a classic case of the "developmental state," confounding the traditional distinctions between capitalism and socialism. The Singapore government maintains large influence over the island's housing, industrial, and banking sectors. I think Ultramarine is referring to the fact that the Heritage Foundation, lists Singapore as one of the world's two freest market economies. It's overly simplistic to argue on that basis that Singapore is one of the world's "most capitalist" economies." Markets and capitalism-- while highly inter-related concepts-- are distinct. [2] From July 1 until today, Ultramarine did not restore the photo and caption. So I thought he read my reply and we were left on the same page on the matter. Anyway, for reasons explained earlier, the photo and caption should not be restored

Ultramarine has also reinserted an old draft of the intro based on a reference of Wikiquote. [3] Again, this version should not be restored for reasons discussed long ago. Even disregarding the content of the intro, the use of Wikiquote is inappropraite per Wikipedia:Avoid self-references 172 | Talk 02:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Given that you didn't restore the established intro (pre-Bostonion's current jiggering with it I've removed the wikiquote and replaced the more open version of definition - similar to the solution in socialism in which it has been accepted that there is no one def. that is NPOV. I've already established here that there are reputable reference sources that give a differing def. and so to be NPOV we should have an open first para and give accounts of differences below. --Red Deathy 08:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Please give a source if claiming anything. Singapore is considered very capitalist by a source used by numerous researchers and a good picture for the globalisation section. Also, in this ranking [4] it is the most globalized nation in the world. Why have a picture of the NYSE stock exchange in the globalization section? Regarding the intro, all versions claiming to represent the "true" defintion violate npov. The many different meanings should be clearly presented. There is no self-reference, the link goes to a page with many references.Ultramarine 10:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Ultramarine, an extensive body of literature has been published in the social sciences describing Singapore as a case of a "developmental state." It is quite easy to find this literature. Just do a search for Singapore "developmental state" on Jstor see search results or Project MUSE (see search results). The "developmental state" has been one of the ideas proposed in social science literature to describe the rapid development of the East Asian Tigers. Hence, there is another perspective on the subject, aside from the argument that Singapore's development is the result of very unregulated markets. I agree with your POV (Singapore has benefited from globalization... Singapore's skyline is a symbol of progress... globalization is good), but we cannot disregard other perspectives because we must be constrained by NPOV. 172 | Talk 03:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not here to do your work and search for your theoritical supporting sources. I have given sources for my statements, Singapore is globalized and capitalist, you have not for your views. Even if you find sources for your view that Singapore is not a good example of capitalism (again, do NOT ask me to do the work), the fact still remains that a prominent and widely used source does consider Singapore capitalist.Ultramarine 09:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Also have a look at what FH writes about Singapore: [5].Ultramarine 09:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

No, I am not here to do your work. Being unfamiliar with a particular body of academic literature is not an excuse to disregard NPOV. If one did or were willing to do serious reading on the scholarship on capitalism and development by political scientists, historians, economists, sociologists, and others, which is what anyone who wants to write an encyclopedia article ought to do, he or she would be familiar with the literature to which I referred above. But, for now, I will do you a favor and do your work for you. One of the first articles that comes up through the Jstor search I showed you above search Jstor for capitalism+"developmental state" is Eun Mee Kim, "Contradictions and Limits of a Developmental State: With Illustrations from the South Korean Case" Social Problems Vol. 40, No. 2 (May, 1993), pp. 228-249. On the first page of the article, Eun Mee Kim summarizes the relevant literature, mentioning that Singapore is commonly studied as a case of a developmental state: Studies of the rapid rise of East Asian nations in the world economy have focused on the "strong" and "developmental" state, documenting the foundations of the rise of the state and its remarkable achievements ... South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Singapore, the mostly rapidly developing nations in the world today, and Japan, the only country to join the ranks of this century's most economically and politically powerful nations, are all found in East Asia .... At the heart of each of these nations' success seems to lie a state with a top-priority commitment to economic development and which provides the necessary human, material, and institutional resources. (Kim, 228) For some of the most influential work on the concept of the "developmental state," see Peter B. Evans, Embedded Autonomy (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1995); Robert Wade, Governing the Market: Economic Theory and the Role of Government in East Asian Industrialization (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1990); Dani Rodrik, "Getting Interventions Right: How South Korea and Taiwan Grew Rich," Economic Policy 20 (1995), pp. 55-107; and Dietrich Rueschemeyer, "The state and economic transformation: Toward and analysis of the conditions underlying effective intervention." In Bringing the State Back In, ed. et al., 44-77. Cambridge, England: Cambrige University Press, 1985. Familiarize yourself with this work. There is a literature on Singapore as a case of a developmental state. Even if their work does not seem to fit with you ideological point of view, and the sources you pick out to support your viewpoint, Wikipedia editors are not permitted to choose one perspective over another perspective within the realm of serious scholarly discussion and disregard NPOV. 172 | Talk 10:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I see no mention of the claim that a developmental state cannot be a capitalist state. That would seem to be a libertarian view, I am not. I do not consider a small state to be the important thing, but good governance, including many regulations. But all of this is opinions. Present a source stating that Singarpore is not capitalist state, I have already presented a source stating otherwise.Ultramarine 10:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

No serious scholar disputes that Singapore is capitalist, but that is neither here nor there. The issue here is the causation, not whether Singapore is capitalist. The point is that the developmental state scholars are interested in the causes of development, and they look at strong, autonomous states as an explanation. The Heritage Foundation disagrees, and points to market freedom. Choosing Singapore makes it look like we are favoring the Heritage Foundation perspective over the others. In the same vein, if someone posted an unattractive picture-- say a Brazilian favela-- and refused to remove it, insisting, 'Present a source stating that Brazil is not capitalist state,' it would look like we are disregarding both the developmental state perspective and the Heritage Foundation perspective and promoting a Marxist one. Ultramarine, to be honest, I'm in total agreement with you politically. You and I both know capitalism is the only way of achieving and sustaining economic development, and anti-globalization activists only work to keep the Third World backward. But we should refrain from advocacy. Please understand that we must follow NPOV in substance and appearance. 172 | Talk 10:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding picture NPOV, we have a very negative picture, so we should we have a positive. If not this one, then we should another one this or some other subject. Do you have a suggestion? Ultramarine 13:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

What "very negaitve picture?" The one at in "criticisms of capitalism"? [6] I assume you don't mean the photos of the economists, the French seaport, the Bank of England, or the advocacy chart. I assume you're referring to the 1911 propaganda cartoon by the Wobblies, right? If so, are you serious? Do you honsetly think the cartoon could prejudice the opinion of a contemporary viewer about capitalism? If anything, illustrating the section on "criticisms of capitalism" with an obvious anachronism of an image suggests we're making a different statement: anti-capitalism has been consigned into history, along with the propaganda sects like the Wobblies that lost their influence years ago. Your inability to put this image in a historical context baffles me. But I'll drop the issue and just go ahead and remove both images. 172 | Talk 00:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikiquote intro

Improper Bostonian, you restored the version of the intro starting off with the lead "Capitalism has been defined in numerous ways; see definitions of capitalism," commenting in your edit summary [that] is not self-referential. the definitions are from sources. [7] Although Wikipeida is not mentioned by name, I think directing readers to a page on Wikiquote [8] at the very beginning of the article is a self-reference. You may disagree, but this debate is not too important. More important is a discussion about this lead we had nearly half-a-year ago, when it was first proposed back in June. (You might not be familiar with the issues that came up, since, according to your user contributions history, you started editing Wikipedia on November 20. [9]) At the time, Slrubenstein established a consensus against a proposal by Infinity0 to draft essentially the same intro-- one beginning with the following: Capitalism is the name given to the economic system that has been most common across the world since the industrial revolution. It has been defined in numerous, but similar, ways [10]. Below are some of his comments:

I think the current intro [at the time Slrubenstein was writing, 09:55, 29 June 2006 was the current version of the article] reflects a pretty decent working consensus. It is no one's ideal, but I think acceptable to most people. I have three problems with [Infinity0's] version. First, the first sentence editorializes. Second, I think it is very poor form to use another encyclopedia when writing, well, an encyclopedia. it is derivative (and an excuse for not doing real research, which is what anyone who wants to write an encyclopedia article ought to do). Finally, any definition is going to be controverisal. And there is no reason for the introduction to define capitalism - anyone who has access to Wikipedia can go to Answers.com for a dictionary definition, and for scholarly definitions, well, this is controversial and complex and thus best left for the body of the article. The first paragraph doesn't have to have a definition, but it does have to introduce the article. I think the curring first paragraph does that well - it introduces. It lays out the basic elements and gives every reader a good idea of what topics will be addressed in the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Vision thing, I am familiar with this link [the link to Wikiquote "defintions of capitalism"]. I do not think it solves our problem. For one thing, I think it is very bad form for people writing an enecylopedia article to rely on dictionaries or even other encyclopedias as principle sources. There is a vast amount of scholarship of capitalism, by historians, economists, anthropologists, sociologists, and others. As with other articles this one should be based on high-quality research of high-quality scholarship. A link to a list of definitions is not an encyclopedia article, let alone a good one. This article should go into the different ways Marx, Hayek, Wallerstein, Durkheim, Weber and others have defined capitalism. You seem to miss my point: I object to an introduction that attempts to provide a definition that synthesizes these various definitions. My proposal is for an introduction that leads into a discussion of how these scholars have defined capitalism differently, and why. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

To summarize, the function of the lead is to lay out the elements of the subject and introduce the reader to what topics will be addressed in the article. This is not accomplished with a lead referring a mishmash of quotations from dictionaries and webpages complied at Wikiquote. 172 | Talk 02:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia should follow NPOV. It is POV to state that one particular view is correct in the intro. Sources are given for all the different definitions in the link. Note that the article does not only list dictionaries as claimed, but also quotes the vies of many prominent persons. Note that none of the editors you listed above supports stating a single definition in the intro. Trying to give a single definitin will only lead to endless edit wars.Ultramarine 09:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I have rewritten the definitions article to that the views of prominent persons are stated first.Ultramarine 09:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

You do not address any of the concerns mentioned by Slrubenstein in June or summarized by me earlier today, but simply reverted with no modifications whatsoever. [11] (Also, you have failed to explain why you reverted the changes posted here, which are sourced and accurate.) The burden is on you to explain why we should insert a lead paragraph only superficially different from a one proposed in June against which there has been a consensus for nearly half-a-year. You write, "It is POV to state that one particular view is correct in the intro." That's neither here nor there; the version you reverted [12] does not do that. The first paragraph doesn't explicitly refer to the lead as a definition, but introduces the article, as an intro in an encyclopedia should. As Slrubenstein said earlier, it lays out the basic elements disputed by no perspective and gives every reader an idea of what topics will be addressed in the article. I don't see what you think has changed since June. But, as a compromise, I will restore the version Slrubenstein called "a pretty decent working consensus" [13] when he shot down the proposal you're making now. 172 | Talk 10:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Waiting for this. I think mentioning early the many definitions would hopefully lessen the constant edit wars between Marxists and libertarians regarding the true definition of capitalism on this article.Ultramarine 13:10, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

That's the wrong approach to lessen the edit wars between leftists and libertarians. Carefully circumscribing the topic in the intro and tightening the structure forces editors to stay on topic. Ideologues from both sides, however, feed off the loose structure. The consensus Srubenstein established stayed up for nearly half a year, which really isn't bad for a Wikipedia article on a contentious subject. 172 | Talk 00:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree and I wish we could return to that intro - I really haven't wanted to get into any sort of edit war, but to keep the NPOV status quo, I really appeal to editors to help, because I valued the relative stability of the old page. A tight definition without too specifically backing any one camp is what we need.--Red Deathy 09:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's not introduce false balance into the article. The idea of so-called "wage labor" (which people have a hard time rigorously specifying) being a defining part of capitalism is confined to radical leftists and a few sociological discussions. To mention it in the intro would be a textbook case of "undue weight". MrVoluntarist 16:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't arguing for that, I was arguing for the current text (i.e. at the time of writing this and against IB's attempted changes. I accept that my position is also disputed, and in the name of NPOV shouldn't be included in the lead para--Red Deathy 17:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

"Wage-labor" is not a fringe theory, it is a widely held (though by no means universal) view. Let's be clear about the real issue here: not all articles are going to have one single universal definition. There is nothing wrong with saying something like "According to most theories Capitalism is defined by one or more of the following ... " or "Some emphasize x, others y." This approach does not require us to provide 100 definitions or elements. How many people would disagree that most theorists emphasize at least one of the following: private ownership of capital; an elaborate division of labor; wage labor; free market? I am not going to quibble on the precise wording, I just think it is absurd that we can't come up with a reasonable introduction. As far as I am concerned, Mr.Voluntarist is pushing his own agenda and POV, to exclude wage-labor. I am sure there are many people here who define capitalism in terms of a labor market but who do not object to including other views of capitalism. Mr. Voluntarist has no right to prohibit a view he happens not to share. NPOV means, among other things, our willingness to include views we do not share. THIS is the issue. The current intro is short yet pretty inclusive. Why screw with it? Slrubenstein | Talk 17:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Because "wage labor" is introduced in order to wedge in a fringe POV that overstates a part about capitalism most people, reputable or common, do not consider a defining aspect. As for your suggestion: "How many people would disagree that most theorists emphasize at least one of the following: private ownership of capital; an elaborate division of labor; wage labor; free market?" I object because you only have to endorse one of those to be part of the "most". Therefore, you could add anything, no matter how irrelevant. For example, you could say, "most theorists emphasize at least one of the following: private ownership of capital, exploitation of workers, or fuzzy space bunnies". It would be strictly true, since the "or" allows you to accept any one of those, and you've already got "most" with the first. But still, completely unacceptable. Moreover, like I've taken pains to point out here, "wage labor" as differentiated from other labor, is itself a fuzzy concept. Does it refer to partnerships? Migrant contract workers? Regularly employed freelancers? The more you dig in to find out what is meant, the more POV baggage unravels. "Oh, I mean, when their surplus value is taken!" Etc. Finally, I've *never*, anywhere, seen any trend toward non-wage, non-salaried jobs characterized as a shift away from capitalism. MrVoluntarist 17:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I think mutualists like Kevin Carson would see a trend in precisely that way, since they would consider a society of private owner producers/co-operatives as some sort of proudhonist socialism. So there are notable (and non-Marxist) theories out there. That said, yes, it is POV and we should attempt to build a consensus around a minimal description of capitalism that offends everyone the least.--Red Deathy 08:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I meant I've never seen the media characterize trends toward new, smaller ventures as "non-capitalist" in any sense. Rather, it's the opposite. I'm familiar with Carson's work, although you have to understand he uses a non-standard definition of capitalism, and is not against using it as pro-capitalists would, if it's understood in context. In fact, he's said before that he's "pro-capitalist" depending on how you mean the term. MrVoluntarist 15:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Capitalism and Human Justice

Market capitalism can only work 'properly' according to the classical model if a whole bunch of special conditions are met: no producer (i.e. private business) can have any market power, meaning that the industry, and indeed the whole economy, must be composed entirely of many, MANY small businesses where any consumer has many different choices for where to buy any given good or service. Perfect competition on the supply side.

What?! says who?

You also have to assume that all agents involved (workers, consumers, government, business owners, financiers, etc) all have perfectly symmetical information (nobody knows any insider secrets and everybody is equally knowledgeable about everything)

WHY?

You also have to assume that both business owners and wage workers are PURELY SELFISH, and they NEVER collaborate with each other. (no cartels, no labor unions)

I do not see why that should be a precondition...

In order for the laissez-faire capitalist model to make sense, all consumer demand must be based on enjoyment and not on survival. When consumers MUST have food, shelter, clothing, health care, etc. and there is no practical choice to opt out, it skews the classical market model. You have to assume that the cost of living is ZERO!

NOWHERE does it say that laissez-faire is base on enjoyment. Nowhere

Finally, costs and benefits must be reflected in a similar time frame. If benefits are short term and costs are extremely long term (often the case with the environment), the damage can be passed on to the next generation, which WILL happen if the current generation is totally selfish.

If you violate any of these principles too far, the model falls apart (asymmetric information, corporate-controlled media, campaign finance, worker exploitation, environmental damage, wealth inheritance, etc.) Environmental costs are a particularly strong example of market failure: pollution, global warming, oil depletion, soil depletion, fish depletion and deforestation are all forms of "ecological deficit spending," which is every bit as real as fiscal deficit spending by individuals and governments.

As the national fiscal debt grows, so does the national and global ecological debt. Energy sources, timber resources, food resources, soil, water, climate -- in all these areas expenditures continue to far exceed revenues. The problem with the environment is because the planet is quite large and has a large total energy stock, the effects of environmental deficits are felt mostly in the very-very-long run, at least by traditional economic timeframes. At an individual level we can deplete a healthy environment and not pay for it in our lifetimes, but our grandkids and great-grandkids will not be so lucky.

Since the woes of environmental deficit spending are not reflected in everyday self-interest and the human life span, it is easy to neglect this problem. The environment requires a wise-minded protection, in where we bequeath the planet in the same health and wealth we inherited it in. Comrade Sephiroth 20:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

You, sir, do not know the first thing about capitalism. I would suggest you do some reading before making pronouncements on what capitalism is and isn't. Dullfig 20:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I suggest Murry Bookchin. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

What does "capitalism" refer to?

This question does not require an exclusive or narrow answer. In other words, it does not require that everyone uses capitalism to refer to one thing. Different people use it to refer to different things. One thing many people use it to refer to - and the syntax of the sentence in no way implies the only thing - is beliefs people have. "Liberalism" is a belief, too. it is also a political system. Things can be both political or economic systems or institutions AND beliefs about them, indeed, they usually are both. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

It said that capitalism refers to theories. That's not true. Capitalism refers to an economic system. The main theory behind capitalism is called liberalism, economic liberalism that is. Improper Bostonian 18:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

You don't get to add "system which exploits workers" to the definition just because some people feel that way. MrVoluntarist 18:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Improper Bostonian, in addition to not responding to my comment, you have violated the 3 revert-rule (WP:3RR). Please revert your change and restore my edit, or you may be disciplined. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

No I haven't. Improper Bostonian 18:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

My apologies. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Voluntarist, I agree with you, except I do not see how anyone has added "system which exploits workers" to the introduction. I certainly did not. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry you're having trouble understanding argument by analogy. The point I was making was that you can't bring in loaded terms (which I have argued above wage labor is) just because there's some group that harbors a particular feeling toward the topic. You act like your definition is being more exclusive, when in reality it's bringing in false balance. MrVoluntarist 18:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Argument by analogy is not argument, and this is a bad analogy. It is your own point of view that wage labor = exploitation. For those of us who read simple english, wage labor means labor for wages. That is all it means. You make it a loaded term because of your bias but that is not a sufficient reason for excluding it from the introduction. The importance of wage labor to capitalism has been argued by proponents of capitalism. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

It already says that people have the right to trade their labor for money in capitalism: "It is usually considered to involve the right of individuals and groups of individuals acting as "legal persons" (or corporations) to trade capital goods, labor and money." What's the problem? Improper Bostonian 18:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

In order: 1) argument by analogy is a valid method of forcing someone to logically distinguish similar cases. 2) I don't think "wage labor" (whatever that means) is exploitation, depending on your meaning. 3) You're just pushing the definition out: what are "wages" as differentiated from other labor compensation? 4) I did not make it a loaded term -- that is due to the people who regularly use the term and how they define it. 5) If wages are merely compensation for labor, the term and its inclusion are redundant. 6) Tell me specifically who you are referring to when you say proponents of capitalism argue the "importance" of "wage labor" and what they mean by "wage labor". MrVoluntarist 18:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, like I said, i never added "wage-labor" to the introduction. As Improper Bostonian points out, the introduction refers to trading labor, and I am satisfied with that. For me the key thing is a labor market and I won't quibble over the wording, nor have I. I am not sure, Mr. Volunterist, who you are arguing with or why. Let me repeat what I wrote above .. really, just move your eyes up a couple of inches and you will see it for yourself: I agree with you, except I do not see how anyone has added "system which exploits workers" to the introduction. I certainly did not. Do you just like arguing? Slrubenstein | Talk 18:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Second time: I did not claim anyone tried to specifically add "system which exploits workers" to the definition. That was an analogy. How many times will I have to repeat this before you stop asking that ridiculous question? Second, if you're going to put "labor is traded" (or something similar) in the introduction, I still have to ask, why? Lots of things are traded in capitalism. Why single out labor? MrVoluntarist 18:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC) Also, trading labor is hardly unique to capitalism and happens under almost all systems, even if unofficially. MrVoluntarist 18:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Are you still referring back to some changes I made some while ago to try and drag other editors into a hot edit war to settle it? Anyway, technically, Labour is not traded under capitalism, labour power is. Just as under lavery labour isn't traded but slaves are. Labour would be traded under simple commodity producion, I suppose. Anyway, the current version does and has for many moons said labour is traded, in a list of otehr things, and I've been satisfied with that.--Red Deathy 08:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Red Deathy, why did you delete the part of the definition that said capital is invested by the private sector? Here is a source: "An economic system characterized by private or corporation ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision rather than by state control, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly in a free market." -Merriam Webster International Unabridged. Investment in capitalism is determined by the private sector. If the state is telling the private sector what it must invest in then it's not capitalism. That would be a command economy. Improper Bostonian 20:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I deleted it because there are notable citable sources which at the least do not include that as part of the definition and many which would dispute it, and so I consider it to breech Neutral Point of View Policy. I'm willing to accept the current wording, 'private decision' because, whilst not essential it's not incompatable with public officials in certain regimes acting as a private person or in the manner of a private person (for instance, in Bolshesvik Russia the state was a private monopoly of the Bolshevik party, which was a private membership corporate body).--Red Deathy 08:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I think the concensus is that an economy where there is substantial investment by the government is not capitalism, but a mixed economy. It doesn't matter that they themselves calle it capitalism. East Germany called itself "democratic". Doesn't mean it was. You may not agree with the definition, but it seems pretty clear that most mainstreem economists would agree that capitalism includes private investment of private capital; otherwise where's the private property? Dullfig 16:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

This sentence reveals that Dullfig misunderstands (or does not accept) one of our core policies, NPOV: "East Germany called itself "democratic". Doesn't mean it was." The second sentence suggests that there is one true standard for "democratic." Wikipedia is not concerned with truth, because truth is practically speaking a matter of different points of view. Surely some people did not and do not believe the GDR was democratic. But surely some did. Wikipedia has to provide both (or all, if there are more than two) points of view - as long as they come from verifiable sources. Thus, Wikipedia's standard is not truth but verifiability. These points apply to our discussion of capitalism. There may be no consensus about what capitalism is, and it certainly is NOT our job to fabricate one. There are different views, and this article must represent the different views as long as they come from verifiable sources. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that anyone insisting that East Germany was a democracy, has an ulterior motive for holding that oppinion. Would that not give that oppinion undue weight? Take for example Holocaust deniers; they do not have a good faith difference of oppinion as to the occurence of the holocaust. They all have an ulterior motive for champoining their oppinion, usually some type of anti-semitic agenda. Because of this, their oppinion is not seriously considered. Same here: everyone that keeps insisting East Germany was a democracy, has an ulterior motive for doing so. Why should that oppinion be given any consideration, then? Dullfig 01:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and it must follow all that crap about undue weight.MrVoluntarist 14:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course! For example, if someone's analysis of capitalism is never, or very rarely, cited in any major social science literature (e.g. major journals, major university press-published books), or if there is little evidence that it has influenced people in business or public policy, I'd find it hard to justify mentioning it here. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

And how do we assess undue weight? Noam Chomsky has described US capitalism as state capitalism (a view shared by council communists, for example, but he isn't an economist. that's one noteworthy figure, btu not an economist. Tens of thousands of Marxists worldwide might well hold an opinion, but they are academically heterodox. I'd suspect most economists have never really botehred to think about the definition (why should they). Anyway, my point is we should keep to the broadest definition possible, and the current version is OK (ish).--Red Deathy 15:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I wrote "social science," not "economics." I suspect Chomsky is widely cited (not as a linguist but for his analysis of US foreign policy and the relationship between capitalism and the media) in Communications and perhaps by professors of journalism - I am not sure, but it wouldn't surprise me. As to academically heterodox communists, I suppose to my tripartite criteria of academics, business-folk, and policy analysis, we should add "major" social movements. I understand that sometimes we will end up arguing about what is major or not, but surely there will be some examples we can agree on. In the US, I would find it hard to justify Gus Hall (whether I agree with him or not), but I would definitely defend Cesar Chavez as a public figure whose views - perhaps not on "capitalism" as such but certainly on the form it takes in the US - are due enough weight to include in a related article. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

This definition of Capitalism was described by Pope Pius XI: "You know, Venerable Brethren and Beloved Children, that the Encyclical of Our Predecessor of happy memory had in view chiefly that economic system, wherein, generally, some provide capital while others provide labor for a joint economic activity." Source: http://benedictumxvi.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_19310515_quadragesimo-anno_en.html 130.230.31.120 22:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

New Article Proposal -- Anti-capitalism and antisemitism

It seems that, much like anti-globalization and antisemitism, a great deal of anti-Semitic feelings are related to anti-capitalism. Many of the people that have these beliefs are obviously socialistic and/or left-leaning in political orientation (which includes many Jews, by the way), asserting that some Jews use their "traditional business acumen" and "shrewdness" to "dominate" and/or "control" key industries, in the meanwhile eliminating all competitors; this is often in contrast to those on The Right that have anti-Semitic beliefs that are racial (Racial antisemitism) and/or religious (Anti-Judaism) in orientation. However, even Nazism (often associated with the Far Right) was technically called the 'National Socialist German Workers Party,' (the key words there being 'Socialist' and 'Workers,' both associated with anti-capitalism), and if you read around you'll find that many of the Nazi leaders expressed quite a bit of anti-capitalist sentiment in relation to Jews, especially in their more personal writings. Indeed, one of the first thing that the Nazis did when they came to power was to organize mass-boycotts of Jewish-owned businesses (especially dept. stores, newspapers, and various banks), which eventually decimated the German-Jewish community economically and caused many of them to emigrate within a few months or years.

This is not only the case in modern times with the so-called "New antisemitism" (which is strongly associated with the more socialistic Left), but was also found in the past where many prominent Communists/socialists were anti-capitalist AND anti-Semitic at the same time. Stalin cracked down on Jews in the USSR post-WWII, citing that they [paraphrasing] "still have too much control in business and government." This also includes many lower-tier Jews in the former USSR and Eastern bloc, along with Karl Marx in his essay On the Jewish Question. Many of these Communist/socialist Jews went so far as to entirely renounce Judaism (and all religion), and became radical anti-Semites (or Self-hating Jews, take your pick) in their own right -- for example, Mátyás Rákosi and Ernő Gerő of Hungary were both ethnic Jews and were anti-Semitic, along with many other Jews in the former USSR and Eastern bloc.

Also, amongst non-Jews these days, it is commonly said that "the Jews own/run/control everything" (anti-capitalist & anti-Semitic) or that "Jews control the media" (the media is also a business, at base -- especially Hollywood), or that in certain industries non-Jews are no longer able to compete anymore because "Jews already own everything" or that "the Jews have entirely cornered certain markets" (competition is an important element in free-market capitalism; in fact, it is key to the whole system). It is also well known that Jews have been highly successful in the banking/financial sectors and are VERY overrepresented in these fields (the "Shylock stereotype"), epitomized most by Wall Street (based in New York City), along with all of the banks that are headquartered there: it is well known that many of the top directors, boards, and CEOs of these banks and other major financial companies/corporations are of Jewish ethnic origin (see List of Jewish American businesspeople, though this is only a fraction), even if they no longer practice Judaism and despite the fact that they are only approx. 2.5% of the U.S. population and only 12 to 14 million in the world. Thus, I think that Anti-capitalism and antisemitism would make a good article, as more than a few anti-capitalists often harbor anti-Semitic beliefs as well (both in the past and the present). Anyone have more ideas, opinions, or thoughts on this subject? Would anyone like to start an article on this topic? --172.128.120.24 18:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Is there any logical connection between the two concepts? The existence of people who happen to believe both X and Y is not sufficient grounds for the creation of an article on that subject. Anti-capitalists are a very broad group of people, and no doubt include many anti-Semites as well as many Jews (Labor Zionism, the main political movement that led to the creation of the State of Israel, is anti-capitalist in nature). Of course there have been allegations of Jews "controlling" "international capitalism", but there have been just as many (if not more) claims of a "Judeo-Bolshevik" conspiracy, or supposed Jewish control of "international communism". Jews may be overrepresented among bankers, but they are also overrepresented among communist thinkers and political leaders. Indeed, one key element of Nazi propaganda was the claim that communism is a Jewish conspiracy. Most of the anti-communist far right is antisemitic. Should we therefore have an article entitled Anti-communism and antisemitism? -- Nikodemos 23:40, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Well said. I think we should have an article on Bird-watchers and antisemitism. Dullfig 23:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Capitalism and anti-semitism

Capitalism and anti-semitism: Der Sinn des Hitlergrusses ("The real meaning of the Hitler Salute"

There was nothing at all "socialist" about the NSDAP in practice in 1933-45. By way of contrast, see Strasserism. Of course what the Strassers failed to understand was the rock solid alliance between Hitler's and industral capitalists (cf Daniel Guerin Fascism and Big Business). A picture is worth a thousand words, and John Heartfield expressed this perfectly with his photomontage Der Sinn des Hitlergrusses (see left; a.k.a. "Millions stand behind me")

But some people, especially neo-liberals and conservatives on baiting/trolling missions, like to confuse and conflate statism and socialism. Grant65 | Talk 05:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)