Discussion UsefulNotes / Capitalism

Quick update: I changed some of the contents of the page to give a more objective analysis of capitalism (mostly in the definition section). I also moved the Picketty "Contradiction" section further down; it's strange to have a page talk about capitalism start off with a) a biased definition of what it actually is and b) immediately go into its pitfalls without even going over the very basics.

It's clear whoever wrote this has a strong anti-capitalist bias, and it shows.

You can't open something for discussion and then unilaterally decide to change a bunch of it because of what you personally see as a "bias". That defeats the entire purpose of opening it for discussion.

Ok, then let’s discuss it

1. Why is the page quote a criticism of the subject rather than, well, anything else?

2. Why is the definition a Marxist interpretation of the topic, rather than either the dictionary definition or Wikipedia definition?

3. Why is the next, immediate section another indictment of the system rather than the basics of what it is and how it works?

For comparison, the equivalent page regarding socialism has none of these things.

I think a good place to start would be with the introductory quote and the definition. We can rip either of these straight from wikipedia or the dictionary.

That's probably a good idea.

I would also suggest moving the "capitalism kills its host" later in the article, or just remove it entirely. If it must be included, have it at least be presented as a criticism rather than some objective explanation.

That trope page has only one reference to capitalism (via CTRL+F).

So not sure if its relevant. There is a page called Capitalism Is Bad that deals with fictional representations of capitalism.

I thank you for finally coming here...I have several issues to address.

1) There is a policy about pagequote, and you have to vet it by the General Page Quote Discussion before changing an existing one. The one with Piketty that we have was the first one there and it was added as per the rules, you cannot unilaterally change it...and there's no rule that a quote has to be "positive", it has to be representative. Since Capitalism as it exists today is not the capitalism at the time of the 19th Century, then obviously there are problems and issues and divisions with it, ergo it cannot be represented by a wholly positive quote. If you have issues with the earlier quote, fine, but you must choose something representative. The earlier quote is representative regardless of your issues.

2) Complaints about bias is one thing, but what about the deletions? Why did you remove the entire section on Thomas Piketty? Your edits and cuts went far beyond correcting existing biases, towards actively and editorially enforcing another viewpoint friendly to critics.

3) Your comment on the section on Keynes makes this assertion, "The Great Depression( or as many free-market thinkers believe, he was the primary force responsible for putting us in it). "

One Keynes published his famous "General Theory" in the mid-30s, the Depression began in 1929 and heightened into 1932 ans 1933. How is Mr. Keynes the "primary force" responsible for putting us in it.

4) Given these changes and edits and deletions, I believe your complaints about the earlier article being "Strawmanning" is in patent bad faith. And your real intention is that sections concerning your economic theory be dealt with more fairly. Had you done so, that would be the end of it. I invite you to restore all the deletions and cuts, and keep the changes to the economic theory you feel friendly towards.

It bears no relevance precisely because it is an entirely separate page from Capitalism with content not dealing with it. It doesn't matter one way or another if that page has a positive/negative tone.

Well if you wish it to be written more accessibly than that's fine, but do not say things that what is written like Marx's Das Capital, that book is mostly statistics and reports on the conditions of Victorian factories, absolutely none of which is covered in this page.

A statement by Non-Marxist Keynesian economist Thomas Piketty, the most respected economist in the world today, author of Capital in the 21st Century.

Also from Piketty's book. Not from Marx's for the very obvious reason that Marx did not have access to the statistics to make that statement.

Marx is a great man but even he, student of Adam Smith and others that he was, would deny that he was the first and last authority on capitalism. I wouldn't say Marx is absent from the page, but he is not the primary or only voice.

Well reality tends to have a left-wing bias...

...in all honesty the definitions here are based on the works of current academic economists, like Krugman, Piketty and Keynes. Respected professionals all of them.

What does that mean, and how is the article now wrong?

Well saying that capitalism has a political component to it is debated in the discussion on the political ideologies useful note page. Saying the capitalist class dominates economic-political life I guess could be true or false but sounds Marxist. Saying capitalism is defined by a self-destructive trend sounds like a criticism of it. The second paragraph in the central contradiction section sounds very similar to the Marxist idea that the working class will rise up and overthrow the capitalist class. I don't understand why there needs to be two different sections to explain the different types of capitalism.

Capitalism is an economic system, so by definition it cannot exist independently of human society and its politics.

Good point re: Capitalist domination, that would be untrue in a Social Democracy.

And yes, the section claiming that Capitalism is self-destructive was a mistake. Governments are destroyed by the capital accumulation dynamic, not Capitalism itself (as Marxists hope).

I assume you're referring to the section explaining the "systems" themselves and the other which explains the "schools of thought". The problem with explaining which systems arise from political attempts to implement one (or more) schools is that this is Grade-A Flame Bait.

Most infamously, Austrian-school economists and Neoliberal thinkers such as Ayn Rand believe(d) that if their ideas were implemented in reality then the political-economic system which resulted would be a perfectly meritocratic democracy. Almost everyone else believes that the result would be a (de facto) dictatorship with little or no social mobility.

How is it "Marxist"? And who on earth would dispute such a definition? I mean, even wikipedia defines it thusly:

"Capitalism is an economic system based on private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit."

....before elaborating upon its other features using terms and words which require explanation.