Talk:Capitalism/Archive 31

Archive 25

←

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Wikivoice and false balance

BeŻet, stop edit warring about your version in violation of WP:ONUS. There are two major neutrality-related problems with this:

1. Your use of WP:In-text attribution, rather than WP:WIKIVOICE, serves to cast doubt on what the sources say. Read those links I just gave. WIKIVOICE says, Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice. WP:INTEXT says, When using in-text attribution, make sure it doesn't lead to an inadvertent neutrality violation. For example, the following implies parity between the sources...there are other ways in-text attribution can mislead. The sentence below suggests The New York Times has alone made this important discovery... An excellent academic source, per WP:Scholarship, like the Oxford Handbook of Capitalism, should not be presented as just one guy's belief. In-text attribution is for when high quality sources disagree with one another, and that has not been demonstrated here. Presenting those things as just one person's views is extremely non-neutral. If you are going to claim that "These things are disputed even in the same article", [1] then WP:PROVEIT.

2. The whole paragraph about "other historians" is a WP:FALSEBALANCE. It is using material about one country in one time period to argue against material about the world as a whole. This is a general overview article of the topic as a whole and we need to stick to sources about that. This is also to avoid WP:OR: there are many different forms of capitalism as the sources and the article make clear. Crossroads ^-talk- 17:49, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Avatar317, since you thanked me for removing that paragraph and are thus already involved, would you like to weigh in? Crossroads ^-talk- 17:51, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I have only reverted your change once before you accused me of edit warring, so how about you don't do that please?

1. The situation is very clear to me. The source is an essay, and therefore requires attribution. Since we are making a broad statement, it requires a good source. It is quite clearly NOT an uncontested and uncontroversial fact. The Oxford Handbook of Capitalism is just a collection of essays, you can call it an "excellent academic source" all you like. If you want to make such a statement, provide some very good sources that reference data, not a collection of opinions. I can produce multiple essays talking about how capitalism has brought untold misery, but I would never think of including them in the article without attributing them to someone.

2. The paragraph clearly talks about early capitalism and the Industrial Revolution, which, nota bene, started in Great Britain, and is widely considered the birthplace of modern capitalism. This paragraph existed there for quite some time now, so by removing you are introducing a change that needs to be discussed, not the other way round.

If you have further doubts, please consult Wikipedia regulations. BeŻet (talk) 18:05, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I didn't investigate the source but the added material has the look of cherry picking from places and years and spin wording. I.E. like someone trying to bolster their opinion rather than provide good information. Also the narrowness due to the cherry-picking makes it not really good info for the article. Further, the existing text which the edit seems to be deprecating by adding "according to" type attribution appears to be not only non-controversial data, but also quite broad, which puts it on firmer ground regarding not having spin/ a slant via cherry picking. One additional note, this is new material and would need a consensus to keep. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:17, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

But this is not non-controversial. There is plenty of controversy about it, hence why we talk about the correlation (rather than causation) of capitalism and economic growth and increased standards of living, because there is plenty of controversy around attributing the growth to capitalism as a system, or technological progress in general. The Soviet Union has experienced incredible economic growth and increase in standard of living - some could argue it was state capitalism, others attribute it to central economic planning, and finally others attribute it also to general technological progress. If we are to make a statement that says "capitalism caused economic growth", we need an adequate source, a good source that is not an essay, but rather some strong scientific evidence supporting this statement - otherwise this is clearly not WP:NPOV. What we need is a high quality WP:SECONDARY source that discusses specific facts and data, not just an expression of opinion. This is all outlined in Wikipedia guidelines. BeŻet (talk) 19:07, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with User:Crossroads and User:North8000 about WP:In-text attribution being misused in this case and being WP:FALSEBALANCE. Further i agree with North8000 that you should be gaining consensus before making the changes you did. I hate the word 'controversy' because it doesnt speak to the quality of the disagreement. In this case, yes, there will always be those who disagree with the correlation (rather than causation) of capitalism and economic growth, but the mere existance of that disagreement does not make those those statements 'controversial' as, to the best of my knowledge, those claims are not strongly contested amongst those who are legitimate scholars in this field. FWIW, i have a college level econ textbook I can reference later when i get home to see what it says, but as it stands now, i think your changes should be reverted. Bonewah (talk) 19:55, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the addition is quite recent, and _I'm_ supposed to be getting consensus? No, Crossroads should be getting consensus here, he is the one who made the recent change. The core problem here is that the source is just an essay. This is unacceptable. BeŻet (talk) 20:35, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I didnt follow this article until today, however it looks as though you added the material in question on the 29th of November last year. Hardly a longstanding edit. Bonewah (talk) 20:54, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

This is a different change, I was referring to their addition they made yesterday which was completely new, and the ONUS is on them to convince others to keep it. BeŻet (talk) 23:20, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Just to make sure my stance is clear, Crossroads' addition needs a better source or attribution if it is to be kept - the current source is unacceptable for such a broad statement. Additionally, the paragraph that existed a lot longer than Crossroads' change should stay there, because it presents significant information. BeŻet (talk) 20:39, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

There is no question that capitalism caused economic growth and therefore no reason to cast doubt on that assertion. Even the additions that BeZet made say that. No one questions it. TFD (talk) 20:56, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Do you feel that the use of in-text attribution in this context serves to cast doubt on that assertion? Bonewah (talk) 21:03, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

If there is no question about it then why can't we produce a good enough source to support that statement? I'm not disputing it per say but just saying the suggested source was inadequate. Moreover the statement introduced by Crossroads was far reaching, not only talking about growth but how capitalism reduced working hours, a controversial view given the history of how the weekend and an 8-hour working day came about. BeŻet (talk) 22:44, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

2. This paragraph [2], originally added Nov 29 by BeŻet, then removed by Crossroads [3] does NOT belong in this article because is is Original Research. WP:OR. None of those sources even mention Capitalism: their findings could be a critique of capitalism, of industrialization, or the current political system(s). These findings (wage rates, people's heights) might be also be found on studies of the 5-year industrialization plans used in Communist Russia and China. To connect these studies of adverse outcomes to Capitalism WHEN NONE OF THE SOURCES MAKE THAT CONNECTION is Original Research.

For the record, I was watching this article when that paragraph was originally added, and I failed to notice that then, so I apologize for missing that (I would have reverted that addition then had I paid more attention). I haven't looked at the other sources yet and will try to reply to point 1. later. ---Avatar317^(talk) 22:19, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

The source literally says that living standards declined under early capitalism. How is that OR? BeŻet (talk) 22:44, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Quick consensus check: does anyone here agree with BeŻet's edits? Or is this a WP:1AM situation? --Guy Macon (talk) 22:50, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

These are not "my edits", these are Crossroads edits too that are disputed. BeŻet (talk) 23:14, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I will take that as a "no". I see several editors supporting Crossroads' edits and none supporting yours. Please read WP:1AM. I wrote it for editors in your situation. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:04, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, this is a classic 1AM, regarding all of what they were reverting me on. I think it's time to restore this since the only person objecting to any of it is BeŻet. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:55, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Can you provide a QUOTE where they mention the word "Capitalism"? Because that word is nowhere to be found in the Abstract/summary part of ANY of the sources for that section, and if that is not mentioned in the Abstract/Overview, than that is NOT what the study/research is about; associating that with early capitalism is YOUR Original Research.---Avatar317^(talk) 23:25, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I'd appreciate if you checked sourced properly before accusing people of original research. First paragraph of the first source: Very few questions in economic history have been the focus of such prominent and persistent attention as the controversy about the impact of early industrialization and capitalism on the standard of living of the British working class. It then goes on by saying this paper addresses this topic by presenting data. BeŻet (talk) 10:15, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

In order to resolve the dispute and organise discussion:

• The article already mentions the correlation between capitalism and economic growth, and provides some sources to back it up. Martin Wolf's research talks about globalisation rather than capitalism, but it still might fit within this article if attributed properly. However some editors might consider it weak WP:OR, so let's be careful.
• Crossroads addition from yesterday made a far reaching definitive statement without attribution; it not only stated that capitalism caused economic growth, but it is also responsible for mass education and reduced working hours. The source for this statement is an essay, and attributing reduction of working hours to capitalism is highly controversial, given the fact that is is labour movements that fought for reduced hours and weekends. Moreover, as explained in the article about working time, it INCREASED with the dawn of the Industrial Revolution, and only decreased thanks to increased wages, collective bagrainaning and progressive legislation. Therefore, I suggest we don't include this suggestion, or at the minimum attribute it to its author. Leaving it unattributed violates WP:VER, as it is factualy disputed.
• The addition talking about the Industrial Revolution and early capitalism - I'd suggest we keep it as it presents an alternative view regarding early capitalism and is well sources, however I understand there are some editors who don't want that change. I can concede if this paragraph is found to be problematic by other editors, however I do not believe it is original research as suggested earlier, because the source talks about early capitalism itself. There has been an argument saying that it is quite specific to talk about one country, but this is where early capitalism was born.

Since we are discussing two things here, let's make sure we know what we're referring to in order to avoid confusion and unecessary misunderstandings. Thank you! BeŻet (talk) 23:09, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

The industrial revolution stuff appears to be WP:SYNTH, so that's the end of that. Regarding economic growth, as TFD said, that is not at all controversial in reliable sources. It is a major aspect of the topic that should be mentioned. This source is one of the best possible sources, per WP:SCHOLARSHIP. It is a book overview of the topic by an academic press. Regarding education and reduced hours, the text (and source) says that economic growth enabled that. While it's true that labor movements and the like fought for various things, they wouldn't have been possible without economic growth in the first place - agrarian non-capitalist societies do not have universal education, for example. Even the working time article makes clear the role economic growth played. When I said "work" I was covering what the source says about reduction in time spent in housework as well. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:21, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Well I strongly disagree. Per WP:SCHOLARSHIP, this is a collection of essays: OPINIONS. The quoted source does not use any references, it's just an expression of a held belief. It's a weak source, not "the best possible source" at all... Secondly, regarding working hours, clearly capitalism and the industrial revolution increased the number of hours, until that was met with resistance. Claiming we should thank capitalism for reduced hours is an ahistorical, revisionist view - there is clear, documented evidence to the contrary. The driving force behind wage increases was also collective bargaining and minimum wage laws. Clearly this is a controversial topic and any unequivical statement regarding this should require strong sourcing, not an essay, or at the minimum, like I did, attribute the statement to the author. Not sure why this standard WP:NPOV procedure is controversial to you. BeŻet (talk) 10:08, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

• I think that it is time for somebody to say "If I wasn't trying to avoid an edit war I would change the article in the following way" followed by a quick straw poll. If my read of the current consensus is correct, we will end up with one person on one side of the accept/oppose question and everyone else on the other side. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:30, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

  It hasn't even been 24 hours, I don't see the point of rushing... Moreover, like I mentioned many times, we are discussing two things here: my addition from last year regarding Britain and the Industrial Revolution, and Crossrads addition from a couple days ago. BeŻet (talk) 10:08, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Additional sources showing how Crossroads' addition is factually disputed:

• Capitalism and the Political Economy of Work Time by Christopher Hermann, talks about how the working class had to resist and fight for shorter working hours, and how neoliberalism created an increase in working hours since the 1980s
• Capitalism and the History of Worktime Thought by Chris Nyland, pages 518-519: The mechanisation of industry, during the industrial revolution, created mass unemployment in many areas. In a number of industries the bourgeoisie used the greater market-power this development gave them to brutally extend the length of time workers were forced to labour.
• Pre-industrial workers had a shorter workweek than today's by Juliet B. Schor (from The Overworked American: The Unexpected Decline of Leisure), talks about the "myth" that capitalism reduced working hours, comparing data and showing a great increase of working hours during the dawn of capitalism.

I can produce a lot more sources, but as you can clearly see, the statement is, at a minimum, disputed, and reasonably shown to be factually incorrect. BeŻet (talk) 12:37, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I disagree with the additions that BeŻet is trying to make and the attribution that they are trying to add. I do agree with them about the broad statement about reduction in working hours and broader education. I think that those were two step processes. The efficiencies / productivity were an enabler/ step one for those things and the mechanisms that BeŻet described were step 2 that brought those to the finish line. I have not read the sources but perhaps they said something to the above enabler aspect and that wording that appears to give sole credit for those things may need tweaking? North8000 (talk) 13:35, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Could you explain why you are disagreeing please. This is the second time you're saying you haven't looked at the sources - perhaps it's high time to do so? BeŻet (talk) 14:07, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Also I'd like to add that your hypothesis about the "2 step process" is WP:OR as it disagrees with the sources I presented (capitalism increasing working hours and anti-capitalist movements fighting for reduced hours). You need to back it up with a source yourself. BeŻet (talk) 14:23, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Also all persons should be sure to keep guidance from Wikipedia:Canvassing in mind. North8000 (talk) 13:42, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

My views on the diffs listed in OP:

1. I don't see it as problematic to attribute statements to specific scholars (I do disagree that it should be attributed as "X believes" though). I tend to do so widely (even when it comes to statements from authoritative figures in certain fields, like Douglas Irwin on Free trade).
2. Of course, where there is a consensus among economists about various aspects of capitalism, then the body should clearly state so (preferably with sourcing that fully supports such text)
3. I don't see a reason why economic historians's assessments of the effects of the Industrial Revolution shouldn't be covered. As far as I can tell, the mainstream economic historian assessment is that the Industrial Revolution had adverse health effects, even if had positive long-term economic effects. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:20, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Agree that wording can be improved, and that a simple "according to X" should suffice. BeŻet (talk) 14:42, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I broadly agree with the remarks by Snooganssnoogans. I think the paragraph about the Industrial Revolution is fine and reasonably sourced. I would also agree that the addition by Crossroads is very broad considering the actual source. The author does seem to be a respected economics expert, but the remarks in question are from the book's introduction, where he talks about education, democracy and the birth control pill. I don't think that is meant to represent academic consensus.

Personally, I would suggest to leave the paragraph about the Industrial Revolution in the article and to reword the other paragraph to create a connection. Something broadly like "Some historians argue that when looking at Great Britain as an example(...). Others state that economic growth caused by capitalism has led to rising incomes(...)." --Yhdwww (talk) 16:01, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with you, and I think this is a correct approach to balance. BeŻet (talk) 16:30, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

None of you three have addressed the fact that comparing one country in one period of time cannot possibly be a true balance with the world as a whole, nor that the material appears to be WP:SYNTH as it does not discuss "capitalism" as such. And in-text attribution being personally acceptable to Snooganssnoogans doesn't acknowledge the fact that our guidelines supersede our personal preferences and forbid that sort of POV attribution. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:05, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

• Agree with those who think the edit is false balance. The attributed statements are widely accepted and it would need to be shown why a specific timeframe in Brittan is due for the section in question. Springee (talk) 15:49, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

But they're not widely accepted. I have shown evidence to the contrary. BeŻet (talk) 16:17, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

• FYI, BeŻet has been canvassing: [4] Crossroads ^-talk- 18:51, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I just re-read WP:1AM. I saw nothing in the advice on that page that included canvassing in order to take away the "1" part. I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:01, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
• There's a lot of different things being discussed in this section and in my experience, discussions about many different contentious points at once lead to gridlock. So I am going to focus on one proposal below. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:11, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Proposal

It is proposed to delete this paragraph: [5]

• Remove as proposer, per above; it fails WP:SYNTH and WP:FALSEBALANCE. Per WP:ONUS, it can only remain if a consensus to keep it appears; it must be removed if there is no consensus. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:11, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
• Keep - it doesn't fail WP:SYNTH because it literally states what the sources say. As other users have suggested, it is a useful addition discussing early capitalism. BeŻet (talk) 19:34, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

  See WP:USEFUL. The SYNTH is that it actually does discuss and is relevant to the topic of "capitalism". Crossroads ^-talk- 19:37, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

  I don't understand: are you saying it is not discussing capitalism? Because it is... Please look at the source. BeŻet (talk) 19:41, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Extend proposal to remove whole section - the arguments presented here for removal apply to other paragraphs in the section. The sources used for the first paragraph don't mention capitalism at all. The second paragraph uses a source focusing on the effects of globalisation, which makes it the same way WP:SYNTH as the source about the Industrial Revolution. BeŻet (talk) 22:25, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

• Remove The added material has the look of cherry picking from places and years and spin wording. I.E. like someone trying to bolster their opinion rather than provide good information. Also the narrowness due to the cherry-picking makes it not really good info for the article. North8000 (talk) 20:05, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
• Remove WP:SYNTH for sure. Cobbled together sources + deceptive wording. For example 'only increased 15%" Only? To support the claim that living standards did not grow meaningfully. Not meaningful by what standard? Cartoonishly, the sentence in between claims that 'living standards declined' then sites an increase in real wages! Bonewah (talk) 20:33, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

...but the academic consensus on the topic states that living standards during the Industrial Revolution have declined for those at the bottom of the social ladder. They constitute more than real wages. So there's nothing "cartoonish" about that - please consult material on this matter. BeŻet (talk) 22:03, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

• Remove As I've stated above, this is WP:OR. Of the FOUR sources in that section, ONLY ONE even mentions Capitalism (but NOT in the abstract, which if it was analyzing Capitalism, it would), though it talks about "early industrialization AND capitalism". Again, unless the source specifically separates the effects of Industrialization from Capitalism, this addition is OR. THIS ARTICLE is about Capitalism, NOT the Industrial Revolution. These findings (wage rates, people's heights) might be also be found on studies of the 5-year industrialization plans used in Communist Russia and China. To connect these studies of adverse outcomes to Capitalism WHEN NONE OF THE SOURCES MAKE THAT CONNECTION is Original Research.---Avatar317^(talk) 21:58, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

In that case we need to remove the paragraph above it as well, because the source talks about globalization, not capitalism. Let's keep things consistent. BeŻet (talk) 22:06, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

In fact, none of the other sources talk about capitalism! Let's remove the whole paragraph then... BeŻet (talk) 22:10, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

You're right, that paragraph should also be removed, but that's irrelevant to THIS discussion. ---Avatar317^(talk) 22:18, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

• No !Vote. I am not involved in this content dispute and choose to remain so. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:36, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: delete entire section instead of just the paragraph Per discussion above. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:19, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately it does appear that whoever wrote it was not careful to stick to sources that specifically discussed capitalism, so I guess we'll have to TNT it. However, I strongly believe that capitalism's connection to economic growth still needs a section and that we can start building a new one after the removal. I'll offer this source again (we don't have to use it for the exact text I originally did). Bonewah also said something about maybe checking a textbook they have. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:15, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

The textbook i have doesnt say one way or the other. Its mostly about macroeconomic theory. Bonewah (talk) 20:33, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Remove - I agree the section should be rewritten from scratch, and we should perhaps focus on specific data. While economic growth in general is easy to attribute, things like standards of living, working hours and wages are a more controversial area (see sources I presented above), so if talking about them, we should use good sources that elaborate more. BeŻet (talk) 09:54, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

• No !Vote. I am not involved in this content dispute and choose to remain so. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:36, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
• We need to first resolve the previous question first/separately not bundle two different situations into the same question. We have a reasonably good longer standing section which provides some good info. Then we got into the the new section and there is much reasoning and sentiment given to not keeping it. We need to resolve that question first and separately, not substitute a question that ties them together. North8000 (talk) 13:49, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

  The reason we are combining the whole section because the arguments used to dismiss the last paragraph can be applied to all paragraphs in the section. There is no benefit in doing one thing first, then the other thing next as the proposed change resolves both problems at once. It's also, as I see it, an attempt to show unbiased consistency in reviewing content, and an attempt to reach wider consensus - benefits all round. BeŻet (talk) 13:56, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

  No, We do not need to resolve the previous question first. Multiple editors, when asked the question about removing the paragraph, responded by saying they support removing the whole section. It is pretty much standard practice when multiple editors respond to a question by answering a different but related question to create a new section where that different question is specifically asked. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:19, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

  My "need" was a word with too many potential meanings. "IMO we should resolve the first question separately instead of bundling it" would have a been a better way to say it. North8000 (talk) 15:47, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

• Remove, rebuild and link to main article The whole paragraph seems to be problematic, and rebuilding can help to review sources and find consensus. We should also limit the section to the capitalism-related aspects of economic growth and send readers to the Main article on economic growth for the rest. --Yhdwww (talk) 14:53, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
• Remove, rebuild and link to main article I second the proposal above: We should also limit the section to the capitalism-related aspects of economic growth and send readers to the Main article on economic growth for the rest.

But it does look like we now have consensus to remove that entire section and replace it.

• No objection to removing both The section discussed in the prior question should go. I'm neutral about the additional section included in this question. North8000 (talk) 12:37, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Maybe we should have consensus on what it gets replaced with? (new section, Guy Macon? Thanks! -feel free to move/copy my proposal below into a new section, if appropriate)

Here is a source and a statement I propose from that source - when we get more sources and more world-coverage we can replace it with something better.

A 2016 study which included the 40 largest countries in the International Monetary Fund (IMF) database over the years from 2003-2012 found that capitalism was significantly positively correlated with economic growth. 

---Avatar317^(talk) 22:58, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I support this text replacement, satisfies: attributing data, describing data, specifying time period, explaining conclusion. BeŻet (talk) 23:41, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

References

Where does that definition originate?

Does anyone know with whom the standard definition of Capitalism being "the private ownership of the means of production (and their operation for profit)" originated? Is that from Marx' Kapital or elsewhere? 190.100.175.35 (talk) 08:32, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

There's some information in the History of capitalist theory article, but basically is a result of analysis conducted by people like Adam Smith, David Ricardo, and later Marx and other economists and philosophers. Thus, a consensus in the understanding of what capitalism is was born by noticing and outlining its key elements: wage labour, private ownership of the means of production, exchange of commodities on a free market and operating to generate profit. It's generally agreed that without one of these elements, there wouldn't be capitalism. But to answer your question, there isn't one single source of the definition, it's rather collective work of many people who developed the accepted definition over time. We could try writing something about this in the article, but would be best to find a specific source talking about this as all I can present to you is my own knowledge. BeŻet (talk) 18:10, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't think Marx wrote a definition, but basically the phrasing is taken from Marx. He explained the means of production in Capital and was probably the first writer to identify capitalism as an economic system that was distinct from feudalism. TFD (talk) 18:41, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Why is the criticism section so large?

Considering there is a separate page for the criticisms and critiques of capitalism, why is there such a long section here? I am in no way suggesting it does not need to be criticized. In comparison to the way other economic system articles are presented the capitalism article appears to have an over large criticism section, which if there was not a separate page for, would be justified regardless of what other articles do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TauGuys (talk • contribs) 20:03, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, it does look awfully big, and, as you noted, the separate criticism article exists. North8000 (talk) 20:37, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree, the criticism section is necessary but too large. I would be willing to undertake a modest pruning over the next few days if nobody else wants the job. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:36, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

One reason it got bigger is that an editor moved the entire sub-section "Comparison to slavery" to the criticism section a while back. I'd suggest starting there. I imagine a good portion of that sub-section, or maybe the entire thing, could be moved to the Criticism of capitalism article.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 14:08, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Articles should not have criticism sections. Criticism should be incorporated into the relevant sections of the article. For example there is a section on the profit motive and arguments about why it is beneficial. The profit motive criticism section has two sentences criticizing the profit motive, while most of the section is about why it is beneficial. Surely these two sections should be merged. TFD (talk) 15:04, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Agree that the section should be trimmed for importance and merged into the rest of the article. Bonewah (talk) 15:09, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

"No criticism sections" is an opinion and not any sort of policy or guideline. I oppose redistributing the section but agree that we can shrink the section and cover it at criticism of capitalism (and a criticism section is obviously fine since a whole article on it exists). See Socialism for comparison - note that it has a criticism section, but it is short, per WP:Summary style. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:34, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

It's poor style. Different criticisms are about different aspects and different types of capitalism by different types of critics. Why for example should criticism of the profit motive be in a different section from the profit motive which incidentally contains positive criticism of it? TFD (talk) 19:40, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Allow me to emphasize that while I am willing to undertake the job of trimming this section, I am not eager. If you want it, say so. If nobody else wants it, I'll start, probably tomorrow. Rick Norwood (talk) 22:23, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

It would be my first attempt at editing something this large, but I could give it a try. If you could check it to make sure it is appropriate and inline with standards, that would be good for me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.14.79.218 (talk) 13:41, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

A suggestion: everything in the sub sections starting with profit motive should either be moved to other sections or to the criticism of capitalism article. That would cut the section down to a decent size and there would be no loss of material.C.J. Griffin (talk) 15:42, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I have made edits which are now pending approval. TauGuys (talk) 19:23, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I just accepted them. Pending changes review just means that they aren't anything crazy like vandalism. I did not review them to say that they are optimal or preferred and so I invite anybody to still review them as they would a regular edit.North8000 (talk) 22:37, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I think way too much was removed from the article. Some long-standing, reliably sourced material was deleted outright and not moved anywhere, although I restored what I could to the Criticism of capitalism article for the time being. This is a brand new account making sweeping changes to this article. I'm surprised no one else objects to this.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 06:19, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Several people have made objections, so I have started doing more to discuss on the talking page and when I do make a move to edits I make them smaller with more reasoning behind each one. I thought I had moved most items to the CoC page. I did notice you added additional pieces that I must have missed there as well. Thank you. TauGuys (talk) 18:30, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Remove Wage Labor

Propose Remove this section from that capitalism article. It is both poorly cited and does not increase the depth of knowledge about capitalism. Fascinating subject to be sure but nor for here. TauGuys (talk) 22:31, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Wage labour is one of the key elements of capitalism. If the section is poor, it should be improved, but not removed. BeŻet (talk) 15:46, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

There is a case for a Wikipedia page on Monopoly Capitilism

I've read the pages on Capitalism and on State Monopoly Capitalism and there seems to be an area, Monopoly Capitalism (MC), that could valuably have its own page. I don't think I'm the person to write it as I don't have anough knowledge of sources on the subject to do even a first draft. MC is a very powerful force in its own right in the Western world and its practice has especially shaped business and corporate behaviour and law for probably over 120 years now, yet the average member of the public is still usually totally unfamiliar with the meaning of the term, and its difference from common or garden capitalism. Only if the difference is explained and understood can the need for some level of state overview over the "market" be appreciated in order to control the excesses that unbridled MC has repeatedly shown itself capable of. The path of history is well paved with examples (please remember I'm not a professional in this area). In the USA in the 1870s thousands of small businesses were bought up by others that could operate on a larger scale, who used the new railroads to create new national markets. Then Vanderbilt joined up the railway companies. Then Carnegie revolutionalised steel making, de-staffing it hugely. Then, most importantly the financier JP Morgan arrived, buying up lots of companies who had been through the above changes, obliging them to work together to further take out competition. I.e. the process is: Get big, buy up opposition to destroy it, sit on a monopoly. If MC cases are allowed to continue, the loss of competition causes unecessary price rises and whole markets can stagnate. Hence there is a case for state intervention when the public interest is being inadequately served. As I see it, state monopoly capitalism (SMC, for which a Wiki page exists) is a very different thing, referring to state intervention in the economy to protect larger monopolistic or oligopolistic businesses from threats. The Wiki page on SMC does appear to be more for political scientists than the average reader. Most people either do not understand Marxism or Marxist arguments and some in the West balk at the mention of Marx's name. I found that encyclopedia.com has a good page on MC. I hope this helps and that someone with more expertise might take up the pen, Bicyclic (talk) 14:58, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

From the way you describe it, monopoly capitalism seems no different from just regular capitalism. Is "monopoly capitalism" a term used in scientific literature? BeŻet (talk) 15:50, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Effects of war: Section Discussion

When reading through this section on Effects of war, I am failing to see its relevance to the discussion of Capitalism. Large swaths of this section are not cited and many lines are just single points of facts from WW2 that are vaguely economic in nature. Typical lines of thought for me when seeing War and Capitalism are Military industrial complex, or maybe war profiteering. Maybe someone can illuminate its relevance from a perspective I am not seeing.TauGuys (talk) 22:34, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I think it clearly needs a lot of work (some paragraphs are entirely unreferenced, and they definitely vary in terms of relevance), but I don't think we should remove the entire section. It ought to mention the Military–industrial complex, too (which isn't, strictly speaking, unique to capitalism but which has a lot of scholarly coverage in terms of how it relates to and affects it.) --Aquillion (talk) 16:56, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I think of the M.I.C. or maybe war profiteering when ever you hear of war and capitalism, but as you said it is not uniquely tied to a capitalist economic system. Given what is in the current section, it appears that it would be much more appropriate in a rebuilding of Europe article. Perhaps we can move/ start a new section to criticisms of capitalism that refer to MIC or War Profiteering? TauGuys (talk) 17:07, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

The section is very strange. It's full of unsourced text and what appears to be rather mundane synthesis. The relationship between conflict and capitalism is noteworthy though (see e.g. the debates over a "capitalist peace", the role of war in strengthening or undermining capitalism). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:17, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@Snooganssnoogans I can see a potential for there to be a new section discussing the impact of of capitalism as it relates to conflicts, but not the way the current section handles it. Having a new section on whether capitalism has been documented to be a stabilizing or destabilizing force sounds interesting. TauGuys (talk) 18:07, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I think it should be removed. It's almost entirely WP:SYNTH. The WP:BURDEN to demonstrate that it is verifiable to this topics lies with those who want to keep it, not anyone else. If they fail to do so, then it should be removed because original research is not allowed. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:32, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree with removing the entire section. It is almost all irrelevant, (more a history lesson with economics numbers included) with maybe two sentences which even relate war to capitalism. The connection between war and capitalism should be covered, (a mention of the 1953 Iranian coup d'état - which was done to support capitalist interests against a government that was nationalizing the oil companies - would be worthy of inclusion) but I vote for removing all of this current content and starting over. ---Avatar317^(talk) 23:12, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

While I don't object to a discussion of capitalism and war, the section doesn't make much connection between the two. So I would remove it, but not rule out any mention of the connection, provided its significance to the topic can be shown. TFD (talk) 00:46, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

FWIW, i agree that the section in question needs to be deleted or reworked, as decided by the editor who actually wants to take it on. Bonewah (talk) 15:34, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Agree that it should be deleted. It's a bunch a facts that are not specifically about capitalism with no relation to capitalism discussed, sourced or established. North8000 (talk) 21:24, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Suggestion: import Capitalist peace content to this article

See Capitalist peace. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:33, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - while I don't object to a transclusion of the lead for a small section in this article, the whole Capitalist Peace article is like 90% sourced to about 5 authors/academics, and a quick overview reads more like theory than well-established consensus. I'd prefer it stay as a separate article. ---Avatar317^(talk) 00:43, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
• I wouldn't want to merge the whole thing but including some would be good, per WP:Summary style. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:55, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
• If we did want to mention it, it would have to be in a section about capitalism and war that provided the various theories about how capitalism causes or prevents war. The section would have to establish the relative acceptance of the various theories. Even so, the theory seems to be fringe. TFD (talk) 15:19, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
• Agree On the condition as with any article that it is well cited and concise. Potentially a paragraph could be added to history or role of governments. TauGuys (talk) 14:15, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
• No Unless.... On an article on "A" sections on "A" related to "B"" (or C,D,E,F.....) should not be put in just for that reason. Doubly so when "B" is just "when there isn't a war". This is not to preclude such material when other reasons for inclusion are established. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:28, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
• I agree with TFD's proposal. Other than that oppose as fringe.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 00:21, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per my comments above. TFD (talk) 02:39, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose it's a WP:FRINGE hypothesis. BeŻet (talk) 15:54, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Propose: Remove Criticism from Forward

Is there a particular reason or justification as to why Critic of capitalism is included with the initial forward? Referring to other economic pages, I do not see this as a common trend. Which maybe it should be. Do you have thoughts on relegating critics of Capitalism to the criticism section or maybe another alternative? TauGuys (talk) 13:36, 18 February 2021 (UTC) TauGuys (talk) 13:34, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

By "forward" you mean the introductory lead section? The relevant guidelines and policies are WP:LEAD, WP:WEIGHT; what other articles on other economic systems have in their introductions is only of marginal relevance. --JBL (talk) 18:35, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Agree with JBL above. There are lots of badly written articles that need major improvement/reworking, so don't just look to other articles as examples, though other articles with Good Article status have generally received lots of review to be up to POLICY guidelines. ---Avatar317^(talk) 22:10, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

@Avatar317: & @JBL: A reason to remove 'Criticisms of capitalism' from the lead section is due to a lack of citations it appears as WP:OR. I am surprised this has not been mentioned earlier. Without any supporting citations, this paragraph would appear to have little WP:WEIGHT. What are your thoughts on this? TauGuys (talk) 13:16, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

There is much written and debated in favor of and against capitalism. I think that a well-written one long sentence on each is appropriate for the lead which is supposed to be a summary of the article. Not saying that the current version can't be improved. The "anti" sentence has stuff that sounds like Marxist jargon rather than an encyclopedic summary of arguments against it. North8000 (talk) 16:56, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

(Not commenting on the current lead paragraph, because it may be in need of improvement), but per WP:LEADCITE the lead does not NEED references, it is supposed to be a summary of the article, with the statements in the article properly sourced. ---Avatar317^(talk) 23:53, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

The assumption is that there are two sides to every issue, which is incorrect. Right-wing criticism ranges from seeing capitalism as absolute evil to a necessary evil, while the Left views it as a progressive development from feudalism that requires either minor adjustments to total overthrow. It doesn't seem helpful to group absolute monarchists, fascists, Christian Democrats, modern UK Conservatives and Labour and antifa.

Capitalism defenders too range from people like Ayn Rand to Elizabeth Warren, but they don't have the same views either.

TFD (talk) 00:22, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: What would you suggest regarding the criticism in the lead? North8000 (talk) 01:59, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Maybe we should mention that in its early stages, capitalism faced resistance from aristocratic elites and as it developed socialists saw it as exploitive and thought it should be replaced with a cooperative system of society. That doesn't require a lot of text. We could mention too that defenders see it as the final stage of economic relationships, where competition provides optimal results, although some see it necessary for government to intervene to ensure adequate competition or to moderate wealth inequality. I think that covers most mainstream views. TFD (talk) 02:38, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

As with many articles there is a section dedicated to briefly explaining the criticisms of capitalism and links to a larger article that goes into greater details. Though I appreciate this more nuanced outlook, I am still in favor of removing from the intro. TauGuys (talk) 22:34, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, the section in question has no citations and is not consistent with other economic system introductions. Remove it.

Consistency with other articles is not a reason to make changes to a page, unless a consensus has been reached about how to discuss economic systems overall. What has been decided about, say, the Barter page does not determine how the capitalism page should be structured. In this case, it certainly makes sense that capitalism -- the dominant economic system around the world for centuries -- would attract more criticism than less prevalent systems, and that consequently these critiques would be a more important component of a thorough encyclopedic description of it. And MOS:LEADCITE outlines the conditions under which facts in the lead need to have citations. Is there a particularly contentious claim made in the lead that should have a citation attached? - Astrophobe (talk) 18:57, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

My opinion is "weak keep". One note is that the lead is a summary of the article and doesn't itself need cites. Also in general I don't like "criticism" sections which are normally coatracks which distort what gets included. But this really isn't a criticism section. It's a condensed summary of the "for and against" arguments, and such arguments are an important part of coverage of economic systems. North8000 (talk) 13:52, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Considering that the first instances of using the word "capitalism" appeared when people were trying to define the system they were criticizing, I think it's quite relevant to include it in the lead. BeŻet (talk) 15:58, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

• I too support retaining it roughly as is. I don't think that the lead is a superb summary of the article currently, but that's exactly what a lead is supposed to be, no more and no less. Consensus arising from the recent discussion on this talk page was to keep a criticism section in WP:SUMMARY style of what used to be a longer discussion of criticisms of capitalism, which was moved to Criticisms of capitalism. It would be against that recent consensus to delete the subsection about criticisms of capitalism, and so long as there is such a subsection, it is appropriate to concisely summarize its contents in the lead. Maybe that summary should be trimmed per WP:DUE; on the other hand, maybe it should be expanded per WP:DUE. That's another discussion. It is also absolutely not necessary to cite material in the lead if it is cited elsewhere in the article -- that can be done, but the fact that material in the lead is uncited has nothing to do with whether or not the material should be retained. What matters is that the lead is a good summary of the article's contents per MOS:LEAD, and deleting it based on some vague idea of what readers should first be exposed to when they visit the article on capitalism sounds awfully WP:POV-ish to me. - Astrophobe (talk) 18:49, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Just to reinforce, my support isn't for a "criticism" paragraph, it's for the current paragraph which is a succinct summary of the common "for" and "against" arguments.North8000 (talk) 22:06, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Its inclusion is consistent with the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section which says the lead "should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." TFD (talk) 02:08, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Undue weight on largely irrelevant marxist perspective; other things in need of cleanup

A quick control+f brings up 28 references to the root term "marx" in this article with a total of 51 in the entire page. Parts of the article seem to be driven entirely by a marxist account of things. This doesn't really seem right. The marxist lens of looking at history as class conflicts is largely irrelevant in mainstream (read: capitalist) economics, usually rational self-interest is taken to explain most of the world around us according to proponents of capitalist thought, with some level of bounded rationality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bounded_rationality going on for really hard problems, cognitive biases, etc.

Another sentence that strikes me as odd is "marked by a universalization of money-based social relations, a consistently large and system-wide class of workers who must work for wages (the proletariat) and a capitalist class which owns the means of production".

According to the wiki page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proletariat#cite_note-1 proletariat means: "the social class of wage-earners, those members of a society whose only possession of significant economic value is their labour power (their capacity to work)". I would argue this definition is not coherent, since there is no society in which most individuals have access to more than their "labour power (their capacity to work)" if they wish to derive real income (i.e. goods and services), whether they are wage earners, or receive a share in the profits of coops in countries that ban private enterprise. I don't want to get into the fight of changing the definition of the word itself on that page since it's a fight I dont have the time for, but at least remove that word from the article about capitalism.

Even the first sentence "Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit." is incomplete without specifically refering to capital markets, the true distinguishing property of capitalism over the systems that existed before it. Companies with shareholders go a long way back but it was the stock exchange market that truly distinguished capitalism what was before.

This article has some serious needs of cleanup Yurolib (talk) 05:23, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Issues with the 'Types of Capitalism' section

There is a remarkable lack of citation in the section outlining the different types of capitalism. Aside from the 'State Capitalism' section, nearly every other type of capitalism lacks relevant citation of any kind. Of particular concern for me is the lack of citation and explanation concerning categorizing 'Mercantilism' as a form of Capitalism. My main concern with this 'Mercantilism' section is the lack of context and explanation for why Mercantilism should be considered a form of capitalism. The linked article on Mercantilism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercantilism) does not mention its relationship to capitalism at all, aside from its association with the 'capitalism' group of articles. Given my own familiarity with the subject of early-modern history I have some issues defining Mercantilism as a form of capitalism without significant explanation. The only known sources I can find that claim Mercantilism is a form of Capitalism are Marxist sources who base this definition on their own step-wise model of economic development. However, given Adam Smith's outspoken disdain for Mercantilist policy, and his book the 'Wealth of Nations' being considered a strong break with Mercantilist policies, I have a hard time understanding how Smith's economic philosophy is obviously a continuation of Mercantilism. At the very least there should be a disclaimer that says something along the lines of: 'some scholars believe Mercantilism is an early form of Capitalism because...' or 'Marxist scholars believe Mercantilism is an early form of Capitalism because...' Mercantilism being a form of Capitalism is not a view held by a consensus of historians or economists so its inclusion should be treated in that way.DeviousDumplin (talk) 17:41, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

As explained in Capitalism (EB} "It is usual to describe the early stages of capitalism as mercantilism....these merchants defended the principle that their trading activities buttressed the interest of the sovereign power."[6] I don't know how you reached the conclusion that this view is restricted to Marxists. Smith thought that capitalism would create more wealth if barriers to trade were reduced.

I note though that your view is popular among libertarians, who believe that true capitalism never existed except perhaps in the mid-18009s and we are living under socialism. But that's a minority view.

TFD (talk) 18:51, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

If we are arguing that Mercantilism only means 'the belief that trade is beneficial,' then I can see how someone could conclude that it is form of 'proto-capitalism.' My issue is that it misses the much larger problems with the mercantile system Smith was trying to resolve, and the nuanced way in which he wanted to completely reorganize the economy. For instance, Mercantilist systems were fixated on the accumulation of physical bullion as a store of wealth. However, Smith has disregard for currency as a fundamental measure of wealth: "Money is neither a material to work upon, nor a tool to work with; and though the wages of the workman are commonly paid to him in money, his real revenue, like that of all other men, consists, not in the money, but in the money's worth; not in the metal pieces, but in what can be got for them.". Smith's point being that value exists as an abstract measure that cannot be constrained to physical currency alone. This is in diametric opposition to the Mercantilist philosophy of currency hoarding, and its fixation on the balance of trade.

Smith's insistence on the abstraction of wealth is a fundamental aspect of 'The Wealth of Nations' and of Capitalist economics overall. This idea lead to the Marxist 'Labor Theory of Value' and the capitalist concept of financialization. And it is an idea that is in diametric opposition to Mercantilist philosophy. There are other interesting factors, such as the role of labor organization and productivity, that place him at great odds with the Mercantilist thinkers which cannot be explained away as "Smith thought that capitalism would create more wealth if barriers to trade were reduced." So, in light of these differences I think that Mercantilism is, at the very least, questionable in being the first stage of Capitalism. Ideally, it should at least be disclaimed. DeviousDumplin (talk) 20:51, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Capitalism is not a belief but an economic system. You seem to be confusing capitalism with classical liberalism, TFD (talk) 21:08, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I never said that Capitalism was a belief system at any point. My point was quite the opposite. If we are going to argue semantics about me saying 'the belief that trade is beneficial,' then you are actively trying not to understand my argument. If it helps, read that section as 'the theory that trade is beneficial.' I'm trying to discuss this idea in a neutral and open-minded way, but you keep making assumptions about who I am, what I am saying, and why I am saying it. I'm sure we could come to an agreement if you could engage with the content of my argument. DeviousDumplin (talk) 21:23, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

You misrepresented me when you wrote that I was "arguing that Mercantilism only means 'the belief that trade is beneficial.'" In fact I was quoting a source that said that merchants argued their trading benefited the sovereign power. Of course they argued that because the king would not allow them to conduct international trade unless he thought it was in his interest. But clearly their motivation was the profit motive.

Adam Smith claimed the existence of the profit motive in the capitalism of his time: "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from regard to their own self-interest." It's not as if he persuaded people of this and then the U.S. and UK became capitalist.

TFD (talk) 23:29, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I did not mean to imply that your definition of Mercantilism was 'the belief that trade is beneficial.' Apologies if it appeared that way. I only meant to use it as an example of a simple similarity that the Mercantilists shared with later Capitalist economists. My point is that this observation obscures that there are a number of important fundamental disagreements between Smith and the Mercantilists that constitutes a clear philosophical break with the Mercantilist system. This most important break being the abstraction of wealth and value as abstract and distinct from physical currency. I'm not saying that the ideas that govern modern capitalism did not exist before Adam Smith. But his work is the foundation of all modern capitalist economics, and should be considered as the breaking point between the Mercantilist paradigm and the Capitalist paradigm in economics.DeviousDumplin (talk) 23:47, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

That's a discussion about ideologies. Smith's economics would become part of classical liberal ideology that emerged in the 19th century and gained ascension with leaders such as Robert Peel, Andrew Jackson and Louis Philippe. While Smith led a paradigm shift in economic theory, he didn't actually create the capitalist system, but merely commented on it (although of course he did not use the term.) Anyway, in your view, when did capitalism arise? I would say that America was capitalist from the beginning, while in the UK and Europe, it was a process as feudalism transformed into capitalism. TFD (talk) 03:43, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

This source (Burnham, Peter (2003). Capitalism: The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics. Oxford University Press.) is used to substantiate the text. What are the page numbers for this assertion? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:49, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

References

"Pound 4 Pound" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Pound 4 Pound. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 August 25#Pound 4 Pound until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm _Talk 07:05, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Change first phrase here with the Merriam Webster definition of capitalism

The first phrase here contains vague terms and is not practical for understanding what this system implies.

I propose we change it for this definition from Merriam Webster:

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

Americanu197 (talk) 18:24, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Which terms are vague exactly? I don't see how replacing means of production with capital goods creates a drastic improvement. BeŻet (talk) 11:14, 11 October 2021 (UTC)