Talk:Capitalism

From RationalWiki

Contents 1 Serious Problems... 2 Slavery is, in essence, capitalism gone to extremes 3 A little fairness 4 Whoa, whoa, whoa... 5 Laissez-faire v. less-fair. 6 ListenerX 7 Another country heard from...

[edit] Serious Problems...

A number of them, I'll limit myself to one--the breezy, easy association between capitalist economies and liberal politics. PFoster 18:24, 5 November 2008 (EST)

[edit] Slavery is, in essence, capitalism gone to extremes

Not really--slavery long predates capitalism, and capitalism requires free labour. Read Marx. Slavery, in essence, may be commodification gone to extremes, but not capitalism. PFoster 19:11, 5 November 2008 (EST)

[edit] A little fairness

I mean, c'mon --Matias 21:36, 5 November 2008 (EST)

Which way do you think it's unfair? I think it's too snarky towards capitalism myself, but I know I might be the minority here. Researcher 21:45, 5 November 2008 (EST)

As you pointed out yourself, capitalism is diametrically opposed to slavery, and yet it's arbitrarily portraited as such without a trial. --Matias 14:45, 6 November 2008 (EST)

Wait, since when? Capitalism, when working as commonly described, ends up in enslavement of the masses. It might not have literal slavery, but I know that the labourers used to be paid very little (not enough to live off, anyway), and if they DARED to speak against their employer, they were looking at a rotten life. InaVegt 15:03, 6 November 2008 (EST)

How about this? The theoretical foundations of capitalism run smack against the theoretical foundations of slavery. The fact that no ideology left to run amuck ever works out properly is the reason we have a mixed economy instead. Researcher 16:10, 6 November 2008 (EST)

but Capitalism, in its earlier manifestations, predates its ideological robe. Actually Capitalism just means no legalized coertion, that's why it's so intrinsically opposed to Slavery. In such a context ironically, one could sell oneself (but not others) in bondage under a contract, if forced by circumstance -not by other men-. but that doesn't contradict Capitalism's best virtue: the recognizemente of man as the exclusive owner of his her self. --Matias 15:36, 8 November 2008 (EST)

UNDENT. Ina--slavery is when human beings are owned as property--what you describe is horrible in many ways, but is not slavery. Let's try to use words to refer to what they mean. I also removed all that stuff about capitalism and republics--China has capitalism of a sort, but is no republic, for starters...PFoster 10:32, 9 November 2008 (EST)

PFoster--Thanks. One other thing that might need to be fixed is the bit about "conservatives" and the free market. The article is correct that Republicans put in things like anti-trust laws, etc., however those were not self-described "Conservatives." Teddy Roosevelt, responsible for a lot of this, was a Progressive, after all. Even Nixon would be considered liberal today on those kinds of issues. Researcher 15:53, 9 November 2008 (EST)

I'll ellaborate on this on the article, but yes, I meant Republicans not Conservatives. While I refer to the Progressives as the destructors of American Capitalism of the >1880, I do hold the religious conservative Republicans of the >1990 to be anticapitalists like Saint Reagan with his prohibition (war on drugs or whtvr) and Bush Jr's hangers on with their Sarbanes Oxley of 02.

I acknowledge that there is a difference between official slavery and practical slavery. Thing is, in a Capitalist state, the average citizen is practically a slave, even if not officially. InaVegt 16:19, 9 November 2008 (EST)

I don't completely understand the statement that "capitalism is diametrically opposed to slavery". The historical slavery of the American south was basically driven by capitalism in the cotton & tobacco industries, & slave labour is still used in some parts of the world, essentially for reasons of profit. I see this article is defining capitalism as "a free market where, in theory, the right to ownership of your own mind, body, and the fruit of both, is sacrosanct" but that seems a rather rarefied definition which I haven't encountered elsewhere. My understanding is that capitalism simply means a system where the means of production are privately owned and used for private profit, and taking this to its logical extreme, the means of production could include the workers themselves (I.E. slaves) in a completely unregulated capitalist scenario. Capitalism is an economic system, not a human rights stance so I don't see how it inherently rules out slavery. weaseLOId~ 16:22, 9 November 2008 (EST)

While I grant "my" definition is rarified, by your own you could see that Pre-Civil War America was not Capitalist, nor very Republican either, since Slaves were not the owners of their base mean of production, their own body. Like today's China, both are driven by Capitalim, but, are themselves Mercantilist. But conveniently, the more efficient a production system is, the freer its human resource ought to be(that's the economical reason for the end of slavery) . Not every productive activity en masse means Capitalism, the term is intrinsically related to the question of rights- I'll later ellaborate on the article-. While modern slavery exists (by large!) , a modern sweatshop producing footwear in Indonesia is not the case because the workers preferred to take that job over the rice paddy, or the streets. The World is not a bloody rose garden, Capitalism (the force that produces the most roses) is not to blame. --Matias 07:52, 10 November 2008 (EST)

[edit] Whoa, whoa, whoa...

Who thinks Keynes ideas are "mostly discounted" today? He is still considered one of the basic theorists of modern economics, and his ideas are VERY well-accepted among most economists. For example, while Mankiw (probably the most prominent young economist working today) says there are issues with them, he always points to them as one of the main contending theorists. Krugman (who just won a Nobel Prize) is mostly a Keynesian as well. Researcher 22:51, 2 December 2008 (EST)

Yeah, I tried to balance out and snarkify the last overhaul of the article--but I think you of all people should be looking at this one and make with the fixing...PFoster 22:56, 2 December 2008 (EST)

Damnit Jim, I'm a political scientist, not an economist! I'll see what I can do...I've done edits to it in the past that got overturned by some ideologically motivated people, but I'll give it another go. Researcher 23:03, 2 December 2008 (EST)

Dammit Jim, yourself..I'm a historian and a freakin' pomo communie anarchist. Don't let me anywhere this article. PFoster 23:08, 2 December 2008 (EST)

Honestly, I'm interested in the perspectives of a communie anarchist, as long as the overall piece has some objectivity and an understanding of the current general academic consensus. And, despite being a card carrying capitalist stooge, it should be noted that there are PLENTY of problems with capitalism. (I consider it much like the Winston Churchill quote--"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.) My personal ideal is either the US regulatory system as it existed under Clinton and the Nordic systems. (Yes, they're wildly different, but different systems for different cultures. But never the Christian Democratic systems of Continental Europe.) Researcher 23:20, 2 December 2008 (EST)

[edit] Laissez-faire v. less-fair.

Dammit, I was proud of that joke. _{I'm French-Canadian, I know what "laissez-faire" really means}. PFoster 23:24, 2 December 2008 (EST)

It struck me as overly snarky, but if you want to put it back in, go for it. Researcher 23:27, 2 December 2008 (EST)

[edit] ListenerX

Good job with the edits. Those help a lot. Researcher 00:21, 3 December 2008 (EST)

[edit] Another country heard from...

It's a very subjective article and it needs balance, and citations for claims it makes. Serious quality problems.^{— Unsigned, by: 72.250.198.18 / welcome this user / contribs}

It's a wiki: feel free to edit. ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 15:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)