Talk:Capitalism/Archive 2

Have got several problems with Paige. Interesting that she ends with a

Would anyone be interested in me establishing a history of capitalism article?

You should probably avoid ambiguity by calling it either "history of Capitalist Ideology" or "History of Capitalist Institutions" -- whichever is the subject in which you're interested. Either could be interesting, of course. --Christofurio 20:38, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)

Oh, most definitely. --Colonel E 01:30, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I reverted two changes: first, the capitalism that the article describes developed in the 16th century and after -- when was a capitalist system in place prior? Second, capitalist practices are not derived from feudalism. Slrubenstein

The ancient Mesopotamian states were capitalist, as were Greece and Rome. How is capitalism not derived from feudalism? Is there not a significant relationship between the feudal aristrocracy and the capitalist upperclass? Susan Mason 23:06 Feb 21, 2003 (UTC)

We may be getting into a matter of semantics, but I do not know of any theorist of capitalism who defines it in a way that would include Babylonian city-states, or the Roman Empire. Moreover, there is the opposite of a significant relationship between the Feudal aristocracy and the capitalist elite -- the bourgeois supported the French revolution, initially, and the rise of the House of Commons (along with the decline of the power of the monarchy and the House of Lords) is another example -- in the 18th century the bourgeoisie and the nobility were antagonistic classes. The rise of European capitalism involved a real break from feudal legal and political structures too.

One could -- indeed, I think one should say that all states, including ancient Mesopotamian states, the Greek city-states, and Rome, as well as all current nation-states, are "stratified," that is, divided into unequal socio-economic classes. In this context, you could say that the Feudal aristocracy and the Capitalist elite are similar in that they are at the top of their repsective societies. But how they got to the top, what it means to be at the top, what their values and behaviors are, are quite different. This, at least, is what I have gathered from most of the scholarly works I have read -- if there is a body of scholarship you know of that makes a different article, it should by all means by summarized in the article, Slrubenstein

Its definitely a matter of semantics. Define capitalism as having private property, corporate merchant groups, banks and interest rates, foreign trade and balances of trade, surplus and defecits, stocks and insurance, marketplaces and markets, power vaccums and zero-sum games, and you've just described the economy of Shinar some thousands of years ago.

For some the crucial issue is the dominance of a free labor market; for others, it is the items you mention on a global scale. By these criteria I doubt that Shinar counts -- but I think you are making a different, perhaps narrower, but in my opinion especially important point: that many elements of our contemporary economy existed in the distant past. I think that this information, in detail, should be in Wikipedia -- perhaps in this article, or perhaps better in an article on market economies (capitalism being one example but not the only kind). I haven't read any theorist who claims that only "capitalist" economies" have private property, banks, or foreign trade. But if you know of scholarly literature on capitalism or on Shinar that argues that it was capitalist, that should be put in. The important thing here is our NPOV policy -- it isn't what you or I think capitalism is, or how best to characterize SHinar's economy, it is the body of scholarship.

While there is certainly a difference between fedualism and capitalism, this difference being much greater than the difference between mercantilism and capitalism, it is still true that capitalism in following feudalism is thus at least potentially influenced heavily by said feudalism, and is actually quite heavily influenced and derived from said system. In France, many of the older aristocratic manufacturies lasted up until the World War era.

Granted, the French king may have lost some power in France, but many of the local merchants and owners remained in power. The difference between feudalism and capitalism does not so much seem, to me, to be an economic difference, so much as there is a governmental or legalistic difference, that is, modern capitalism tends to be the economic system of republics, rather than monarchies. However, the actual technical details of how the economy works are quite similar.

Well, I am just going by scholars I have read, like Perry Anderson, Maurice Dobb, and Robert Brenner, and also Wallerstein. Who are you referring to? Slrubenstein

As you said, "The rise of European capitalism involved a real break from feudal legal and political structures." Which I agree with, however, as far as the structure of how economics worked, THAT remained much the same, and this is why I say that capitalism is derived from feudalism as a term describing a historical era, and at the same time, capitalism really is much the same thing as both feudalism and mercantilism when viewed SOLELY as an economic phenomenon, which is why I state that capitalism did exist far before it was "institutionalized" in modern Europe. Susan Mason

This view is at variance with the vast majority of scholarship. It's an arguable point of view, but I doubt that many (any?) serious historians would accept it. Two key differences (among many) are that pre-capitalist economies operated within a context that involved a great deal of implied non-cash mutual obligation, and that non-capitalist market economies did not generally allow for mobility between social classes. (This last is not simply a social matter, it has profound implications for economic behaviour as well.) Tannin 23:48 Feb 21, 2003 (UTC)

On the issue of ancient societies and the possibility that they deserve the label capitalist. Have the participants in that discussion read "Inventing Money" by Nicholas Dunbar (2000)? It is chiefly about the LTCM blow-up of AD 1998, but Mr. Dunbar prefaces this with a history of the pricing of derivatives (the subject of Scholes' and Merton's Nobel Prize winning work, after all) and he traces conscious deliberation on this issue back to Babylonia, and the Code of Hammurabi, circa 1800 BC. Perhaps this is evidence that capitalism isn't a passing phase at all, but recognition of enduring realities. --Christofurio 23:37, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

I haven't read the book, but it doesn't surprise me -- the Talmud has a complex discussion on interest rates and how to price loans. But this does not mean that "capitalism" is an enduring reality. No one has ever claimed that market/money based societies did not exist prior to the rise of capitalism (or, if you prefer, modern capitalism). Many societies five thousand years ago had money and markets. But many did not, and for most of human history there is no evidence of markets or money. Moreover, there has been considerable debate over whether one could equate market economies with capitalism. Of course they have in common markets and money. But there are many things they do not have in common. Slrubenstein

Instead of defining capitalism as "The economic policies institutionalized during such and such a period", perhaps it would be best to use some more informative definition of capitalism? My understand of capitalism involves some economic system involving private property, wages, corporate merchant groups, banks and interest rates, foreign trade and balances of trade, surplus and defecits, stocks and insurance, marketplaces and markets, etc.

The second part of the article notes how there is much debate as to what the definition of capitalism is. Perhaps we should use something like that as the beginning of the article, rather than immediately declaring that capitalism first appeared around the 1500s. Susan Mason

I think these proposals are worth discussing, but I wouldn't want to act until there was more discussion -- the current introduction was itself the product of a long proces. I have two immediate responses: first, I think the current version's introductory definition is good in that all scholars I know of, across disciplines and the ideological spectrum, agree that corporations privately owning capital, and the labor market, are essential to capitalism. You present a long list and there may be some theorists who use this list to define capitalism, but I know for certain that many scholars would disagree. The article should provide an account of the debate -- but any opening definition should be something that many agree to.

Offhand I think I agree with your second suggestion, except that there is always a horse and cart issue: since many of the debates over what capitalism is are based on different readings of history, it is hard to make sense of these debates unless one already knows some of the history. Still, it's worth thinking about. But it seems to me that the opening of the article makes it very clear what the debates are about already! Slrubenstein

quoting from above from Susan

Its definitely a matter of semantics. Define capitalism as having private property, corporate merchant groups, banks and interest rates, foreign trade and balances of trade, surplus and defecits, stocks and insurance, marketplaces and markets, power vaccums and zero-sum games, and you've just described the economy of Shinar some thousands of years ago.

I would be interested in any references to the economy of the ancient Babylonian and related societies if you have any. You can just enter them here.

I am aware of descriptions of these societies that include strict social stratification based on things other than wealth (including very extensive slavery), and fixed pricing laws for the majoirty of key items involved in the economy - such as land rent, labour, oxen, wheat, etc. I am not aware of any corporate groupings like publicly traded companies. A corporate body that functions like a guild is not the same thing, and a group of merchants along the lines of a modern day partnership is not a coporate body.

All of these things mean that these ancient societies were not capitalist - although they did have some, even many, aspects in common with capitalism. I would be happy to see any references to some part of the ancient Babylonian societies that was more capitalist than what I have seen so far. The capitalist aspects might appear to be more important if you focus on the international (or inter-city-state) aspects of trade, rather than the way most of the people in these societies existed.

Indeed! It was just as capitalist as you describe! Susan Mason

Do you agree that offering of financial incentives was not the predominant method used to control which work most people did? (I think it was one of the methods, but not the predominant one, and it was a method that was often over-ridden by government, and other social forces.)

Do you agree that, trade in ownership of productive organisations was not sufficiently visible, or accounted for, to establish rising share price incentives (or some type of equivalent) as the predominant influence over the operation of those organisations?

If you say yes to both of those, then surely the notion of capital did not have a dominant influence in production, since organisations operated without any strong influence of their capital value over their performance, and motivated people essentially by means other than the use of capital, so how could they be capitalist? That's not to say that no one was making profits, or that no one tried to make profits, or that money wasn't used often, or that some form of business and trade didn't take place. It's just that other things, such as fear of the sword, birth-given social position, religous beliefs, or whatever, played a greater role in the interactions between people.

I agree with Susan that it would be nice to have a more descriptive definition of capitalism at the start rather than just saying when and where it happened, but I can see the problems with previous attempts (including my own ones). But here's another try.

Capitalism is the use of, or belief in, economic systems in which monetary valuations of products, factors of production, and ownership of productive organisations have a predominant influence over the organisation of production.

It seems to me that this definition works for all the various uses of the word that I can think of at the moment. If nobody points out anything wrong with it, then I might put it in the article.

Well, I for one do not find this a useful definition -- it amounts to saying that capitalism is a system in which production dinfluences production. I do not think "money" is a defining factor. In any event, the article opens with a very clear description of what capitalism is -- I do not see a need for another definition. Slrubenstein

It doesn't say that production influences production, it says that monetary valuations influence the organisation of production - I suppose I had the profit motive in mind here. But I take your point about money - I guess I can imagine capitalism in which all transactions are bartered, although it would be paralysingly inefficient without some type of "credit points" system very similar to money. Anyway, here's the same thing with money removed.

Capitalism is the use of, or belief in, economic systems in which the exchange values of products, factors of production, and ownership of productive organisations have a predominant influence over the organisation of production.

And maybe to make clearer the nature of the influence that these exchange values have, there should be some mention of profit incentives, as follows.

Capitalism is the use of, or belief in, economic systems in which the exchange values of products, factors of production, and ownership of productive organisations is encouraged or allowed to have a predominant influence over the organisation of production through an incentive to profit.

So what's wrong now?

What is wrong is that this represents a particular point of view -- and there is nothing wrong with that, except the introduction to the article as it stands explains that there is theoretical debvate over how to define capitalism. My suggestion is this: instead of trying to come up with one brief definition of capitalism that everyone will accept (which won't happen as there are so many debates), find the place in the article that covers the debate over what capitalism is -- right now it is woefully abbreviated; I think it should cover the debates between Sweezy and Dobb, Frank and Brenner, as well as the positions of Freidman and others. Could you situate your definition in terms of one of these debates, and develop it?

What is wrong with the current introduction and the definition it gives right now? Slrubenstein

I think that the current start of the article spends more time talking about the context of capitalism rather than capitalism - by context I mean, where it happened, when it happened, and what came before it, etc. These things should be mentioned somewhere near the start, but I think saying what it is should be the prime thing to say right off.

Then, the bits at the start that do say what it is are a particular point of view anyway. They are qualified by the word "especially", and the things mentioned are probably as good as most definitions I've seen, so on the whole compared to many sources it's not bad, quite good actually, but still there's no harm in trying for something better. One thing that I see as a small fault in the part that says what capitalism is, is the trade in ownership of companies. Trade in company ownership was important in the historical development of capitalism, and so given that the first sentence is an historical statement saying when capitalism developed, it is important to mention it there, and I think that as it stands in that sentence it is fine because it is talking about the economic systems that developed in the 16th to 19th centuries, and it wouldn't be right to simply remove it. But, there are types of capitalism that don't have trade in company ownership - I'm thinking here of Lenin's state capitalism, and perhaps more importantly post WWII European capitalism in which government ownership of major companies occured quite often. Government ownership didn't completely displace individual ownership, but the ideals behind it did allow for a form of capitalism in which companies weren't traded, but were still valued and managed with a profit motive and accounted for with a view to their capital worth. You can easily argue that the governments did a poor job in using their ownership rights, and that such practices were inefficient or whatever. You can also argue that much of it was motivated by socialist desires, but nevertheless many of the people doing it, and many comentators believed it was a form of capitalism, and that if government ownership did displace private ownership then it still would have been a form of capitalism - because it would ideally function the same, only without the unequal distribution of ownership - the only differnece in these people's minds was that the shareholder was the government, instead of a small number of rich people. So, in short, taking the historical route to introducing capitalism leads I think to too much emphasis on some of the early historical happenings, and this can lead to an inaccurate view of later widespread happenings in the world.

You raise many important points -- thank you! Still, I don't think I agree. Did Lenin really call what he was doing "state capitalism?" I thought the NEP was primarily a tactical response to the difficulties during the Civil War, and in no way represented an embrace of capitalism. And, as you say, many of the post-War developments in Europe are as easily characterized as "socialist" as "state capitalist" which is why I am willing to keep trade in shares of ownership of corporations in the beginning. Let me share with you some history: I personally would not include this in my definition of capitalism (for me, the crux is a labor market). But some time ago there was another contributor who insisted that it was elemental. So in one sense I agree with you -- but my point is, so manh people have their own definitions of capitalism, I just think the first section should be as basic and simple as possible. Otherwise, we will end up with a page long definition of "capitalism." So while I agree that we can always try to improve it, I beg you -- consider the value of keeping the first definition as simple as possible, and also consider the fact that writiing a Wikipedia article is almost always a political process in that it involves compromises between people who feel very strongly about issues. As you say, the question of whether post-war European government ownership is capitalist or socialist is a debate and that debate ought to be covered in the article. But if the question of state ownership is debated, let's leave it out of the opening. Slrubenstein

Yes, Lenin did call what he was doing "state capitalism". Some quotations (emphasis in original):

"While the revolution in Germany is slow in 'coming forth', our task is to study the state capitalism of the Germans, to spare no effort in copying it and not shrink from adopting dictatorial methods to hasten the copying of it. Our task is to do this even more thoroughly than Peter the Great hastened the copying of Western culture by barbarian Russia, and he did not hesitate to use barbarous methods in fighting against barbarism."

"The real nature of the New Economic Policy is this -- firstly, the proletarian state has given small producers freedom to trade; and secondly, in respect to the means of production in large-scale industry, the proletarian state is applying a number of principles of what in capitalist economies is called 'state capitalism."

"Experience has proven that we were wrong. It appears that a number of transitional stages were necessary -- state capitalism and socialism -- in order to prepare -- to prepare by many years of effort -- for the transition to communism."

-- bpt 23:56 May 3, 2003 (UTC)

I took out the following bit

"Zero unemployment would indicate that workers never quit to look for a better job, or were laid off because advancing technology reduced demand for their current skill sets. This condition would only occur in a completely static, stagnant economoy."

I never heard of anyone who quit for the purpose of looking for another job - people quit AFTER they have found another job, or they might quit because of some dispute or dislike of their job, and then look for another job, but it would be rare for someone to quit for the purpose of looking for another job. Anyway, the point is that you CAN look for another job while in your current job, and so zero unemployment does not imply a stagnant economy. Secondly, the classical economist's opinion of what happens when demand for your labour is reduced by technology in a pure capitalist economy is that your wages will drop, not that you will be fired. You might then decide to start looking for a better paying job while still working in your current job, or you might just accept the lower wages. In fact the standard economist view is that unemployment is not possible in a sufficiently free market economy, since everyone will be able to find some sort of job if they only lower their wage requirement enough.

Is it true that "the vast majority of all personal wealth" is in stock ownership? How vast?

When reading the paragraph of section 3.4 "Unknown/unapproved direction of capitalist economy" I find that it neglects or ignores relevant facts, and/or implies incorrect facts. A few disconnected ideas on the subject:

- the great complexity of a modern economy resulting in many interdependences and thus requiring a very detailed and broad plan

- that the modern economy is dynamic due to changes in human desire, technology, advances in knowledge, resource depletion and discovery, man-made and natural disasters

- that is possible to devise a 'good' plan for a complex / dynamic economy

- the relation between profits and ability to predict the future, and that the future isn't predictable

- the reliances of a distributed system as it requires manipulation of independent entities but with the downside of the ability to pick of smaller entities one at a time. I'm thinking of those attempt to manipulate the economy though political leaders and those that use violence (terrorism).

er....

not really a very accurate page...

perhaps some mention of Adam Smith and generally understood capital principles? No practicing capitalist would quote Marx's definitions...

I also question the use of Marx to define capitalism. To true capitalists, Marx is irrelevant. Those who hold onto Marx's labels are at risk of falling far behind in today's world. A Wiki article SHOULD reflect this. (DJ November 8 2004)

I think the small section on mercantilism should be re-located once more. Mercantilism is an ideology, but it is also a system that predates capitalism. Morreover, by some accounts it is not "capitalist" domestically since it relies on slave-labor and indentured servitude and not just free labor. Slrubenstein

I have removed the implication that the slang word "buck" for "dollar" has anything to do with slaves. This is folk etymology and an urban legend. Cite: [1]. --FOo 03:29, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I added a section History of capitalism and a note about Adam Smith. Both could be expanded (and changed), but I just cant imagine talking about capitalism without reffering to AS. --Piotrus 14:35, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Fubar's modifications of the introduction are a significant improvement. wgoetsch 14:43, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Intro

I think the intro should be a simple/basic as possible. I removed two kinds of detailed information from the intro: first, stuff on the development of free markets. There is evidence of free markets prior to the development of capitalism. I also removed stuff on finance, which developed later in the history of capitalism. In fact, I believe both of these issues (or sets of practices) DO belong in the article. But they should go in the body, where they can be discussed with greater nuance. I just don't see how they are so essintial they belong in the intro. Slrubenstein

I've restated my brief definition of the financial aspects of capitalism, but in accordance with your suggestion I've moved it out of the intro into the pro-and-con section. --Christofurio 19:40, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)

I think some people use "capitalism" as synonymous with or embracing "free market", so this should definition should probably go back up. - Nat Kraus e 04:28, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The problem with that is that this notion is wrong. 172 04:31, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

How do you mean wrong? I agree that it is confusing, because people use the same word to refer to other concepts, but how can we say that this usage is incorrect? - Nat Kraus e 05:23, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"Capitalism" has to do with financial investment in capital. "Free market" has to do with trade. It is possible for nomads (e.g.) to have a free market, but not capitalism. --FOo 04:02, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Free markets represent the _ideal_ capitalism, which (to my mind) differs from corporate capitalism or actually-existing capitalism (the US, etc.) Jdevine 16:58, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well, here's what Merriam-Webster has to say on the subject: "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". Now, I don't think that dictionary definitions are decisive, and, further, I think the third clause, specifying a free market, goes a little bit too far. But this definitely reflects a common usage, so it should be incorporated into the article. - Nat Kraus e 05:40, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This Merriam-definition is what i think about capitalism. Can we take it or is there a problem with? --80.133.94.84 16:22, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

We could probably tweak it to avoid copyright problems. - Nat Kraus e 15:00, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I don't agree. Wikipedia is not a dictionary (dictionaries are about how people use words; encyclopedias are about the things words refer to), and dictionaries are poor authorities on substantive knowledge (see Barbara Wallrof's essay in the NYST Magazine 9/5). The introduction to this article should introduce the article, not echo a dictionary definition.

Of course, if there are elements in the definition that you think are not represented in the article, then by all means add substantive material. Slrubenstein

I'm not sure I follow the distinction you're making. It's true that encyclopedias are not dictionaries, because they provide a broader range of information. But don't we need to start with the right definition or definitions so we know what subjects to give a broader range of information about? I'm all for introducing the article, which is a difficult task because the article is something of a mess, but I don't see how expanding the definition detracts from this goal. - Nat Kraus e 11:20, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

There is no such thing as the "right" definition, especially when you get to a phenomena like capitalism which is both historical and abstract. Dictionaries do not provide the "right" or "true" definition of a thing; they strive to describe how most people define a thing. Many dictionary entries in fact provide many definitions of something (usually numbered). In some cases, these are ranked according to how common the usage is, but in many cases the numbering is arbitrary and the definitions are not ranked. In the case of some words, like "chair" for example, few people will argue over the definition of the word and it won't be that hard to write a dictionary or encyclopedia entry. But in other cases -- and I think Capitalism, which has taken many different forms over the past two hundred years and has been the constant object of conflict (from luddites and the Captain Swing movements, to anarchism, socialism, and communism), is a perfect example -- there will be many different definitions and many people sharply disagree over definitions. In the United States some people even today argue over whether the New Deal saved Capitalism or destroyed it -- a debate which of course assumes different understandings of what "capitalism" is. I think our article should cover all of these different views. In your first e-mail you suggested that the elements of the definition be incorporated into the article and I agree. I just don't think they should be incorproated as one authoritative definition -- because for NPOV purposes someone else will immediately have to put in a different definition, and say "some people define it this way, others define it that way." No, I think it makes more sense to organize the article around the different historical manifestations that capitalism has taken, and describe the differfent beliefs people have had about capitalism, in the body of the article. Slrubenstein

Well, I certainly agree with your first point: there is no "true" or "right" definition. And therefore I agree that the dictionary definition above should not be incorporated as the one authoritative definition. I didn't mean to imply that that's what we should do. I think that we should include the dictionary definition as part of the list of possible uses (which used to have something similar in an earlier version of the article). I think that capitalism can be seen as either a historical manifestation and as an ideal type, so simply to organize the article around historical manifestations is not completely sufficient, but this seems to me like a fairly minor point. - Nat Kraus e 14:01, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, I think we pretty much agree. Slrubenstein

Is there really a need to divide libertarian socialism and socialism? the system should be the same, shouldn´t they? --Harshmellow 21:12, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

yes they need to be divided: libertarian socialists see their proposed system as ideal, compared to "bureaucratic socialism" or "actually-existed socialism" (the old USSR, etc). Jdevine 16:58, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Actually, Jdevine, libertarian socialism and "USSR-style socialism" are far from being the only types of socialism. Libertarian socialists reject all state-based forms of socialism, including the democratic ones that have nothing to do with the old USSR. And also including the "dilluted socialism" of the social democrats, of course. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 14:09, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The China Material

Should it stay or should it go? There's been some back-and-forth in this article, and we may as well discuss it here. --Christofurio 13:11, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with it. It's pretty much just explaining how the CCP uses language. - Nat Kraus e 13:34, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Removed paragraphs

I took out some stuff that was added by anonymous contributors today. Here are the paragraphs:

24.157.36.242: "This argument [that the uneven distribution of wealth is sustainable because even the poor in capitalistic countries maintain a higher standard living] is not universally accepted. One notable counter argument is that population dynamics will realign to reflect the uneven distribution of wealth. This argument points to clumping of human capital around idealized cores while sustaining fringes subject to grossly inefficient use of resources." Because I just have no idea what this is referring to.

I think I know what that anonymous editor had in mind. Its a reference to the ideas of Jane Jacobs about the urban/rural continuum, as it applies to the unequal distribution of wealth. If so, its poorly expressed. I'll try to do better. --Christofurio 18:14, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)

81.136.211.103: "It should be noted that due to differences of ability between individuals, not everyone is capable of meeting the requirements demanded by employment, thus leaving a marginal percentage of unemployment. This plays an essential role in the evolving network structure--as explained above--due to the "survival of the fittest" law. Improving efficiency requires the removal of the "weakest link", and when left alone a free system naturally practices this method. In this case, that would mean that the more capable people will provide their talents, possibly improving the system even more." There's probably some material worth salvaging here, but the basic gist is a specific POV, so we should at least say who it is that thinks this (preferably not just "some people think it"). Specific problems with this material: when we say "not everyone is capable" of meeting employers' demands, are we assuming anything about what kind of employers, what kind of work, what kind of demands, etc., what kind of employees (are we just talking about the elderly, children, and seriously disabled people, or is this meant to include some able-bodied adults as well?). How much is a marginal percentage? Who says it plays an essential role in evolving network structure. "Survival of the fittest" a law according to whom? Logically, improving efficiency does not necessarily involve removing the weakest link -- it could also involve improving that links efficiency, or leaving that link the way it is while improving other links. And so on. - Nat Kraus e 15:12, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Voluntary?

I removed this part of the article:

"If people can get similar power over involuntary people or their possessions, then the economic system is not capitalistic but, e.g., socialistic"

Because it is not NPOV. Socialism is about democratic control of work places by the people that work there. It is not about slavery. As for the rest, it's a matter of definitions. Workers voluntarily choose who to work for, but not whether to work for someone or not.

This is how it read before:

"It is characteristic for capitalism, that all that power is obtained voluntarily: workers agree on to sell some of their work for certain wage, banks or investors lend money on certain terms etc."

and this is my edit:

"It is characteristic for capitalism, that power is meant to be obtained voluntarily: workers choose who to sell their labour to, banks or investors lend money on certain terms etc."

Any objections?--Che y Marijuana 05:35, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)

"Anti-capitalist views on capitalism" is also very POV: "Many socialists refer by "capitalism" to an imaginary society to whose very definition they include some "consequences"."

Is it our place to say that the Marxist definition of capitalism is "imaginary"?--Che y Marijuana 05:42, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, sounds reasonable. - Nat Kraus e 07:09, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think the term more commonly used is "ideal" or "theoretical model." However, Marx definitely took an alternative approach, building any model out of specific historical practices. Slrubenstein

Thanks alot, I much prefer your edit :)--Che y Marijuana 15:19, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)