Talk:Capitalism/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 7 October 2021. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

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)

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)

"Capitalism" was never a new system. It was just a new name for slavery because for millennia most people didn't think the wage was slavery, & they're amazingly still ignorant about that. There are many forms of slavery. People can even enslave themselves, like working too much, starting their own business, getting married, having children, & many more ways. We should eliminate all work, before automation does, leaving all Americans to starve, so then they'll see (& are seeing) the (USA) wage is the cause of world poverty. Look at Third World Traveler online, & also CLAWS; Creating Livable Alternatives to Wage Slavery. Klop789 (talk) 20:49, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

No one can set the poorest of the poor free (like child & adult prostitutes worldwide) until they can be given $1-2 Million for doing nothing! Their poverty, including our debt slavery, is not their fault, it is all caused by the worldwide system, now forced onto the world's nations by USA, called "Capitalism."! Klop789 (talk) 22:23, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

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)

I apologize in advance for the length, but I wanted to minimize misunderstanding:

Everyone who was considered a person under slavery had a right to their own bodies. This distinction is relatively absurd, regardless. If you take the American system of slavery, but this time you let the slaves pick which master they could serve (and give them some small ability to change masters), you would have a relatively accurate model of the power relationships under modern capitalism. Human beings have very real material needs. Under capitalism those needs are met by exchange. If (as is nearly ALWAYS the case) the only work anyone will exchange for requires capital inputs, potential workers who do not have access to those inputs (nearly ALWAYS because they have already been claimed by someone else, and that claim is backed up by the implied violence of the state without regard to the problem of justification if that claim is inherently exploitative) must turn to those who do. This unequal position allows those with that access to demand a tribute in the form of a portion of fruits of the labor that utilizes that capital.

In other words, under capitalism, the capitalist is not paid for productive labor. The capitalist is paid for the service of NOT calling in the government to enforce their "right" to prevent everyone else from using a particular piece of property. If the capitalist were guarding a road and the government didn't have a piece of paper called a constitution, but instead all wore bandannas of the same color, that capitalist would be called a highwayman and the government would properly be called a gang and would still more properly be called /his/ gang.

The only reason that those who perform the productive work agree to this setup is because they have no other choice. If they try to work in the factory for themselves, the "owner" (I use quotes because I find absurd the idea that the person who exchanged goods for the factory only to exploit those without a factory has a more legitimate claim to "ownership" of it than the people who work there every day) will call the police (who in turn will call in escalating levels of violence if they should meet resistance) and have them thrown out. The only other option left to them is simply to not work and starve to death. Under liberal governments, this sentence has been commuted to merely a life of hardship, but that threat works nearly as well to motivate people to accept the terms offered them.

Whether the lash is figurative or literal is hardly relevant to the question of exploitation. In both cases the exploitation comes not from the presence of the threat, but from the willingness of another to take advantage of that situation for their own benefit. The only functional ethical distinction between slavery and capitalism is that under slavery, the lash is deliberately positioned by the exploiter whereas under capitalism, the exploiter merely preys upon the already unfortunate. That minor distinction hardly serves to discredit the comparison. -Dsmelser (talk) 01:36, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

You might want to update your Pinko Duckspeak tape to incorporate something cooked up after 1848; the age of such chatter about factories is really starting to show now.

Everyone who was considered a person under slavery had a right to their own bodies. Uh, right; tell that to the slaves who could be legally raped because their owners were deemed to own their bodies.

...you would have a relatively accurate model of the power relationships under modern capitalism. Tell that to the large number of small-business owners, the rest of the self-employed, and of course that band of "useless" persons, the lumpenproletariat. Consider also that a prison with all the cell doors locked is quite different from a prison with all those doors welded open.

Under capitalism those needs are met by exchange. You would perhaps have it not be by exchange? That generally involves somebody taking something for nothing.

...and that claim is backed up by the implied violence of the state... The function of the State is to introduce the rule of law, which is not present when private property owners are given free rein to hire their own thugs.

...the "owner" (I use quotes because I find absurd the idea... It is, of course, an entirely absurd idea that a person should have any remuneration for the expense of building a factory.

...has a more legitimate claim to "ownership" of it than the people who work there every day)... Pray tell, what would such workers be doing for a living if the factory owner had not built it?

Under liberal governments, this sentence has been commuted to merely a life of hardship... It would appear that you, for some reason or other, do not find it absolutely absurd that welfare recipients have more right to the State's money than people who had it taken out of their wages.

The only functional ethical distinction... To make a translation of this bullshit, it would appear that by your own admission, while liberation from slavery involves defying the will of a slaver, liberation from capitalism involves defying reality. ListenerX^TalkerX 08:04, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I admire you, ListenerX. Your the first person in God knows how long I have seen spell "free rein" correctly. I am still gasping with pleasure. Sorry if that doesn't add to the conversation. Burlap bags (talk) 08:48, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

First, I just want to say that your reply is absurdly aggressive. I'm sorry that ideas you don't agree with can drive you to such fits of rage, but I think you should find healthier channels for its expression.

You might want to update your Pinko Duckspeak tape to incorporate something cooked up after 1848; the age of such chatter about factories is really starting to show now. The power relationships in a factories are something obvious. Your consternation at their use clearly belies your frustration at your own inability to use, for that case, the existence of a spectrum going from exploiters to exploited as "evidence" that neither class of person exists under capitalism.

Everyone who was considered a person under slavery had a right to their own bodies. Uh, right; tell that to the slaves who could be legally raped because their owners were deemed to own their bodies. Those people weren't considered people under slavery. To miss that point, given the sentence I provided, is kind of breath-taking

...you would have a relatively accurate model of the power relationships under modern capitalism. Tell that to the large number of small-business owners, the rest of the self-employed, and of course that band of "useless" persons, the lumpenproletariat. Consider also that a prison with all the cell doors locked is quite different from a prison with all those doors welded open. The existence of freemen does not give me pause in declaring the existence of slavery. Their absence is not a necessary. Also, for your analogy to make any sense, the only doors that can be welded open are those on the inside of the prison.

Under capitalism those needs are met by exchange. You would perhaps have it not be by exchange? That generally involves somebody taking something for nothing. Not at all. It's not really surprising that "taking" was the first thing that came to your mind. It's a bit sad though that it was the ONLY thing to come to your mind. Also, I don't necessarily reject markets as a means of distribution. Markets and capitalism are not equivalent, however. Exchange as a means of acquiring basic needs is merely one component of what makes capitalism exploitative.

...and that claim is backed up by the implied violence of the state... The function of the State is to introduce the rule of law, which is not present when private property owners are given free rein to hire their own thugs. You imply a distinction where none exists. The function of the state, under capitalism, is to protect the right of the controllers of capital to continue controlling capital. The beauty of doing this with a state instead of thugs is that a state can command a lot more violence and you can trick people who gain no benefit from its existence into offsetting some of its costs and doing so willingly (and then you can throw a temper tantrum if anyone suggests that the state give ANYTHING back to its victims).

...the "owner" (I use quotes because I find absurd the idea... It is, of course, an entirely absurd idea that a person should have any remuneration for the expense of building a factory. Remuneration is an odd word to choose there. Do profits stop when the amount paid for the factory has been met? Regardless, your snarky comment completely buries your premise that it's simply a law of physics that there will be some individuals with the ability to pay for the construction of a factory while there are others with nothing. If those who worked in the factory were the ones who constructed it (or paid for its construction) their "remuneration" would come in the form of having productive capital they could use to make a living.

...has a more legitimate claim to "ownership" of it than the people who work there every day)... Pray tell, what would such workers be doing for a living if the factory owner had not built it? And here again you start from the premise that it cannot be the workers doing the building or the owning after the building is complete. When you start from a particular conception of society and the distribution of goods within in, it's not really surprising that alternatives outside of the self-reinforcing tendencies within that framework would seem absurd. Obviously this begs the question of the means for achieving some alternative, but that's not a question you've actually asked and it's not particularly relevant to the question of mere ethical evaluation of the status quo. If it's a question you're actually interested in discussing, we can do that too...provided you ask nicely.

Under liberal governments, this sentence has been commuted to merely a life of hardship... It would appear that you, for some reason or other, do not find it absolutely absurd that welfare recipients have more right to the State's money than people who had it taken out of their wages. Well first of all, when you say "taken out of their wages" I don't really know what you mean. If it's your belief that you would be getting paid your pre-tax income if there happened to not be income taxes, you are wrong. If you'd like to know why you're wrong, you can ask politely. Second, it's not "for some reason or other." The reason is pretty obvious. If the government is going to prop up capitalism by force, I don't think it's absurd at all that the government look to the welfare of its victims. Third, I think you've misunderstood my point. Welfare is a way to keep capitalism going. That's why it's championed by liberals (I know this is going to make your head explode, but stick with me for a minute). Economic arguments between conservatives and liberals fundamentally boil down an argument about whether it's better to make the horse move by beating it with a stick or by enticing it with an apple. Liberals have no interest in getting rid of capitalism. Their interest is in maintaining capitalism for as long as possible with band-aid fixes like welfare. As a conservative, I realize that the idea that capitalism needs any maintenance is outright heresy, but nevertheless, the utterance of that heresy does not imply enmity toward capitalism at all (kind of like how you can recognize that your spouse isn't perfect without being required to hate them or wish you were with someone else).

The only functional ethical distinction... To make a translation of this bullshit, it would appear that by your own admission, while liberation from slavery involves defying the will of a slaver, liberation from capitalism involves defying reality. This is a non-argument. You could have saved us all the time of reading it by going with the much more concise "NUH UH!"Dsmelser (talk) 02:23, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

First, I just want to say that your reply is absurdly aggressive... Ah, the dulcet tones of Moral Outrage/Ad Hominem Tape #3. Charming, but not terribly effective in a forum where one cannot silence the opposition.

...but I think you should find healthier channels for its expression. Perhaps you would be more satisfied if I stopped squawking about how communism is a pile of bunk and started hacking up nice communist duckspeak, such as "KILL THE FACTORY OWNERS!"?

The power relationships in a factories [sic] are something obvious. Of course they are; this is how we know that those nasty reactionaries are suffering from false consciousness and need to be shut up in the gulag until they see the Truth^TM about the matter.

Your consternation at their use clearly belies your frustration at your own inability to use... Methinks the old crystal ball is in need of some polishing there. I was referring to how the economy is not all factories and unskilled labor anymore.

Those people weren't considered people under slavery. Uh, yes, they were; read the Three Fifths Clause in the U.S. Constitution.

The existence of freemen does not give me pause in declaring the existence of slavery. If the lumpenproletariat are "freemen," it follows that any "slave" can become a "freeman" of his own accord by quitting his job and becoming a bum.

Not at all. It's not really surprising that "taking" was the first thing that came to your mind... Note that you have failed to provide any examples of other means of acquiring the stuff of life besides exchange and transfer without any exchange (i.e., taking something for nothing). I submit that this is because such means, by definition, do not exist.

The function of the state, under capitalism, is to protect... You might benefit from pulling your nose out of Marx's ravings and looking around for a change, given that Bakunin's critiques of that particular definition of the State proved quite prophetic.

Remuneration is an odd word to choose there. Do profits stop when the amount paid for the factory has been met? They might; it is not theoretically impossible within capitalism for a cooperative organization to hire someone to design a factory or other workplace. But if that became widespread practice, and if the Reds chanced to notice, they would probably carry on much as before, only substituting "architects" for "workers" in their former talking points.

...your premise that it's simply a law of physics that there will be some individuals with the ability to pay for the construction of a factory... Of course that is not a "law of physics;" there are also the societies in which no one has any resources to build a factory, or even knows how. In such communist countries as managed to build any factories, the divide was between the nomenklatura and the unpersons, and even that was not terribly effective; Reds have to date shown themselves very adept at nicking other people's factories, but not so adept at building their own.

And here again you start from the premise that it cannot be the workers doing the building... Uh, no, that was you when you set up the scenario in which that question is set, wherein worker and builder are different people. But, again, there have been examples of cooperative businesses within the capitalist framework — dare I say, many more examples than in other frameworks.

Well first of all, when you say "taken out of their wages" I don't really know what you mean. Strangely enough, I meant exactly what I said. People who live on wages necessarily pay their taxes out of those wages, whether directly via an income tax or indirectly.

I know this is going to make your head explode... Indeed, it did make my head explode. Strange, but I never knew that liberals think how Reds say they think, rather than how they say they think; nor did I know that liberals, instead of merely giving a toss about the plight of the poor and making some (perhaps misguided) attempt to do something about it, are instead engaged in a massive conspiracy to throw bones to the victims.

This is a non-argument. Let us put the argument explicitly, then. Your remark about the "already unfortunate" would indicate that you are deviating from the usual squawking-point about how the Big Nasty Capitalists are responsible for said misfortune, which is a welcome breath of reality, but also sets up the handy objection that in such a situation the employers are in general only making things better for the workers than they would be if employment and wages were not being offered, while slavers are able to compel slaves to enter worse situations. ListenerX^TalkerX 07:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

"First, I just want to say that your reply is absurdly aggressive... Ah, the dulcet tones of Moral Outrage/Ad Hominem Tape #3. Charming, but not terribly effective in a forum where one cannot silence the opposition. "

Look dipshit, the point was merely that you don't need to engage in such wildly disproportionate responses. It makes you sound even fucking stupider than you already do by the content of your "arguments." But that's fine. If it's going to be that kind of party, I'm gonna put my dick in the mashed potatoes. You are seriously fucking retarded. That you could be such a virulent defender of capitalism while being, quite fucking obviously, totally ignorant of the main thrust of anti-capitalist thought going back literally over a hundred and fifty fucking years marks you quite plainly as an intellectually lazy sack of shit. You and everyone like you are what's wrong with the world we live in. In a very real sense, you are a cancer (except that most cancers at least have the virtue of only ruining a single life). Nothing in what you've said, literally nothing, has any impact whatsoever on the ethical questions at play here. Your silly, risible attempts to conflate the concept of communism with the worst aspects of authoritarian regimes which UTTERLY fail to pass any reasonable litmus test you might hope to derive from that concept would be amusing, if they (like you) weren't so fucking sad. That you could be so fucking stupid as to invoke what is arguably the arch-example of a communist (Bakunin) as some sort of attack on communism (and thereby, inoke the thought of a staunch anti-capitalist to defend capitalism) is really fucking astounding. Seriously man, have you ever EVER read any Bakunin? At all? Or did you just get one half of that one quote about "socialism without freedom..." and decide to run with it? Seriously what the fuck is wrong with you?

I'd take the time to respond to your points individually, but frankly the quality of your previous responses has made it pretty clear that that's totally pointless. Unless and until you can put together an actual rational response to the points I made earlier, I'm just going to take my victory lap, you fucking retard.

Dsmelser (talk) 23:46, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Ye gods! What was that you were saying about finding healthier channels to express rage at ideas you disagree with?

...what is arguably the arch-example of a communist (Bakunin)... Bakunin was an anarchist who was greatly at odds with Marxism. I disagree with some things he said, obviously, but that did not stop him from making some good critiques of Marxism.

Or did you just get one half of that one quote about "socialism without freedom..." and decide to run with it? I am not familiar with that quote from Bakunin. As I recall, I was referring to a critique he made of the idea of the "dictatorship of the proletariat." Marx had a very idealistic view of the State as a machine of class war, which allowed him to believe that it would "wither away" when the economic system changed. Bakunin, on the other hand, recognized that the State is a real thing of brick, mortar, flesh and blood, and thus made some very accurate predictions of what would happen after a communist revolution, viz., that the "dictatorship of the proletariat" would be an actual dictatorship run by a new elite group.

Your silly, risible attempts to conflate the concept of communism with the worst aspects of authoritarian regimes... My "litmus test" is that they profess to be communist, whether they are run by Real Communists™ or not. A significant proportion of professed communists took a leaf out of your book and blamed all the ills of the world on a group of people constituting a "cancer" to be cut out of society; this cutting is better known as the slaughter and desolation that the Reds left in their wake. ListenerX^TalkerX 03:25, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

1. Anarchism and communism are concepts which are tied at the hip. This isn't a matter of the no-true-scotsman fallacy. All forms of socialism (including communism) take as their base claim the notion that workers ought to be in control of the capital they use. That is a necessary condition for any socialist economic system. It isn't the case that things just simply weren't close enough along those lines. Every example of authoritarian "communism" that you can provide explicitly violates this necessary condition, and your favorite examples do so under the weight of a MASSIVE history of internal left-wing uprisings against them (that means workers and farmers fighting the Soviets for the right to form actually communist communities).

2. All the criticisms of Marxism in the world are totally irrelevant. The fact of the matter is, I happen to agree with them and with Bakunin on a great many things. I guarantee you that I am more familiar with Bakunin than you are. You basically couldn't have picked a worse name to invoke. If you think for one second that the concept of anarchism is antithetical to the notion that capitalism is predicated on slavery-like power relationships, you're just revealing your ignorance. If you hold that proposition as part of a larger framework which takes the notion for granted that one place where anarchism and marxism differ is on Marx's economic analysis (rather than on his political analysis of what is to be done in the face of the inherently unethical nature of capitalism), then your ignorance knows no bounds. Your ability to thunder on in spite of this profound ignorance is simply breathtaking. Believe me when I tell you that you have no idea what you're talking about. Dsmelser (talk) 07:03, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

In case you're still to thick to put 2 and 2 together, I thought I'd lend you a hand:

"The first source of the degradation of labor, namely, the dogma of the political inequality of men, was destroyed by the Great Revolution [The French Revolution]. The degradation must therefore be attributed to a second source, which is nothing but the separation which still exists between manual and intellectual labor, which reproduces in a new form the ancient inequality and divides the world into two camps: the privileged minority, privileged not by law but by capital, and the majority of workers, no longer captives of the law but of hunger." --Bakunin

"Is it necessary to repeat here the irrefutable arguments of Socialism which no bourgeois economist has yet succeeded in disproving? What is property, what is capital in their present form? For the capitalist and the property owner they mean the power and the right, guaranteed by the State, to live without working. And since neither property nor capital produces anything when not fertilized by labor - that means the power and the right to live by exploiting the work of someone else, the right to exploit the work of those who possess neither property nor capital and who thus are forced to sell their productive power to the lucky owners of both. Note that I have left out of account altogether the following question: In what way did property and capital ever fall into the hands of their present owners? This is a question which, when envisaged from the points of view of history, logic, and justice, cannot be answered in any other way but one which would serve as an indictment against the present owners. I shall therefore confine myself here to the statement that property owners and capitalists, inasmuch as they live not by their own productive labor but by getting land rent, house rent, interest upon their capital, or by speculation on land, buildings, and capital, or by the commercial and industrial exploitation of the manual labor of the proletariat, all live at the expense of the proletariat. (Speculation and exploitation no doubt also constitute a sort of labor, but altogether non-productive labor.)" --Bakunin

"But - the economists tell us - the property owners, the capitalists, the employers, are likewise forced to seek out and purchase the labor of the proletariat. Yes, it is true, they are forced to do it, but not in the same measure. Had there been equality between those who offer their labor and those who purchase it, between the necessity of selling one's labor and the necessity of buying it, the slavery and misery of the proletariat would not exist. But then there would be neither capitalists, nor property owners, nor the proletariat, nor rich, nor poor: there would only be workers. It is precisely because such equality does not exist that we have and are bound to have exploiters." --Bakunin

"If, as a consequence of the particular circumstances that constantly influence the market, the branch of industry in which he planned at first to employ his capital does not offer all the advantages that he had hoped, then he will shift his capital elsewhere; thus the bourgeois capitalist is not tied by nature to any specific industry, but tends to invest (as it is called by the economists - exploit is what we say) indifferently in all possible industries. Let's suppose, finally, that learning of some industrial incapacity or misfortune, he decides not to invest in any industry; well, he will buy stocks and annuities; and if the interest and dividends seem insufficient, then he will engage in some occupation, or shall we say, sell his labor for a time, but in conditions much more lucrative than he had offered to his own workers.

The capitalist then comes to the market in the capacity, if not of an absolutely free agent, at least that of an infinitely freer agent than the worker. What happens in the market is a meeting between a drive for lucre and starvation, between master and slave. Juridically they are both equal; but economically the worker is the serf of the capitalist, even before the market transaction has been concluded whereby the worker sells his person and his liberty for a given time. The worker is in the position of a serf because this terrible threat of starvation which daily hangs over his head and over his family, will force him to accept any conditions imposed by the gainful calculations of the capitalist, the industrialist, the employer." --Bakunin

I know that it's considerably less convenient for you, but the fact of the matter is communism is not reducible to Stalinism, nor is anarchism (with its attendant connotations of liberty) compatible with capitalism.

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)

Meh, the core of Keynesian economics (ISLM model) is extinct. New-keynesians base their work off of RBC models. "Mostly discounted" is indeed probably a little too strong, but Keynes's influence on the field is the same as, say, Thomas Malthus - everybody recognizes that he did great work and advanced us, it just happens that a lot of what he said was wrong. Longnameislonger (talk) 05:06, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

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)

ListenerX

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

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 / talk / contribs}

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

Uhhh, who the hell wrote this?

Could we "rational" it up?

You could have criticized Neoliberalism or something; all this does is make RationalWiki look bad. ^{— Unsigned, by: 66.233.55.145 / talk / contribs}

Uhhh, you want to make a specific point, or just talk in vague generalities? (Also, for those playing along at home, I think that qualifies as a drink.) Thunderkatz^Ho! 05:55, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Eh, I'll give it half a shot. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 05:56, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

(ec)To the BON: See section above. Pippa (talk) 05:56, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

This article doesn't mention free-market socialism

Free market socialism exists, and it implies worker ownership of the means of production which still operate in a market economy, using the strength and growth of capitalism while ensuring the well-being of most of the people, who just happen to be proletarians. Such a system (market socialism) combined with government regulations to ensure that those who are unable to work are provided with the required needs, is human and efficient in the same time. This type of socialism is getting more and more popular in several intellectual circles while often gets dismissed as revisionist by many socialists who support central planning, which is currently inefficient due to a lack of computational technology. ^{— Unsigned, by: 89.84.208.57 / talk / contribs 2011-08-05T01:44:02}

My understanding of market socialism has always been Lange's computation of prices and quantities... i.e. the thing you said it was not in the last sentence. Worker ownership is legal and somewhat popular in market economies (do you live near a Publix, by any chance? employee owned!), but generally these firms do not do well. Theoretical explanations for this failure generally involve an unstable voting shareholder base which makes very-long-term planning perilous and the general lack of interest from workers - you can't sell your shares (not publicly traded) and dividend payments only come so often, so many workers would just prefer to get the cash in their checks.

Anyways, it's not seriously considered in any of the economic circles I know of.

"A truly free market, which is based on self-ownership..."

The article is slowly being rewritten by an apologist for libertarianism. "Self-ownership" my ass. That's as lame as hiring peasants to improve their lot in life. ħuman 04:11, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

It's part of a juxtaposition with "the doctrine that all people are the chattel property of God," and the moral background of capitalism is rooted in the concept of self-ownership. It makes the joke work and it's at least ostensibly factual, even if you disagree with the implications of capitalism. Longnameislonger (talk) 05:02, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

(EC) That one was mine, Human, and it has been on the page for over three years. Fundamentalists' support for free trade and free enterprise goes right up in smoke just as soon as the trade or enterprise deals with a product they disapprove of. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:30, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Max Weber's Protestant Ethic

I'm not really a fan of this tidbit. It's overly specific and detailed, not matching the rest of the article's light but informative style. I'm not sure how it could be incorporated into the rest of the article, as it just seems like a random and pointless fact out of nowhere.

Also, "the phenomena Weber documents can be accounted for in Protestantism's promotion of literacy" refers to a poorly-defined "phenomena," as in the earlier sentence it was just stated that Weber had a theory.

Opinions on cutting it, or if you think it should stay opinions on how to work it in? Longnameislonger (talk) 13:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC)