Talk:Capitalism
Let's try to avoid reverting each other's versions back and forth, hmm? I'd like to know what other NSwikipedians think. These are the two current versions:
The original version:
- Capitalism is a socio-economic system or theory which emphasises private ownership of the means of production, unfettered freedom to pursue profit and the acquisition of wealth, and a free market economy.
or the version it's been replaced by (current version):
- Capitalism is a socio-economic system or theory which emphasises the freedom of individuals to do as they please provided they are not directly harming other individuals. Capitalism recognises life, liberty and property as natural rights of all humans.
Flaws or assets of each or either version? Which one is more suitable, more accurate, more neutral? Or should they be combined somehow? Aridd 00:20, 15 March 2007 (GMT)
- Flaws of the latter: misspelling of "individuals"...I prefer the first in general, as the second sentence of the last seems irrelevant, like it's attempting to imply that other systems do not. It also omits mention of the economy after the fourth word, and in my opinion capitalism focuses more on the economy than it does anything else. --Ember Nickel 22:23, 15 March 2007 (GMT)
Quick comment: the typo has actually been fixed. Other than that, I tend to agree with Ember Nickel: capitalism is an economic model. It's not necessarily linked to human rights, it definitely hasn't got a monopoly in that field, and as we all know there are and have been capitalist dictatorships. I feel the definition should be about economics. Aridd 10:48, 16 March 2007 (GMT)
Before I begin (me being the person who wrote the current version and, yes, fixed the typo in "individuals"), I would like to point out that the version I installed was a minorly edited version of one put in place by an anonymous IP address and so is not exactly my own. However I will defend it:
- Update: Having reviewed the edit log for the IP address I think it could well have been me from a non-home IP. It was more than two months ago which is probably why I didn't at first remember it.
1) Arrid's version uses Marxist rhetoric like "private ownership of the means of production", which I believe is inappropriate for an article discussing capitalism - a concept should not be framed in the language of its detractors. Similarly, it uses perjoratative phrases such as "unfettered" freedom.
2) Other socio-economic systems do not recognise property or negative liberties as natural rights. Property, for instance: some view it as a minor right that can be infringed to pursue what they argue are more important rights (eg. taxing large % of GDP to provide socialised healthcare under social democracy), others view it as a right that exists only for some people (eg. the King owning countries wholesale under fuedalism) and others don't agree it exists as a right at all (eg. communism).
It could be argued that capitalism is a purely economic system, but that is quite clearly not an opinion you share as it was you and not the anonymous editor who first wrote the opening words "Capitalism is a socio-economic system or theory".
I think that your view is coloured by what appears to be your personal idea that there exists only one definition of "human rights", which organisations and concepts must choose either to favour or oppose. This is untrue. All systems recognise a different definition of rights, and 19th Century or "Classical" Liberalism (to which "capitalism" seems to refer, although it is admittedly vague) recognise the rights that are set forth as being "natural rights".
Having said that, I do not think that the present edit is perfect. I do however think it is less imperfect than the previous edit, which reads as if it was written by someone who doesn't like capitalism very much trying not very hard to be neutral. Praetonia 16:44, 16 March 2007 (GMT)
- So what are the social elements of capitalism and how should they be described? How is "an economic system characterized by individual and corporate freedom to produce, buy, and sell goods"?--Ember Nickel 21:40, 16 March 2007 (GMT)
Sounds quite good, although maybe "trade" instead of "produce, buy and sell goods". As I understand it, the main underlying principles of capitalism are firstly people owning their own land and produce and secondly being able to enter into reasonably unrestricted consensual trade agreements with others. Praetonia 23:37, 16 March 2007 (GMT)
- "freedom to trade" is fine.--Ember Nickel 00:04, 17 March 2007 (GMT)
Erm... "unfettered freedom" is not pejorative in any way, shape or form; quite the reverse, actually. I also believe that "private ownership of the means of production" is factual, but that can be rephrased if you like. "Freedom to trade" sounds ok... although of course that's not specific to capitalism. Aridd 01:09, 17 March 2007 (GMT)
How about this?
