Difference between revisions of "Talk:Capitalism"

Revision as of 20:29, February 25, 2012

Iran is non-capitalist? Excuse me?

"Anti Semitic"? You _are_ aware that Karl Marx was Jewish, right? --BobD 18:09, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

• He was ethnically Jewish yes. However, his parents were converts to Christianity. He was not raised Jewish and wrote many anti-semitic essays. He was a self-hating Jew! Google it. -- CoulterMan 18:14, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

Cut:

an economic system where the means of production are privately owned and operated

It's still capitalism, even if the government runs some businesses. There is no bright line of division between free market capitalism and a totally planned economy. Even under the Soviet Union, there was a thriving black market. Maybe we need an economic spectrum to describe the gradations of control. --Ed Poor 05:21, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

I endores this view and beleive Marxist rhetoric needs to be kept out of this article. Capitalism is not an ideology, unlike Marxism, and there is no comparison between the two on that basis. RobS 13:07, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

I'd argue it is, but its tenets are rarely articulated. Anyone want to take a crack at it? (The big one seems to be that ANYTHING a corporation does to make money is inherently good.)

Don't bother. Gorby tried to salvage what he could, and still is a convinced Communst, but the rest of the planet has rejected the flawed notion that Communism is a completing "ideology" to Captialism. Please, abandon this moot point. RobS 13:37, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

• "It's still capitalism, even if the government runs some businesses." No it isn't!

"There is no bright line of division between free market capitalism and a totally planned economy." Yes, there is! -- AmeriCan 22:32, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

Image

HEE HEE! Guitarplayer 17:11, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

The image is to demonstrate the absurdity of image choice at Socialism. --Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ^talk 17:12, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

Ok, I'll play your little game. Thank you for the BBC link, it really was very interesting reading, and something I've wanted to read for a long time. You, sir, have the floor now. Please support any claim you wish to make. Thank you. RobS 17:47, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

My claim is that if you wish to make a completely inaccurate generalization about a very broad and diverse ideology, that kind of logic should apply to all ideologies. You put socialism in the worst possible light, so I think it is only fair to show capitalism in the worst possible light. Do you disagree? Is there some sort of double standard taking place here? I would propose an image of, say, Alexander Hamilton for the capitalism article, and Karl Marx for the socialism article. Both are extremely relevant figures. --Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ^talk 17:51, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

(A) I disagree with the premise, "Capitalism is an ideology." Now, it is up to you, using an argument or sources other than Marxist, to prove that it is an ideology. But we are getting ahead of ourselves. Right now, you need to support your fundamental claim, using this text, [1], for the statement,

"Augusto Pinochet, a Chilean capitalist. Pinochet murdered approximately 3,000 "leftist sympathizers" to promote capitalism." RobS 18:07, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

I don't care what term we use to define it; Capitalist and Socialism are two different ways of performing the same task. Whether it is an ideology, a way of life, an economic system, a belief... I don't care. Your attempts to pull the argument away from the core issue will not work. The issue at hand is the use of images, not whether it is an ideology. And I won't be using that source anymore, as I think we can both agree on the basics;

• Chilean leftists attempted to promote communism (a form of socialism, not synonymous with socialism)
• Pinochet murdered 3,000 leftists, to make sure that a capitalist economy stayed in place.

A CIA report: [2]

And for the record, I despise socialism; the basic ideal it promotes cannot be successfully attained, and it presents no motivation for work. I do, however, think that certain elements of socialist countries - say, socialized health care - would be of great benefit to America.

Once again, the question dodging needs to stop. Capitalism and Socialism are both, let's say, "economic systems". Therefore, presenting capitalism in a strictly positive light, while presenting the absolute worst of socialism - dictators, fascists, and murderers - is a ridiculous double standard. I understand your personal objection to socialism, Rob, but that doesn't get to influence objective writing, correct? --Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ^talk 19:00, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

Ok, so (A) where in the CIA report can you support the claim,

Augusto Pinochet, a Chilean capitalist. Pinochet murdered approximately 3,000 "leftist sympathizers" to promote capitalism."

(B) Can we assume you are unable to support the claim, "Augusto Pinochet, a Chilean capitalist. Pinochet murdered approximately 3,000 "leftist sympathizers" to promote capitalism," with the BBC cite, since you said, "I won't be using that source anymore", and will you remove it?

(C) Hoji said, "Capitalist and Socialism are two different ways of performing the same task;" -- RobS does not agree with this.

(D) Hoji said, "Capitalism and Socialism are both, let's say, 'economic systems';-- RobS does not agree with this either. RobS 20:33, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

Let's try this a similar way:

I don't agree with your agreement on C or D. Would you like to define them in your own manner? I proposed a compromise; an image of Hamilton on this article, and an article of Marx at Socialism. We can work out the captions later. So, do you agree with the image choice, or would you like something different? --Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ^talk 23:12, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

Hoji my good man, you are backpeddling. The burden of proof is on you to prove that Capitalism is an ideology; and I suspect you cannot do that without using Marxist sources. So, by default, I win, unless you wish to pursue it further.

I don't see the meaining or purpose of an image of Hamilton on this page. Capitalism is not hardly an ideology, or an article of faith that anyone puts personal sentiments or emotion on. Let's assume momentarily old earth creation theory & evolution are true, i.e. that the human speicies is 130,000 years old; guess what? Capitalism fed the human species from day one until now. And there simply is no other explanation as to how the human species has survived this long. You say Marxism (socialism/communism/whatever) is an "economic system;" I say bullrot. Capitalism kept the Soviet Union alive for 70 years, not Socialism (Communism or Liberalism or whatever). The Managers of the Soviet system exterminated the old owners of property (by "property" I am refering to "capital"), stole their assets, appointed themselves slave masters, and continued a capitalist regime with themselves in charge.

So you see my friend, while we can scientifically and academically pick Marx's Das Kapital apart, and demonstrate its flaws and failings, by contrast Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations is not a textbook of ideology or a substitute for the Bible. It is rather like a Volvo repair manual, it gives a mechanical description of operations that allow the human species to survive in a civilized society. RobS 23:35, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

I am not trying to define capitalism as an ideology, I am trying to convince you, in a ridiculously off-topic argument, that the image currently in place is not accurate.

So you wish to say that capitalism is not an ideology, but socialism is? You wish to define Das Kapital as an "alternative to the Bible"? You state that capitalism has kept humanity alive since day one?

I'll indulge you and agree to that analysis of the situation. If socialism is an ideology, than communism is a type of socialism; like lassez-faire capitalism is a type of capitalism. Once again, trying to make "socialism" synonymous with "communism" is simply inaccurate. Including a picture of fascist dictators on the "socialism" article is simply wrong, and I believe you know this.

You still attempt to change the subject, which remains the same; the image of Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin on the Socialism article is misleading and inaccurate. --Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ^talk 01:30, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

Ok, so we found areas of common understanding. I'll reserve comment on the statement "lassez-faire capitalism is a type of capitalism."

As to the statement, ""Augusto Pinochet, a Chilean capitalist...murdered approximately 3,000 "leftist sympathizers" to promote capitalism," your own friends contradict this premise right here in CP. Donald Kendall gives us an explanation of the Chilean coup:

Allende's leftist regime was banning cola sales and other capitalist operations. These conspiracy theorists believe that Kendall used his influence with Nixon to persuade him to back the right-wing coup.

Interesting entry; allegedly it had nothing to do with Capitalist/Communist, U.S./Soviet, left/right competetition. It was Coke/Pepsi capitalism, Coke being backed by Nixon & the U.S., Pepsi being the "national soda franchise" of the Soviet Union as the entry states. The godless Allende wanted to boot out Coca-Cola sales & let Soviet bottled Pepsi have a capitalist monopoly in Chile. And all this, it can be seen, came from a Marxist contributor here in Conservapedia.

So, what evidence have you presented that is not simply another Marxist lie? To deny (a) the historic nature of the image in the Socialism article, or (b) the very name of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is disengeuous. As to the idea it's misleading: Would you agree the incessant, unending discussion of Strom Thurmond, David Duke, racism, and the GOP is misleading? RobS 09:54, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

Wait...

I find the Religious Right's (the dominating force behind Conservapedia) view on capitalism to be somewhat puzzling. The Religious Right believes that (I disagree; I'm a libertarian.) the government's duty is to enforce morality on its citizens while granting them as much economic freedom as possible. This stance is clearly negligent of the fact that in addition to promoting morality, Christianity and nearly every other major religion in the world promote charity. Members of the Religious Right argue that it is best for charity to be kept private, but it seems to me that if the government is to enforce morality on its citizenry, said citizenry should be forced into charity also. Thus, a non-hypocritical version of the Religious Right would be socialist, and, by extension, not be a religious right at all but religious statist. If anyone disagrees with me on this, I would love to debate. --X. Dulks

FAR OFF POINT

CAPITALISM - An economic system in which the means of production, distribution and exchange are privately owned and operated for private profit. Webster's Dictionary

PRIVATE PROPERTY - As protected from being taken for public uses, is such property as belongs absolutely to an individual, and of which he has the exclusive right of disposition. Property of a specific, fixed and tangible nature, capable of being in possession and transmitted to another, such as houses, lands, and chattels. - - Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p.1217

Concatenating the two, we get: Capitalism is an economic system in which individuals absolutely own the means of production, distribution, and exchange.

Based on that simplification, it's clear that there are no capitalist nations around. Either corporations (who are creatures of government permission and do not absolutely own) or governments claim power and authority over the means of production, distribution and exchange.

--Jetgraphics 14:36, 14 November 2007 (EST)