Template talk:Aspects of capitalism

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

There currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding this template. The thread is Template:Aspects of capitalism. Thank you. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:48, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion is archived here. New worl (talk) 10:07, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Neutral point of view

Towards making this template interesting, useful and balanced as appropriate for Wikipedia (see WP:NPOV), an effort has been made to include both 'positive' and 'negative' aspects of capitalism. Further refinement & balance would be helpful. Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 10:14, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, so let's go for that then. First of all, I will remove everything that are, in fact, NOT aspects of capitalism. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:23, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, I saw you had removed most of them already, improving things a lot. I removed some other glaring things. I'm still doubtful, it seems like this template sooner or later is going to be a political battleground, but maybe templates are different from articles, I don't have that much experience with political templates. :-) --OpenFuture (talk) 10:29, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

One of the interesting and challenging things about this is its complexity... There are economic, philosophical, political, cultural and other aspects of this topic, with wide ranging values and perspectives. If it can be accomplished, a balanced navigation template could help readers become acquainted with the broad spectrum of subtopics, debates and perspectives. Regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 10:40, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I also added it's antitheses - which sould be about as absolutely NPOV as possible, I suspect. Collect (talk) 12:47, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Anthithesises

Aren't all of the various Antithesises (pl?) really all the same? Various aspects of socialism? --OpenFuture (talk) 07:04, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Not quite, each system is vastly different in how it allocates resources and whether it has a state or not etc. Saying they're all "socialism" is akin to saying capitalism, socialism and fascism are all the same thing. CartoonDiablo (talk) 03:25, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Eh, no. Most of them does not specify how to allocate resources at all. You are correct that there are differences in the non-economical aspects of these variations of socialism, but this is an economical template. As an antithesis to capitalism these are all practically the same. Fascism is not an economical model and is hence neither the same nor different from capitalism in that aspect. Many states that have been called fascist has been capitalist, and many have been non-capitalist. --OpenFuture (talk) 03:53, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

(It is also doubtful how different Anarchism is from capitalism, as there are anarchist capitalists as well, and with no state around, the economics of a socialist anarchy would in practice be be indistinguishable from capitalist anarchy). --OpenFuture (talk) 04:02, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Let me rephrase myself then, by allocating resources I meant the economics of each system which are different. While each also has a different political system, they have a different economis system as well; saying Syndicalism, Socialism and Marxism are the same for instance is akin to saying capitalism and socialism are the same thing. CartoonDiablo (talk) 20:30, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Wage slavery

Wage slavery is literally considered an aspect of capitalism including in the article of it. CartoonDiablo (talk) 03:25, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

That article is highly POV and should be fixed. In a capitalist economy, the term wage slavery is self-contradictory nonsense. Capitalism is based on the economic freedom of individuals, and you can not be a free slave. Many critics of capitalism also claim that slavery in the real sense is an aspect of capitalism, which is also wrong for the same reasons. Some countries that we generally view as capitalist have involved in slavery, but that is not the fault of or an aspect of capitalism any more than the weather is. It is not an aspect of capitalism that it snows, just because it snows in a capitalist country. --OpenFuture (talk) 04:07, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I've discussed this on the article's talk page but you seem to be misinformed as to what constitutes WP:POV. Whether or not you agree or disagree with the term is irrelevant, what matters is its described neutrally and as a term that means such (wage work equated to voluntary slavery) it is an aspect of capitalism. By rejected it as POV based on your beliefs you are the one who is inserting a POV.

That aside, I'd advise you revert yourself per WP:BRD. The way this goes is you do an edit, someone reverts it and we discuss it. Thus far I reverted it but you reverted it back which is an edit war. CartoonDiablo (talk) 04:42, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

No, you have not discussed it on the articles talk page, you are however attempting to discuss it here, which is the wrong place. The article is POV, and if you don't agree, discuss it there. Yes, according to BRD you are in the right to revert it. It has now also been discussed, and I explained above why you were wrong. Case closed, and entry deleted. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:41, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I did discuss it and your not the one to make that decision (nor can you edit war even if your right, which you're not). Since this is an impasse I think this is best served in the dispute resolution which I'll set up later in the day. CartoonDiablo (talk) 16:05, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

CartoonDiablo - I just finished reading the articles you mention. The articles do not mention or cite a reliable source that suggests 'wage slavery is an aspect of capitalism'. Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources, in any case. Wiki guidelines require all five pillars, including WP:NPOV, [WP:NOR]] and WP:VNT. To include anything as an aspect of capitalism in this template, I urge we find two secondary sources per WP:RS guidelines - such as peer reviewed scholarly journal articles, etc. that we can verify. I suggest two because that would help address the WP:FRINGE guideline. If we cannot find reliable published support, we should consider not including it in this template.

I agree with both of you, OpenFuture and CartoonDiablo, that WP:ILIKEIT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT are not objective basis to include or exclude something. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 00:05, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Three sources that were in the article where:

• From Wage Slaves to Wage Workers: Cultural Opportunity Structures and the Evolution of the Wage Demands of Knights of Labor and the American Federation of Labor, 1880-1900

Essentially that wage slavery was widely regarded as a problem within capitalism.

• An 1869 New York Times editorial which says much of the same.
• The Making of the English Working Class pg 599 which says the same for Britain. CartoonDiablo (talk) 01:15, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Thanks. All three discuss history, the last one mentioning Luddism. Reliable literature on wage slavery and wage work from 19th century, cannot be extrapolated as reliable source for "wage slavery is an aspect of capitalism". Our choices: either add a history row to this template and add wage slavery there, or find WP:RS sources that assert that, in 21st century, wage slavery is an aspect of capitalism.ApostleVonColorado (talk) 01:31, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

The argument is that the same meaning of wage slavery applies to modern work but that the phrase is no longer used (especially in the first source). However I suppose word usage does matter in that sense so I'd be willing with putting a history category into the template. CartoonDiablo (talk) 02:00, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Once again: That something that some persons call "wage slavery" has existed under systems reasonably called "capitalist" does not mean that Wage slavery is an aspect of capitalism in any more sense than rain is, as rain also exists under capitalism. For it to be ab *aspect* of capitalism, it has to be something that is an integral part of capitalism. This it only is if you accept as a fact the claim that wage labor *is* slavery. That's a fringe view, and one you now claim the article on Wage slavery does not do, despite you claiming that it did above. And even if you would accept that they are one and the same, we can use the NPOV word for it: Employment. Which, unsurprisingly, is already in the template. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:30, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

As for a history category: No. The aspects of capitalism does not change through history. Wage slavery is just a euphemism for employment used by anti-capitalists to make it sound like it's better to *not* get payed for your work. Slavery is not and has never been an "aspect" of capitalism in any reasonable sense. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:33, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I think you missed the fact that each of those sources said that wage slavery (as defined) was an integral part of capitalism as it existed in the 19th century. And unless you consider the New York Times a fringe source then its not exactly a compelling argument. CartoonDiablo (talk) 11:49, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

• First of all, publishers are not fringe, theories are. See WP:FRINGE.
• Secondly, your sources does not support your claims. First of all, the claim you need to support is the claim that Wage slavery is an aspect of capitalism. You even admit that your sources do not do that. Instead you say that they claim that it was a part of capitalism as it existed in 19th century. So, not an aspect of capitalism, then. Instead it is, according to some, something that was a part of US society at this point, which they blamed on capitalism. Since US society nowadays does *not* exhibit this phenomenon, despite still being capitalist, it is not an aspect of capitalism. Once again: It rains in capitalist countries. That does not make rain an aspect of capitalism.
• Thirdly, your sources do not even support the claim that wage slavery was a part of capitalism in the 19th century.

• The "Social forces" paper examines "the reasons behind a historic shift in language" (my emphasis).

  We trace how the one dominant imagery of "wage slavery" lost it's connection to producerist labor ideology and eventually was replaced by the more pragmatic symbolism of "wage work"

  In other words, the paper traces how the anti-capitalist attempts of trying to make it sound better to work for free than to get payed *failed*.
• The New York times editorial says

  The fall of independent mechanic to wage-earner status amounted to "a system of slavery as absolute if not as degrading as that which lately prevailed in the south".

  That this is claiming that wage slavery is an aspect of capitalism is pure conjecture. Nothing in that source makes that claim.
• The editions of The Making of the English Working Class talks about Luddites on page 599, so I can't verify your claims there, but it doesn't matter as you now claim the book says England had wage slavery in the 19th century. Maybe it claims that, but that's not the claim it needs to make. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:39, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

So if a publisher takes up what you consider a fringe position, its not a fringe publication? (in terms of WP:Fringe not in circulation/readership) And I never "admitted" to anything, I explicitly said, each considered wage slavery to be an integral part of capitalism:

• The first source makes extensive reference to the fact that "wage slavery" was a widely held view and as a term which means wage labor it means that, unless you don't consider wage labor an aspect of capitalism, that it's a part of capitalism.
• If you read anything outside of that one sentence you would know the NYT editorial was not just some statement about mechanics, it was about a criticism of wage slavery.
• That one section might not of been the most pertinent but the book does mention wage slavery.

But more to the point the consensus is in favor of creating a history section and including wage slavery in it, unless you want to go to dispute resolution I don't see much else to discuss. CartoonDiablo (talk) 23:11, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I guess you can call a publication that consistently published fringe theories a fringe publication, but publishing a fringe theory does not automatically make you a fringe publication, no, and neither WP:RS nor WP:FRINGE makes any use of the concept. For the rest of your comments they are clearly based in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and I've grew bored of repeating myself. Please continue this discussion after you read all my pevious comments. If I'm somehow not making me clear, please ask for clarification. --OpenFuture (talk) 04:05, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ CartoonDiablo - Just finished reading the full copy of your 1st reference from Social Forces journal. It is suggesting that claims of wage slavery were used by labor movement, but was more of a misguided fear, and by 1890 the 'wage slavery' claims were replaced by discussion of labor rights and labor politics. In other words, the cited reference is claiming 'wage slavery' as part of the labor-management discourse in capitalist society, not an aspect of capitalism. Please have another look. What do you think? ApostleVonColorado (talk) 12:04, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Right but the term was used instead of "wage labor." The question we seem to be getting at is whether or not wage labor is considered an aspect of capitalism since the terms are historically synonyms.

And to OpenFuture, its not a fringe view regardless, even PBS makes note of how "wage slavery" (ie a synonym for wage labor) was a commonly held complaint. As to WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, the policy is based on users trying to assert a point (essentially without cause) and against consensus. As far as I can tell, there's not much of a consensus and I'm not asserting a point without cause, I'm saying a position which you took out of context.CartoonDiablo (talk) 01:44, 14 September 2012 (UTC)