Follow TV Tropes

Discussion UsefulNotes / Capitalism

Go To

Sep 30th 2019 at 6:55:40 AM •••

This article is rife with bias against the actual economic model, rather than an objective statement of what it is and how it works. I mean, the opening paragraphs are essentially a summary of "Capital in the Twenty-First Century" by Thomas Piketty. Maybe we can change remove this, or at the very least move it, so that the basics of capitalist economics are stated first?

I understand he is a respected economist, but is it really necessary to start the discussion of capitalism with an indictment against it?

Edited by TheThoughtAssassin Hide/Show Replies
Sep 30th 2019 at 9:48:41 AM •••

Quick update: I changed some of the contents of the page to give a more objective analysis of capitalism (mostly in the definition section). I also moved the Picketty "Contradiction" section further down; it's strange to have a page talk about capitalism start off with a) a biased definition of what it actually is and b) immediately go into its pitfalls without even going over the very basics.

It's clear whoever wrote this has a strong anti-capitalist bias, and it shows.

Sep 30th 2019 at 9:56:05 AM •••

You can't open something for discussion and then unilaterally decide to change a bunch of it because of what you personally see as a "bias". That defeats the entire purpose of opening it for discussion.

Sep 30th 2019 at 7:44:46 PM •••

Ok, then letís discuss it

1. Why is the page quote a criticism of the subject rather than, well, anything else?

2. Why is the definition a Marxist interpretation of the topic, rather than either the dictionary definition or Wikipedia definition?

3. Why is the next, immediate section another indictment of the system rather than the basics of what it is and how it works?

For comparison, the equivalent page regarding socialism has none of these things.

Oct 11th 2019 at 10:05:12 AM •••

I think a good place to start would be with the introductory quote and the definition. We can rip either of these straight from wikipedia or the dictionary.

Oct 11th 2019 at 1:23:33 PM •••

I would also suggest moving the "capitalism kills its host" later in the article, or just remove it entirely. If it must be included, have it at least be presented as a criticism rather than some objective explanation.

Mar 15th 2017 at 10:22:55 PM •••

I think we should mention the usage of capitalism in Glorious Mother Russia spoof.

Edited by Kuruni Hide/Show Replies
Mar 15th 2017 at 10:43:43 PM •••

That trope page has only one reference to capitalism (via CTRL+F).

So not sure if its relevant. There is a page called Capitalism Is Bad that deals with fictional representations of capitalism.

Mar 14th 2017 at 1:16:19 PM •••

I altered some of this page to even out the bias, the quote on top has to be at least somewhat positive of the subject matter its talking about. I've also clarified positions that I think were unfairly strawmanned

Hide/Show Replies
Mar 14th 2017 at 1:36:02 PM •••

I thank you for finally coming here...I have several issues to address.

1) There is a policy about pagequote, and you have to vet it by the General Page Quote Discussion before changing an existing one. The one with Piketty that we have was the first one there and it was added as per the rules, you cannot unilaterally change it...and there's no rule that a quote has to be "positive", it has to be representative. Since Capitalism as it exists today is not the capitalism at the time of the 19th Century, then obviously there are problems and issues and divisions with it, ergo it cannot be represented by a wholly positive quote. If you have issues with the earlier quote, fine, but you must choose something representative. The earlier quote is representative regardless of your issues.

2) Complaints about bias is one thing, but what about the deletions? Why did you remove the entire section on Thomas Piketty? Your edits and cuts went far beyond correcting existing biases, towards actively and editorially enforcing another viewpoint friendly to critics.

3) Your comment on the section on Keynes makes this assertion, "The Great Depression( or as many free-market thinkers believe, he was the primary force responsible for putting us in it). "

One Keynes published his famous "General Theory" in the mid-30s, the Depression began in 1929 and heightened into 1932 ans 1933. How is Mr. Keynes the "primary force" responsible for putting us in it.

4) Given these changes and edits and deletions, I believe your complaints about the earlier article being "Strawmanning" is in patent bad faith. And your real intention is that sections concerning your economic theory be dealt with more fairly. Had you done so, that would be the end of it. I invite you to restore all the deletions and cuts, and keep the changes to the economic theory you feel friendly towards.

Jan 23rd 2017 at 10:17:52 AM •••

I deleted the lower half of the page because it was highly biased against Capitalism, especially compared to the page on Socialism.

I was told that the Socialist page bears no relevance, I disagree. I thought TV Tropes was a neutral Platform, and not a Socialist Platform, so if the page on Socialism is written relatively neutral, why shouldn't the page on Capitalism too, be written neutral? Everyone on TV Tropes you see neutrality and respect be mentioned as very important, yet here it isn't?

What I deleted reads almost exactly like what is written in Karl Marx's "Das Kapital", very dry and totally different to most more fun and easy-to-read articles on TV Tropes.

And what I mean by it being majorly biased against Capitalism:

"Capitalism kills its hosts" -> I dare to say that Capitalists and those that support Capitalism will disagree with that statement. This would be okay, if it was under a subcategory of Criticism on Capitalism, but it is written as if it is a fact that people have to agree on.

I admit after rereading it, the rest of the article, while sometimes being a bit negative, May not be that biased. However, I still maintain that the article is written different than most articles on this site, especially the part "The Central Contradiction: r > g". I suggest at least removing or completely rewriting this part. It reads strange, it reads VERY Marxist, and way to dry. It does sound like directly copied from Marx's Book.

Hide/Show Replies
Jan 23rd 2017 at 10:33:03 AM •••

I was told that the Socialist page bears no relevance,

It bears no relevance precisely because it is an entirely separate page from Capitalism with content not dealing with it. It doesn't matter one way or another if that page has a positive/negative tone.

What I deleted reads almost exactly like what is written in Karl Marx's "Das Kapital", very dry and totally different to most more fun and easy-to-read articles on TV Tropes.

Well if you wish it to be written more accessibly than that's fine, but do not say things that what is written like Marx's Das Capital, that book is mostly statistics and reports on the conditions of Victorian factories, absolutely none of which is covered in this page.

"Capitalism kills its hosts"

A statement by Non-Marxist Keynesian economist Thomas Piketty, the most respected economist in the world today, author of Capital in the 21st Century.

"The Central Contradiction: r > g". I suggest at least removing or completely rewriting this part.

Also from Piketty's book. Not from Marx's for the very obvious reason that Marx did not have access to the statistics to make that statement.

Marx is a great man but even he, student of Adam Smith and others that he was, would deny that he was the first and last authority on capitalism. I wouldn't say Marx is absent from the page, but he is not the primary or only voice.

Nov 30th 2016 at 8:53:55 PM •••

>Hold political-economic power in proportion to their ownership of capital. This is preposterous; I have never heard a capitalist describe this part of capitalism, specifically holding political power via capital. Look up "Capitalism" on your choice of search engine, I guarantee the results won't describe this as a part of it.

And I agree with jate88, it reads like a hit piece as is. The Socialism Useful Notes page doesn't start with anything nearly as hostile as "capitalism kills its hosts", and especially when this one starts off with such a ridiculous assertion it doesn't hold my trust for more than a few seconds.

Nov 17th 2016 at 4:23:14 PM •••

The person who rewrote this clearly has a left wing bias.

Hide/Show Replies
Nov 17th 2016 at 6:23:39 PM •••

Well reality tends to have a left-wing bias... all honesty the definitions here are based on the works of current academic economists, like Krugman, Piketty and Keynes. Respected professionals all of them.

Nov 17th 2016 at 6:29:02 PM •••

What does that mean, and how is the article now wrong?

Nov 18th 2016 at 12:20:49 PM •••

Well saying that capitalism has a political component to it is debated in the discussion on the political ideologies useful note page. Saying the capitalist class dominates economic-political life I guess could be true or false but sounds Marxist. Saying capitalism is defined by a self-destructive trend sounds like a criticism of it. The second paragraph in the central contradiction section sounds very similar to the Marxist idea that the working class will rise up and overthrow the capitalist class. I don't understand why there needs to be two different sections to explain the different types of capitalism.

Nov 21st 2016 at 6:03:07 AM •••

Capitalism is an economic system, so by definition it cannot exist independently of human society and its politics.

Good point re: Capitalist domination, that would be untrue in a Social Democracy.

And yes, the section claiming that Capitalism is self-destructive was a mistake. Governments are destroyed by the capital accumulation dynamic, not Capitalism itself (as Marxists hope).

I assume you're referring to the section explaining the "systems" themselves and the other which explains the "schools of thought". The problem with explaining which systems arise from political attempts to implement one (or more) schools is that this is Grade-A Flame Bait.

Most infamously, Austrian-school economists and Neoliberal thinkers such as Ayn Rand believe(d) that if their ideas were implemented in reality then the political-economic system which resulted would be a perfectly meritocratic democracy. Almost everyone else believes that the result would be a (de facto) dictatorship with little or no social mobility.

Edited by MAI742
May 13th 2016 at 10:15:45 AM •••

The "uncontroversial" definition of capitalism given here is the Marxist definition. Doesn't that seem a bit biased?

Hide/Show Replies
May 13th 2016 at 4:58:27 PM •••

How is it "Marxist"? And who on earth would dispute such a definition? I mean, even wikipedia defines it thusly:

"Capitalism is an economic system based on private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit."

....before elaborating upon its other features using terms and words which require explanation.

Jul 23rd 2013 at 11:45:17 PM •••

'Socialism is it's biggest competitor'? No.

Capitalism is an economic model. Socialism is not, nor does it include, an economic model.

Socialism includes certain views on the role of a government in the economy and on the extent of public vs. private property, but contrary to what you hear from people arguing on the internet and politicians making claims about it in their rhetoric, those views are not mutually exclusive with adopting Capitalist economic practice.

May 9th 2013 at 5:26:50 AM •••

Maybe more math could be brought into this article.

Type the word in the image. This goes away if you get known.
If you can't read this one, hit reload for the page.
The next one might be easier to see.