-------------- Original message --------------
And it doesn't help that whenever Silverback has an opportunity, he belittles our policies. Silverback, your own "definition" of capitalism only further muddies the waters. As you should know by now, your own definition of capitalism (like mine, or RJII's) is irrelevant here. We are researching an encyclopedia, and we are committed to NPOV and NOR. That means providing different people's definitions of capitalism in a verifiable way.
Marx was complementary of capitalism for demonstrating that wealth was not static but could be created. If one were to point out that Marx appreciated that capitalism was not a zero sum game, would one be doing original research because he is using language that did not exist in Marx's time, or is he merely being descriptive in modern language of Marx's position? When does mere description or translation (in this case into modern language) become original research?
Scientists often define their terms at the beginning of a publication. More precision or a specific nuance of a term is needed in order to communicate clearly, sometimes the "definition" is simply to rule out specific possible ambiguous interpretations of the term. The term still contains a recognizable essence of the original meaning, but has become a term of art. The recognizable essence may not be the same essence that YOU would have selected, but you should adopt that meaning when reading the rest of the paper. Now if at the end, in the conclusions, the author tries to make rhetorical generalizations to the usual definition of the term, you are entitled to object.
Yes, I define terms, or rather select reductionists nuances of terms in an attempt at communication, but if you insist for instance that capitalism is a subset of fascism (BTW, you haven't as far as I know, perhaps "mercantilism" would be a better example), you are trying to denigrate and not communicate.
What would you say the marxist definition of capitalism is? Or do you think he would avoid giving one as a rhetorical technique to avoid being pinned down and put on the defensive?
-- Silverback
actionforum@comcast.net wrote:
------- Original message ---------
And it doesn't help that whenever Silverback has an opportunity, he belittles our policies. Silverback, your own "definition" of capitalism only further muddies the waters. As you should know by now, your own definition of capitalism (like mine, or RJII's) is irrelevant here. We are researching an encyclopedia, and we are committed to NPOV and NOR. That means providing different people's definitions of capitalism in a verifiable way.
Marx was complementary [sic! = complimentary?] of capitalism for demonstrating that wealth was not static but could be created. If one were to point out that Marx appreciated that capitalism was not a zero sum game, would one be doing original research because he is using language that did not exist in Marx's time, or is he merely being descriptive in modern language of Marx's position? When does mere description or translation (in this case into modern language) become original research?
Sorry about the "sic!" I try to limit that comment to places where it could make a difference.
This sort of thing only illustrates the ridiculous interpretations that have recently come out of the NOR policy. It's certainly a fact that Marx wrote in the 19th century and from a 19th century perspective. He wrote in German, but his 19th century translator also wrote from that perspective. Marx may certainly have had his own definition of "capitalism", but a lot has happened to the term since then; the evolution of the term is essential to its understanding. Taken to its extreme the NOR policy is in a paradoxical conflict with the extremes of our copyright policy. We can't use our own interpretation of a concept because it conflicts with NOR policy, but we also have to be careful about using the work of others because it could be in improper derivative work.
Scientists often define their terms at the beginning of a publication. More precision or a specific nuance of a term is needed in order to communicate clearly, sometimes the "definition" is simply to rule out specific possible ambiguous interpretations of the term. The term still contains a recognizable essence of the original meaning, but has become a term of art. The recognizable essence may not be the same essence that YOU would have selected, but you should adopt that meaning when reading the rest of the paper. Now if at the end, in the conclusions, the author tries to make rhetorical generalizations to the usual definition of the term, you are entitled to object.
A definition at the beginning is perfectly valid for the entire book even if that definition flies in the face of the definition used by everybody else. One can only hope that that author maintains consistency in the use of his term. Others like Rummell invent their own words (democide) to avoid the nuances of a more widely used term (genocide). Using a particular interpretation of a term is not obligatory beyond a particular book or a particular author's works generally. For "capitalism" we should perhaps have a series of dated quotes in Wikiquote. Wikipedia would do best to reduce the definition to its essential elements, without becoming mired in convoluted prose. When I looked at the article a couple days ago (without knowing whose version was current) I found that the definition there was difficult to follow. That's not what a casual reader looking to be enlightened wants to see. If he has difficulty reading the first paragraph, his presumption will be that reading the rest of the article will be just as difficult. A lead paragraph should draw readers in, not drive them away.
Yes, I define terms, or rather select reductionists nuances of terms in an attempt at communication, but if you insist for instance that capitalism is a subset of fascism (BTW, you haven't as far as I know, perhaps "mercantilism" would be a better example), you are trying to denigrate and not communicate.
When you treat capitalism as a subset of fascism (or vice-versa which to me would seem more plausible) you are muddling an economic concept with a political one.
What would you say the marxist definition of capitalism is? Or do you think he would avoid giving one as a rhetorical technique to avoid being pinned down and put on the defensive?
Marx is not engaged in rhetorical debates; he's too long dead to do that. If you want Marx's definition of capitalism use a properly cited quote. If you want the view of the MarxISTS then properly cite them. The same goes for anti-Marxists.
Ec