actionforum(a)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