Talk:capitalist

RFV discussion: March–April 2021

This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).

Please do not re-nominate for verification without comprehensive reasons for doing so.

---

capitalist

RFV-sense "owner of a considerable amount of capital; a wealthy person". Modified to the point of removal by an infrequent editor. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 17:34, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Several other dictionaries have this sense. DCDuring (talk) 22:33, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 23:37, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

The cites that have been provided all support sense 2: someone who invests their money, i.e. an investor. A person who simply owns money, and doesn't try to use it to get more, wouldn't be considered a capitalist.__Gamren (talk) 02:30, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

I disagree. The 1984 is possibly referring to an investor, but the others refer only to the ownership of goods, not the investing of the money. The two prior to 1850 predate the modern notion of capitalism, so I think they VERY strongly support this meaning. The 2013 talks about the similarity of a capitalist to a miser, and a miser does not invest, he hoards. Kiwima (talk) 10:33, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

They all refer to someone disposing with money. Logically, since a great sum of capital without any wealth being used is unrealistic. The 1984 quote with “I'm not a great capitalist myself” specifically means someone has little idea how to invest that money. So you have disproven that sense. It is redundant to the investor sense, delete. Fay Freak (talk) 11:58, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

If you care to read the next sentence in the 2013 quote: "... a rational miser. The never-ending augmentation of exchange-value, which the miser strives after, by seeking to save his money from circulation, is attained by the more acute capitalist, by constantly throwing it afresh into circulation." In other words, a miser hoards, a capitalist invests, and what they have in common is greed.__Gamren (talk) 12:26, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

If you read it again, he distinguishes capitalists from misers (people only hoarding instead of investing, which is a doubtful concept in first place; investing is hoarding). It says “miser is merely a capitalist gone mad” not because the miser is a capitalist but because he was one and has become different. Fay Freak (talk) 16:23, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree most of the added definitions, save 1818, support the second sense and 1818 probably describes some economic enterprise though perhaps not per se something that would be called a business venture, but it would be imprudent to move to delete the sense right now. As DCDuring observed, some other dictionaries include a sense "wealthy person". [1] [2] ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 16:40, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

This may be promising: rich capitalists would be pleonastic if it's the nominated definition but a meaning "capital investor" is unlikely, "supporter of capitalism" is possible but is it plausible? [3] Then there are cases where large landholders are (anachronistically) called capitalists, in some cases these would have been investors or entrepreneurs. Collocations with rent may be another angle for finding genuine attestations for "wealthy person"; someone who lives off rent is not a capitalist per our definition, except of course for those with renting businesses. Of course, little prevents investors from seeking or capturing some rents on the side... ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 18:58, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

There is no essential connection between being wealthy and being an investor in the means of production or even in financial assets. One can do a lot with borrowed money. Dos one stop being called a capitalist once one is bankrupt or one's industrial assets are lost? Thus rich/wealthy capitalist is not necessarily a pleonasm. Do we really need to find passive investors or beneficiaries of trusts and estates being called capitalists to verify this definition? DCDuring (talk) 02:04, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Eh, what are you talking about? Of course rich capitalists is pleonastic if the nominated definition ("owner of a considerable amount of capital; a wealthy person") applies, "rich wealthy person" is a pleonasm. I wasn't referring to the other senses in that clause. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 08:53, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

@Lingo Bingo Dingo Is it a pleonasm if I say "a fast Porsche" or "an agile gymnast"? DCDuring (talk) 14:47, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

No, though I wouldn't see those in quite the same way (in the definition under discussion "richness" is part of the definition, but fastness is a usual but accidental property of a Porsche, until someone crashes it against a tree, and agility is a usual but accidental property of a gymnast, until xe gets an injury), but that may just be my idiolect. Whatever be the case, I do not suggest that any potentially pleonastic attestations should be excluded; I think that in the quote rich capitalists, particularly film stars probably does mean "rich people, particularly film stars", but I'm somewhat open to arguments to the contrary. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 15:08, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

No, there is, because a rich person’s wealth will rarely lie all on a current account. One does not stop calling someone a capitalist once he is bankrupt because he is not defined by merely “having”, but by “having invested”. Capitalist is a synonym of investor, somebody who puts money into something to have more of it. This is the simple meaning it had before university priests imagined an -ism or class out of it. Everyone is once in a while a capitalist because it is just a role in economy. Fay Freak (talk) 16:23, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

RFV-passed. Reviewing the citations, after reading this argument, I am still convinced that enough of them have nothing to do with investing. Kiwima (talk) 21:10, 9 April 2021 (UTC)