Talk:Criticism of capitalism/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Chomsky

Does he really warrant his own section? Marx doesn't get one- marxists get one. Why shouldn't he be placed with other anarchists?Larklight (talk) 20:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Chomsky has a ton of books that have influenced the recent anti-capitalism thinking, and he is still alive and influencing current thinking by critizicing the current actions by the US. He deserves his own section because his criticism is different from the other critics. He ought to be grouped with similar critics and not with older critics, but I can't think of anyone that he could be grouped with and make sense. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I can't help but wonder

Why is it that every equality government and economy method is covered with a criticism page, yet the inequality supporting (and as the article itself states, enslaving) governing styles based in capitalism only get a minor "critique"? Is it not fair and NPOV to actually give it an equally harsh rebuttal as the other forms of governing and commerce? This article comes across as very mild. Lostinlodos (talk) 15:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Merge Tags Action

viz:

• CON Didn't see any discussion of them when performed the archiving. Seems like the first two definitely should be merged together. Generally think seperate Anti-Capitalism, Critique of Capitalism and criticism section(s) within Free Market or Market Economy are fine. In any case the tags are more than 6 mo old at this point. 74.78.162.229 (talk) 16:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

NB: There are also votes in progress on the proposed merge partners. 74.78.162.229 (talk) 01:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

OK The above stale tags were contradictory and didn't mention the real merge which would be with Anti-capitalism, taking this over there. 74.78.162.229 (talk) 06:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Finally saw the English wiki has resolved this with 2 distinct articles where the german wiki redirects from the other to this one. So that closes this action. 74.78.162.229 (talk) 06:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Market Instability

"No similarly deep crisis has occurred in a developed nation since this time." Time to change that one? 98.141.72.242 (talk) 02:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

removal of capitalist rebuttals

See POV_fork#Articles_whose_subject_is_a_POV. Articles like this one have to be presented neutrally. Read the lead of Wikipedia:Content forking, a POV fork is "a content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts". This needs to have both the notable anti-capitalists opinions and their notable rebuttals, otherwise it becomes a POV fork where the flaws on the critiques are never pointed out. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:43, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Modern economists on working conditions

This ref really doesn't fit where it's being used, although I can see wanting to use it somewhere. The section it's in is about the history of criticism, not so much about modern interpretation of those criticisms. Also, the ref doesn't talk much about working conditions, which is the focus at that point of this article, but rather talks about overall quality of life. It should be pulled or used in a better way. CRETOG8(t/c) 16:57, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Most importantly, Clark Nardinelli is not a reliable source. His article is not peer reviewed and he is not from academy but from "the U.S. Food and Drug Administration".--Sum (talk) 19:39, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

No anarchist section?

I was wondering why there was no specifically anarchist section, particularly as anarchists have been critiquing capitalism longer than Marxists have! Perhaps the Chomsky section could be renamed and expanded as his points are one anarchists have long been making (for example, Proudhon called property despotism in 1840!). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.40.192.31 (talk) 08:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Criticism > Critique?

When was this switch made? And why? And by whom? Stand, identify, and justify yourself, please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.105.228.24 (talk) 18:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree I think criticism is a better term. Have started a page Criticisms of globalization to compliment this one.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Nearly every other criticism page uses the term "criticism", rather than critique. I have no idea why this page deviates from this standard. 129.97.120.166 (talk) 14:55, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Sources

I came here originally hoping to get some sources (or at least on the trail of them) for the critique section of the Capitalism article, and found an abundance of unsourced material. I'll try to track down some of the needed references but I will need some help if anyone's willing. Soxwon (talk) 14:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Weasel

The section [excessive inequality] has nothing but "Some experts, Critics, suppoters, some" etc. There are exactly 5 ppl quoted for opinions: Guevera (for the long quote at the beginning), David Hackett Fisher (for one statement), Keynes (who appears to be given an opinion his theory never espouses or rather a twisted and oversimplified version of it), Robert Nozick, and Thomas Sowell. More specific "critics," "supporters," and "experts" are needed if the tag is to be removed. Soxwon (talk) 15:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

This is judgmental and your user space obviously shows that you have a point of view antagonistic to the subject matter of this article just as mine shows the opposite. We will probably need to have others arbitrate this. Lycurgus (talk) 16:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

No no, this is wikipedia policy: for instance: "Critics/experts say that...

"Sentences like Some people think... lead to arguments about how many people actually think that. Is it some people or most people? How many is many people? As a rule, ad populum arguments should be avoided, such as "as most Wikipedians agree..."

Repetition. Overuse of weasel words can lead to very monotonous-sounding articles due to the constraints they impose on sentence structure. For example: "Some argue... [..] Others respond... [..] Still others point out that [..]" This is poor writing.

All of these apply in this situation and Keynes is misquoted badly. Soxwon (talk) 18:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm aware of WP:WEASEL, and have addressed it in numerous other articles as the history of my named account shows. Generally, when it occurs, there are one of two cases, either sloppy/poor composition/writing skills on the part of an editor or an attempt to trump up a POV. The first case is addressible by rewrite and the second by deletion and neither seemed at my first inspection to be the case here. This issue appears to be being conflated with a matter of fact issue wrt Keynes. As I said we will probably need a 3rd set of eyes to resolve this. Lycurgus (talk) 12:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Name change

I don't know how to request this formally, but I'd like to see this article renamed to Criticisms of capitalism, as per: Criticisms of anarchism, Criticisms of socialism, Criticisms of Marxism, Criticisms of Communist party rule, etc., etc. (I'm sure there are others).

I know, I know, capitalism, as the economic system that embodies all that is pure and good right in the world, and as the guarantor of freedom and the bulwark against its erosion, is beyond criticism and is, at best, open to mild critique. Still and all, perhaps we ought to at least keep the naming of such articles consistent, if only to keep the dirty hippies, the freedom-hating unionists, the bomb-throwing anarchists, the Red Menace, the Stalinist gulag-apologists, the Che-loving guerrillas, the North Korea-coddling terrorists, and the other assorted commie pinko scum from revolting and overturning our happy little capitalist applecart. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.218.107 (talk) 06:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Criticism of Christianity; Criticism of Coca-Cola; Criticism of Holocaust denial; Criticism of Microsoft; Criticism of Muhammad; Criticism of Wikipedia(!); Criticism of Windows Vista.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.218.107 (talk) 06:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

FORMAL: Critique of Capitalism CHANGE TO: Criticisms of capitalism

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was moved. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Critique of capitalism → Criticisms of capitalism — "Critique of capitalism" is not NPOV. Every other socio-economic system has a criticisms page. World Views (talk) 23:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support - article describes several critiques which form an overall body of criticism. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 00:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support — using "Criticism of" has become a de facto standard on Wikipedia, and is generally regarded as more neutral then alternatives because of that. At this point, I'm almost of the opinion that the alternative names create an WP:UNDUE problem. Note however that the title should end up being singular ("Criticism" instead of "Criticisms").
  — V = I * R (talk) 00:18, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.