Talk:Capitalism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article Capitalism was one of the good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
August 8, 2006 Good article reassessment Delisted
August 28, 2006 Peer review Reviewed
March 2, 2008 Good article nominee Not listed
Current status: Delisted good article


External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Capitalism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:56, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Distinctions in:[edit]

WP:NOTAFORUM - So start a new discussion with "Expert X say Y about Capitalism in this WP:RS, let's include it."

I haven´t noticed any of the individuals with knowledge ever having made the following simple distinctions:

Communism: Common Level parquo at social security levels, in pertinence to an army or military. (IE: All armies are defacto communist, lowering the costs to the most common level being the only form and manner to maintain a standing army [or navy], no matter if that is done through subsidiation or other simpler forms).

Socialism: Labour force, workers, wage level, including bonifications.

Capitalism: Those that go for it themselves, whom set up a venture, fail or make. (IE: commerce, small to medium industry. Large industry caters to communism, some, catering solely to the military).

These three simple distinctions are never removable and exist in all and every society, therefore there is no such a thing as a pure communist state (unless you count a nation whom has an ongoing waract, or is in the grasp of a fast depression cycle), nor a pure socialist state, nor for that matter a pure capitalist state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.44.74.111 (talk) 22:44, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

"Communist state" is an oxymoron because, according to Marx, communism means the elimination of the state. And capitalism is a descriptive term used to describe actually exising states rather than some sort of ideologue's daydream. TFD (talk) 23:09, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Evaluation of Content[edit]

Almost each fact is referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference. Almost all of the citations come from books or academic journals. However, this is a citation coming from the website Sparknotes which may not seem to be much of reliable source. Everything in the article is relevant to the article topic and seems to have an overall objective view of the topic and neutral. The article is incredibly comprehensive and each viewpoint seems to be well represented. There does not seem to be paraphrasing or plagiarism in the few citation links I clicked. The citations links all worked.

Would the incorporation of larger opposing systems be beneficial to this article? Are there more subtypes of capitalism?

Alexskupny (talk) 18:55, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Alexskupny, Thank you for your thoughts. I replaced the Sparknotes citation to one to a book by Ernst Mandel. I hope that works for you. There was information on opposing systems, I removed them as this article is about capitalism not other systems. We would end up including descriptions of any system people take a fancy to and that would be an indiscriminate collection of information. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. "Are there more subtypes of capitalism?" Good question. I have no answer myself. Perhaps someone else will take that up. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 11:03, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Good work. I do not think however that it would be a good idea to provide a section on alternatives. Marxian analysis is provided which explains that one alternative is to transfer ownership of the means of production to the workers. The details are best explained in other articles. I think that is how reliable sources would treat it. I can see such a section becoming a POV nightmare, as we argue which systems are truly capitalist and which systems provide alternatives. TFD (talk) 11:23, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

comparasion to slavery[edit]

this is part of the far-left impact on Wiki. Slavery is opposed to Capitalism. Leftists always distort the facts It is frustrating to response to them. Communists are not "realiable" resource to talk about capitalism. It's like writing what the Nazis said about the US as criticism over the US. And i'm sick to argue about basic stuff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.138.239.112 (talk) 12:50, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Actually the United States had slavery until 1865, and it was widespread in the British and French Empires in the 19th century and was considered a property right. Certainly left-wing views are presented as are views across the political spectrum. If you don't like reading views that differ from yours, there are lots of websites that print only views with which you would agree. TFD (talk) 14:21, 4 February 2017 (UTC)


Stop putting words in my mouth. I didn't talk about slavery in the US but the comparasion of Capitalism to slavery which is the opposite. Let alone forced labour in the USSR. The point is mispresentation of the capitalism which is part of the Left biased in Wikipedia. Communists are not reliable resource to "criticize" capitalism. Just like the nazis are not reliable resourse to "criticize" the US. The left biased in Wiki has gone too far. Again, why what the communists say is reliable resource about capitalism? and what about slavery in socialist countries? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.138.239.112 (talk) 15:04, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

How can capitalism be the opposite of slavery if slavery can be part of capitalism? This article btw is about capitalism not socialist countries hence there is no discussion of slavery in socialist countries or in ancient Greece or Roman or the Bible for that matter. TFD (talk) 15:09, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
I think the important point is that Wikipedia is not saying that capitalism is slavery, it is reporting what others have said on the subject. Wikipedia is not "far left" because it honestly reports the ideas of the Left. It also reports the ideas of the Right. I hear increasingly in the media that any publication that is not 100% in agreement with the Right is "biased" against the Right. This is a misuse of the word "biased". Rick Norwood (talk) 15:19, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

You twisted what I said, again. Distortion of the truth. Wikipedia doesn't criticize the left in the same rate as the right. right parties automatically called "extremes" where parties in the far-left doesn't. And yet you didn't answer the question to why communists are reliable source. You're changing the subject and distort what I said. You are obviously biased and not objective. Why do you consider communists as a reliable source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.138.239.137 (talk)

It reflects reliable sources, per weight, and does not attempt to provide equal space to all positions. So for example the "far left" theory of evolution is given greater weight than the right-wing theory of creation. That is because science textbooks support the theory of evolution and refute creationism. Whether or not someone is a Communist has no bearing on whether what they write is reliable. If an article is published in a peer-reviewed journal we accept it as reliable no matter who wrote it. TFD (talk) 16:42, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
It is you who is twisted. I just scanned the article for your complaint and there is a section which has wage labour as slavery as topic. Wage labour is not another term for Capitalism. Wage labour has been equated with slavery since at least classical times so it you who is evincing something, that thing which if it were completely absent, I take it you would be perceiving leftiness, i.e. support for your cherished if ill considered opinion. 98.4.124.117 (talk) 07:28, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Profit Motive Content Eval[edit]

The citations overall for this article seem to be from positive sources. What primarily caught my eye was the section on Profit Motive. This section is underrepresented and undercited. It contains only one citation, which only cites a mass quote. I feel this section could be enhanced with more citations. A summary from citations could create a clearer and less redundant explanation of the theory and how it applies to the topic. Partguypartshark (talk) 05:19, 5 February 2017 (UTC)