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

Overuse of Karl Marx[edit]

Marx seems very overrepresented in this article. It reads a bit like the communist party have stuck him in at every opportunity; I counted 65 uses of his name, discounting the sidebars and references. Seems rather over the top. What do other people think?GliderMaven (talk) 21:37, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I see the same representation in the academic literature that touches on the term. This degree of representation is also common in other areas where the author of the first widely distributed book included the term and discussed the phenomena extensively. I see nothing strange about this. Star Lord - 星爵 (talk) 11:11, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Karl Marx is arguably one of the most influential economists and critics of capitalism in history, so his representation is fair if not underrepresented, in my opinion. Considering how anyone who is serious about understanding capitalism needs to read Marx's works, it's hardly abnormal for him to be a common feature of an article about capitalism. ―Nøkkenbuer (talkcontribs) 09:33, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps most of Marx's critique of capitalism can be moved to it's own page. If you come to an encyclopedia article on a subject you don't expect to see, mainly, one person's critique of it. Jbmcb (talk) 16:20, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
On the one hand, Marx is one of the most important writers on capitalism, and certainly needs to be included in this article. On the other hand, a great deal has happened since Marx wrote, and for the article to be heavily influenced by Marx is as inappropriate as it would be for the article on psychology to be heavily influenced by Freud. Marx and Freud were great thinkers, but we have come a long way in our understanding since their time. Rick Norwood (talk) 01:08, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link 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}}).

YesY Archived sources have been checked to be working

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:28, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

referenced information deleted[edit]

"According to economist Joseph Schumpeter, capitalism is the most successful economic system that has existed thus far. Capitalism, he observed, creates wealth through advancing continuously to ever higher levels of productivity and technological sophistication; this process, known as creative destruction, requires that the "old" be destroyed before the "new" can take over.[1]"

I'm not sure what the objection is to this statement, which can be confirmed by many other references. The reasons for its deletion also seem strange: "too specific" and "according to Marxism capitalism will be replaced." Please note that it doesn't say that capitalism is "good", just that it is the "most successful", which it clearly is. Comments? Rick Norwood (talk) 13:05, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

No, it isn't clear that capitalism is the most successful. There are a lot of criticism about capitalism from thousands of economists. Picking just Schumpeter's opinion and adding it to the lead isn't neutral. His opinion can be added to subsections. emijrp (talk) 19:32, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
I agree the information in the paragraph can be in the article, just not in the lead as it doesn't really summarize the article. Perhaps in "Characteristics" just after the first paragraph and before or in "Summary" or at the bottom of the article in "Economic freedom" (as that is sort of a "Praise" section to offset "Criticism". I also removed the quote by Cassidy. It just restates the first sentence. We should probably avoid any quotes in the lead. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 19:57, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi everyone! I'm the person who originally removed it. I took it out of the intro because it didn't seem like an introductory statement - "creative destruction" is not a general description of capitalism, just one popular theory about capitalism's tendency to create change. I called it "too specific," which was maybe awkward wording, because it would clearly belong better in a body section of the text. It probably wouldn't have looked as out of place as it did if it hadn't been introduced by a subjective statement like "capitalism is the most successful economic system that has ever existed," which did very much read like an attempt to put "capitalism is good" into the introduction of an article that is supposed to be neutral. (talk) 22:39, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Wow, then we seem to have a consensus that it is OK to put in the article, but not in the lead . . . . . . now all we need is someone who cares enough about Schumpeter to do it. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 08:24, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I think almost any modern economist would agree that capitalism is the most successful economic system that ever existed, not as a subjective opinion but as a statement of fact. It is no more subjective than any other statement about the world as it is today. And certainly the success or failure of capitalism is an important property of capitalism. On the other hand, I agree that the "creative destruction" idea does not belong in the lead. I'll look around for a better statement by a major economist of the idea that capitalism, in its various forms, is now pretty much universal. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:04, 20 May 2016 (UTC)


  1. ^ Gilpin, Robert (2000). The Challenge of Global Capitalism: The World Economy in the 21st Century. Princeton University: Princeton University Press. Introduction. ISBN 978-0-691-09279-9. 

Could we not have a page for "a capitalist"?[edit]

My suggestion is that the definition of "a capitalist" should be indentified as "a benefactor of capital". I think this is an objective, widely used and to use common language "nonpolitical" description.

It also neither necessitates, nor does it in any way rule out supporters of "capitalism", as such would defend it in terms of their own direct or indirect benefit; Wether through morality, theism, emotion etc.

Do we currently have any way of sourcing this definition, considering both the material referred to on the "Capitalism" page and other potential sources? If so, the original article could also possibly be shortened and cleared up even further. (talk) 09:10, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

By new page I assume you mean a new article. There was an article in 2009: It has since been linked to here with the justification of "All explained in Capitalism article. What is here is a weird hodgepodge". Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary is policy that explains why we do not have articles about words. Like anything else if there is enough written about the word, the word can get an article, but I feel an article about "Capitalist" as a word itself lacks content. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 20:09, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

"Benefactor"? What's a "benefactor"? A "capitalist" is just an owner of capital, i.e. production equipment and raw materials, whether directly or via shares. Just like a "Laborer" is an owner of labor, and a "Landlord" is an owner of land. Walrasiad (talk) 08:21, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

"authocratic China"[edit]

The characterization "autocratic China" under the image contradicts the article autocracy where autocracy is defined as the system of government where all the power is concentrated in the hands of one person. I highly doubt that all power concentrated in one person in China.--Reciprocist (talk) 09:08, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Oddly the term was linked to the Authoritarianism article, which is a more apt description. I removed the description. TFD (talk) 16:08, 31 July 2016 (UTC)