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

Surplus value and profit[edit]

Appears as if the editor is equating (surplus) value exclusively with profit when s/he writes "labor is the source of all value, and thus of profit"

Surplus-value, is not the same thing as profit; surplus-value can take the particular form of profit as well as rent and interest: “Rent, interest, and industrial profit are only different names for different parts of the surplus value of the commodity, or the unpaid labour enclosed in it, and they are equally derived from this source and from this source alone. (Value, Price, and Profit, XI. “The Different Parts into which Surplus Value is Decomposed”) In other words, all profits derive from surplus value but not all surplus value can end up as profits. The second important distinction between surplus-value and profit is that profit is the mask behind which bourgeoisie conceals the exploitation (or the utilization of another person or group) involved in the extraction of surplus value: “Surplus value, however, necessarily assumes the form of profit in the bourgeois mind — and this is not just a way of looking at things. (Marx’s Economic Manuscripts of 1861-63; Capital and Profit, “Surplus Value and Profit” V33, MECW, p. 70) and that “the capitalist knows nothing of the essence of capital, and surplus value exists in his consciousness only in the form of profit, a converted form of surplus value, which is completely abstracted from the relations under which it originates and by which it is conditioned. (Ibid.)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 08:15, 3 December 2013

Agrarian capitalism..[edit]

The two current sources are from a socialist perspective. I tried flagging this, but was reverted. On further consideration, I thought the whole paragraph gave undue weight to a one-sided view, and deleted it, and have been reverted twice. I suggest the enthusiasts for this section either find some non-partisan sources to back it up; move it to the relevant section which is flagged as a Marxist perspective on capitalism; or accept its deletion. Gravuritas (talk) 17:38, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

You are confusing facts and opinions. Since the first source was published in the Oxford University Press, one can assume the facts are accurate. The second article which is published in a socialist publication may be of a lower standard but at least the author is a professor of history. If you think the facts are wrong, you should provide a source that gives the real facts. I do not see anything controversial in what the section says. TFD (talk) 18:49, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
No, it's you who are confusing assertions with facts and dogma with opinions. The assertions are incorrect, and so the opinions are valueless. See macfarlane / 'The origins of English Individualism'. p152. [In C13]. "Production was often for exchange, not for use." The para has to go.
Gravuritas (talk) 11:10, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
I do not have access to Alan Macfarlane's book, and do not know how your quote is supposed to refute anything. However, according to John Gray, Macfarlane eplained that "industrial capitalism emerged in England against a background of centuries of agrarian capitalism and possessive individualism."[1] So certainly he accepted the concept. TFD (talk) 14:19, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
The disputed para is quoted, with my comments from Macfarlane in brackets
"The economic foundations of the feudal agricultural system began to shift substantially in 16th century England;

(Macfarlane says much earlier) the manorial system had broken down by this time, (Earlier) and land began to be concentrated in the hands of fewer landlords with increasingly large estates. Instead of a serf-based system of labor, (inappropriate: serf-based system in England was centuries earlier) workers were increasingly being employed as part of a broader and expanding money economy (money economy & widespread wage labour widely established centuries earlier) . The system put pressure on both the landlords and the tenants to increase the productivity of the agriculture to make profit; the weakened coercive power of the aristocracy to extract peasant surpluses encouraged them to try out better methods (undemonstrated), and the tenants also had incentive to improve their methods, in order to flourish in an increasingly competitive labor market (much earlier). Terms of rent for the land were becoming subject to economic market forces rather than the previous stagnant system of custom and feudal obligation (but competitive wage rates had been established centuries earlier)"

I'm happy if need be to give page references. The bottom line is that the paragraph corresponds to a socialist analysis of capitalism, and is supported by one decent source and one wobbly one. However, it is contradicted more or less in its entirety by a very decent source. Macfarlane's work is full of very detailed references to support his assertions, and basically either he is right or the source quoted to support the deleted para is right: there isn't a whole lot of common ground. Without looking a lot further, I'd suggest the best way is to delete such contentious material.
Gravuritas (talk) 14:45, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────How does what Macfarlane wrote differ from the text you removed from the article? TFD (talk) 16:57, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Gravuritas: Your comments are confusing. You begin by saying that the references are "two socialist sources". Now you agree that one source is "a very decent source", and yet you dismiss it because you think it disagrees with your one source. Macfarlane is a very interesting writer, but a controversial one. You are not at all clear about where Brenner is "contradicted more or less in its entirety" by Macfarlane. Feudalism in England began to decline in the fifteenth century, but it was not abolished until the seventeenth, and in any case Brenner is not writing about feudalism per se but about the economic foundations of feudal agriculture, which persisted even after the Tenures Abolition Act of 1660. Certainly those economic foundations were still present in the sixteenth century, and I would need to see a quote to believe Macfarlane thinks otherwise. Serfdom was still extant in England in the 16th century; it did not disappear "centuries earlier". Does Macfarlane say otherwise? By the 17th century, some English landlords were trying to improve their methods of farming, but others resisted modernity until well into the 20th century. If you want to make this change, you need to provide much better evidence than you have offered so far. Rick Norwood (talk) 20:06, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

will clarify. Give me a day or so.
Gravuritas (talk) 20:21, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
OK guys, firstly the generality, secondly the specifics. In general, the timeline is wrong. Macfarlane, p195 "It has been argued that if we use the criteria suggested by Marx, Weber and most economic historians, England was as 'capitalist' in 1250 as it was in 1550 or 1750. That is to say, there were already a developed market and mobility of labour, land was treated as a commodity and full private ownership was established, there was very considerable geographical and social mobility, a complete distinction between farm and family existed, and rational accounting and the profit motive were widespread". On the other hand, using a different definition of agrarian capitalism, Overton (Agricultural revolution in England) describes the change to [his sort of] agrarian capitalism as being " the nineteenth century". So to put it mildly, there is no consensus on when agrarian capitalism was born, and no justification for accepting the leftist view.
Moving to specifics, the dateline for the change away from the feudal economy in the first sentence is wrong, according to Macfarlane: the English feudal system was not a peasant economy at least as early as the C13. The manorial system was not dominant in the way implied by the second sentence. The serf-based system did not exist in the same form as elsewhere: villeins were a different animal, with for instance frequent trading of parcels of land (by those relinquishing/ taking up the service requirements, not the landlord) Workers had been very widely employed at least since the C13. Neither Macfarlane nor Overton find anything exceptional happening in the C16. The better methods referred to in agriculture, according to Overton, were C18. Quote from Overton, p205: "Finally, according to Brenner, agrarian capitalism developed in those areas where control of lordship was strong and peasants were property rights were weak. In fact the reverse is the case..."
So the first para in agrarian capitalism is well and truly scuppered. Nearly every sentence is contradicted by one or both of the two sources cited, so it can't stand. Theoretically, one could try to write an entry covering the three timelines, but it would be bedevilled by terminological issues (how do you define agrarian capitalism?), and my guess is that some more digging would simply dig up yet more definitions of the phrase, and yet more differing views. A synthesis of the views is not possible as they are so contradictory.
Gravuritas (talk) 16:44, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
The text you removed does not state a timeline. And it is Macfarlane who is an outlier in claiming that feudalism never existed in England and that it was always capitalist. TFD (talk) 17:27, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Which word did you miss in "The economic foundations of the feudal agricultural system began to shift substantially in 16th century England"? And so far to put against Macfarlane you've only got Brenner who has been semi-castrated by Overton. Try harder.
Gravuritas (talk) 18:07, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I do not have access to Macfarlane's book and am relying on secondary sources. A book review by Alan Ryan for example summarizes Macfarlane thus: "The claim is that so far from England resembling the ideal type of peasant society before the ‘bourgeois’ or ‘capitalist’ or what-have-you revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries, England displayed most of the features of modernity at least as far back as the 14th century."[2] It never had a feudal period similar to Eastern Europe. Anyway the quote is from the text you removed from this article, so I do not see why you are mentioning it. TFD (talk) 18:59, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Now I am confused by your comments. I am trying to justify the removal of the text- the bit that was the main para in the Agrarian Capitalism section. That para started with the reference to the C16, which is one of the main issues I am disputing. The quote from Ryan about Macfarlane is more or less correct, (though I thought Macfarlane's comments stretched back to the C13, not just the C14, but let's not quibble), and that summary directly contradicts Brenner (and the main para's timeline and much of the rest of the para. So in summary, the main para's only significant support was by Brenner (a mag article is hardly impressive, so I discount that) and Brenner's assertions are contradicted by Macfarlane. At least one of Brenner's major assertions is destroyed by Overton. So I consider the main para no longer credible, justifying its removal.
Gravuritas (talk) 21:10, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
The relevant policy is WP:WEIGHT. If theories are generally accepted we can state them as facts. To the extent there is disagreement then we can add there views with appropriate weight. Overton's views appear to be in the minority as well. Also he was writing about agricultural production efficiency rather than whether crops went to market.
Also, could you please stop reverting text without discussion. One of the first things you mentioned when you deleted the section is that it presented "a Marxist perspective on capitalism." Can you explain how the dating relates to Marxist theory?
TFD (talk) 22:41, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
No, on the current evidence WP:WEIGHT doesn't come into it. You've misquoted me. [I said "...a socialist perspective...".] I don't propose to follow the red herring and turn this into a discussion of socialist or Marxist perspectives: the question is what is adequately referenced in the article, and what isn't. You've made a series of unsupported comments about Macfarlane and Overton 'being in the minority'. You've made an incorrect assertion that 'the text I removed does not include a timeline. I've given a sentence by sentence rebuttal of the original para. As the score stands in this discussion, the para goes. I suggest you exert yourself a little more and try to back up your assertions, or concede the point.
Gravuritas (talk) 04:42, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Can you explain why the material you removed is a socialist perspective? I will put it back in an ask that you explain your position, TFD (talk) 06:04, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
i have given chapter and verse for its removal, and that justification makes it irrelevant whether or not the offending para was or was not a socialist perspective, in or out of my opinion. However, as you're so interested in the development of my views: one of the cites was from a socialist mag, and the timeline seemed to fit conveniently into Marx. Irrelevant anyway.
Gravuritas (talk) 10:40, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
You began this thread by saying, "The two current sources are from a socialist perspective." Why did you say that? TFD (talk) 16:43, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
i have given chapter and verse for its removal, and that justification makes it irrelevant whether or not the offending para was or was not a socialist perspective, in or out of my opinion. However, as you're so interested in the development of my views: one of the cites was from a socialist mag, and the timeline seemed to fit conveniently into Marx. Irrelevant anyway.
Gravuritas (talk) 17:38, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
To remove text and set up this discussion thread for reasons that are irrelevant is disruptive. Now could you please explain how the timeline fits conveniently into Marx rather than the mainstream historical view that Overton and Macfarlane oppose. TFD (talk) 18:56, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
I originally removed the text and summarised the reason by asserting that it constituted 'a socialist view'. I was fairly challenged by Rick Norwood to supply better evidence. After some expenditure of effort, I have done so, extensively enough to make the original para in the article untenable. This better evidence now makes my original 'socialist' comment, and your repeated twitterings about it, irrelevant. Irrelevant now, but not neither irrelevant nor disruptive originally, just insufficient. Now, for about the fourth and last time, back up your assertion that Brenners is the mainstream view, or pipe down.
Gravuritas (talk) 19:53, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Unless you can explain why you said the text you removed was a socialist view, it appears that you chose to remove it, and looked for reasons later. And the two sources you use to challenge the text are highly controversial. One says that England was never feudal, while other says that feudalism continued until 1750. So unless you can show that either of those views have any degree of support, I suggest you restore the text you removed. Also, weight requires us to present different views in accordance with their support in the literature. So again could you please explain what you thought was socialist about the timeline you removed. TFD (talk) 20:53, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
once again you are vapouring. On which page of Overton does he say that feudalism continued until 1750?. So you've completely failed to back up Brenner being mainstream, failed to establish that Overton or Macfarlane are minority views, failed in your claim that the original para did not include a timeline. Look through the thread and try to seriously engage with the points I made.
Gravuritas (talk) 05:09, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
You introduced Overton in order to rebut what you considered to be a "socialist" timeline. Now you are saying that he does not disagree with the timeline, and are asking me to argue that he does! You mentioned that you have changed your argument. Your originally opposed the timeline because it was "socialist", then you opposed it because Overton did, now you say Overton didn't (and challenge me to prove he did!). So what argument do you have now? TFD (talk) 07:25, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
First sentence: wildly incomplete. I introduced Macfarlane to rebut the original timeline, I introduced Overton to destroy one of Brenner's assertions and his timeline. Second sentence: first half false (where did you get that from?), second half false. That's sufficient to show that your reading of this thread is either terminally lazy or affected by something mind-altering. Now remember, O collection of lowest-valued cards, that the purpose of this talk page is not to debate your opinions or mine, but to justify the inclusion or exclusion of entries in the Capitalism page. Geddit? So try doing exactly that. Here is your task: given that the original para is supported by only one source (Brenner) and a little mag article, and is contradicted by two better sources, provide justification as to why it should stand? Note: write on only one side of the paper at a time and avoid straining brain to understand too many posts further up this thread. Further note: you need a couple more decent sources and not just another lazy post.
Gravuritas (talk) 15:23, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Could you please avoid personal attacks. First, I find it irritating and impolite. Second, most editors will draw the conclusion that you make them in lieu of reasoned arguments. It still appears that you for some reason do not want text in the article and are introducing views that are considered controversial in order to remove it.
You began this discussion thread by writing that the text provided a "socialist perspective." Unless you were trolling, you should be able to explain what you meant.
TFD (talk) 19:07, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Let's review. You have repeatedly harked back to my use of 'a socialist perspective', and I have offered an explanation which you have chosen to ignore. You have made a number of assertions that the sources that I have quoted are 'a minority view' or similar, and completely failed to support that assertion. In your latest, you state now that these are 'considered controversial' again with no support for that statement. Given that you have not put any work in to support your views, but keep emphasising them as if we are supposed to treat them as written on tablets of stone, I think 'lazy' is a statement of fact. As the argument above stands, the para in question is fatally undermined. Gravuritas (talk) 21:48, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I have already provided sources for you and links to them. For example, Ryan writes that Macfarlanes's book "argued that England had been in crucial respects a ‘modern’ society ever since the 14th century and maybe earlier, and that most accounts of the transition to modernity were therefore misconceived, and in so doing it attacked just about every vested interest in contemporary historiography." Certainly it is possible to google mine for views outside the consensus, but you need to establish the degree of acceptance they have in mainstream sources.
Your reply to my question about why you referred to the "socialist perspective" is "red herring" and " irrelevant", which is not an explanation but an evasion. If your objection is that it is a socialist perspective, please explain how so we can determine whether it conflicts with the mainstream view.
TFD (talk) 23:31, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Your first sentence: false unless the version I'm reading of this page is incomplete. I can see you've quoted one source: Ryan's book review of Macfarlane: the first time you did it the quote did not support your stance, it just explained Macfarlane's position, and the second time just now, you finally have one thing (maybe)in support of your stance. It doesn't actually say that Ryan disagrees with him. A book review. Big deal. So tell me the other sources you think you have quoted, and stop spouting rubbish like 'for instance...' as if you've previously quoted other sources. And where is one single cite to support your repeated assertions of 'minority views' with respect to Overton? What I need to do, I have done: Brenner, the original source for the para, is undermined badly by Overton and contradicted by both him and Macfarlane. Your repeated claptrap, (or even one book review) about 'the mainstream view' does not make it such. Put up or shut up.
Gravuritas (talk) 11:07, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Your writing is offensive and I am disinclined to continue this discussion with you. As far as I can see, you for some reason object to what you consider (without any explanation) a "socialist" historiography and have provided a few conflicting views. But none of them have received sufficient support to challenge the mainstream time frame. TFD (talk) 12:53, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
you've repeatedly claimed your views as majority and 'mainstream', but take a look at your posts- those cites swimming with you so far are a discredited initial cite, a little mag article, and a book review. Some mainstream. In contrast, your repeated attempted dismissal of my cites as 'minority views', when challenged, has yielded a book review of macfarlane and nothing to challenge Overton. Once again, you seem to be assuming that your presence in a puddle of opinion makes it so obvious that it is mainstream that the bald assertion needs no support. So, don't ignore the Overton cite: support your claim that it is a minority view. Put up or shut up, or live with appropriate adjectives being used to describe your views.
Gravuritas (talk) 15:05, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Alan Ryan is sufficiently expert in the subject to know the relative acceptance of different views, even if he published his comments in the London Review of Books. TFD (talk) 16:00, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I've just had a 20-second look at the review of macfarlane you cite, and the first para ends with "Moreover, in its main claims it was clearly right, and none of its critics have in the least disturbed its central contention." It's quite hard to avoid describing your selective extracts as anything politer than wilfully misleading. . So not only have you not found anything to challenge the two sources I found, the only one you have cited actually supports my position. You lose. Gravuritas (talk) 17:00, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Instead of discussing the book review for 2 weeks before having a 20 second look at it, it would have made the discussions briefer if you had read it first, which btw takes more than 20 seconds. Indeed Ryan found the argument persuasive and noted that no one else did. TFD (talk) 18:35, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
My immediate comment to your last line " one else did" is that you've been parroting this line throughout this thread and, you've failed repeatedly to support it with anything other than a book review. That one source you cite- a book review- agrees with Macfarlane, and from your Olympian height, you choose to believe and cite one sentence and dismiss the main thrust of the review- his agreement with Macfarlane. So let's see the score. The cite supporting the para is from Brenner, attacked by Macfarlane, and discredited by Overton, so that scores nul points. The source you have found agrees with Macfarlane. So I score 3- Macfarlane, Overton, Ryan; you score 0 and the para fails.
Gravuritas (talk) 09:06, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
I have tried my best and if you are unable to understand what I wrote, then I do not see what else I can do. Just to recap: there is a difference between what an expert says about the prevailing view among experts and their personal opinion. If you think that most experts hold the same opinions as you, then you need to find a source that says that. I can find for example experts who think climate change is a hoax, but I cannot find experts who say that most experts think climate change is a hoax. TFD (talk) 18:13, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
OK, so let's take your thesis as far as it can go, which is that Macfarlane is- let's use your words- a 'minority view'. But Macfarlane's makes a much bigger series of points than the one that I have been making: I've merely used him and Overton to attack the para in question. You've produced nothing to attack Overton- in fact you have studiously ignored him- and Overton has discredited Brenner. As the only cites for the para are from Brenner, then without refutation of Overton then the para fails. For clarity: I have not tried to demonstrate that Macfarlane is right, merely that the para is wrong. Your only foundation for the para is undermined, as it has been way back in the thread: and to shore it up you need either to show significant authorities other than Brenner, or you need to attack Overton. Have fun.

Gravuritas (talk) 19:42, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

If your point is that your sources have shown the prevailing wisdom to be wrong, then I concede you might be right. However, policy does not allow us to make that judgment. TFD (talk) 22:34, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

This feels like progress, but no, my point is not as you state. My point is that the only support for the para is Brenner, and he is disagreed with by Macfarlane and discredited by Overton. So with only one cite currently, the para fails and must be deleted. Now it may be the case that Brenner does encapsulate 'the prevailing wisdom', or what you have previously asserted is the majority view- but there is no cite for that in the para in question. At the moment the only (weak) support for your assertion is a book review by Ryan- and that's extremely weak because Ryan is saying that Macfarlane disagrees with the majority- Ryan is not saying that Brenner's view is the same as the majority, or that the words in the WP:Capitalism:Agrarian Capitalism section are correct. And even this extremely weak support is not cited in the article, it's in the talk page. So I propose that if you or somebody bolsters the existing para with cites showing that this is indeed the majority view, then the para stands, (and may be added to by way of extra information about dissenting views). If you can't bolster the para with some support, then it falls. As we stand at the moment, the cited dissenters are more numerous and, at least in the case of Overton, more authoritative than what you claim is the majority view. In short, as you've asserted that Brenner's is the majority view, walk the talk. Gravuritas (talk) 18:10, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

There could be tens of thousands of sources that comment on this and we cannot read all of them to determine what the mainstream view is. We have a source that says what it is and if you disagree then find one that contradicts it. TFD (talk) 08:13, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Let me go through this slowly, as one of is being very obtuse and I would like to check that it is not me.
1. The para says the roots of agrarian capitalism are blabla.
2. The para cites Brenner for support
3. The para does not say or cite that this is the majority view, just effectively via the cite that it is Brenner's view
4. I have found sources that contradict Brenner sufficiently to make him not a reliable source, so anything only supported by Brenner fails.
5. You have asserted that the para represents the majority view. But the book review by which you set so much store refers to Macfarlanes opposition providing "...answers [which] have emphasised different actors and different motivations, and have placed the revolutionary transition from peasant society to modernity at different points in time.". So there is no majority view as detailed in the offending para.
6. So you want to assert that there is a majority view. Prove it, and cut out the straw man bollocks about "tens of thousands of sources". You haven't even found one.
7. Your last sentence is untrue. You have found a source that says Macfarlane's is not the majority view. That is not remotely the same as saying that Brenner's is the majority view, or that the WP para is true. [In fact, the book review refers to the variety of different stances taken by Can you in all seriousness not see the holes in your logic?
Gravuritas (talk) 12:23, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
ou are asking me to repeat what I have already said. I fail to see that would be productive. And you still haven't answered my question about what the timeline has to do with socialism. TFD (talk) 16:03, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Inaccurate inclusion of nonprofits as core definition of capitalism[edit]

@Abierma3: Capitalism is commonly defined as the private ownership of the means of production where they are organized as business enterprises to generate profit. This is how the given sources define capitalism. Nonprofit and non-capitalist activities do exist in actually-existing capitalist systems (such as the United States economy), but they are not a component of the core definition of capitalism commonly used. Furthermore, the opening paragraph should give a brief and vague common definition of capitalism as an abstract concept. The experience of the actually-existing United States economy is not the definition of capitalism. As it currently stands, including this information in the first sentence gives it undue weight (we can just as easily include government enterprise and regulation since that is universal in actually-existing capitalism - but we don't because it is not the common, core definition of the concept). Information on the nonprofit/social sector is appropriate for inclusion elsewhere in the article when actually-existing economies are discussed. Therefore I have removed the inclusion of nonprofit enterprises from the definition of capitalism given in the opening paragraph. -Battlecry 08:24, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Sharing of ideas is a key benefit of freedom. But, sharing is only effective when ideas are well-constructed and communicated. This piece on capitalism is disjointed and fails to communicate important elements of capitalism. The work by Adam Smith and J.S Mill should be at the top and clearly summarized.

It looks like more effort was put into criticism than the benefits. This suggests a bias or ineptitude by the authors. I suggest scrapping this entire page and starting over! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:24, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Add 3 in "See also"[edit]

Could you please add these 3 Wik articles to "See also?" Redistribution of wealth, Redistribution (economics), and Distribution of wealth. And say that 71.2% of American economists support redistribution. Pepper9798 (talk) 02:47, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Heavy bias under "criticism" section[edit]

Under the "alternatives" subsection of the "Criticism" portion of the article there is a line about how all alternatives to capitalism have so far resulted in "authoritarianism" when tried on anything but a small scale. The only source given on this is an essay by a heavily biased monetarist economist. Last time I checked this was an encyclopedia that strove to remain neutral, not an encyclopedia written from the point of view of a particular school of economics. This quip has no reason for inclusion above this listing other than to throw in an unsettling shade of "red menace" sensationalism on what should be a neutral article. At the very least I feel like this line is in need of re-wording, maybe with something along the lines of "Monetarist professor Allan H. Meltzer has argued.." rather than stating the opinion of someone who has a very obvious conflict of interests (his job is literally predicated on being pro-capitalism) as undisputed. I get that leftism in not well liked in a lot of circles these days, but I least expected better from a supposedly politically neutral encyclopedia. Really now.2601:681:4002:DF09:C06C:4FC7:4027:EB3C (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:27, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:47, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Suicide risk factors for unemployment[edit]

Maybe add Suicide, see Risk factors, is caused by unemployment. Pepper9798 (talk) 03:07, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

And here in Major depressive episode, it says according to the Nordic Journal of Psychiatry, there is a direct correlation betweenMajor depressive episode and unemployment. Pepper9798 (talk) 06:24, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

The cause of prostitution[edit]

Could you please add that Emma Goldman said that prostitution is caused by capitalism? Thank you. Pepper9798 (talk) 21:34, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Marx said it's slavery[edit]

Could you please say that Karl Marx said that workers in capitalism are slaves, at least 3 times (I haven't read the whole thing)? Thank you. Pepper9798 (talk) 21:38, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Reference does not support text[edit]

The reference to the text "Capitalism has existed under many forms of government, in many different times, places, and cultures." is unclear. I have just read the section on Capitalism in the reference : "Scott, John (2005). Industrialism: A Dictionary of Sociology. Oxford University Press." and I can not see that the text is supported in the text. The text should either be changed to some formulation that is supported by the reference, or a better reference found. Star Lord - 星爵 (talk) 23:38, 21 November 2015 (UTC)