Talk:Anti-capitalism/Archive 1

Archive 1

Editing Conflict

Odd...I got a "conflict" message after editing this page which stated someone else had submitted a change while I was editing mine. Indeed, someone had submitted a change, but it is not listed at all in the "Page history" section. What's going on here? Who made this change? Could this be a bug?

---

'Marxism is the foundation of several different ideologies, including communism and certain types of socialism.' Is this really so? Does it make chronological sense? There was communism before Karl Marx, e.g. the commune of Paris. Well, I'm not totally sure about this, so I won't alter the main page. publunch

The Paris Commune didn't preceede Marx, but you're right that communism of some sort did. OTOH, Marxism was so influential on communism that it's not wrong to say that what most people mean by 'communism' was founded by Marx. So it's tricky to know a good way to rephrase this. VoluntarySlave 07:02, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Name

This page needs to be named appropriatly. Perhaps 'opponents to capitalism'?--Sansvoix 08:48, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree...anti-capitalism doesn't describe the article as aptly as Sansviox's suggestion. --Xiaphias 07:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the name's fine. Infinity0 ^talk 16:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

von Mises's criticism

I think we should keep the section von Mises's criticism; while it's not the best quotation from Mises attacking anti-capitalism, Mises is one of the most famous and influential twentieth centruy economists and defenders of capitalism. LaszloWalrus 03:43, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm in two minds here. The Mises article is breathtakingly silly; unfortunately, it's breathtaking silliness from someone who probably counts as a reliable and notable source. VoluntarySlave 06:22, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I put the section in. I didn't have time to read the article so just threw something together from a quick look at it, hoping someone would improve on it. RJII 07:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

This is a question of nautrality. Are we to maintain the rules of nautrality given by the Wikipedia guidelines, or are we to turn this page into a haven of opinion? I say we play by the rules, we owe the readers this much.

The criticism section was ambiguious, poorly worded, and is based largely on individual speculation. The phrase "Anti-capitalism is a result of frustrated ambition..." is a phrase that sounds more like a defense mechanism than a critical analysis that carries logical merit. A phrase along the lines of "It is believed that Anti-capitalism fails to address the issue of [.....], and fails to take into account that [.....]," would be more appropriate, and therefore, it would eliminate the need for a reference to Von Mises, who explained little more than that people who oppose capitalism are "just jealous...". This is an encyclopedia, not a political opinion forum.

Until the criticism section is corrected to conform to neutrality and logic, I will continue to keep it off this article, I will also dispute the neutrality of the revisions if necessary. Again, we owe this to our readers.

-English Efternamn

I agree. This article needs a criticism section, but should probably contain actual arguments instead of simple mudslinging. I don't think what Mises had to say even qualifies as criticism, because criticism requires a degree of argumentation. This is simply an opinion or a commentary. If the section were called commentary, at least it would be in the right place. But I don't think simple commentary is particularly relevant here. Sarge Baldy 22:19, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

As it's said in introduction, this article lists ideologies opposed to capitalism and describes them briefly. Arguments against their criticisms are presented in "Criticisms of capitalism" article. Section "Critique of anti-capitalistic mentality" is entirely appropriate for this article. -- Vision Thing -- 09:29, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that that particular quote doesn't provide any information about anti-capitalism itself; it is just Mises' speculations about the motiviations of the people who embrace it. Actual arguments for or against the reasoning of anti-capitalism belong in the article, certainly; personal attacks against anti-capitalists do not. --Aquillion 19:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Right. It's a pretty straightforward ad hominem. Sarge Baldy 19:21, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

If anyone has the Mises book, he could probably find quite a number of relevant quotations regarding anticapitalism. The particular one there was pointless out of context. LaszloWalrus 11:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Ecofeminism?

I'm not going to remove anything, but does ecofeminism really belong alongside such important movements as socialism, fascism, anarchism, and Marxism? It's really not that important. LaszloWalrus 13:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Ecofeminism is not a minor movement, even if it is in contrast to some others listed here. But that only means that more political perspective needed to be added. It certainly belongs here more than fascism, which does not even cite a source claiming it is anti-capitalist, and is generally interpreted to be exactly the opposite. Sarge Baldy 22:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

The article says most notable; ecofeminism is not one of the most notable criticisms of capitalism by anyone's account. Might I suggest that it be replaced with the more general criticisms of environmentalism, of which it is a part? While not all environmentalists are critical of capitalism, and, like social democrats, those that are tend to focus their criticisms on more limited reforms, those do make up some of the more prominent criticisms being made today. --Aquillion 06:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, like you say, not all environmentalists are anti-capitalist. Perhaps there should be an entire section devoted to various environmentalist-based critiques of capitalism, from the moderate greens to the ecofems, deep ecologists and others. The Ungovernable Force 06:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, why are we saying "most notable" anyway? As it is, the ecofeminist perspective is important as one of several critical approaches advanced by environmentalists. That its criticisms of capitalism are currently alone in this article is a problem demanding further expansion, not the removal of existing content. Owen 06:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

POV tag

The page caricaturizes capitalism (that Christianity condemns usury does not mean that Christianity condemns capitalism; similarly Islam is consistent with capitalism) and does not neutrally state arguments for or against capitalism. There are several factual errors, too. -- TedFrank 02:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Scope of article

Shouldn't this article also refer to: (a) the movement that is often called the "anti-capitalist movement", the "anti-globalization movement" or the "movement against global capital"; (b) what is called Kapitalismuskritik in Germany - the critique of capitalism (see http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,354733,00.html , http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/jun2005/germ-j17.shtml , http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,901050523-1061439,00.html ? BobFromBrockley 11:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Guerin reference/Pollock reference

There is only a reference to Guerin himself, not to some text that points out that other Marxist theorists share the view of Guerin. Therefore the text is weasily right now. I added Pollock to add some neutrality to this section, since Pollock apparently thinks the Soviet Union under Stalin wasn't anti-capitalist either. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Intangible2.0 23:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

All other sentences in that paragraph are supported by one specific author; if we were to apply your principles neutrally and universally, the paragraph would look like this:

According to Calvin B. Hoover, Fascism rejects laissez-faire capitalism and calls for some regulation of corporations and industry in order to serve the national or racial interest. Frank Bealey claims that fascists were particularly vocal in their opposition to finance capitalism, interest charging, and profiteering. Fascists, such as Adolph Hitler, claimed to uphold private property - including private property over productive capital and the means of production - but, according to Richard Allen Epstein, said that property was to be regulated to ensure that "benefit to the community precedes benefit to the individual." Peter Davies and Dereck Lynch argue that fascist movements have regarded themselves as representing a "third way" between Marxian socialism and capitalism. Marxist historian Daniel Guerin rejects this self-characterization, arguing that fascism is a form of government control instituted to protect capitalism during a period of crisis or revolution.

If that is what you wish, I will be happy to oblige, but I think the current version is better. As far as the Soviet Union is concerned, I still do not see the relevance of Pollock's view on Stalin to Guerin's view of fascism. -- Nikodemos 23:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't have so much trouble with the Guerin piece if the reference came from a peer reviewed journal, because then you could generalize somewhat. Guerin is claiming that the policy of fascist Italy was not anti-capitalist. Pollock is claiming that the policy of Stalinist Soviet Union was not anti-capitalist. See a connection? Intangible2.0 00:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I do, but it is a POV connection. Unless I am very much mistaken, you are trying to imply that Marxists are not a reliable source of information on what is or is not anti-capitalism because some Marxists have made claims which you believe to be outlandish - such as that the USSR was not anti-capitalist. Such a view would be biased twice; first, because it is trying to imply that Marxists are not to be trusted. Second, because it is based on the premise that the USSR was, in fact, anti-capitalist (which is a POV like any other, no matter how obvious it may seem to you). But perhaps I am completely off base and your connection is something else entirely.

Now, as to the peer-review objection, none of the other references come from journals as far as I can see. But I could always look up the "fascism" entry in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia if you wish. That is a peer-reviewed source (though you may not agree with the reviewers). -- Nikodemos 01:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Nikodemos. It is not relevant to the discussion of fascism as anti-capitalism what a Marxist happens to think about the Soviet Union. BobFromBrockley 14:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Then what about putting Pollock under a newly communism subsection of the socialism section? Intangible2.0 14:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I oppose this. It is not really relevant to a single paragraph on Marxism as anti-capitalism. Lots of Marxists have lots of diferent views on this. BobFromBrockley 14:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

It wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing to point out that there is disagreement about whether various regimes identified with Marxism actually abolished capitalism; but I don't think there's widespread disagreement that Marxism (or communism, for that matter) is anti-capitalist (people who believe the USSR was state-capitalist also deny that it was properly Marxist, AFAIK). VoluntarySlave 06:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Many anarchists consider the "Soviet" Union it state-capitalist as well as the predictable product of Marxist methods. This is controversial. Jacob Haller 00:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Capitalism?

In listening and reading anti-capitalist material it's hard to tell how they're defining "capitalism." I'm having problems finding any of them explicitly defining it. It seems to be a vague enemy of theirs. But I'm starting to gather from laymen anti-capitalists is that what many of them are regarding as capitalism is actually what's known as corporatism which is where businesses get favors from government, including the military-industrial complex. I'm sure many of them are opposed to laissez-faire capitalism too because they're usually opposed to private property but I haven't seen of them defining capitalism in the standard sense which is a general free-market, laissez-faire, system. It seems like they're looking at whatever is happening today and calling that capitalism instead of looking at the definition of capitalism and determining whether what they're upset about is capitalism or corporatism. Maybe this article can discuss something about this?

Historical anarchist and libertarian socialist definitions of capitalism &c.

I prepared the following list of definitions and/or descriptions of capitalism or the capitalist system for Talk:Agorism when the same question came up. I've trimmed this copy down, but it's still quite long. These only cover anarchist and/or libertarian socialist perspectives. 00:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Proudhon, Pierre Joseph, Philosophy of Misery:

Capital, Mastership, Privilege, Monopoly, Loaning, Credit, Property, etc.,--such are, in economic language, the various names of I know not what, but which is otherwise called Power, Authority, Sovereignty, Written Law, Revelation, Religion, God in short, cause and principle of all our miseries and all our crimes, and who, the more we try to define him, the more eludes us.

To defend usury they have pretended that capital was productive, and they have changed a metaphor into a reality. The anti-proprietary socialists have had no difficulty in overturning their sophistry; and through this controversy the theory of capital has fallen into such disfavor that today, in the minds of the people, CAPITALIST and IDLER are synonymous terms.

• Proudhon, Pierre Joseph, 1851, General Idea of the Revolution in the Nineteenth Century, fourth study, commenting on Rousseau:

After having trifled with his readers thus for a long time, after having drawn up the Code of Capitalist and Mercantile Tyranny, under the deceptive title of Social Contract, the Genevese charlatan deduces the necessity of a lower class, of the subordination of labor, of a dictatorship and of the Inquisition.

• fifth study:

Finally, its adversaries, the capitalistic, theologically [?] usurious, governmental, partisans of the status quo [?], all those indeed who live less by labour than by prejudice and privilege.

Let this course of reduction, for however small an amount, once be entered upon, and continued as slowly as you like, faster or more slowly makes no difference; then, I assert, the social tendency in all that concerns the price of money and discount, throughout the whole territory of the Republic, will be immediately changed, ipso facto, and that this simple change will cause the Country to pass from the present capitalistic and governmental system to a revolutionary system.

• sixth study

The school of Say, sold out to English and native capitalism, the chief focus of counter-revolution next to the Jesuits, has for ten years past seemed to exist only to protect and applaud the execrable work of the monopolists of money and necessaries, deepening more and more the obscurity of a science naturally difficult and full of complications.

• Greene, William B., Communism-Capitalism-Socialism equates Capitalism with Plutocracy.
• Bakunin, Mikhail, 1867, Marxism, Freedom, and the State:

The masses, without distinction of degree of culture, religious beliefs, country and speech, had understood the language of the International when it spoke to them of their poverty, their sufferings and their slavery under the yoke of Capitalism and exploiting private ownership; they understood it when it demonstrated to them the necessity of uniting their efforts in a great solid, common struggle.

• Bakunin, Mikhail, 1869, The Policy of the International defines capitalism as the rule of the bourgeoisie:

And that poverty --- which is the common lot of the worker --- in all parts of the world --- is a consequence of the present economic organization of society, and especially of the enslavement of labour --- i.e. the proletariat --- under the yoke of capitalism --- i.e the bourgeoisie?

• Spies, August, testimony:

While capitalism expropriates the masses for the benefit of the privileged class; while capitalism is, that school of economics which teaches how one can live upon the labor (i.e., property) of the other; socialism teaches how all may possess property, and further teaches that every man must work honestly for his own living, and not be playing the 'respectable board of trade man,' or any other highly (?) respectable business man or banker, such as appeared here as talesman in the jurors' box, with the fixed opinion that we ought to be hanged.

Anarchism does not mean bloodshed; does riot mean robbery, arson, etc. These monstrosities are, on the contrary, the characteristic features of capitalism. Anarchism means peace and tranquility to all. Anarchism, or socialism, means the reorganization of society upon scientific principles and the abolition of causes which produce vice and crime. Capitalism first produces these social diseases and then seeks to cure them by punishment.

• Fischer, Adolph, testimony:

Capitalism now is speedily attaining its most extreme character, that is, it is develop into monopolism. Wealth concentrates itself more and more in a few hands and the misery and poverty of the great mass of people is consequently enlarging in the same degree. The rich got richer and the poor poorer. Like the ruling classes in the eighteenth century, so the same classes at the eve of the nineteenth century are deaf to the complaints and warnings of the disinherited, and blind to the misery and degradation which surround their luxuriously outfitted palaces.

• Parsons, Albert, testimony:

In other words, his wages represent the bare necessities of his existence, and the unpaidfor or 'surplus' portion of his labor product constitutes the vast superabundant wealth of the non-producing or capitalist class. That is the capitalist system. It is the capitalist system that creates these classes, and it is these classes that produces this conflict.

The capitalist system originated in the forcible seizure of natural opportunities and rights by a few, and converting these things into special privileges, which have since become vested rights formally entrenched behind the bulwarks of statute law and government.

• Parsons, Albert, 1887, Anarchism: Its Philosophy and Scientific Basis, chapter 2 "Capitalism: Its Development in the Unites States, continued:"

Political parties, no longer divided in interest upon property questions, all legislation was centered upon a development of the resources of the country. To this end vast tracts of goverment land, amounting to many million acres, equalling in extent seven states the size of Illinois were donated as subsidies to the projectors of railways. The national debt, incurred to prosecute the rebellion, and amounting to three billion dollars was capitalized, by creating interest upon the bonds. Hundreds of millions were given as bonuses to proposed railways, steamship lines, etc. A protective tariff law was enacted which for the past twenty years has Imposed a tax upon the people amounting to one billion dollars annually. A National Banking system was established which gave control of finance to a banking monopoly. By means of these and other laws capitalist combinations, monopolies syndicates, and trusts were created and fostered, until they obtained absolute control of the principle avenues of industry, commerce and trade. Arbitrary prices are fixed by these combinations and the consumers--mainly the poor--are compelled by their necessities to pay whatever price is exacted. Thus during the past twenty-five years,--since the abolition of the chattel-slave labor system--twenty-five thousand millionaires have been created, who by their combinations control and virtually own the fifty billion dollars estimate wealth of the United States, while on the other hand twenty million wage workers have been created whose poverty forces them into a ceaseless competition with each other for opportunity to earn the bare necessities of existence.

• Corna & Klemensic, 1905, Resolution #20 at the Founding Convention of the Industrial Worlds of the World (fifth day):

In view of the fact that the present form of capitalism is increasing organized violence to perpetuate the spirit of despotism to predominate in this republic...

• Bourne, Randolph, 1918, The State:

But except for these occasional menaces, business, that is to say, aggressive expansionist capitalism, had nearly forty years in which to direct the American republic as a private preserve, or laboratory, experimenting, developing, wasting, subjugating, to its heart’s content, in the midst of a vast somnolence of complacency such as has never been seen and contrast strangely with the spiritual dissent and constructive revolutionary thought which went on at the same time in England and the Continent.

• Bookchin, Murray, 1971, Listen, Marxist!:

Writing in the middle years of the nineteenth century, Marx could not be expected to grasp the full consequences of his insights into the centralization of capital and the development of technology. He could not be expected to foresee that capitalism would develop not only from mercantilism into the dominant industrial form of his day--from state-aided trading monopolies into highly competitive industrial units--but further, that with the centralization of capital, capitalism returns to its mercantilist origins on a higher level of development and reassumes the state-aided monopolistic form.

• Dolgoff, Sam, 1971, Relevance of Anarchism is Modern Society:

The bourgeois reformers have yet to learn that as long as these reforms are tied to the state or to capitalism, which connotes the monopoly of political economic power, decentralism and federalism will remain a fraud...

Trying to trim and refine the intro paragraph

My proposed version follows:

Anti-capitalism describes a wide variety of movements, ideologies, and attitudes which oppose capitalism. Some of these oppose each other more than they oppose capitalism. Anti-capitalists, in the strict sense of the word, are those who wish to completely replace capitalism with another economic system; however, there are also ideologies which can be characterized as partially anti-capitalist, in the sense that they only wish to replace or abolish certain aspects of capitalism rather than the entire system.

Is this better than the present text? Any further suggestions? Jacob Haller 23:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I prefer this proposed version - clearer, more succint. BobFromBrockley 12:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Socialism and public control

Mutualism doesn't argue for public control of the economy. It shares the goals discussed, but not the methods here labelled socialist. Jacob Haller 00:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

This source Mutalist.org says that not all mutualists consiter them selfes socialists and the wikipedia article on Socialism says that As an economic system, socialism is often characterized by state, worker, or community ownership of the means of production, goals which have been attributed to, and claimed by, a number of political parties and governments throughout history. [1]--Fang 23 (talk) 18:16, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Judaism

Is it just me, or is the Judaism item a bit weird?

"Judaism has always had a tense relation to capitalism, notable in the number of secular Jews attracted to the socialist and communist movements."

This is much too short in itself, secularist Jews are hardly speaking on Judaism's take, not to speak of traditonal Jewish involvement in banking etc. Hence the tag, which should be understood more as a clean-up tag. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 07:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Although there has been a large Jewish presence in anti-capitalist movements, this involvement has traditionally been a secular, ethnic group orientation rather than a religious one. The statement appears to confuse Jews as an ethnic group with Judaism as a religion. It's awkward at present how it lists a secular Jewish position under a list of religious attitudes towards capitalism. Owen 07:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong. Even secular Jews might be influenced by tenets of Judaism. There is a anti-usury strain in Judaism (the same as in Christianity and Islam). So what the passage says is correct, but is a highly selective choice of reality. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Right, but it needs to explain just what in Jewish teachings influences that perspective. Otherwise it's not clear how much of it is the result of ethnic values and how much is a result of religious teachings. Owen 18:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the Judaism section for two reasons: 1) it is uncited; 2) it conflates Jews qua ethnic group with Jews qua religious group; the fact that many secular people of Jewish background have been drawn to anti-capitalistic movements says nothing (except perhaps in a very tenuous way) about the influences of the religion of Judaism on anticapitalism. LaszloWalrus 19:06, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

seems fair enough (RookZERO 20:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC))

I removed the reference that Judaism forbids lending money for interest. It is uncited and untrue. 86.129.158.144 (talk) 12:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Merge (2008-07-05)

I think this article should be merged with Criticisms of capitalism, due to many simularities in arguments. anyone else agree? Stevo D

I agree with this. I don't see the need for two articles, and the bullet-point style of this article is broken beyond repair as it is. Most of the information in this article is already better explained in the other article, also. --causa sui ^talk 18:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I think this article should discuss anti-capitalism, i.e. the movement, and the other article should describe criticisms of capitalism. Jacob Haller 18:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Strongly agree with Jacob. This article should be about the movement(s) and their histories/ideologies/etc, other article about criticisms, which come from range of different movements. BobFromBrockley 11:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Thirded. Criticisms of capitalism and anti-capitalism are very different things. Jiminezwaldorf 04:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

In actuality, we do not need a "critique of capitalism" entry... that is not encylopediac, that needs to be on a blog. --65.1.255.207 02:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• PRO they are the same subject so should be same article. Have cleaned up the tags there, added one here, and am adding the german interwiki link to this article.

See that this has actually been resolved CON so backing out above, except for the interwiki link (here to Antikapitalismus only) 74.78.162.229 (talk) 06:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Religious Aspects

Cleaned up this section; the usury article now more clearly relates to broader wiki coverage. Removed the association of various vices with bourgeois culture since this is a value judgement or POV (vulgar marxism?) and political language not appropriate to this § 74.78.162.229 (talk) 16:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Have changed title to "religious anti-capitalism", as "aspects" seems like the wrong thing in a list of "Notable ideologies, viewpoints, and trends". BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Fascism and undue weight

Currently, the fascism section is longer than any other section of the article, despite the fact that the claim of fascism being anti-capitalist is controversial. In fact, the controversy surrounding fascism is precisely the reason why the section has grown so long - successive editors have apparently felt the need to reinforce their side of the argument by adding more information to that section, until it has grown out of all proportion and currently represents a clear case of undue weight.

Basically, some people say fascism is anti-capitalist because it advocates certain state restrictions over private property rights, while others say fascism is capitalist because it promotes inequality and benefits the rich. That's the controversy in a nutshell. We don't need two long-winded paragraphs to explain it. -- Nikodemos (talk) 21:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I've just reverted a change by User:Vision Thing for the second time. The effect of his change is to remove about a third of the article, and unbalances the article giving undue weight to fascism. The content he removed is not perfect by any means, but I think the content is valuable and should remain. Azurian (talk) 10:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Your changes introduce a whole lot of original research. Please get acquainted with core Wikipedia policies before making controversial edits. -- Vision Thing -- 15:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, they're not really my changes. I didn't write the content, I'm just restoring material that you removed. I don't agree that it's original research - the material represents mainstream thought on the matter. However, I agree that it needs more references. In fact, some of the material added by your revert is unreferenced too. Azurian (talk) 17:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Those changes were introduced by anonymous user 68.53.85.42 who is not acquainted with Wikipedia's policies. If you are objecting to material readded with my revert you are free to delete it or ask for verification. In Wikipedia the "burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." -- Vision Thing -- 16:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The content Vision Thing removed was, as far as I can tell, completely unreferenced. As it is contested, do not re-add it without reliable sources. Regards, Skomorokh 16:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, I accept that the content lacks verifiability and therefore can be removed. I was hoping the anonymous editor would return to add citations for his work, but it looks like he isn't going to. Azurian (talk) 09:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your understanding. Skomorokh 10:31, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Going back to the original topic of this subsection, the fascism entry in this article is currently given enormous undue weight. Surely we can all agree that the most prominent anti-capitalist ideologies are socialism and communism - yet socialism gets a short paragraph, and communism is barely mentioned. This is utterly ridiculous, and as such I will tag this article as being in need of improvement (I will try to improve it myself over the next week or so). Regarding fascism, there are essentially three views on the issue: (1) fascism is anti-capitalist, (2) fascism is capitalist, (3) fascism is neither. The fascism section should contain three brief paragraphs explaining each of these views. Right now it contains a collection of (well-referenced) statements thrown around randomly, in no particular order. The reader will probably find it impossible to see a coherent argument in all that mess. I will tag the section as confusing, and try to sort it out as soon as time permits. -- Nikodemos (talk) 07:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree with Nikodemos. I also think that the alphabetical order of the sections is misleading. More notable ones (anarchism, socialism/communism - broad movements) should be at the top, followed by smaller theories (ecosocialism, parecon), and borderline cases (fascism) should be at the end. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

This section gets bigger and smaller, deleted and restored. I think it has way too much weight in the article. Is that the consensus? BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Fascism and socialism

Most editors do not agree with this "Fascism is basically socialist" marginal POV. See the recent poll at: Talk:Nazism#Survey_-_in_opposition_to_the_move. Continuing to push this marginal POV on several pages could be considered tendentious editing.--Cberlet 03:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Fascism is basically socialist. Billy Ego 03:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course fascism isn't basically socialist. Believing that it is is extremely marginal in the scholarly community. Obviously, wikipedia should signal that there are some that hold this analysis, and reference that, using wikipedia to push the marginal view that it is is against basic wikipedia principles. BobFromBrockley 11:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I would say that the communists being sent off to death camps by the nazis is enough to say that facism is not socialist. To respond to those that say that Hitler and the lot stopped trade for the gays, jews, gypsies, communists, and the hole lot neglect Hitler's views on these people. He did not take their stores and wealth away from them because he thought they were doing bad with it. He did so because he thought they were less than him, or damaging his power. An anti-capitalist fights for trade regulations because they believe the capitalists to be doing things immoral. A fascist does so because they don't like the people. For those of you who think my argument is weak, I say it atleast beats Billy Ego's "argument" above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.189.133.20 (talk) 06:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd argue that just because two groups hate each other doesn't mean they aren't similar. During the Spanish Civil War, communists and anarchists fought each other despite that they were tentatively on the same side.

Socialists did not kill people because of their ethnic background, but they would decimate ethnic groups that they considered to be "capitalist sympathizers". Jews were not well treated in communist countries. --71.172.37.93 (talk) 22:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh for crying out loud, read Mussolini's Doctrine of Fascism. Fascism is a rejection of socialism. Mussolini was a former socialist who had rejected it and cooked up an alternate system called fascism. They're not "basically" alike. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.217.171 (talk) 08:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

It appears that the disagreements over fascism stem from the differences between the particular circumstances of the countries where fascists gained power. That is primarily Italy, Germany and Spain. Since the term itself was invented by Mussolini and not Hitler this is then an important distinction. In all of those countries the fascists were opposed to communists, yet is is correct to say that they were all fighting each other for domination of the left fringe of the spectrum. Mussolini was a socialist at one time, while Hitlers party is called National Socialist Workers Party. One final point is that it is nice to be anti-capitalist when you are a nobody, but once you come to power you will need the capitalists to finance the state and produce the guns. This is where the pragmatic attitude of Hitler to the industrialists comes from. So, yes fascism is a left-wing socialist ideology. Thus, the similarities between 1930's Italy and Germany and the Soviet Union then and say North Korea now are not just superficial. Kotika98 (talk) 06:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC) 02:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Aha!!! Here we get it from the horses mouth. The following is quoted verbatim from interview granted by Hitler to George Sylvester Viereck in 1923. From the Guardian [2]: I met Hitler not in his headquarters, the Brown House in Munich, but in a private home - the dwelling of a former admiral of the German Navy. We discussed the fate of Germany over the teacups.

"Why," I asked Hitler, "do you call yourself a National Socialist, since your party programme is the very antithesis of that commonly accredited to socialism?"

"Socialism," he retorted, putting down his cup of tea, pugnaciously, "is the science of dealing with the common weal. Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists.

"Socialism is an ancient Aryan, Germanic institution. Our German ancestors held certain lands in common. They cultivated the idea of the common weal. Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality, and unlike Marxism, it is patriotic.

"We might have called ourselves the Liberal Party. We chose to call ourselves the National Socialists. We are not internationalists. Our socialism is national. We demand the fulfilment of the just claims of the productive classes by the state on the basis of race solidarity. To us state and race are one."

Kotika98 (talk) 06:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

removed Moral Anti-Capitalism

I removed this newly added section:

Moral Anti-Capitalism

Critisism of Capitalism and/or Consumerism on the basis of one persons gain due to anothers loss

"The succes of the rich is based on the suffering of the poor"

This statment need not always refer to the poor of first world countrys but usualy the poor of third world countrys, for example miners who dig for diamonds (sometimes refered to blood diamonds), they technically have chosen to work in these mines but in reality it may be the only option to feed themselves of family members, this can also create vilence because the disadvantaged feel taken advantge of (economicly raped).

This moral stance against Capitalism and/or Consumerism can be traced back to Imperialism where whole nations, for example China during the opium wars, british cotroled India or the exorbedent taxes that led to the "Bosten tea party"

It may have a place in the article after revision, but this version is poorly written, and is riddled with formatting and spelling errors. Richard Myers (talk) 05:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Socialism section

The socialism section could use improvement, but those improvements should be to clearly explain what socialism is, and how it is anti-capitalist. The random quote by Che Gueverra didn't do either of those things, and didn't even mention the word socialism. That is why I deleted it. The new placement of the quote does make some sense now, but the previous placement did not make any sense.Spylab (talk) 22:56, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Lawrence Britt

I think it's Laurence with a "u" if he is the author of this: http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/27/076.html Th3glz4 (talk) 03:42, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

List of Advocates?

perhaps there should be a sub-section listing notable anti-captialists (Marx, Engels, etc.)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.101.160.159 (talk) 06:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Fascism should not dominate this article

I have transferred the following to this talk page. It was increasingly dominating this article, which a number of editors have objected to. I concur. To those who wish to preserve this information, i suggest: Summarize it in this article, then move the rest to a different article:

Italian Fascist leader Benito Mussolini in 1933 amid the Great Depression announced that modern capitalism or "supercapitalism" was a failed economic system that had begun in 1914 that was the result of the long-term degeneration of capitalism. In 1938, Mussolini excalated a public relations campaign against the Italian bourgeoisie, accusing them of preferring private gain to national victory. Mussolini ordered Fascist party members to detach themselves from bourgeois culture, including abstaining from going to nightclubs, stop drinking coffee, to not use formal evening dress, and to not starch their collars, which were all considered bourgeois traits. In addition that year Mussolini's anti-bourgeois theme spoke of removing first-class compartments, dining cars, and sleepers on railroads and possibly closing the stock exchange. In that year, Mussolini appointed Achille Starace to his cabinet, Starace attacked Northern Italian bourgeosie for Fascism's inability to permeate across the Italian nation, accusing them of being pacifist and pro-England. From 1937 to 1939, Mussolini encouraged Italians to foster an anti-bourgeois attitude by having Italians send in anti-bourgeois cartoons to be published in newspapers, and denounced "social games, five o'clock tea, vacations, compassion for Jews, preference for armchairs, desire for compromise, desire for money" for being indulgent bourgeois practices.

The Nazis argued that capitalism damages nations due to international finance, the economic dominance of big business, and Jewish influences within it. Adolf Hitler, both in public and in private, held strong disdain for capitalism; he accused modern capitalism of holding nations ransom in the interests of a parasitic cosmopolitan rentier class. He opposed free-market capitalism's profit-seeking impulses and desired an economy where community interests would be upheld. He distrusted capitalism for being unreliable, due to it having an egotistic nature, and he preferred a state-directed economy. On the issue of capitalist materialism, Hitler said "It may be that today gold has become the exclusive ruler of life, but the time will come when man will bow down before a higher god. Many things owe their existence solely to the longing for money and wealth, but there is very little among them whose non-existence would leave humanity any the poorer." Hitler told one party leader in 1934, "The economic system of our day," referring to capitalism, "is the creation of the Jews." In a discussion with Italian Fascist dictator Benito Mussolini, Hitler said that "Capitalism had run its course". Hitler was disgusted by the bourgeoisie and in one conversation stated that business bourgeoisie "know nothing except their profit. 'Fatherland' is only a word for them." Hitler admired Napoleon as a rolemodel for his anti-conservative, anti-capitalist, and anti-bourgeois attitudes.

Anti-capitalist trends were found in other fascist movements as well. The Spanish Falange held anti-capitalist positions. Falangist leader Jose Antonio Primo de Rivera in 1935 declared that "We reject the capitalist system, which disregards the needs of the people, dehumanizes private property and transforms the workers into shapeless masses prone to misery and despair". The Romanian Iron Guard espoused anti-capitalist, anti-banking and anti-bourgeois rhetoric. The Arrow Cross Party of Hungary held strong anti-feudal and anti-capitalist beliefs and supported redistribution of property.

According to Stanley Payne, fascism is characterised by a corporatist approach to economics: the subordination of the economy to the needs of the state, while preserving private property. Payne writes that fascist movements had in common the aim of "eliminating the autonomy (or, in some proposals, the existence) of large-scale capitalism and major industry".

Some writers argue that fascism represented a "third way" between Marxian socialism and capitalism. Fascism protected the land-owning elites and is regarded as a reaction against the rising power of the working class. Fascists upheld the ownership aspect of private property - including private property over productive capital and the means of production - but said that property was to be regulated to ensure that "benefit to the community precedes benefit to the individual."

The Nazis were vocal in their opposition to finance capitalism, interest charging, and profiteering. Adolf Hitler stated in Mein Kampf that "the attitude of the State towards capital would be comparatively simple and clear. Its only object would be to make sure that capital remained subservient to the State". Hitler made a clear distinction between "capital which is purely the product of creative labour and ... capital which is exclusively the result of financial speculation."

Hitler met Gottfried Feder in summer 1919, and Feder became his mentor in finance and economics. He inspired Hitler's opposition to "Jewish finance capitalism.". Marxists argue that fascism is a form of state capitalism that emerges when laissez-faire capitalism is in crisis and in need of rescue by government intervention. Fascists have operated from a Social Darwinist view of human relations. Their aim has been to promote "superior" individuals and weed out the weak. In terms of economic practice, this meant promoting the interests of successful businessmen while destroying trade unions and other organizations of the working class. Lawrence Britt suggests that protection of corporate power is an essential part of fascism. Historian Gaetano Salvemini argued in 1936 that fascism makes taxpayers responsible to private enterprise, because "the State pays for the blunders of private enterprise... Profit is private and individual. Loss is public and social."

Classical liberal economist Ludwig von Mises argued that fascism was collectivist and anti-capitalistic. According to Mises, fascism maintained an illusion of respecting private property, since individuals could not use their property how they wished because the government frequently enacted regulations (on behalf of government allies in the business sector) that were not in line with the functioning of a free market.

Historian Robert Paxton contends that fascists' anti-capitalism was highly selective; the socialism that the fascists wanted was National Socialism, which denied only foreign or enemy property rights (including that of internal enemies). They did, however, cherish national producers.

best wishes, Richard Myers (talk) 11:36, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I strongly support this edit. It is absurd that this article has devoted so much space to this marginal issue, against the overwhelming consensus of editors.BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:57, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

List of refs used in this section

Laboralism

An additional alternative to Capitalism not yet listed in this article is "Laboralism", which like Capitalism is a market economy, but where labor-time is directly used as the common currency, rather than mapping to the dollar or other traditional currency. The consequences are: (1) people with large past accumulations of Capital have no great advantage over those who don't, (2) anyone can obtain labor-cash at any time merely by doing some labor for the system, thus anyone can get labor-cash and use that to buy goods or services or to hire the labor of others, (3) thus nobody ever needs to borrow cash to make ends meet, thus usury won't occur, thus people with funds can't get more rich loaning funds to others and charging "interest" on the loan, thus there's no particular advantage to accumulating/hoarding lots of funds, (4) there's no true unemployment, because anyone can work for pay any time they want.

For example of a plan for this kind of system, and partial implementation of it, see TinyURL.Com/NewEco

198.144.192.45 (talk) 00:37, 23 October 2011 (UTC) Twitter.Com/CalRobert (Robert Maas)

And then we would go back to living in the stone age, because you wouldn't be able to value one type of labor over another. But, that aside, if you have another source or to talking about this you should add it in.Millertime246 (talk) 00:42, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

NewEco avoids the "Stone Age" by a bidding process. Effectively, supply and demand determines the ratio between various kinds of labor, as follows: If there are lots of people able to do the same task, the first to bid the fastest possible time gets the job, and thus gets paid at "minimum wage". (All such many-can-do-it tasks are then effectively paid at the same rate.) If there's only one person able to do the task, that one person can inflate his/her bid up to the maximum time allowed by the employer, thus get paid "minimum wage" for more time than he/she actually spent, thus effectively get paid higher than minimum wage. Or if the maximum allowed time is too small, in the opinion of that one bidder, that person can boycott this employer until he/she is willing to pay more. With just a few people able to do the task, they can conspire to inflate the bid, but the more people competing the more likely one of them will under-bid the majority and thus lower the effective pay rate closer to minimum wage. 198.144.192.45 (talk) 08:44, 27 November 2011 (UTC) Twitter.Com/CalRobert (Robert Maas)

Parecon and Inclusive Democracy

Aren't these just more Anarcho-socialist or left libertarian ideas? Why do they get their own section? Their own pages identify them as belonging to the aforementioned groups. I'm taking the liberty of removing them, their specific inclusion seems to be vastly undue weight, especially when more notable anarcho-socialist movements like anarcho-syndicalism receive no mention at all. --2602:30A:2EA0:D9F0:48B9:2960:28BB:31BC (talk) 00:05, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to add any information you feel is relevant, instead of deleting relevant information that is already in the article.Spylab (talk) 03:29, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

There's a perfectly good and reasonable summary of leftist libertarianism that is the same brevity as other sections. There's no need to give every single leftist libertarian position its own blurb, especially when they're *barely notable*. Justify why they deserve a section and aren't already sufficiently covered by the general leftist libertarian / anarcho-socialism section. They literally both identify as such, so at the very least there's no reason for them to have a separate section. They're a sub-category of a separately described group!

And its not that I feel there's missing information that's relevant, its that those two are clearly highly specific theories covered in grossly more detail than any other category. That violates several WP policies, links for which I can't be bothered to look up right now, but Undue Weight certainly comes to mind.

At the very least don't just revert, work them into the existing left libertarian section. But I strongly believe they don't deserve specific mention on this page at all, and can be found through the relevant portals under left libertarianism.

--2602:30A:2EA0:D9F0:D9C4:8A62:2547:48F0 (talk) 07:23, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

The article is relatively short, so the article should be expanded, not shrunk. Both topics are notable enough to have their own Wikipedia articles, so they are notable enough to include in this article.Spylab (talk) 20:48, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

This is a summary article of a very broad range of views, so your argument is invalid. That's like arguing that every species with a page deserves specific mention on the Evolution page. That's nonsense. Information needs to get sorted heirarchically, and pages high on the heirarchy get abbreviated accounts which will leave out a lot of the details. Those two things were very tiny details (hence WP:UndueWeight) that properly belong to a group already covered - left anarchism. And you can eventually locate them (and all the other variants of left anarchism) by following links on the page. This page is better served by not getting bogged down with inane details of specific ideologies. I'm starting to think you're a grad student under one of the primary theorists involved, given how non-notable they are in this large context. --2602:30A:2EA0:D9F0:84F8:DCFB:9C5E:4CDD (talk) 13:48, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

P.S. Note, they both have sections on the Social Anarchism page. That's more than sufficient - they're readily accessible through an obvious link. WP:Undue definitely applies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:2EA0:D9F0:84F8:DCFB:9C5E:4CDD (talk) 14:00, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Purpose of the article: What belongs and what doesn't?

Since three Wikipedia accounts have deleted referenced paragraphs about two sub-types of anti-capitalism, I have deleted other content that was merely about criticism of certain aspects of capitalism, not opposition to capitalism altogether. Editors can either choose a strict guideline of what belongs in the article and keep it short, or they can loosen the criteria and expand the article to provide as much referenced, relevant information as possible (as long as it doesn't duplicate Criticism of capitalism). I don't really care which of the two options are agreed upon, but there has to be a common standard, not arbitrariness.Spylab (talk) 22:21, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Now that's just vandalism. All criticisms of capitalism are criticism of certain aspects of it. Otherwise we'll have to remove Socialism because Marx tentatively endorsed free trade as spreading the revolution faster. And Fascism is just as anti-capitalist as socialism is.

Why don't you try making a compelling argument that actually has merit on the talk page instead of engaging in edit warring. I've provided a reasonable defense of my position. Your only defense of inclusion was 'but more stuff!' and now deleting stuff that already achieved consensus (see above).

--2602:30A:2EA0:D9F0:84F8:DCFB:9C5E:4CDD (talk) 00:44, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Also, WP:Undue is definitely the governing policy here. There's no reason for two specific instances of anarcho socialism (endorsed by maybe 3 authors each) to have larger sections than the general anarcho-socialism section, much less any two other large groups combined, it gives clearly minority views overwhelming weight on the page. Nor is there any reason to go into detail about specific instances when the general stance of anarcho-socialism is well covered, and those specific instances are available via a provided link. Prove its not undue or stop. --2602:30A:2EA0:D9F0:84F8:DCFB:9C5E:4CDD (talk) 00:58, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

My edits certainly were not vandalism. They were bold, but within Wikipedia guidelines. The lead section says: "Anti-capitalism comprises a wide variety of movements, ideas and attitudes that oppose capitalism. Anti-capitalists, in the strict sense of the word, are those who wish to replace capitalism with another type of economic system." It does not say anti-capitalism is a wide variety of movements, ideas and attitudes that criticize certain aspects of capitalism but don't actually oppose capitalism itself. That would fall under Criticism of capitalism. Fascism is definitely not just as anti-capitalist as socialism is. Fascism can be, and has been, compatible with capitalism. Fascist governments have worked with capitalist industrialists, and capitalists have financed fascist parties. Para-fascist governments such as the Chilean Pinochet regime were extreme capitalist.Spylab (talk) 06:02, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

The claim was that wholesale removal of things that clearly belonged and were not covered by other sections wwas vandalism.

And Pinochet's regime was not Capitalist. Capitalism is a completely unregulated market, and a large number of fascists have criticized capitalism as such. Just because a number of socialists wish to group a diverse group of economic advocacies together as Capitalism because they hate them all does not make it true. Just like we wouldn't accept a capitalist or conservative definition of socialism, socialists don't get to define what Capitalism is - the capitalists do. So-called 'state-capitalism', corporatism, and other related advocacies are not Capitalist because they reject the free market.

--2602:30A:2EA0:D9F0:6864:5448:6DB2:9132 (talk) 23:19, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I broadly agree with Spylab, but we need to be careful with definitions. If in doubt, let's stick to what sources say explicitly. bobrayner (talk) 00:02, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Pinochet's regime was even more free-market capitalist than the capitalist economy of United States. Pinochet's extreme capitalist economic reforms were directly guided by Milton Friedman and the Chicago school of economics. If capitalism is strictly defined as "a completely unregulated market", then it has never existed in real life and never will.Spylab (talk) 03:31, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Not knowing specifically about Pinochet's regime, I will note that there's no reason all fascists have to be the same. It is certainly the case that there are fascist critics of capitalism (including several prominent Nazi critics), they are cited on the page, and they are distinguishing their fascism from capitalism. I would further assert that Fascism and Capitalism are ideologically opposed, and one will tend to displace the other. (Which doesn't mean they can't coexist for short periods of time - we have definitive evidence of Communism and Capitalism coexisting - but in the longterm the two can't coexist because they subvert each other.)

The disadvantage of actually being implemented is that people hold your implementation up as the reality. Unless people want to seriously assert that State Socialism / Communism is strictly limited by its implementations (the USSR, China, etc...), which only seems to be held by some opponents of it, then its also unreasonable to say that Capitalism is strictly limited by what has been done in reality. One might further claim that "true" Communism has never been done and never will be. (I would further submit that the "wild" west in the US was actually pretty close to pure Capitalism, and there is a wealth of academic literature on the matter). Regardless, it would be better to say that Capitalism is a completely unregulated market, and systems are more Capitalist the closer they get to that ideal.

--2602:30A:2EA0:D9F0:4463:DDC0:3E24:C6D4 (talk) 22:40, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Well it's about freedom, is a clue :) and WP:Undue can be used also. <3 Here to help out and, let's help Anticapitalism be its own burgeoning movement and ideal guys, not defined top-down from the past. I touched up the "socialism" section, though most Americans will put off socialism instantly and I am Anticapitalist but not Socialist (I see it as big government) :) Also, seems the edits above were not "vandalism," obviously if he's here. Anticapitalists might be a different breed than what you guys are used to, gotta get out of your head! (and see what happens!) -EC

• On a technical note, the IPv6 addresses are one and the same user, given their ISP and the fact that they all lie in the same /64 range. No comment on the content itself.--Jasper Deng (talk) 08:14, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

• • Yes, those are all me.
  • Why are we deleting like half the page again. The original point of this was that specific instances of anarcho-socialism didn't need to be covered. The other areas seem to be legitimate criticisms of capitalism. The last revision that deleted half the page is not an improvement.
  • --2602:30A:2EA0:D9F0:4463:DDC0:3E24:C6D4 (talk) 22:32, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, all I did originally was remove two sections (pareconomy was one) because they were very obviously left libertarian ideas, they identified as left libertarian ideas, and they are linked to and talked about on the left libertarian summary pages. As per WP:Undue, these did not deserve separate sections in vastly more detail than other similar and frequently more noteworthy representatives of left libertarian thought, and as a heirarchically overarching page, it was best to have a brief summary of left libertarianism and let interested readers follow that link.

All the other material (Eco-feminist, Religious, and Fascist criticisms of Capitalism) had previously achieved consensus here (see preceeding comment page) and should not be deleted. Further, they are at a similar heirarchical level as other material. Bobrayner, would you please stop massively removing things that already achieved consensus.

--2602:30A:2EA0:D9F0:E167:6042:6793:1D8F (talk) 08:13, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Bobrayner continues to maliciously remove content which had achieved consensus long before he ever looked at the page. It is not the R of WP:BRD cycle, because that involves *actually discussing* and *looking at the talk page*. "Look at the article's edit history and its talk page to see if a discussion has begun." A discussion has begun. For a lot of the material bobrayner is deleting, a discussion concluded years ago with the decision to keep. His actions are vandalism. --2602:30A:2EA0:D9F0:7DEF:4957:D4DA:3D74 (talk) 19:33, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

It's WP:BRD, not WP:BRRRRRRRRRRRRRwhateverIwantD. You don't have consensus to add this stuff, and it has been removed by two different people. Hammering the revert button as a substitute for consensus, and then lashing out with spurious warnings when you get reverted, is not helpful. bobrayner (talk) 19:41, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Check the edit history. I didn't add them, they were added years ago, and achieved consensus (see earlier discussion). Get your facts straight. My reversion is to restore content that you are maliciously deleting and that was inappropriately deleted by Spylab, it is certainly not mine. And the warning was legitimate - what else would you call continuous reversion without discussion? --2602:30A:2EA0:D9F0:7DEF:4957:D4DA:3D74 (talk) 19:50, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Your suggestion that it's not WP:BRD because I've somehow failed to discuss is obviously false; other editors are welcome to look at my prior comments on this talkpage.

Your notion that my edits are "malicious" is similarly false. Please stop this. Focus on the content, not the editor. bobrayner (talk) 20:02, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Your one prior ~1 sentence comment before today, that didn't engage in any substantive discussion? Further, how is reverting to delete content that is well-sourced and has been on the page for years *without* any substantive discussion on the merits at all warranted or legitimately part of RBD? There's a previous consensus on a lot of that material. --2602:30A:2EA0:D9F0:7DEF:4957:D4DA:3D74 (talk) 20:30, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

What consensus? bobrayner (talk) 21:18, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

What consensus? bobrayner (talk) 13:58, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

The consensus above that Fascism belonged on the page (but needed a smaller section than the huge one that was archived above). There was also a quick consensus reached that eco-feminism belonged on the page, and some consensus regarding what religious stuff did and did not belong iirc, but i just sort of skimmed that. --2602:30A:2EA0:D9F0:7DEF:4957:D4DA:3D74 (talk) 01:08, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Considering the number of comments like this and this, I doubt it. bobrayner (talk) 21:47, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Fascism

What is called the "fascist" stance on capitalism here, is really the generally right-wing stance. Most of the arguments mentioned against capitalism would be supported by 90% of right-wing politicians in Europe and probably many other parts of the world. (I know most US right-wingers are not among them.) So, I think the section should be renamed to Political Right or something like that, because it unites fascists, conservatives, nationalists and others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.206.161.164 (talk) 00:50, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Fascism is like anarchy with authority. -EC — Preceding unsigned comment added by EM Che (talk • contribs) 22:28, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Anti-Capitalism

Hi guys! (welcome to the talk page, I'm hoping!) What's up? I am anticapitalist and have a few references and sites for this (new, completely unprecedented) subject that anyone here's editing on, helping compile! Gogo wiki-concensuses and freedom do-ocracy!

Okay, so my thought is that this is totally unprecedented. Not technology-based, but the internet, we can use the internet to make everything free, and pretty quickly. Already the how-to's are there, and it's a matter of time until dedicated anti-capitalists develop the solutions made using commonly found (manifest) materials in our environment. This is, the permaculture evolution of a free human race.

I include a few sites for reference, now, with the theory of an anti-capitalist (post-capitalist? what is an ism?) city, which we should start asking different mayors of if they would like to be the first, and an anticapitalist town, apartment pictures, etc are already there. It shares the freedom and return-to-effort components that will make Westerners happy, and as it turns out the freedom build will be easier for the current rich, whereas it will be buildable for the current poor via DIY but will be a bit more of a struggle. Furthermore, I believe the model right now is in transition phase so, early adopters take on the home-scale freedom build, then there will eventually be a large wave/movement and that becomes the norm, freedom sort-of like in Star Trek? Self-betterment, rather than working a job as in, for someone.

It's also collaborative, hopefully, so these sites will be developing in a movement sense. Looking for coders/hackers and do-ers as well (it's totally us that's going to inherit this mess) -EC

Ed Che- developed a working alternative to capitalism. Welcome to op alternative. http://opalternative.tk http://opalternative.uphero.com/ http://flickr.com/photos/opalternative http://github.com/opalternative

Wikipedia, is anti-capitalistic :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by EM Che (talk • contribs) 23:02, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Anti-capitalism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100716140329/http://www.worldsocialism.org:80/spgb/may10/page23.html to http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/may10/page23.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:01, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Anti-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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101123154932/http://www.infoshop.org/page/AnarchistFAQSectionG6 to http://www.infoshop.org/page/AnarchistFAQSectionG6
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071206064452/http://www.studiesinanti-capitalism.net:80/ to http://www.studiesinanti-capitalism.net

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:41, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Anti-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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100716140329/http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/may10/page23.html to http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/may10/page23.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.studiesinanti-capitalism.net/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:52, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Fascism, again

Please, stop adding Fascism without establishing consensus or put up sources that actually and explicity say fascism was/is anti-capitalist and part of the anti-capitalist movement. Fascism isn't opposed to capitalism; they merely oppose one variant of capitalism (laissez-faire, liberal, international capitalism). Just like Nazis don't really oppose capitalism; they merely oppose “Jewish” capitalism). Social democrats, social liberals and some conservatives and nationalists also oppose laissez-faire capitalism while other liberals oppose social capitalism and support only laissez-faire capitalism (by this fascist logic, they're all anti-capitalist and should be added, which makes no sense).

Furthermore, the text repeatedly added doesn't say that it's opposed to capitalism, but only to free-market capitalism and compare communism (i.e. Bolshevism) with liberal capitalism, not capitalism itself. This is also further contradicted by everything sourced we've written about the topic at Fascism and related articles. Finally, Anti-capitalism should be about the movement, not merely any criticism of capitalism or one variant of it; for that, we already have Criticism of capitalism, where the fascist et all critique is more appropriate.

As for this, you need much more than just one source, which doesn't even explicity support your claim.--Davide King (talk) 00:47, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Well first of all, here is another source which shows Fascism's opposition to Capitalism: [3]

Now, if the text says that it is only opposed to "free-market Capitalism", the appropriate measure would be simply to edit it, not remove it completely, futhermore, the source clearly states that Fascism is opposed to Capitalism, and anti-Capitalism is simply opposition to Capitalism, since Fascism is an anti-Capitalist ideology, it should be added, and the economic system of Fascism is Corporatism, Social Democrats don't support adopting Corporatism as an economic system, and private property existed way before Capitalism. -- 179.176.26.53 (talk) 18:44, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Again, what you fail to realise is that you shouldn't merely search for sources arguing that fascism was opposed to capitalism. You should search for sources about anti-capitalism and its movement and whether they actually mention fascism. Again, this article shouldn't merely be a list of ideologies that are opposed to some version of capitalism; it should be similar to Anti-globalization movement in describing it as a movement. Furthermore, you're clearly wrong about corporatism. Not only is corporatism still capitalism but social democrats actually adopted it in the form of ˞Social corporatism; and today we all pretty much live in what's described at Neo-corporatism and Neoliberalism, which is yet another variant or stage of capitalism. You write that anti-Capitalism is simply opposition to Capitalism but that already excludes fascism as it's not opposed to capitalism itself (it certainly wasn't in practice and it supported a capitalist market economy and capitalist private-property rights) but merely to some form of it (financial capitalism), just like Nazis are opposed to “Jewish” capitalism but have no problem with “productive capitalism”.--Davide King (talk) 14:13, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Anti-capitalism is not necessarily a movement, anymore than anti-Fascism or anti-Communism are, it is simply opposition to Capitalism, so this is irrelevant, Neoliberalism isn't Corporatism, Fascism does not support a market economy, since Fascism is opposed to Economic liberalism, and private property existed way before Capitalism, and when the Nazis said "Jewish capitalism", they were claiming that Capitalism was Jewish just like they claimed Communism was, they weren't opposing only one form of Capitalism. -- 179.183.145.64 (talk) 21:36, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

I think that's false or misleading. Anti-capitalism, anti-communism and anti-fascism are all political movements. For example, even if anti-fascism has been promoted by some liberals and even conservatives, the movement is considered left-leaning. Similarly, anti-communism has been promoted by communists and socialists themselves (because communism is conflated with Marxism–Leninism), among other left-leaning people, yet the movement as a whole is generally right-leaning. Either way, even if that was true, you're wrong in writing that Fascism does not support a market economy, since Fascism is opposed to Economic liberalism, and private property existed way before Capitalism because we have reliable sources at fascist-related articles and the ones which is specifically about the ideology writing:

“ Fascists support the state having control over the economy, although they support the existence of private property.[181] When fascists have criticized capitalism, they have focused their attacks on "finance capitalism", the international nature of banks and the stock exchange and its cosmopolitan bourgeois character.[182] Under fascism, the profit motive continues to be the primary motivation of contributors to the economy.[181] [...] Mussolini directed his criticism not against modern, Keynesian liberalism, but the older form of classical liberalism, due to its individualistic nature [...]. One issue where Fascism is in accord with liberalism is in its support of private property rights and the existence of a market economy.[232] ”

In other words, fascists were simply opposed to a certain version or type of capitalism, not to capitalism as a whole and in practice retained the capitalist market economy, at most incorporating some form; they lied. So just because according to you Nazis conflated capitalism as a whole with “Jewry”, apparently they were opposed to all capitalism. This isn't how it works or how Wikipedia works; reliable sources and consensus clearly disagree with that view and consider both Nazis and fascist as capitalists. Similarly, some consider also the Soviet Union et all as representing in practice yet another model of capitalism, i.e. state capitalism.

P.S. Yes, neoliberalism still follows the neo-corporatist and tripartite model, with the difference that capital has much more weight over government and unions. Either way, you seem to conflate capitalism as a whole with laissez-faire or economic liberalism, but that's not the consensus among reliable sources and is merely the point of view of those same liberals and Austrian School economists. Fascist states were all capitalist ones.--Davide King (talk) 23:09, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

They are not movements, but anyway, by the same logic, most anti-Capitalists are left-leaning but there were also right-wingers who were opposed to Capitalism in the past and even today, Fascists are some of them. There are many sources showing that Fascism is anti-Capitalist, I presented two sources here showing that. You said that the Nazis were opposed to "Jewish capitalism" only, as if "Jewish capitalism" was referring to a specific form of Capitalism when they were actually claiming Capitalism was Jewish. Again private property existed way before Capitalism, and Neoliberalism isn't Corporatism, it is laissez-faire and free market capitalism, not Corporatism. -- 179.186.159.86 (talk) 22:45, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

How they aren't movements? What you fail to realise is that those right-leaning people were either criticising one variant or aspect of capitalism (the capitalist free market which has been revolutionary in destroying feudalism and its traditional institutions, hence why some opposed it). But anti-capitalism isn't merely seen as criticism of capitalism, it's a specific movement. Yes, Nazis thought that capitalism was “Jewish” but it isn't, so they aren't really opposed to capitalism; they can only be anti-capitalist by their own definitions, which aren't based on reality or facts. They clearly supported capitalist property relations, they didn't opposed profit or the market; they wanted a social Darwinian, exclusionary-chauvinist welfare mixed economy. I think this comment by The Four Deuces is relevant. You use anti-capitalist in the Mises sense which isn't really accepted. In practice, they supported and strengthened capitalism against these movement who actually wanted to overthrow it (communism and anarchism); and any anti-capitalist rhetoric they may have had or made was just that, populist, demagoguery rhetoric, in many cases against financial capitalism and not capitalism as a whole anyway. Unlike “Communist states” which overthrown the existing elite to create their own, fascists didn't overthrow anything and protected capitalism and the existing elites against the “Communist-Bolshevik” threat. Either way, “fascism” can be considered “anti-capitalist” only in its early Italian Sanseplcrismo variant, i.e. the movement led by Benito Mussolini that preceded Fascism, as we write there. Finally, if what you wrote was true and you were right, I'm sure it would have been already reflected in fascist-related articles but it's not; I quoted you what reliable sources actually say on the issue and that we report on fascist-related articles.--Davide King (talk) 06:01, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

On private property, they still supported capitalist social relations and in many ways wanted to take them to the extreme. Neoliberalism may not be corporatism in theory, but that's what it is in practice and it's what we have today. Corporatism is still capitalism.--Davide King (talk) 06:03, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it is true that one of the reasons that Right-wingers who were opposed to Capitalism were so was because they viewed it as destructive to traditions, but this isn't merely criticizing an aspect. It is irrelevant whether it is true or not, they viewed both Capitalism and Communism as being Jewish and two sides of the same coin, and presented themselves as an alternative to both, just like other Fascist movements did, in other words, they were opposed to Capitalism. What does "capitalist property relations" even mean anyway? If you mean they supported private property, it is true, but once again, private property is something that existed before Capitalism, unless if you consider anything that isn't Communism, Capitalism. The rest is pure POV, it seems to me that you have a Marxist POV on this subject, which might explain why you don't consider Fascism anti-Capitalist, but anyway. And lastly, WP:Wikipedia is not a reliable source. -- 179.182.129.166 (talk) 05:09, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it is true that one of the reasons that Right-wingers who were opposed to Capitalism were so was because they viewed it as destructive to traditions, but this isn't merely criticizing an aspect. Then they weren't anti-capitalists, they were pre-capitalists. Either way, what you fail to realise is that Anti-capitalism isn't Criticism of capitalism; you conflate the two. The bottom line is that to be an anti-capitalist means wanting to replace capitalism with another economic system; and whether you like it or not, corporatism is still capitalism, it's just one variant of it, it's simply a mixed-capitalist economy. Again, if we add fascism, then we would have to add pretty much anything but laissez-faire capitalism supporters; and it makes no sense, nor is it supported by reliable sources, something which you don't seem to gasp. Yes, Wikipedia isn't a reliable sources, but the sources we use in fascist-related articles certainly are; and if you were right, if there was such a big consensus to consider fascism anti-capitalist, then rest assured it would have been reflected already in the main article, but there's no such consensus. There isn't even a consensus to add it here as shown by previous discussions here. So apparently I'm having a Marxist POV for merely explaining that fascism isn't generally considered anti-capitalist as reflected in reliable sources. You're simply looking for sources that support your view but if you were looking for sources that don't support your view, you will find out the opposite. What you should be looking for is sources about the anti-capitalist movement and see how may mention fascism or discuss it as length as being indeed anti-capitalism. Because, whether you like it or not, this page isn't about any criticism of capitalism; it's about the socio-political movement advocating the overthrow of capitalism in favour of a different economic system, usually post-capitalist or socialist, certainly not fascism or corporatism. Look at Anti-communism, it doesn't merely list the ideologies opposed to it, it talks about and discusses the anti-communist movement in different countries. Similarly, Anti-capitalism shouldn't merely list any ideology that has made some criticism of capitalism (again, for that we have Criticism of capitalism) but should be about the anti-capitalist movement; and as far as I'm aware, fascism isn't part of it. I've actually added fascism at Criticism of capitalism.

It is irrelevant whether it is true or not, they viewed both Capitalism and Communism as being Jewish and two sides of the same coin, and presented themselves as an alternative to both, just like other Fascist movements did, in other words, they were opposed to Capitalism. This is wholly absurd. So we should take their word at face value, the word of proven liars and demagogues? No, this isn't how Wikipedia works. What matters is what scholars and reliable sources say about them; and they are described as capitalists, sometimes their economic system is called authoritarian capitalism. What is irrelevant is that they viewed both capitalism and communism as being “Jewish” and two sides of the same coin; because neither capitalism nor communism are “Jewish”. This is reality and what really matters, not what fascists thought of them. The bottom line is that the scholarly consensus, as far as I know, is that they were indeed anti-communists but not anti-capitalists; they certainly weren't anti-capitalists in practice, so all their anti-capitalist rhetoric was just that, nothing more than mere right-wing populist rhetoric.

What does "capitalist property relations" even mean anyway? I mean the ongoing capitalist regime; they didn't expropriate capitalists, they worked closely with them to fight off the Communists and the anti-capitalist movement. Of course, private property predates capitalism, but the bottom line is that they supported private property even under a capitalist order, they supported capitalist private property; they didn't criticise the property relations back in their day and they still don't. In government, the Fascists' economic policies were liberal (that changed only with the Great Depression) and the Nazis underwent privatisations (which was actually against the economic consensus back then) and indeed that term itself was coined to describe the Nazis' economic policies. Just because in the 1930s they changed their economic views, like the whole world after the Great Depression, it doesn't mean they were economic leftists or even anti-capitalists.--Davide King (talk) 09:19, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

First of all, this assumes that right-wing anti-Capitalists just want to bring feudalism back, which is not the case, perhaps there were some that wanted this, but they were a minority, and they would still be anti-Capitalists. Again, Wikipedia is not a reliable source, it is irrelevant if it is not reflected in it's articles, such things are one of the reasons why, and as editors we should improve Wikipedia. Not only there are many sources stating that Fascism is opposed to Capitalism, but we should also look at their own writings regarding this subject, and in the writings of many Fascist leaders and movements, it is clear that they were opposed to Capitalism. Being "Jewish" was not the only reason that the Nazis were opposed to Capitalism and Communism anyway, but I was just saying that, when they referred to "Jewish" capitalism, they were not referring to a specific form of Capitalism, which is what you were originally claiming. "But the bottom line is that they supported private property even under a capitalist order, they supported capitalist private property; they didn't criticise the property relations back in their day and they still don't", again, what does this even mean? The Fascists at first did not have many power, so they were forced to make compromises, but as they power and support grew, this changed. And privatization in Nazi Germany was not like privatization by neoliberal governments, and the regime still maintained a lot of control over the economy. Lastly, Fascists support class collaboration, not class war like Communists, though they still forced them to submit to the state. -- 177.207.62.104 (talk) 00:21, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Fascist corporatism is exactly that, a synthesis of capitalism and feudalism, taking guilds from feudalism and producerism from capitalism. That is exactly how Wikipedia is not supposed to work. We don't and shouldn't merely look at their own writings, for Wikipedia isn't about primary sources, but especially secondary and tertiary ones. Further considering how fascists lied and were both opportunists and demagogues, that really doesn't make sense. Even if we look at their writings, it's clear they wanted to create a new form of capitalism rather than abolish it; they supported private property, profit, wage labour and all other characteristics of capitalism; at best, they simply wanted a mixed, dirigist, state-capitalist economy, which was centrist back in the day. In practice, they were only worried about the effects of capitalism but didn't think of abolishing it; they wanted it to work according to their nationalist goals. In the case of the Nazis, capitalism didn't work because it was controlled by the “Jews”; in the case of fascism, it was the fault of “plutocratic nations”. Remove them and they're perfectly fine with capitalism. They're merely opposed to financial, cosmopolitan capitalism, i.e. simply one form of capitalism. Only the early “fascists”, that of Sansepolcrismo, may be considered anti-capitalists, but that itself was previous proper Fascism as we understand it today. What you fail to realise is that both were (right-wing) populists and they were opportunists, going from anti-capitalism in the early days to gain working-class support only to switch to pro-capitalism and allying the business elite once in power. You seem to take their word as true and fail to realise that there's practice too.

[A]gain, what does this even mean? What's so hard to gasp at what I just wrote? In practice, fascist regimes were all capitalist regimes, notwithstanding right-wing claims that they were socialist or leftist regimes. So just because they may have rhetorically used anti-capitalist sentiment (social context is important as we were in the postwar period in the 1920s and 1930s), it doesn't mean they really were. Secondly, you miss the main topic of the article which is, or should be, about the socio-political movement which as far as I have read and searched it doesn't include fascism, not merely being opposed to capitalism. As I already explained you, you can't just find sources that support your view. You need to search for sources that discuss the anti-capitalist movement (again, this article should be about the movement, not any ideology opposed to, or critical of, capitalism which we already discuss at Criticism of capitalism), i.e. the main topic of the article; and see if they mention fascism and consider it important within the anti-capitalist movement. Either way, this isn't going nowhere.--Davide King (talk) 12:23, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

You're misinterpreting what I said, I did not say that we should "merely look at their own writings", but rather that we should look at their own writings as well, just like Wikipedia does with writings of any ideology, yet you want to dismiss it as "lies and demagoguery", which is pure POV, and one could dismiss the writings of Liberals and Communists in the same way. Sansepolcrismo was Fascism, the name just refers to the Piazza where Mussolini proclaimed the principles of the Fasci Italiani di Combattimento, predecessor of the PNF. You still haven't explained what "capitalist private property" means, you conceded that private property existed before Capitalism, but you still did not explain what that term means, again, it seems to me that you have a Marxist POV on this subject. And even if anti-Capitalism was a movement, wouldn't Fascism be a part of it since it is opposed to Capitalism anyways? -- 179.186.157.185 (talk) 22:46, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

We don't look at original writings and interpret them, but rely on the interpretations of experts and present them based on the weight of their acceptance in academic sources. Liberalism, communism, fascism - it doesn't matter. Incidentally there's a lot of dishonesty in the writings of some liberals and communists too. TFD (talk) 03:23, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

I didn't misinterprate what you wrote; as argued by The Four Deuces, we don't look at original writings and interpret them, but let historians and other academic sources do that for us; and as far as I'm aware, they don't actually support your view. How was it POV? While that happens for all ideologies, fascists have been described as pragmatists and opportunists and whatever anti-capitalist and populist rhetoric they may have used, it wasn't followed in practice as argued below by The Four Deuces. You're basically arguing that they were really anti-capitalists and all their pro-capitalism, pro-business, anti-labour and working-class measures were merely “pragmatic compromises” because they were forced to make compromises, but as they [sic] power and support grew, this changed.

Communists at least followed their words and overthrow the existing elite in their countries, although in practice they simply established their own. Sansepolcrismo predates fascism and some such as Renzo De Felice explicity distinguish between Sansepolcrismo (i.e. what the movement was supposed to be) and Fascism (i.e. what fascism was in practice); and it's usually the latter what's referred to as fascism and the fascism I'm talking about when I say it wasn't anti-capitalist in theory nor in practice. You say I have a Marxist POV, but you may have an Austrian POV in that you consider capitalism to be laissez-faire only, so all those advocating a mixed economy or simply market regulations and government interventions are anti-captalists. I don't understand what's so hard to understand about capitalist private property (I add “capitalist” to make clear what property relations and rights I'm talking about since property predates capitalism); it's private ownership of the means of production. Despite their rhetoric and critique of cosmopolitan financial capitalism, they had no problems with that type of private property. It's even wrote here, literally: Fascists upheld the ownership aspect of private property—including private property over productive capital and the means of production, plain and simple. You're the one pushing a POV if you think that any regulation of it is anti-captalist.

Finally, as correctly pointed out by The Four Deuces below, anti-capitalism is a movement and it doesn't refer to any little critique of capitalism or of its excesses, which would include anything from outright anti-capitalism to liberalism, conservatism, traditionalism and fascism (only laissez-faire liberals would be excluded, but then again they could be included because they themselves also critique one version of capitalism, that of the mixed economy). It doesn't matter if a few people say fascism is anti-capitalism, I think the consensus is for otherwise; and even if there was a consensus that it really was anti-capitalist, that still wouldn't be enough to include it here, or mean that it's part of the anti-capitalist movement, of whose literature I don't really see mentioned or considered part of it. So in response to this (And even if anti-Capitalism was a movement, wouldn't Fascism be a part of it since it is opposed to Capitalism anyways?), no; because fascism isn't really discussed in anti-capitalist literature about the movement (books that say fascism is anti-capitalism are about fascism, not the anti-capitalist movement; and there're just as many and more books to argue otherwise); no, because there's no consensus that it really opposed capitalism as a whole rather than just a few aspects or variants like pretty much every ideology.--Davide King (talk) 17:36, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

The term anti-capitalism refers to a movement, not just a opposition to capitalism in general. It's similar to the terms anti-Communism, anti-fascism, anti-Islamism, anti-liberalism. We wouldn't for example say that most libertarians are anti-Semites, just because most of them do not support Jewish doctrines. A further problem in the case of fascism is that their main opposition to capitalism was that it relied on government regulation to stifle competition on behalf of big business, yet that's exactly what they did when they came to power. TFD (talk) 18:08, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree, The Four Deuces. Thank you for putting my exact thoughts concisely and clearer.--Davide King (talk) 17:36, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Discussion that may be of interest to participants here

Two discussion have started on the talk page for Talk:Far-left politics that may be of interest to editors here:

1. Proposal to remove the section on Far Left Terrorism: Talk:Far-left politics#Proposal to remove the section on Far Left Terrorism
2. Question on whether the lead should contain a passage about extremist violence and the Far left: Talk:Far-left politics#Question for consensus about controversial section added to lead

Uninvolved editors are needed, please join the discussion.  // Timothy :: talk  08:04, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Fascism?

What happened to fascism? Isn't fascism also anti-capitalist, at least to some point?

no, fascists are capitalists.~

I'm adding stuff about fascist opposition to capitalism; fascism is explicitly socialistic. LaszloWalrus 19:25, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

That fascism is socialistic is extremely POV. -- infinity0 20:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

That fascism is capitalist is extremely POV.

Not listing fascism here isn't even saying it's capitalist. It's just saying it's not anti-capitalist. Owen 20:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Fascism is anti-liberal, anti-democratic and anti-capitalist. It places nation and race before profit, and forces capitalist to respect national interest before their private. That contrasts traditional conception of capitalism: no independent decisions, no free market, etc. And there were fascist who were in many ways similiar to socialists: for example Ernst Rohm, Strasser brothers, national bolsheviks... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.131.252.127 (talk • contribs) 13:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be arguing that fascism is not capitalist, a point which is debatable. But you're not very well making the case that it is anti-capitalist. And it doesn't much matter even if a few fascists were anti-capitalist, because you could probably even more easily find some who weren't. No source has been provided to show that fascism as an ideology is broadly anti-capitalist. Sarge Baldy 07:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Please name a fascist that beleived in non-initiation of force and that all men (including Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals etc.) should be free to do as they wish including making money. Who are the people whom you could more easily find who were not anti-capitalist. There are no non anti-capitalist fascists. There are anti-capitalist fascists. So it is an anti-capitalist ideology. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.72.176.167 (talk • contribs) 18:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

You're arguing that fascism isn't capitalist, not that fascism is anti-capitalist. Sarge Baldy 17:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

No they beleived in initiation of force which makes them strictly anticapitalist. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.72.176.167 (talk • contribs) 03:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense. That would mean any system that is not pure libertarianism (the doctrine of "initiation of force" is fundamentally flawed, but that is anthother topic) is anti-capitalist. If it were true, then Ronald Regan, Yelstin Boris, and others are anti-capitalists. Utter nonsense. Fascists are against Lazziez-faire, but they are not "strict anti-capitalists." 72.139.119.165 01:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Ideologies are not people, Ronald Reagan (from an Objectivist standpoint) would be anti-capitalist in trying to stop abortions, however he was pro-capitalist on a lot more other things. Fascism is strictly anti-Capitalist because it beleives in initiation of force, it is an ideology though. And it depends on definitons are too, I am an Objectivist along with LazloWalrus, when Objectivists talk about capitalism we mean it in the Laissez Faire way. So to us Capitalism=Laissez Faire, anti-Capitalism=anti-Laissez Faire, you say Fascists are against Laissez Faire, so from our definition they are against Capitalism and strictly anti-Capitalist.

First, at least 99.9% of people are not objectivists. Second, capitalism is not only Laissez Faire, it includes any system were most of the means of production are privatly owned. 72.139.119.165 20:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

You are right 99.9% of people are not objectivists. For the second, Then you could say socialism isn't antifascist.

March 2007

A lot of reliable sources say fascism is anti-capitalist. That there are leftists who wish to equate the two merely means that both points of view need to be included in the article, not that only the leftist viewpoint is included. Please stop edit-warring. -- TedFrank 23:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

There are NO sources that say that fascism is anti-capitalist. Capitalism is a market economy, supply and demand, with mostly private property. This existed under fascism. --Jfrascencio 07:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Leftists generally say that fascism is capitalist, and rightists generally say that fascism is socialist. Basically, everyone tries to associate fascism with the "other side". I wonder why. -- Nikodemos 07:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Facts are not on the side of those who say that fascism is anti-capitalist and it is only a minority who say this. I ask this question: how is fascism anti-capitalist? Laissez faire is dead as a concept. Take the U.S. for example. Is there any denying that it is a capitalist economy? Is there any denying that it is opposed to laissez faire with its regulation of the economy and government intervention? Laissez faire =/= capitalism! --Jfrascencio 08:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The U.S. is capitalism and it is generally laissez-faire. What interventionist measure do exist in the US such as some minor protectionism such as subsidies to farmers, a welfare system, are to the credit of the fascist model. This idea that you have of capitalism being defined without regard to how liberal the market is is simply wrong. If the market is not liberalized then it's not capitalism. Billy Ego 17:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that "it is only a minority" who say fascism is anti-capitalist, but that is besides the point: you concede that there is a point of view that views fascism as anti-capitalist, and that point of view needs inclusion in the article. How is fascism anti-capitalist? Look it up: several sources meeting WP:A are cited. State control of the economy and wages, as Mussolini did in Italy, is anti-capitalist. Private property existed only at the will of the state. If you're defining "capitalism" as solely "market economy, supply and demand, with mostly private property," then virtually none of the entries in the article apply: how is "social democracy" "anti-capitalist" by that definition? -- TedFrank 13:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia defines capitalism as "Capitalism generally refers to an economic system in which the means of production are mostly privately[1] owned and operated for profit, and in which distribution, production and pricing of goods and services are determined in a largely free market." Note the aspect "free market." That is exactly what fascists were against. They were against economic liberalism. If the market is not free but controlled by the state to serve national interests then it's not capitalism. It is what's known as a "planned economy" or "dirigisme." Billy Ego 14:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

"Fascism being the extreme expression of middle-classism or populism...also may be described as the extreme expression of socialism...The basic ideology of the middle class is populism...their idea was an independent small property owning class consisting of merchants, mechanics, and farmers. This element is now designated as middle class, sponsored a system of private property, profit, and competition on an entirely different basis from that conceived by capitalism." David J. Sapos, The Role of the Middle Class in Social Development: Fascism, Populism, Communism, Socialism, in Economic Essays in Honour of Wesley Clair Mitchell (New York: Columbia University Press, 1935) Billy Ego 15:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems inappropriate to include fascism in this article since fascism is generally not concerned with economics, could be capitalist or anti-capitalist, and doesn't rate a major heading here. It may be useful to differentiate fascist anti-capitalism and fascist capitalism, then link to these from the appropriate topics. This would help to reduce the large number of WP:NPOV problem articles in this subject area to only a couple. Fascism could be associated with either capitalism or anti-capitalism depending on a person's notion of fascism, and a link would expose the pov without adding bias. -- DraftSmith 11:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Fascism enlists the economic system of Corporatism. It is neather socialist Nor capitalist and is totally unique on its own. Calling it either is untrue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 40.137.224.226 (talk) 19:57, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Social democracy

It doesn't make sense to say "Social democrats do not oppose the actual foundations of capitalism" in an article that's supposedly "lists ideologies opposed to capitalism." Which is it? Either the article is really about ideologies that are mildly critical of the "excesses" of capitalism, or the social democrats ought to be removed from the article.

Barter section

The section on barter lacks any references, and the ending sentence is presumably OR. I don't think it belongs in this article. Thoughts? Maddy from Celeste (they/she) 16:42, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Furthermore, if we were to keep content on barter on this page, I still don't think it should be its own section. We should keep consistent with the way the article is laid out, by having sections about different anti-capitalist tendencies. Barter is not an ideology. I would support incorporating material on barter into a section about an ideology which supports it. That being said, I don't think there's any major tendencies which do embrace barter. —Maddy from Celeste (they/she) 15:15, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Scope of article

This article seems really bizarre to me. It has a solid lede, which says that "Anti-capitalism encompasses a wide variety of movements, ideas and attitudes that oppose capitalism." The article then proceeds to describe just a couple of these movements - socialism, and its sub-types anarchism and Marxism. Then there is a section on barter and one on wage slavery, which seem completely arbitrary. How on earth do they belong here? Then there is a very silly section "Criticisms of anti-capitalism" which reads like a blog post and gives a few instances of marginal and/or unnammed criticisms of something that is itself a criticism, so are really tendentious. On the other hand, there is absolutely nothing about what is generally referred to as "the anti-capitalist movement", the broad social movement against global capital that was very prominent in the 1990s in particular (see e.g. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/apr/30/mayday.seandodson ) which I think is what people tend to refer to when they use the term. Does anyone agree/disagree? If people agree, I'd propose cutting the irrelevant sections and adding in something about this 1990s movement. I am sure the article used to cover this well, but am not sure when it was edited out. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:37, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree (years later) and came here to post the same. I'm not sure whether the answer is to merge and cover this better within the parent section Capitalism § Criticism, or to scope this more narrowly to the anti-capitalist movement (and the forms it has taken over time) if it can be defined as such. I lean more towards the former. czar 03:28, 13 July 2022 (UTC)