Talk:Capitalism/Archive 32

Archive 25

←

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Criticism

What's the rationale for including a criticism section in this article? Because political populists, philosophers or religious groups are typically not given space to voice critiques of mainstream academic subjects on here. The Evolutionary biology article, for example, does not allow young Earth creationists to huff their objections to what's essentially the basis of all of modern biology (as capitalism is the basis of modern economics). Objections to evolution has its own article which may be something to consider here. There's already a Criticism of capitalism article where these views can be read.Jonathan f1 (talk) 22:11, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Why did you choose evolution as a counter-example? I don't see the relevance. Evolution describes the world as we find it, which would persist whether or not humans existed; comparable models would be gravity, conservation of energy, and so on. Capitalism is about economics, a very human affair. I can see comparisons with communism or socialism or, FWIW, with subjects like religion, veganism, or what I perceive as a marked shift in the global palate in favour of spicy food - but evolution? That's hard to understand. Girth Summit _(blether) 22:30, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Because mainstream economics is the study of human behavior within the context of market capitalism, public policy and the distribution of finite resources, and modern biology is the study of life within an evolutionary framework. I think the comparison is apt even though these are vastly different disciplines (one's a social science and the other is life science).

I don't find comparisons with socialism or communism helpful. Professional economists moved away from political economy some time in the 19th Century, and abandoned it altogether during the marginal revolution. Since then it's been about math, statistics and data (ie more of a science than a branch of philosophy). "Socialism", "communism", "neoconservatism", "neoliberalism" etc are terms that propagandists use. There are scholars who study propaganda, but few who embrace it professionally and even less who call themselves economists.Jonathan f1 (talk) 23:34, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

I also completely don't understand the comparison with evolution; and your statements and arguments are rather bizarre. Capitalism is just a system and ideology, while evolutionary biology describes our current understanding of this biological process. As Girth mentioned, you could probably draw a comparison with other systems and ideologies, like feudalism, veganism, pacifism, Zionism, feminism, isolationism, Mercantilism etc.. Imagine someone asking in feudal times: "Why are we critisizing feudalism? It's all just common sense!". Suggesting that economics is currently all about "math, statistics and data" is laughable, because there are economists who use "math, statistics and data" and represent vastly different ideologies, approaches and solutions, therefore there surely is a lot more to it - professor Richard D. Wolff or Ann Pettifor have vastly different views from, say Walter Block or Leszek Balcerowicz. Sociology also uses maths, statistics and data, yet it represents are plethora of viewpoints. Finally, saying that terms like "socialism", "neoliberalism" are propaganda, and that economists don't embrace those terms it's just flat out wrong, because the vast majority of economists use those terms. The criticism section belongs here because there are plenty of people who find certain aspects of the capitalist system worth criticising, it's as simple as that. Implying that capitalism is somehow a scientific law is quite extraordinary. BeŻet (talk) 11:03, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

What I find remarkable is the argument that anything that's not a scientific law necessarily requires a criticism section to represent various unqualified POVs, even when there's an entire article dedicated to this. Please show me the rule that says Scientism is the encyclopedia's guiding philosophy in making these determinations. Or am I misinterpreting what you're saying?

What are scientific laws anyway? Girth seems to believe they've got something to do with things that have an independent existence from humans, which isn't something I've ever heard in any science class I've ever taken. How about a mathematical description of an observed phenomenon?

In fact back in the day Paul Krugman wrote an essay comparing the psychological aspects of evolution denial to what he perceived as an intellectual aversion to the economic principle of comparative advantage, on strictly mathematical and empirical grounds, without ever directly comparing the study of economics to biology.[1]

But when Chicago's Booth School polls top economists about free trade, the responses are apparently ideological in nature and based in supposition rather than math and statistics.[2] True, there are different schools of thought within economics, and some have attracted ideological groupies. And there are also some economists, mostly highly visible experts at the top of their field, who have publicly grappled with the deeper philosophical questions within their discipline, which may at times involve questioning capitalism altogether. But the average economist isn't paid to philosophize about capitalism and feudalism or if socialism is a viable alternative to the capitalist system. An economics student takes courses in calculus, matrix algebra, statistics. You could make it through a Phd program without even knowing what political economy is, but try graduating without understanding differential equations and good luck with that.

I have no idea why you're so intent on arguing that I'm making a false equivalency between biology and economics. I also did not intend for this to degenerate into a forum style discussion over the subject, which is strictly forbidden on talk pages. This is about academic knowledge, how academic knowledge is generated, and how certain editors here choose to portray academic knowledge to the general public.

Contrary to what you may believe, I'm not some crackpot Austrian School theorist who thinks that the tenants of capitalism are scientific laws in league with gravity. I'm simply saying that there's already an entire article dedicated to the criticism of capitalism, and that perhaps the criticism section of this article is overkill and may potentially raise some non-neutrality issues. If no one else here takes issue with this that's perfectly fine.Jonathan f1 (talk) 16:06, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

You're the one who compared criticism of capitalism to criticism of evolution in the first place. You also said that capitalism is the basis of modern economics, just like the theory of evolution is the basis of modern biology. Now you act surprised that people are trying to work out what you mean. Capitalism isn't the basis of modern economics, it's just the dominant economic system; therefore criticism of capitalism has nothing to do with criticism of the theory of evolution. It's not like we've implemented evolution amongst animals... The criticism section has just two short paragraphs, so I don't see why it's an "overkill". BeŻet (talk) 17:24, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Suggest removal of last paragraph of lead

I suggest that the last paragraph in the lead: "Critics of capitalism argue..." followed by a statement: "Supporters argue..." should be removed. Wikipedia isn't written in debate format. For comparison, Free trade, Marxism, Socialism, Mercantilism, and I could go on, do NOT have a section IN THE LEAD presenting proponents arguments for and opponents arguments against. I have no problem with a short section IN THE ARTICLE linking to Criticism of capitalism, which we already have at the end, similar to how we have the Marxism and Socialism articles. ---Avatar317^(talk) 20:48, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

We could replace that paragraph with something like the last paragraph in the lead of Free trade: "There is a general consensus among mainstream economists that capitalism results in X and causes Y externalities, and Z other affects" (AFTER we develop the material in the article, if we haven't already, because WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY) ---Avatar317^(talk) 20:57, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree. And I don't think that anyone disagrees that capitalism has lead to unprecedented economic growth or that it has created its own set of social problems. TFD (talk) 21:25, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

The lead already says "Economic growth is a characteristic tendency of capitalist economies", so that part is covered. When it comes to other factors, there is a lot of debate around them, so probably this is the only thing that can be mentioned without referring to critics and proponents. BeŻet (talk) 12:44, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

There isn't a debate that capitalism has its own set of problems such as inequality. The debate is whether that is desirable or, if it isn't, what to do about it. Every functioning capitalist country for example has at least some programs to address this. TFD (talk) 12:55, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

There are debates around specific claimed issues, and around specific claimed benefits or achievements of capitalism. BeŻet (talk) 14:46, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Portions of that last paragraph are an intelligent summary of the "for" and "against" debates contained int the article. Since the lead is supposed to be a summary of the article, and such intelligent debate is prominent in the topic, they seem OK to me. Others seem like dumb unsupported rants and unsupported claims / name calling against capitalism that are not really a summary of material in the article. I'd like to see the former retained and the latter removed. North8000 (talk) 02:23, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Could you clarify what you mean by former/latter? BeŻet (talk) 17:10, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Like I alluded to up top, does anyone know of any serious debate over capitalism between bona fide economists? Because reading through the research literature of academic economics doesn't exactly give one the impression that any significant number of them are crypto-socialists.

I don't know of any other academic subject, thesis or theory covered in any article on Wiki that devotes a paragraph section in the lead to criticism, unless the topic itself is controversial within its own field. In which case editors will cite the various POVs of qualified scholars in accordance with neutrality guidelines. We don't, for example, cite what physicist Richard Feynman used to say about social science in social science articles because some editor doesn't like a social science theory and learned that Feynman called it a pseudoscience. Canadian biologist David Suzuki thinks that capitalist economics is bullshit because it doesn't incorporate the environment and natural resources into its models (even though it really does[3]).

What's more problematic is that there are no reliable sources in the criticism section, in fact there aren't even unreliable sources. It's just two unsourced paragraphs filled with loaded language like " exploitative, alienating, unstable, degrades the environment, erodes human life etc." It links to the main article on criticism of capitalism, but it says nothing new.Jonathan f1 (talk) 13:55, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Saying that capitalism creates its own problems in not the same thing as saying that previous systems were better or that it should be replaced. But there is almost universal consensus that some action is required to alleviate these problems. For example, the U.S. abolished slavery and indentured servitude. TFD (talk) 14:27, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, capitalism is debated within the field of economics, and it is controversial within its own field. Like I mentioned above, it's strange (even confusing) to suggest otherwise. BeŻet (talk) 15:01, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

What's bizarrely confusing is why you think a) capitalism isn't the basis of modern mainstream economics; and b) economists spend any time debating this.

We're supposed to assume good faith on here, but I think it's manifestly obvious that you seriously misunderstand the subject on a fundamental level. You continually conflate debates over topics like the limitations of free markets and the role of government in the economy with actual challenges to capitalism itself. Which makes as much sense as saying market socialists are challenging socialism because they don't agree with classical Marxism. That's logically incoherent.

Please provide editors with a reliable source that says capitalism is a controversial hot-button topic of debate within mainstream academic economics. Not aspects of capitalism, or different forms of capitalism, but serious challenges to the essential features of a capitalist economic system (ie, whether or not capital investments and profits should be legally protected as private property, and whether or not capitalist economies are capable of efficiently distributing scarce resources). I'd love to see it.Jonathan f1 (talk) 16:50, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I think that you make a good argument there. "has detractors" is not enough to put it in the lead. The current paragraph also has lots of other problems. Some I noted above. The other is that it's full of material which is not in the body of the article. North8000 (talk) 17:02, 20 October 2021 (UTC),

Well yes, I assume good faith here hence I am expressing my confusion as to why you've never heard of any criticism of capitalism, rather than assuming that you are trolling, despite your past behaviour resulting in an indefinite edit block for tendentious editing. I don't really understand what more do you need than having a quick look at criticism of capitalism to learn about all the different arguments made against capitalism, and even if you arbitrarily ask for arguments presented solely by economists in the academia, there's plenty you can look at: for instance Lordon's criticism of the efficient-market hypothesis, Wolff's criticism of wage labour and the capitalist mode of production as a whole, and so on. I don't think any number of straw man arguments will change that. This is in response to your bizarre request above asking to remove the criticism section as a whole. In terms of mentioning in the lead, there seems to be a lack of consistency across articles: for instance anarchism (which is a Wikipedia:Good article) mentions criticism, while socialism doesn't. Therefore, if we were to follow anarchism's example, this should be included. However, like I said, it's inconsistent. BeŻet (talk) 21:36, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

The lede is there to summarize the most important aspects of the topic, what you should know if you read nothing else. Capitalisms has its criticisms because capitalism is so fundamentally important, but that does not mean that its criticisms are fundamentally important to understanding Capitalism at a glance. Important enough to include in the article? Yes. So important that you cant understand capitalism without understanding its criticisms? No. Bonewah (talk) 14:04, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

That's why the social problems created by capitalism should be treated as facts rather than say capitalism has attracted criticism because of them. If we point out the benefits, we should also point out the costs. TFD (talk) 15:21, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm not sure this argument holds water, because you could apply it to every single article. Is criticism of Anarchism "fundamentally important to understanding Anarchism at a glance"? If yes, why? If not, why? I think the fragment in the lead could be simply shortened to cover the most important aspects of the criticism. BeŻet (talk) 16:06, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I've been trying to evolve a thoughtful opinion on this and think I now have. For the reasons I gave above, I think that the current criticism section should be removed from the lead, Rather than being a summary of what is in the article, it is just a list of unsupported talking points. Then the criticism section in the body should get renamed or redeveloped into a two-sided section. (Maybe "debates and criticism") into a of the article should be improved and expanded. It should focus on intelligent criticism and support debates, not just unsupported chants and talking points from the two sides. Then possible build a few sentence in the lead which summarize that new improved/expanded section. North8000 (talk) 16:10, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I've worked today on supporting all the items with sources. I don't think any of those points are "unsupported" now. BeŻet (talk) 16:47, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

@BeŻet Correct, in every article we should ask if something is "fundamentally important to understanding (the subject) at a glance"? If yes, why? If not, why?" That question will determine what goes in the lede. Any subject of any real importance will have its critics and criticisms, how much those things matter to understanding the subject is the tougher question. @The Four Deuces, same thing, mention the benefits, mention the costs, if either are fundamentally important to understanding capitalism at a glance, mention them in the lede. Bonewah (talk) 17:45, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

@Bonewah: ...and in this case I think it's essential, because the term itself - capitalism - really only started being used when people were critiquing the system that was being used / implemented around them. BeŻet (talk) 18:23, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

The term might have only come into use in response/concurrently/as a result of criticism, but the 'system' of capitalism predates that by quite a bit and the concept of capitalism is much bigger than the etymology of the word. Bonewah (talk) 18:43, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Sure, but if the article about Anarchism, which is a Good Article, mentions criticism of Anarchism, even though it isn't important to understand what Anarchism is, nor has the name been created when trying to criticise it, then I think it seems quite clear that criticism in the lead here is more than adequate. BeŻet (talk) 19:00, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Also, I'd like to add that WP:LEAD states that the lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. The part about whether criticism is "important to understand the topic" is just something that you suggested and is not a requirement - in fact, one could say it goes against the general guidelines. BeŻet (talk) 19:20, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

While your example was given to address the "essential to understand" aspect, it also shows a brief, intelligent insertion, and by contrast how the section in this article has strayed from that. North8000 (talk) 19:23, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you mean here, but it seems that you're saying that the criticism in this section is unintelligent. If so, why? BeŻet (talk) 19:28, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

A valid point that Jonathan f1 brought up is that criticism of capitalism from lots of random NON-ECONOMISTS should not be used as sources here. And just because you (BeŻet) can cherry-pick one article that passed GoodArticle review and includes a criticism in the lead doesn't mean that it should be used as a model for all articles. Anarchism is a theoretical PHILOSOPHY, it is NOT a working system in any country; very different from capitalism which is practiced to varying degrees extensively on this planet, and its workings highly studied.---Avatar317^(talk) 19:58, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

(...) criticism of capitalism from lots of random NON-ECONOMISTS should not be used as sources here - why? There is plenty of criticism of capitalism coming from economists, but why should we exclude anyone else? Makes no sense. BeŻet (talk) 20:18, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Are you serious? So according to you any movie star who wants to criticize capitalism should have a statement in this article? ---Avatar317^(talk) 20:35, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Did I suggest a movie star should have a statement in this article or you're just throwing a strawman at me? Since it's the latter, how about you try and reply to my question again: why should criticism be limited only to that of economists? Why not include sociologists, historians, anthropologists or even philosophers? BeŻet (talk) 20:52, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I received an article space block as part of a routine disciplinary action that's common among new or relatively new editors - it isn't a punishment, but rather a learning experience. What happened was, I made significant changes to a sociology/social historical article without first consulting the other editors who had been working on that article for some time. On appeal I was instructed by an administrator to take some time to practice using the talk pages and reaching consensus with other editors before appealing my case. This administrator also told me that if any editors use my block as an argument against me on a talk page (which has happened before, not just with you, but also other editors on history articles) that I should report that to him and he'll intervene. I'm not going to report you now, but I strongly recommend you don't do that again.

But yes, I'm temporarily blocked from editing articles and can only edit talk pages, which is why my remarks here have been unconventionally long. I apologize for that.

Just to respond to some of your points:

• The efficient market hypothesis is a theory of financial markets (that act as secondary markets in the financial system) and hasn't got anything to do with challenging capitalism. It's more so a question of whether or not a retail investor can consistently "beat" the stock market than whether or not capitalist markets are efficient. Financial economics is a subset discipline of economics that's completely distinct from other areas of the field, if for no other reason than because financial economics is primarily concerned with the allocation of capital in the financial system rather than the distribution and consumption of goods and services in the real economy. And also because the laws of economics and even the nature of supply and demand are different in financial markets than they are in the real economy (when the price of an asset rises for example, investors tend to buy more of that asset, not less as you would expect when the prices of most goods and services rise - this is also related to the psychology of how asset bubbles form, but that's a different topic).

While it's conceivable that a socialist might incorporate the efficient market hypothesis as part of a much broader and more sophisticated argument against capitalism, most EMH opponents operate strictly in the financial sphere and aren't actually critics of capitalism. This returns us to the question of just how much you actually understand about economics, and what's motivating you to edit an article about a subject that, as far as anyone can tell, you scarcely understand.

• It's true that Richard Wolff is a socialist economist, but he's also a self-styled outlier in his profession. Here's an interview with Wolff published on NPR[4]. Towards the beginning of the interview it's said that: "Most economists are very, very pro-capitalism."

Do you understand how reliable sourcing works on here? The situation we are trying to avoid is one where one editor cites scholar x, another cites scholar y, and another cites scholar z, and then we all argue about whether x, y or z should be referenced in the article. What we want to find is a reliable secondary source that succinctly summarizes academic knowledge as it exists in its present form. Now I've asked you several times to cite an RS that explicitly says capitalism is a controversial and hotly debated topic among mainstream economists. And all you've done is cherry-picked sources across a wide range of topics as far afield as history and books about communism, after citing Richard Wolff. It took me less than 30 seconds to find an NPR piece that essentially makes the point that Wolff is not your ordinary economist, that he's a rogue.

BeZet thinks he's improved the criticism section by adding sources, but he's actually made it worse. The standards of quality the encyclopedia is trying to achieve involve, at a minimum, publishing information consistent with what you'd hear in a classroom. We're trying to avoid a situation where an economics student learns one thing from his/her professor, and then comes home and reads a Wiki article that completely contradicts it. And we can avoid that by adhering strictly to Wiki's sourcing criteria.

The editor BeZet is trying to protect the loaded language in the criticism section by sourcing literally every word to authors who couldn't be further removed from each other in terms of space, time and backgrounds of expertise. The word 'unstable', for example, is sourced to the work of a 19th Century European philosopher who attacked free trade (Engles, who was writing in the Marxist tradition). But when mainstream economists in the US respond to surveys on free trade today, zero percent of them disagree with the proposition that freer trade enhances the productive efficiency of an economy[5].

And please, Bezet, stop making the erroneous argument that capitalism and socialism are "just ideologies". Capitalism is an economic system that actually exists and has been studied empirically for nearly 2 centuries. Socialism is just a philosophy that's been analyzed primarily by philosophers and has never been scrutinized with the tools of science. You keep making this false equivalence to justify the inclusion of sources outside the field of economics (or who operate on the fringes of mainstream economics), and that's deeply flawed.Jonathan f1 (talk) 21:06, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Firstly, you're not temporarily blocked, you are indefinitently (permantly) blocked, so please don't misguide other editors. Secondly, it is true that most economists are pro-capitalist, but I don't understand how is this relevant when it comes to talking about criticism of Capitalism. If you want to talk about something deeply flawed, you have, above, compared economics, a social science, to biology, a natural science, and compared critics of capitalism to critics of evolution - which is ridiciolous and condescending. Engels was a very famous philosopher and historian, and I don't understand why the opinions of the conservative think-tank Heritage Foundation are somehow invalidating what Engels wrote, or suggesting that his criticism should be ignored. BeŻet (talk) 21:20, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Also I think the problem here is that you are confused about what we are trying to do here. We are simply talking about what prominent critiques of capitalism look like, we do not in any way try to establish whether they are valid or not, because we are not in the position to do that. BeŻet (talk) 21:28, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I think that intelligent criticism that deals directly with capitalism is informative about the topic. The rest (such as talking points and claims of detractors) isn't. It's merely coverage of talking points and claims of detractors rather than directly about the topic. North8000 (talk) 21:08, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Which claims do not directly deal with capitalism? All of them do. BeŻet (talk) 21:20, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Here we go again.

One, I haven't misled any editors. "Indefinitely blocked" does not mean literally permanently blocked forever. It just means that the block is on for an unspecified length of time. An arrangement was made with an administrator, who instructed me to practice using the talk pages before re-appealing my case, after which he will lift the article space block. This is standard procedure on here.

Secondly, in fact I never compared economic science to biological science in the context that economics is literally like biology. It's you who keeps straw-manning this point to avoid having to defend your position that non-economists should be cited as reliable critics of capitalism in this article, despite not having any expertise in economics and only a casual understanding of the economic system (which is a capitalist economic system). I used the theory of evolution (regrettably, in retrospect) as an example to show how topics that fall under the category of consensus academics are treated on here when they have critics who are by and large not regarded as subject matter experts. I could've used a topic of consensus history, or some other unscientific subject, to make the same point, but unfortunately I didn't.

No, the source was not the Heritage Foundation. Did you read it? I used that particular site because it was more convenient than citing multiple individual surveys. What the Heritage Foundation did was compile a list of surveys administered by the Booth School of Business at the University of Chicago, which regularly polls top economists "on a range of timely and relevant topics." It says in plain English that the source is Chicago's Booth School, not the Heritage Foundation.

Check it out for yourself[6]. Type in economist surveys on free trade and see what the results are. It's not what you and Engels think.Jonathan f1 (talk) 22:21, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

(...) economics is literally like biology - what? An economic system is a social construct, it's literally the opposite of biology. What on Earth are you talking about? BeŻet (talk) 08:57, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I have rolled the article back to before BeŻet's additions of "sources". I'd like to also state that I agree with Bonewah on how the lead should present the subject.---Avatar317^(talk) 00:20, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I've reverted that change. One should not remove sources they don't like. Please do not remove them again, otherwise we will have to involve a mediator. BeŻet (talk) 08:57, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

My I just add that labelling those sources as "non-reliable" and "non-independent" despite the fact that they are literally just pointing at criticism shows just high levels of confusion and misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works and what the criticism sections is about. We are NOT stating that those criticisms are valid or not. We are literally just saying that the criticism existts. Come on. This is basic Wikipedia stuff. BeŻet (talk) 09:01, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

@BeŻetThat part of WP:LEAD that you quote is saying the same thing I am, the lede contains the most important info. Criticisms can be included if they are truly important. Citing another article as proof that this article should be a certain way isnt a very compelling argument. There are over 6 million articles, there will be substantial differences between them style wise. Whats more, the article you site will have its own important/unimportant distinctions, the fact that another article does or does not have criticisms in the lede tells us nothing about is important to this subject. Bonewah (talk) 13:32, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Sure, I'm open to shortening or removing the paragraph in the lead all together. I'm just pushing against the notion that the criticism section should not be there in the first place, because it's like "critisizing the theory of evolution". BeŻet (talk) 14:02, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Reliable sourcing is what the issue is here. And you continue to push this totally made up argument about evolution over something I had said a week ago that you took completely out of context.

Whether you like it or not, economics is widely recognized as a legitimate science by every accredited college and university in the Western world and beyond. It's likewise acknowledged by the Nobel Foundation, which every year awards a prize in the economic sciences. They are not awarding prizes to socialist economists.

It's troubling as an editor working on this page that you don't seem to be capable or willing to acknowledge a basic reality that capitalism is, above everything else, an economic system that's existed for centuries and has been studied empirically, using the tools of science, for the major part of that time. Socialism does not exist, has never existed, and is nothing but a philosophy; some say it's nothing but a critique of capitalism, and doesn't even rise to the level of a serious alternative. It's opposed, and has been opposed, by mainstream economists for a variety of non-ideological reasons: there are serious issues as to whether or not such a system is capable of efficiently distributing economic resources within the limitations of scarcity; its math doesn't work, what little math it even comes with. It's just not something an economist could analyze using mathematical language, which is the language modern economists speak and think in. Even philosophers, who are increasingly relying on symbolic languages, are having a hard time dissecting its internal logic. Its authors will eventually become subjects of literature, taught in English Comp 101 classes as part of a series on rhetoric, where you learn how to use powerful words to make dumb ideas sound appealing to otherwise intelligent people.

I think that if you could acknowledge this basic reality we wouldn't be having this discussion right now. Virtually every article on socialism is ipso facto a critique of capitalism. There's a criticism of capitalism main article, which is one big critique of capitalism. And now you want a section of the capitalism article to include a critique of capitalism, and sourced to authors who don't know shit about economics, half of whom aren't even alive anymore. It's for these reasons that at least three editors here are skeptical as to what purpose this serves readers (not you, but readers).Jonathan f1 (talk) 17:55, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Of course economics is a legitimate science. Nobody's denying that. It is however a social science and economists have widely different, even opposite views on many things. I still don't understand why you keep repeating that capitalism is "an economic system that's existed for centuries and has been studied empirically, using the tools of science, for the major part of that time". Nobody's denying that. I also don't understand why you think there's a problem with "reliable sourcing", when simply what the source is saying that criticism exists, not whether it is valid or not - this is literally not the point of the article. Critics of capitalism do in fact use empirical evidence and "tools of science". Most economists use empirical evidence and tools of science, yet often come to different conclusions. The Phillips curve made some correct predictions, but then it didn't. Same goes with the Laffer curve. Value at risk measures are controversial. You seem to believe that economics is the same as maths or physics, but it literally isn't, it has more to do with sociology and philosophy really, with economists having widely different views and ideologies. You have then expressed your "interesting" opinion about socialism and authors of the critique (which nota bene include Oxford educated economists), which is just your opinion, and bears no importance here. BeŻet (talk) 18:19, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Also just want to use this opportunity to teach about a new person, since you said that the Nobel prize didn't ever go to socialist economists and that "there's little math that comes with it". Please have a read about Leonid Kantorovich. BeŻet (talk) 18:28, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I read it. I saw nothing about socialism or capitalism in the article. North8000 (talk) 19:15, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

The point of the article is to discuss capitalist economics. The main purpose of the article isn't to criticize capitalism. There's a separate article for that and several articles on socialism which are also essentially critiques of capitalism.

Could you please stop with these inane and nonsensical straw-mans about science. First I'm arguing economics = biology, and now I'm implying that economics is as rigorous as physics. In fact I never wrote, implied or ever thought any of those things. But you seem to be confused as to the nature of science, and what constitutes an actual science. You also seriously underestimate just how mathematical and scientific economics is and can be (see for example the Black-Scholes equation, whose authors won Nobel Prizes, and all the physics that went into that formula). You also seem not to understand that, even if economics were "just a social science" as sociology is "just a social science", it still wouldn't mean that every single thing that the majority of economists agree on needs a criticism section. No subject on here, whether a science or not, is treated like that. Theories of history, that generate opposition from non-historians, are not treated as controversial.

What makes Kantorovich a "socialist economist"? Because he was a Soviet? The Soviet Union wasn't a socialist state - it was authoritarian state capitalist. The Soviets learned early on that economic planning doesn't work and quickly reverted back to relying on price markets.Jonathan f1 (talk) 19:19, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Let me get this straight, you come here and compare criticism of capitalism to criticism of evolution, and then you tell me that I should stop with straw-mans? All I can say is, I understand why you are indefinitely blocked from editing. BeŻet (talk) 19:43, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree that they are not closely analogous. But capitalism, as defined but its technical and core tenet definition is what the world runs on. IMO that portion is more straightforward and academic. Other things are sometimes interpreted as being related to or a part of it, and then opponents assert that certain bad things are connected to capitalism. Such things probably don't even belong in the article much less the lead. North8000 (talk) 20:44, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I think that it should be taken out of the lead. For a combination of reasons; those I mentioned above, arguments made by others above plus others. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:44, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

No one ever argued that they're "closely analogous". In plain English I brought up evolution solely as an example of a consensus subject that has its critics outside the discipline, and how editors have dealt with that criticism as a potential model for how we could deal with critics of capitalism. It's BeZet who keeps straw-manning the point that I directly related capitalism to the theory of evolution.

It isn't BeZet's or any other editor's place to evaluate what motivated a sizeable majority of scholars to favor something, or the strength of the analysis that resulted in the consensus. When a majority of subject matter experts lean in favor of support for a particular theory, system, principle or rule, it is entirely unorthodox to include a criticism section in the article and source it to the rants of a 19th Century philosopher.

There are a lot of things economists debate about capitalism. There are debates over how "free" markets should be, or how large of a role the government should have in the economy. And those can be included and reliably sourced to professional economists recognized as experts in the field of economics. But no significant number of economists spend any significant time debating capitalism itself.

And I agree that it should be removed from the lead at a minimum.Jonathan f1 (talk) 21:47, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

What you're implying here is absolutely baffling: that, correct me if I'm wrong, there is some "scientific consensus" regarding capitalism. BeŻet (talk) 15:44, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

We are making this more difficult than it should be. Capitalism brought improvements to human life, but created its own problems. We don't for example have a criticism section for the Stone Age. We accept it improved human life but also created new challenges. The difference is that we don't have undergraduate Stone Age study groups that treat the Stone Age as an ideology rather than as a period in history. TFD (talk) 04:20, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

I think we are making it more difficult by comparing capitalism to things that it isn't even remotely related to: theory of evolution, Stone Age... Come on. The Stone Age is a time period, like modernity. Of course we don't have a criticism section in the Stone Age article, because it is a time period. Capitalism is an economic system - that is a social construct, just like feudalism or other systems, which isn't something that occurs naturally like the tides, but rather is a set of rules which, surprise surprise, some people might not agree with, or not like the outcomes of said rules. We really don't need any of this baffling twisted-pretzel logic here, this is really simple: capitalism exists, prominent criticism of it exists, therefore it should be included (in a neutral manner: that is, that the criticism exists, not that it is correct). BeŻet (talk) 15:39, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

It is really simple, but not for the reasons you think. And I've asked you several times to stop writing that I compared capitalism to evolution. The Theory of Evolution article (the article, but not the theory itself) was brought up only as a potential guide in covering subjects that have generated both criticism and widespread academic support, and was done from a strictly editorial pov. This is a talk page to discuss article content improvements, not a forum to compare sciences, debate what is or isn't a science or which sciences are more rigorous than others.

So now the argument is that "It's a social construct and has critics, therefore it requires a criticism section." Ironically, even the Wiki article on social constructivism has a criticism section, sourced to -- get this -- biologists.

BeZet's argument is purely philosophical and has no status in Wiki policy, and is in fact explicitly forbidden on talk pages.Jonathan f1 (talk) 23:52, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

...and I keep saying that the comparison you are making is utterly bizarre. Capitalism does not have "wide spread academic support", that is ridiciolous. As I keep explaining constantly, it is not a natural occurance, it's a social construct. There is no "academic consensus" whether it is good or bad, because people can reject it on principle, or reject it based on empirical evidence and tangible outcomes. Likewise people can support it on principle, or support it based on certain outcomes. It has absolutely nothing to do with the theory of evolution, because it isn't a social construct, so could you stop gaslighting me by saying I'm the one making a straw man argument? BeŻet (talk) 10:50, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

There is agreement among both liberal and socialist writers (I use these terms in the broad sense and so they include 99.9% of published academic writers) that capitalism is a stage in human social evolution. Liberals believe it is the final stage, while socialists don't. There are no scholars since Charles X who argue that capitalism is entirely evil. TFD (talk) 01:06, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure what this twisted-pretzel logic is supposed to achieve. This doesn't make it a time period, it's still an economic system that may or may not be supported by people, just like feudalism. BeŻet (talk) 10:50, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Except it's nothing like feudalism. BeZet seems to believe that a small group of men got together in a smoky backroom and invented capitalism then imposed it on everyone else.

No, the capitalist economic system evolved gradually over the course of several centuries starting in the Late Middle Ages, and didn't even have a name for the major part of that time. As late as the mid 19th Century economics wasn't even its own discipline but rather a branch of philosophy called political economy - and political economists took socialism seriously, even if they didn't agree with it personally. It wasn't until the late 19th Century, during the marginal revolution, that the study of economies started to rely increasingly on mathematics, and that the new mathematical framework that began to develop favored the capitalist market economy, supplanted socialism as a viable alternative, and established economics as a unique branch of social science rather than a philosophical art, by the turn of the 20th Century.

There is no "consensus" in favor of capitalism in the sense that I can show you a poll where x% of economists favor capitalism, for the same reason there is no such thing as a "capitalist economics department" at a major college or university.

And for the same reason there's no such thing as "Keynesian capitalist economics" or "neoclassical capitalist economics". That Keynesian economics and neoclassical economics are theories of how capitalist market economies should be organized, and that mainstream economics is based on the capitalist market economy, is self-evident. "Economic science" wouldn't exist otherwise.

If you continue to make this bogus argument that I compared economics to biology this behavior will have to be reported. This is a talk page to discuss article improvements, not a forum to debate science or compare "social constructs" to the tides of the ocean.

The rules for sourcing economics articles are quite clear [[7]]. Specifically,

"When editing, as mandated by Verifiability and No original research, we should attribute economic theories and viewpoints presented to reliable, published sources. We should strive to use reliable sources, which according to Sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers."

And also,

"Heterodox views and views from other fields, such as history and political economy, should not be excluded. However, per Undue weight, theories and viewpoints held by a minority should not receive as much attention as the majority view, and views held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. Articles on minority economic theories and viewpoints should also make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant, and must not rewrite content strictly from the perspective of the minority view."

And also,

"Although significant-minority views are welcome in Wikipedia, such views must be presented in the context of their acceptance by experts in the field. The views of tiny minorities need not be reported except in articles devoted to those views."

Also check out the talk on that article, where editors have determined that the neoclassical synthesis is mainstream macroeconomic theory, as presented in academic textbooks. It's actually the "new neoclassical synthesis" as referenced in the neoclassical synthesis article.Jonathan f1 (talk) 19:27, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

To be clear, are we still talking about criticisms in the lede, or in general? I feel that the criticisms, as written, dont really belong in the lede. I feel that criticisms in general belong in this article, either as a specific section or worked into the article. Bonewah (talk) 15:20, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

@Bonewah: We seem to have already reached a consensus regarding the lead (and the appropriate change has already been made) - while similar articles contain that information in the lead, there is no consistency (see Socialism vs Anarchism), so removing it from the lead isn't too controversial. Jonathan f1 is making the bizarre request to remove the criticism section altogether, which I don't have the energy to engage with anymore. BeŻet (talk) 16:49, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Not remove it altogether, but source it reliably. Editors involved in Wiki's economics project have determined that Marxian economics is a tiny minority view, and tiny minority views don't belong anywhere but on articles discussing those views. Furthermore, this is an article about an economic system, in a series about economics, and you have the criticism section sourced outside this particular field, to history and political economy sources, many of which are extremely dated.Jonathan f1 (talk) 17:01, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

That's simply not true. Editors involved in Wiki's economics project simply determined a categorisation (on the talk page), and included Marxian economics, alongside Austrian economics, as part of heterodox economics. They have not determined that it is a tiny minority view. Moreover, the thing that I keep trying to explain to you but it seems rather difficult for you to register is that capitalism can be rejected on principle. BeŻet (talk) 20:32, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

With that section removed from the lead, I don't have an opinion regarding presence / absence in the article or how to do it. I don't envy somebody trying to write that section. I took a look at the criticism of capitalism article. First, regarding the target of the critics, they have broadened from the central tenets / defining attributes of capitalism to "everything and everything anyhow related to all economic, business and production systems which utilize capitalism and also anything about the govertnments of countries where capitalism is used". Then take that huge scope, and list "anything that anybody or any group or philosophy doesn't like about any of that". North8000 (talk) 17:34, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

It's ridiculous, and part of a consistent pattern of inappropriate bias in economics articles on here. Even the article for the (Nobel) Prize in Economic Sciences contains a criticism of the prize itself, which lends the impression that it's not a legitimate award. One of the referenced arguments is that Alfred Nobel never established such a prize in his will. No shit? That's probably because "economic science" didn't exist when he died.

Not only is there a criticism section in this article, but Marxian economics sources are used in various sections to criticize individual topics. This is a pretty straightforward example of pov pushing masquerading as objectivity. Marxian economics is at best the view of a tiny minority of scholars affiliated with the economics discipline, and may even qualify as fringe. It's definitely not part of mainstream economics.Jonathan f1 (talk) 18:03, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I've thought a lot about "criticism" sections. It can be either a way to organize material that is useful to have in the article, or it can be a magnet for material (or lowering of the bar) for material that otherwise wouldn't go in the article. Probably a good standard is material that merits inclusion even without a section header for it. Again, I don't have a strong opinoin about it in the body of this article. North8000 (talk) 20:42, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm ok with criticism, but per policy it should be MAINSTREAM criticism, not WP:FRINGE. If we are going to include criticism from beyond economics (and my question to Bezet when I asked about movie stars could instead be phrased as "how far out of economics do you want to broaden the groups who can criticize capitalism in this article?" - like do we include religious scholars?) And even if we allow broader criticism, we should not be including it unless it is the MAINSTREAM view.---Avatar317^(talk) 22:22, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

@BeŻet: That's your defense? That you're using heterodox sources? The word means unorthodox, and in this context that means these economic theories don't meet the accepted standards of mainstream economics. The heterodox economics article makes the point that "Many economists dismiss heterodox economics as "fringe" and "irrelevant", with little or no influence on the vast majority of academic mainstream economists in the English-speaking world."

Just to be clear that this isn't an attack on Marxism: there are right leaning schools of thought, such as Austrian economics, that are also outside the mainstream and thus 'heterodox'.

Mainstream macroeconomic theory is described as the new neoclassical synthesis, whose logic is accepted by most economists, governments and central banks in the English-speaking world, and in most of the West.Jonathan f1 (talk) 00:11, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Surveillance capitalism

@Volunteer Marek: could you please explain why you think mentioning surveillance capitalism is WP:UNDUE, and could you please wait before removing the content again per WP:BRD? Thank you. BeŻet (talk) 12:13, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Because it's WP:UNDUE. It's just not a thing that's widely talked about, it's some idea particular to one researcher, and this is a general level article.

And really "it's been here for awhile" [8] is NOT a reason to revert someone and start an edit war. The whole point of Wikipedia is that we try to improve it - which means making edits and removing stuff that doesn't belong, regardless of how long it's been in there. On top of that "let's discuss" is very often abused as a stalling tactic, especially in pretty clear cut cases such as this. Volunteer Marek 12:24, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm not starting an edit war. I'm simply asking why you think it's undue, because I disagree; and the decent thing to do is to follow BRD in this case. This is not a clear-cut case, I think it's been discussed enough to warrant inclusion. You're the one doing the edit war by forcing your change. Could you please at least once show some respect when interacting with other editors? Follow BRD please. BeŻet (talk) 12:30, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, you are. You even reverted my removal of an unsourced paragraph with an equally specious rationale “discussion not resolved”. It’s unsourced! Source it or it goes. More generally there seems to be an issue with your WP:OWN approach to this article where you automatically revert any improvements that you don’t personally approve. Volunteer Marek 12:46, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, that one was an accident. I thought you are forcing your previous change again. I've reverted it back to your version. BeŻet (talk) 12:49, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Zuboff's work has been quite widely discussed, and I don't see why a short paragraph about it should be removed. However, let's hear other opinions. BeŻet (talk) 12:50, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Define "widely discussed". This is a very general level article. It has not been widely discussed compared to other sources in the article. Outside of its own niche area and some internet popularity, it's actually kinda fringe. Volunteer Marek 13:23, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

And your reflexive reverting of any edit I made, without even checking what it is, kind of illustrates the whole WP:OWN problem here. Volunteer Marek 13:27, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

The reflexive reverting was rather trigerred by your past and current behaviour of forcing your changes. BeŻet (talk) 13:42, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

IMO Surveillance capitalism is a novel personal lens/concept, plus a proposed meaning of their new term which is not the topic of this article. IMO it should doubly not be in this article. North8000 (talk) 15:46, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I guess you're right, it's a pretty novel concept. Perhaps it could be moved to "See also" as a related article? BeŻet (talk) 17:43, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I'd lean towards leaving it out....IMO that concept is unrelated, but fine with me if you did that. North8000 (talk) 19:01, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Alright, I've moved it there as a compromise and removed the paragraph. Thanks North8000. BeŻet (talk) 21:11, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

After the changes, I just wanted to say that I support the paragraph removal; this seems like just another fringe theory that has gotten some news coverage because it is new and different.---Avatar317^(talk) 23:06, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Cool. I'd call it more of a "lens" (way of viewing things) than a fringe theory, but cool either way. North8000 (talk) 23:28, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

You're right, "lens" is a better description...but still too much out of the core of Capitalism to be in this article...it does have its own article, so that content doesn't need to be in this article.---Avatar317^(talk) 01:04, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Collapse discussions with sockpuppet of banned or blocked user
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Why is State Capitalism here? WP:SOCK-initiated discussion The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. The first sentence of the article says that capitalism is PRIVATE ownership of the means of production. But then the article says State Capitalism, where the state owns the means of production, is a type of capitalism. Both can't be true. Precious delicate sweet little baby (talk) 19:16, 4 January 2022 (UTC) Seems like it should say at the top of the article "This article is about market capitalism." Then have state capitalism in its own article. Precious delicate sweet little baby (talk) 19:30, 4 January 2022 (UTC) State capitalism as originally defined refers to a situation where the bourgeoisie decide it is in their best interet for some enterprises to be owned by the state. The U.S. Post Office is a good example where the department was so crucial to private businesses that it could not be privatized, assuming it could be profitably run as a private business. Note that state capitalist ownership brings financial advantage to capitalists, who collectively have influence on how they are run. This article is about how capitalism operates, not how a few libertarian writers think it should. There are separate articles for that. TFD (talk) 23:17, 4 January 2022 (UTC) That's not state capitalism. State capitalism is where all, or nearly all, the means of production are owned by the government. Not "some." Again, the ARTICLE, the very first sentence, defines capitalism as PRIVATE ownership of the means of production. The article is self contradictory. State capitalism is not capitalism by the article's own definition. Precious delicate sweet little baby (talk) 01:30, 5 January 2022 (UTC) Can you please quote the text you have trouble with? Note also that the term capitalism describes actually existing economies rather than an ideal. The fact that a government may own and operate a cafeteria (that produces lunches) in a government building doesn't mean that the country isn't capitalist. TFD (talk) 03:35, 5 January 2022 (UTC) The whole section called "State Capitalism." "State capitalism is a capitalist market economy dominated by state-owned enterprises..." It's under "Types". But according to the first sentence of this article, it's not a type of capitalism. The definition of capitalism in the first sentence of this article is "an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production operate for profit." A State Capitalist economy is one based on government ownership of the means of production. Precious delicate sweet little baby (talk) 04:14, 5 January 2022 (UTC) It provides two types of examples. One is East Asia, Norway and France. Are you questioning that they are capitalist? Again, capitalism is a decriptive term, not an ideal. The other example is Communist countries. Some writers call them state capitalist because they believe that effective ownership is private rather than public. In other words, businesses are run for the benefit of an elite rather than for the citizens. If you believe that communism benefited the average person rather than the party leadership, then they weren't state capitalist. TFD (talk) 04:42, 5 January 2022 (UTC) Norway and France, or "East Asia," aren't state capitalism. Those are mixed economies, with mainly private ownership of the means of production. If you'll look, the source doesn't mention France or Norway, or East Asia as being examples of state capitalism. You trust Wikipedia too much. Precious delicate sweet little baby (talk) 15:28, 5 January 2022 (UTC) I was discussing the text in the article. Anyway, if you want to be insulting, I have better things to do with my time than converse with you. TFD (talk) 15:44, 5 January 2022 (UTC) State capitalism is a situation when enterprises are nominally owned by the state but are still run as capitalist enterprises and replicate elements of the capitalist mode of production. BeŻet (talk) 11:57, 5 January 2022 (UTC) That would conflict with the definition of capitalism given in this article. Precious delicate sweet little baby (talk) 15:36, 5 January 2022 (UTC) No it wouldn't - read state capitalism. It's a private capitalist economy controlled by a state. BeŻet (talk) 17:59, 5 January 2022 (UTC) That article somewhat says that all of the major communist countries have state capitalist economies, and including it here somewhat says that they are all capitalists. Perhaps that is stretching the term too far from it's common meaning to the point of making it confusing and meaningless? North8000 (talk) 18:37, 5 January 2022 (UTC) No, it's explained what it means and what it entails. BeŻet (talk) 21:24, 5 January 2022 (UTC) At the link you gave it says that many consider all of the major communist countries to have state capitalist economies. North8000 (talk) 22:53, 5 January 2022 (UTC) According to certain critics, yes. What's your point? BeŻet (talk) 23:28, 5 January 2022 (UTC) The wording could be better. Lenin used the term state capitalism to refer to a policy of allowing private enterprise in the New Economic Policy. It was ended by Stalin in 1926. The term was also used by some opponents to imply that in reality the means of production in the U.S.S.R. were privately owned since the benefits went to the party elites rather than the producers. TFD (talk) 19:56, 5 January 2022 (UTC) BeZet, you just said state capitalism is where enterprises are owned by the state. This article defines capitalism as enterprises owned by the private sector, rather than the state. Clearly that's a conflict. Precious delicate sweet little baby (talk) 19:23, 5 January 2022 (UTC) What is your point you are trying to make? I am giving you the definition of state capitalism - a private capitalist economy controlled by a state, an economy which uses the capitalist mode of production, but with state ownership of enterprises. BeŻet (talk) 21:24, 5 January 2022 (UTC) You said above that the government owns the enterprises, in state capitalism. You also say state capitalism is a "private capitalist economy controlled by the state." Surely you're aware that "private" refers to private sector. A private capitalist economy is where the enterprises are privately owned. Precious delicate sweet little baby (talk) 23:04, 5 January 2022 (UTC) Read the article state capitalism. BeŻet (talk) 23:28, 5 January 2022 (UTC) Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Luis3367, Elcheney1997, Alzubaira, StephanieValerioZamora, J1295. Peer reviewers: StephanieValerioZamora. Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:43, 16 January 2022 (UTC) State capitalism and a market economy @Precious delicate sweet little baby: I don't know what else to tell you but to read the sources provided and the definition of a market economy. I have extracted the quote for you: In this system, governments use various kinds of state-owned companies to manage the exploitation of resources that they consider the state’s crown jewels and to create and maintain large numbers of jobs. They use select privately owned companies to dominate certain economic sectors. They use so-called sovereign wealth funds to invest their extra cash in ways that maximize the state’s profits. In all three cases, the state is using markets to create wealth that can be directed as political officials see fit. And in all three cases, the ultimate motive is not economic (maximizing growth) but political (maximizing the state’s power and the leadership’s chances of survival). This is a form of capitalism but one in which the state acts as the dominant economic player and uses markets primarily for political gain. and Mr Musacchio has a broader definition of state capitalism: it is a system in which governments, whether democratic or autocratic, exercise a widespread influence on the economy, through either direct ownership or various subsidies. (...) The world's largest state-owned enterprises are traded on the public markets and kept up to snuff by large institutional investors. This hybrid form of capitalism—state support disciplined by the market—gives state capitalism three huge advantages, according to Mr Musacchio. You seem to be under the false assumption that state capitalism is a planned economy. If you're unsure about something, discuss it first on the Talk page before making changes to the article. BeŻet (talk) 15:41, 10 January 2022 (UTC) Regardless of what you quote, "market economy" is not equated with "state capitalism" in those quotes. Wikipedia needs to be backed up by sources. But allow me to explain what your quote is saying. In your quote, it says state capitalism "USES" markets, and then takes the money they make and "direct it as political officials see fit." That's not market-driven investment. That's political-driven investment. In a market economy, investment is driven by market forces, supply and demand, not politics. The state using markets to some degree, doesn't make a market economy. Again, the article needs a source that says state capitalism is a market economy. I don't think you're going to find one. Precious delicate sweet little baby (talk) 15:54, 10 January 2022 (UTC) In fact, your source distinguishes a state capitalist economy from a market economy: "Mr Bremmer defines state capitalism as a system in which political elites control economic activity for political gain. For him the standard bearers of state capitalism are autocracies—most importantly China but also Russia and various Arab countries. Liberal democracies such as Brazil may adopt some features of state capitalism—such as supporting national champions—but they are essentially market economies with state-capitalist features." (https://web.archive.org/web/20120716050641/http://economist.com/debate/days/view/802) In other words, just having some state capitalist features alone does not convert a market economy to a state capitalist economy, and definitely not to being both at the same time. Precious delicate sweet little baby (talk) 16:02, 10 January 2022 (UTC) Striking sockpuppet comment. Generalrelative (talk) 00:14, 11 February 2022 (UTC) You are distorting the sources. You keep saying that if the state is involved, it isn't a market economy, regardless of what the sources are saying. The sources are clearly saying that, in the presented definitions, state capitalism uses markets. Come on. You can't just stare at them and say "nope, I don't see it". BeŻet (talk) 16:11, 10 January 2022 (UTC) "Market economy" is an term. You need to find that term in your sources. Just finding the word "market" somewhere, pertaining to some uses of markets, doesn't provide a citation for using the term "market economy." Precious delicate sweet little baby (talk) 16:14, 10 January 2022 (UTC) I never said that if the state is involved, it isn't a market economy. Precious delicate sweet little baby (talk) 16:15, 10 January 2022 (UTC) Striking sockpuppet comment. Generalrelative (talk) 00:14, 11 February 2022 (UTC) A market economy is an economic system in which the decisions regarding investment, production and distribution are guided by the price signals created by the forces of supply and demand. If state capitalist countries use markets for price determination etc., they have a market economy. You seem to think that because state officials, and not capitalists, are making the decisions, it's not a market economy. Come on. BeŻet (talk) 19:08, 10 January 2022 (UTC) You come on. Right there in that sentence says that investment and distribution are guided by price signals created by the forces of supply and demand. Government doesn't invest according to price signals and supply and demand, nor does it distribute the wealth is takes in according to supply and demand, but according to political pull. But this discussion is moot even if you were to convince me, because in the end what's required is not agreement between you and I that a state capitalist economy is a market economy, but whether there are SOURCES that says state capitalism is a "market economy." Not just an economy where markets are USED, but a "market economy." Precious delicate sweet little baby (talk) 19:32, 10 January 2022 (UTC) Striking sockpuppet comment. Generalrelative (talk) 00:14, 11 February 2022 (UTC) Government doesn't invest according to price signals and supply and demand - but in state capitalism, as described by sources, it does! Come on! BeŻet (talk) 11:25, 11 January 2022 (UTC) Government by definition is not a market entity. Government does not exist due to the forces of supply & demand. They exist because they're taxing, and forcibly preventing competition. Market-driven investment, means the funds used to invest would come from the market. Precious delicate sweet little baby (talk) 15:19, 11 January 2022 (UTC) Striking sockpuppet comment. Generalrelative (talk) 00:14, 11 February 2022 (UTC) ...yet the sources say otherwise, if you finally bother to read them. Suggesting that those enterprises are funded by taxes is your invention - you are talking about a different situation. BeŻet (talk) 16:14, 11 January 2022 (UTC) For investment to by guided by price signals, means someone is willingly providing their own money for investment after being attracted by price signals. That's not what's happening with government investment. If government takes money from people that have it and invests that money, regardless of whether the person wants to invest, that not market-determined investment. Precious delicate sweet little baby (talk) 16:05, 11 January 2022 (UTC) Striking sockpuppet comment. Generalrelative (talk) 00:14, 11 February 2022 (UTC) Good point. Governments can and do run businesses on a for profit basis. Petro-Canada for example was originally a Crown corporation and sold petrol at its stations in the same way that privately owned companies did. What distinguished it from its competitors was that it was government owned. TFD (talk) 12:32, 11 January 2022 (UTC) I think most of the state owned petrol companies are run on a for-profit basis. This is the whole point - state ownership does not necessarily imply central planning. A company may be owned by the state, but still run as a capitalist enterprise. BeŻet (talk) 13:42, 11 January 2022 (UTC) State owned enterprises are not market-owned enterprises. A "pure" market economy would have no state-enterprises. Precious delicate sweet little baby (talk) 15:21, 11 January 2022 (UTC) Striking sockpuppet comment. Generalrelative (talk) 00:14, 11 February 2022 (UTC) Why? What's the difference between a petrol station owned by a government and one owned by a private individual? TFD (talk) 16:01, 11 January 2022 (UTC) @Precious delicate sweet little baby: You keep confusing terms like planned economy, private ownership etc.. While capitalism is mostly about private ownership of the means of production, people needed a term for a state of affairs where the government owns companies and runs them as regular capitalist, for-profit companies while using the market. Since this is a lot closer to capitalism than it is to socialism or communism, "state capitalism" is the term that was chosen. BeŻet (talk) 16:11, 11 January 2022 (UTC) I'm not arguing against the term. Obviously it's a sourced term. Precious delicate sweet little baby (talk) 16:15, 11 January 2022 (UTC) One is owned by the government, and the other is owned by a private individual. Sources distinguish government-owned enterprises as being an exception in a market economy, or what prevents an economy from being a "pure" market economy. Precious delicate sweet little baby (talk) 16:27, 11 January 2022 (UTC) "In a pure market economy, the means of production are privately owned..." -Tamara Orr, Understanding Economic Systems, page 23. As you can see, the difference is that sources consider government ownership to not be market ownership. (And logically so). An economy where there are both private enterprise and government owned enterprises is known as a "mixed economy." Precious delicate sweet little baby (talk) 16:37, 11 January 2022 (UTC) "...according to some commentators, the contest between the two Asian superpowers is also fundamentally a contest between economic models: market capitalism vs. state capitalism." <-From the Naills Furguson source (Note: I didn't put the source there, so don't blame me). Precious delicate sweet little baby (talk) 18:20, 11 January 2022 (UTC) FYI, for anyone just now looking in: All I did was ask for a source that says that state capitalism is a "market economy." When attempts to find one failed, I deleted "market economy." Precious delicate sweet little baby (talk) 21:05, 11 January 2022 (UTC) Striking sockpuppet comment. Generalrelative (talk) 00:14, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: History of Socialism

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 August 2022 and 23 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): SlyRedeemerJT (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by SlyRedeemerJT (talk) 16:12, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Capitalism and Growth

Hi I am a new editor and I would appreciate any feedback. The source #12 of Joff, Michael (2011) is a biologist more than an economist. I mean him no disrespect but how can he possibly be cited in an economics article of Wikipedia? He is probably only there because if you type "Capitalism and Growth" into Google, he is the seventh article. I am open to suggestions if you think that he can serve as the academic consensus about capitalism and economic growth within capitalism. I would agree that capitalist economies require growth but may not always grow i.e. recessions or depressions.

Sources:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/27746875

https://nyaspubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2011.05966.x "Unfortunately, many observers fail to recognize that the current 'growth imperative' is the result of capitalist systems everywhere being institutionally designed to grow."

I would suggest the following to the article's editor: 1. Delete the last sentence of the first paragraph which says "Economic growth is a characteristic tendency of capitalism" and replace with "Many scholars suggest capitalist economies require continuous economic growth"

2. I don't know what to do with the tiny stub on economic growth. I would delete it cause not in the mood to write up a paragraph :) 70.22.139.70 (talk) 00:51, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Mixed economy and capitalism

@Precious delicate sweet little baby: Multiple editors have reverted your changes. Please discuss them here, on the talk page, before continuing with changing the article. This isn't some conspiracy that you can see through, this is simply just sticking to rules that apply to everyone on Wikipedia. You've already violated WP:3RR and reporting you would result in a temporary block. However, since you are a new user, doing so would be rather petty, so please consult the rules from now on to avoid that.

Going back to the topic at hand, nearly all capitalist economies have both public and private ownership, and varying levels of state intervention. This is what all the provided sources state. You stated in your edit description that "some ownership is public / non-capitalist", however none of the sources imply that public ownership implies lack of capitalism – they are still capitalist economies. Capitalism isn't just laissez-faire. Likewise, the economy of the Soviet Union is often considered socialist, despite it having wage labour, hierarchical structures and only minimal worker-control over the means of production. If we were to apply some very strict typology here, then we would end up concluding that we had never witnessed a capitalist economy, nor a socialist one. If you disagree with any of the above, please present your arguments here with adequate sources before you make any more changes revolving around this topic. BeŻet (talk) 13:18, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

It looks like you're trying to get in debate with me about what's socialism and what's capitalism. All that matters is my input into the ARTICLE, not what I said externally. Did I use the term "capitalism" or "socialism" in my edits? No. I put in what the source said, which is that the mixed economies spoken of include public ownership of the means of production, not just intervention and economic planning. It seems you just don't like what I said in my comments. What's your justification for deleting my input reflecting what the sources say? When it was deleted, I even came back with direct quotes to avoid any claims of misinterpretation, and you and a couple others still deleted (one person put my last change back in). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Precious delicate sweet little baby (talk • contribs) 16:50, 29 December 2021 (UTC) Striking sockpuppet comment. Generalrelative (talk) 00:09, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Because your changes were invalid. You've removed the descriptor "capitalist", arguing that "a mixed economy isn't a capitalist economy", which is false. You should provide a source which says that a mixed economy isn't capitalist - if you can't, your change can't be accepted, because we have several sources saying that mixed economies are in fact capitalist. And to answer your question - yes, you have used the term "capitalist" in nearly all of your edits. BeŻet (talk) 21:12, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Removing "capitalist" from in front of "mixed economy" didn't at all leave the sentence to say that a mixed economy isn't capitalist. Again, you're confusing my comments with the actual edits. There was simply no source equating them, so I deleted it. Then when you put it back in, I requested a tag for a citation for that. You then deleted my tag and added a source that said that did not say that a mixed economy is capitalist. To the contrary, it said that it was only "primarily" capitalist: "that ownership and control of the economy's means of production would remain primarily in the hands of private capitalists..." Therefore, I modified the sentence, using the quote from your source. I modified it to say "Most of the existing economies are mixed economies where "'the means of production are PRIMARILY in the hands of private capitalists'..." You didn't like that, so you deleted back. Because that source didn't say what you wanted it to say, you then added an additional source, which says "Real-world capitalist systems are mixed..." So you found a source. I accepted that, so I then modified the sentence direct quotes from your source. I said,"Real-world capitalist" economies are mixed economies, where there is a "higher share of public ownership" of the means of production.." You then departed. Then, a user named "Beauty School Dropout" reverted back couple times, with no explanation other than "Questionable edit of a cited quote". I then came back and tried to make as noncontroversial edit as possible, by modifying the sentence to say "Most of the existing capitalist economies are mixed economies that combine public ownership as well as.." I was just mentioning that they included "public ownership." That wasn't liked by Beauty School Dropout, and was reverted back. Then Akraisa25 reverted back to my version. Then Avatar17 reverted back to the original version. That's the recap. You and these others are clearly taking information out of the article that is explicit in the sources, information that the sources felt important enough to mention.Precious delicate sweet little baby (talk) 15:26, 30 December 2021 (UTC) Striking sockpuppet comment. Generalrelative (talk) 00:09, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Captitalism is as a descriptive term used to refer to actually existing economies, not some idealistic state. And in every economy, government has some role in the economy, even if it is limited to paying police officers. TFD (talk) 21:36, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

There is the definition of capitalism, then there is what some call "real world capitalism" or "actually existing capitalism." Two different things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Precious delicate sweet little baby (talk • contribs) 22:04, 29 December 2021 (UTC) Striking sockpuppet comment. Generalrelative (talk) 00:10, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

The definition is descriptive of actually existing capitalism. While Ayn Rand in her book, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, sees capitlaism as an ideal state, that's not the normal definition. Every country in the developed world and almost all other countries have capitalist economies. TFD (talk) 22:14, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

The sources that are already here in this article don't say that capitalism, the means of production only have to be MOSTLY privately owned. To the contrary, here's what the sources say. The very first source in the article: "Pure capitalism is defined as a system wherein all of the means of production (physical capital) are privately owned and run by the capitalist class for a profit". See the word, "ALL"? The second source: "In capitalist economies, land and produced means of production (the capital stock) are owned by private individuals or groups of private individuals organized as firms." As you can see, no allowance for publicly owned means of production in that definition either. It's not just "Ayn Rand." Capitalism is normally defined as private ownership of the means of production. Not partial or mostly. If you don't like the consensus definition, it's not my fault. Precious delicate sweet little baby (talk) 15:26, 30 December 2021 (UTC) Striking sockpuppet comment. Generalrelative (talk) 00:09, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

@Precious delicate sweet little baby: Two things: 1) Per WP:MOSLEAD, the lead is supposed to summarize the article, and is NOT required to have citations; these are required in the body, but do not need to be duplicated in the lead. This pertains to 2) In an article like this with MANY references, adding one which says something different than the vast majority of sources is NOT sufficient to change a statement supported by multiple sources throughout the article. ---Avatar317^(talk) 22:13, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

I didn't put any sources in. Others did. I'm just modifying the sentence to reflect what the sources say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Precious delicate sweet little baby (talk • contribs) 22:16, 29 December 2021 (UTC) Striking sockpuppet comment. Generalrelative (talk) 00:09, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Either the definition of communism is wrong or the definition of capitalism should lead with right wing to far right, You can't elad with "left wing to far left" then describe communism as the opposite of capitalism and then not apply that lens to capitalism. -doctor of sociology — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shanetyleratkins (talk • contribs) 17:39, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

The communism article can be edited to not mention left or right and that's fine, but if you insist on that being vital to the definition then it's unethical to not call capitalism right wing in the same way. Shanetyleratkins (talk) 17:48, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not based on original reasoning nor appeals to the authority of individual editors. We base our text on reliable sources. Convince us that a preponderance of reliable sources describe capitalism in this way and we'll gladly change the lead sentence. On a purely logical level, though, it's perfectly possible for a left-wing ideology to be opposed to one that's generally understood to occupy the political center. Personally I'd characterize capitalism as having adherents ranging from the center-left (at least as this is reckoned in American politics) through to the far right (with folks like Ron Paul-style "libertarians"). But my opinion isn't what matters, since again Wikipedia simply follows the sources. That's how we avoid getting bogged down in endless debate and are able to actually write and maintain an encyclopedia. Generalrelative (talk) 17:48, 9 March 2023 (UTC)