Talk:Capitalism and genocide

Article subject / distinct topic?

Most will assume that this article was triggered by the widely discussed Mass killings under communist regimes. IMHO this has a far less distinct topic and IMHO not a distinct topic, leaving it open to be a POV fork or coatrack. Or not a more distinct topic as Mass killings under capitalist regimes would be, if there sources/material for such. The two criteria in the title are capitalism, basically some economic attributes that nearly the whole world runs on, and genocide, which has widely varying meanings depending on the eye of the beholder. And it seems to be a collection of writers that want to emphasize that some aspect of capitalism has had some effect on genocide, per their definition of genocide. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:17, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

@North8000: Maybe this could be merged into the criticism of capitalism article, but if counter arguments to the Capitalism and genocide narrative can be found that are backed up by RS, then that could prevent this article from being a POV fork. X-Editor (talk) 23:12, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Not a bad idea. It could fit nicely in the section Imperialism and political oppression, which perhaps then could be renamed Imperialism, political oppression and genocide. I actually borrowed material from there but expanded upon it in this article (Hickel, 2021).--C.J. Griffin (talk) 23:24, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

There is literature that shows that genocide originated as a tool of capitalism. It was enabled by early liberal concepts of racism, nationalism and the their interpretation of terra nullius. Racism or nationalism are motivations for genocide. Terra nullius was used as a justification for the removal of hunter-gatherers who because they had not claimed their labor with the land they occupied had no claim to it. So genocide was necessary to transform pre-capitalist territories. While there were slaughters before capitalism, none met the criteria for genocide. So I would concentrate on these aspects rather than make this a sister of article of MKuCR, which is about all mass killings rather than genocide specifically. I don't see this as criticism any more than an article about people killed by sharks would be criticism of sharks. TFD (talk) 23:30, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Well, first we'd have to see this literature. Since capitalism generally is dated to the 18/19th century and since genocide is a phenomenon as old as humanity itself, this seems to be a rather... strange and WP:FRINGE claim. Volunteer Marek 23:44, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, I suggest you continue to engage further on talk instead of continuously attempting to systemically blank this article. According to your block log, you've been blocked for edit warring (including other things such as personal attacks) on numerous occasions, so engaging in another one over here would most likely not end well for you. The article is well-sourced, and I don't doubt X-Editor's research in creating it. It definitely isn't some wacky fringe theory that there is a connection between capitalism and genocide. 221.142.50.127 (talk) 23:54, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I suggest you edit with your actual account (assuming it's not indef banned) rather than sock puppet with IP accounts. Volunteer Marek 00:05, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Per the History of capitalism, "fully fledged capitalism is generally thought by scholars to have emerged in Northwestern Europe, especially in Great Britain and the Netherlands, in the 16th to 17th centuries." Also, Lemkin wrote, "Genocide is directed against the national group as an entity." You seem to be confusing it with mass killings which is a wider concept and anyway as you know from Uyghur genocide, genocide does not necessarily include mass killings.

Anyway, even if you want to apply the concept of genocide to antiquity or pre-history, you could say that capitalism revived it, similar to how capitalism revived slavery. While it had similarities to the ancient world, it was a new and different version.

TFD (talk) 01:09, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, you're quoting an article that is tagged for multiple issues - and indeed, that claim about capitalism being fully fledged by the 16th and 17th century is patent nonsense (and unsourced). So is the claim that capitalism "revived" (did it ever go away?) genocide and slavery. Volunteer Marek 18:38, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

See A History of Capitalism, 1500-1980 by Michel Beaud. NYU Press 1981. "The history of capitalism begins in 1500....for what we today call "capitalism" essentially assumes clear and definite form by that date."(p.8) And slavery was in fact it is believed that there were no slaves in England by 1200. It was revived in 1619 in New England. And few if any killings before capitalism had all the aspects of genocide. You appear to be confusing industrial capitalism with capitalism, serfdom with slavery and mass killings with genocides. Note too that liberalism, which is the ideology of capitalism, has its roots in the 1500s and 1600s. TFD (talk) 22:43, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, a book by a "heterodox economist", i.e. WP:FRINGE. And 1619 New England wasn't "capitalist". In fact I think you're confusing Virginia with New England, not that the former was capitalist at the same time either. Likewise you're confusing mercantilism with capitalism. Regarding slavery, while it may not have existed in England between 1200s and 1619 it most certainly existed in the Mediterranean, in South America and in the Caribbean. The organization of Caribbean sugar plantations was basically copied from Spanish slave sugar plantations in the Mediterranean (Valencia and Naples being major slave ports). And while the term "genocide" wasn't used until the 20th century, there most certainly were genocides in the pre-industrial world. In fact they were so frequent that it was taken for granted. What do you think happened to the Old Prussians for example? Human history is strewn with exterminated nations. Volunteer Marek 13:10, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Facts in reliable sources are facts regardless whether you disagree with the author's opinions. I think anyway that you are being heterodox. Mercantile capitalism was a form of capitalism. TFD (talk) 19:04, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

These aren't "facts", these are one, fringe, dude's opinions. And I think you mean "merchant capitalism". But in that case why go back to only 1500? Fuck, it let's go all the way back to 9th century Islamic world which had a shitload more trade than 1500 England. Hell, maybe everything is capitalism? Like I said. This is a fringe view. Capitalism didn't come into it's own until the Industrial Revolution which is traditionally date from the second half of 18th century. Volunteer Marek 05:28, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Where are you getting this information? TFD (talk) 18:56, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

How about you supply some non-fringe sources for you claims first (both regarding the dating of emergence of capitalism as well as the idea that it somehow "revived" slavery and genocide (still shaking my head at that one). You make a claim. You support it. Volunteer Marek 00:48, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Good question. Anyway some scholars have traced the formal origins of capitalism to the enclosure movements of the 16th and 17th centuries, which privatized the commons and forced peasants who were kicked out to find work in urban areas, becoming proletarians forced to sell their labor for wages in order to survive.[1][2]--C.J. Griffin (talk) 20:48, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

This is a book by an *English* professor. The hypothesis that enclosure movement drove peasants of the land and created a pool of proleterians which drove the industrial revolution was debunked over 60 years ago by J. D. Chambers and J. H. Clapham among others. Yes, Marxists still hold on to that notion mostly because... the Master's scripture must not be questioned! so you still find some authors making that claim, usually unaware or purposefully ignorant of actual research by economic historians (and regular historians). Volunteer Marek 00:46, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Others are dealing with the policy and process questions. In short, my OP was saying that this may be a hopelessly vague "topic" (basically all op eds about any relationship between anybody's definition of capitalism with anybody's definition of genocide (both broad, subjective terms) that this will end up being an an endless uninformative inherently POV coatrack. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:59, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

There is an editor working on a number of these dubious topics, e.g. Critique of political economy, writing from a narrow and dated Marxist perspective. They all need a lot of work, deletion, or re-titling/redirection. SPECIFICO talk 15:12, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Coatracks or POVFORK articles with the same editors beefing up the pages of marginally notable writers and publishers to enhance the sourcing of the coatrack. SPECIFICO talk 16:08, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

There are always differences on definitions used, and editors must ensure that sources are talking about the same thing. What we cannot do is take one source that says that x is capitalist and another that says x carried out a genocide and call it capitalist genocide.

Furthermore, the article should not be a list of capitalist genocides, but should explain the connection between them. Specifically, there was a belief that inferior races should be assimilated, enslaved or removed in order to transform to capitalism.

We could also discuss the liberal position that this was "low road" capitalism as opposed to an essential requirement for its development.

TFD (talk) 16:17, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Disputed redirect

@Volunteer Marek: I understand the rationale behind your redirect. I dispute this based on a rationale that it isn't the same article, expressed in my edit summary (diff). I suggest that this be discussed more. tw^sabin 23:30, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

This is an obvious WP:POVFORK of a deleted article [3] (which was SNOW deleted) as well as an obnoxious WP:POINT violation. This kind of out of process attempts to circumvent the results of AfD is definitely a policy violation, exacerbated by the fact that User:X-Editor announced his intent to WP:GAME the policy [4], was told that this was against policy [5], and then went ahead and did it anyway. This is straight up a disruptive action meriting a block. Volunteer Marek 23:34, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Wait, if it's a POVFORK, it would mean that the deleted article was either (1) neutral (but subject was non-notable), and this article takes a specific, partial, POV, or (2) that it was in fact non-neutral, and this article is actually neutral. In either case, we have a slight problem with the bold/procedural redirect proposition: (1) If the deleted article was neutral, it's disputable at current time, based on the references provided here and now, that the topic is not notable; an AfD is not a judgement for eternity; (2) if the deleted article was non-neutral, maybe this new "neutral fork" should be given a new chance at life. That being said, I assess this new article as being: neutral, written on a notable topic, very likely completely different from the deleted article in terms of actual content. tw^sabin 23:45, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

It was a (thinly veilded) COPY of the deleted article and it's a POVFORK of other articles (like "Criticisms of Capitalism") and WP:POINT violation because it was created to make a "point" about the article Mass Killings Under Communist Regimes. Pretty straightforward. Volunteer Marek 18:45, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

This isn't a POVFORK of that deleted article because the subject of this article is Capitalism's possible connection to genocide, whereas the other article was about mass killings and likely asserted without question that there is a connection between Capitalism and mass killings. It also makes no sense to use the results of an AfD that happened almost a decade ago as proof that this article should not exist. X-Editor (talk) 00:04, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

You EXPLICITLY stated that you were going to recreated that article "under a different name". Volunteer Marek 18:45, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

As you should be aware if you are following the Uyghur genocide, genocide is not the same as mass killings. Genocide is an attempt to erase a racial, ethnic or religious group through mass killings, deportations, sterilization and/or assimilation into the dominant group. As in the Uyghur case, it may not include mass killings at all. Most capitalist mass killings were not genocides. TFD (talk) 13:54, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: What is your opinion? Should this article exist? North8000 (talk) 16:46, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Geocide is not the same as mass killing but there are obvious links there and if an article called "X and mass killings" get deleted and then someone recreates it as "X and genocide" that's obviously an attempt to circumvent outcome of AfD process. Especially if that editor first tells everyone that that's what they're going to do because they can't just recreate the original article. Volunteer Marek 05:32, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

North8000, I don't know if it should exist. I would like to see if there is literature specifically devoted to the connection. I am not impressed with what has been presented so far. TFD (talk) 04:06, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Neutrality

A neutrality tag was added to the article although there has been no discussion about this issue. Please explain what the neutrality concerns are or I will remove the tag. TFD (talk) 01:42, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed the SYNTH tag since there is no justification for it. The neutrality concerns need to be explained as well or that tag should also be removed. ––FormalDude talk 04:26, 16 February 2022 (UTC)