Talk:History of capitalism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What is the purpose of the 21st century-scholarship section?[edit]

And why is this paragraph phrased in the suggestive way that it is? Some academic institutions which are managed in part by free-market think tanks, such as the Clemson Institute for the Study of Capitalism, reject the notion that race, gender, or sexuality have any significant relationship to capitalism at all and instead seek to show that laissez-faire capitalism, in particular, provides the moral foundations of a just society and the most numerous economic opportunities for all people. 213.219.142.33 (talk) 09:07, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is absurd to "reject the notion that race, gender, or sexuality have any significant relationship to capitalism at all." For one, the wage and opportunity gap between whites and blacks in America, a prime example of capitalist society, is significant. The billionaire bourgeoise is heavily white male, and so are the CEOs of large corporations. In fact, Eric Williams (1944) argues out that the role of slavery is significant in the rise of capitalism. The so called Williams thesis is heavily cited in academics; it implies that slavery, which was a racial and highly male-oriented system, is foundational to capitalism. Slavery-slasher (talk) 15:05, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, "21st century-scholarship" section seems more like advertisement to academic programs and philosophies of several institutions. Should we remove this section altogether? Slavery-slasher (talk) 15:14, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. LotusEating (talk) 00:09, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Williams thesis is very controversial among economic historians.
Historians don't claim race, gender, and sexuality have nothing to do with capitalism. Instead, they deny that racism or sexism are essential to capitalism or its emergence. In any case, the whole section seems pointless and unnecessarily political. LotusEating (talk) 00:12, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

The article uses a limited range of sources, missing recent and less recent developments in economic history. In particular, its reliance on Marxist historians and historiography. LotusEating (talk) 00:11, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Contemporary capitalism has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 13 § Contemporary capitalism until a consensus is reached. Jay 💬 22:02, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]