Talk:Advanced capitalism

Redirect to Capitalism section?
Should be article be redirected to Capitalism?Jonpatterns (talk) 14:58, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, for God's sake. It's nothing more than a biassed, unreliable, opinion piece. Hendrick 99 (talk) 09:52, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Then why not use WP:MERGEPROP, as it is an non trivial merge/redirect ? Jonpatterns (talk) 10:06, 25 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Move to delete I would sugegst deleting the whole mess, it's not worthy of being in Wikipedia as it's mere opinion. Damotclese (talk) 17:42, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Its a theory put forward by notable academics.Jonpatterns (talk) 10:36, 27 March 2015 (UTC)


 * If academics can be shown to have written about it a way that other, non-partisan academics acknowledge is illuminating, then of course it should not be deleted. (If OTOH the writing merely serves to mystify or render obscure, then there'd have to be some additional reason for keeping the article, such as press coverage.) &para; Some rewriting would help. Simple examples: (1) [T]he situation that pertains in a society: "the state of a society"? "the economy of a society"? "the state of an economy"? [F]or a prolonged period: "for a long time"? (But how long?) (3) [H]istorical previous forms: "earlier forms"? &para; The article cites Habermas, and refers the reader to "Habermas, 1988"; but it does not indicate what/where this is; or whether/how this is related to something very oddly described as "Habermas, J. [1973] Legitimation Crisis" (whose title is linked to an article not on a book or paper but instead on a concept). &para; Actually the whole bibliography (which makes up a non-trivial percentage of this short article) is a mystery. &para; Really, whoever thinks that this article is worthwhile should put a bit more effort into it. -- Hoary (talk) 00:41, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Has citations, no reason to move. Darx9url (talk) 01:24, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep: notable-enough topic for a standalone article. The article needs expansion and fixing, though. Esquivalience t 02:57, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - Personally with the amount of sources here it seems fine to have it as a separate article. – Davey 2010 Talk 15:33, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per Esquivalience <> Alt lys er svunnet hen (talk) 23:57, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Advanced capitalism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090714123532/http://www.cf.ac.uk/socsi/undergraduate/introsoc/legitcri.html to http://www.cf.ac.uk/socsi/undergraduate/introsoc/legitcri.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:40, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

"Not to be confused with the neo-Marxist term 'late capitalism'."
This notice is itself confusing because the article itself fails to explain the difference. Nor does the linked article on "Late Capitalism" explain the distinction. Instead, both articles simply refer back and forth to each other. Are the ywo terms actually synonymous, with the one merely being preferred by partisans of the 'Frankfurt School' while the other is favored by 'neo-Marxists'? Is the one a kind of euphemism for the other? Or are they distinguished by genuine divergence of meaning, or at least nuance? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.17.178.22 (talk) 15:08, 3 December 2018 (UTC)