Talk:Capitalism

"Contemporary capitalism" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Contemporary_capitalism&redirect=no 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  until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 21:42, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

"Job creators" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Job_creators&redirect=no Job creators] 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  until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 21:48, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Recently added Defence section: self-promotion?
The editor 于星 (Xing Yu) has recently added a | Defence section to this article. In its current state, it only provides one argument for capitalism, and the only citation is to his own book (A Treatise on the Capitalist Society). At least as I see it, this section is not ready to be included in the full article due to including only the editor's own argument and nothing else. What are your thoughts? Mayhair (talk) 12:44, 7 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I agree and support removal; that was a really strange addition and I didn't know quite what to make of it. Unless something is well-sourced mainstream, than we shouldn't have it in this article, because if we included every lone scholar's ideas on this subject, the article would be 1000x the size it is now. --- Avatar317 (talk) 23:37, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Is criticism warranted?
I raised this issue some time ago but little has changed in the criticism section (although the sources have been updated at least). I think there is a real issue here of whether this section violates the rules of the encyclopedia. A couple of points to consider:


 * This article is listed as part of a series on "economics". The rules for editing economics articles are no different than any other subject: content, including criticism, must come from experts in the field, not outside sources. If we are treating this subject no different than others, then the opinions of philosophers, political commentators and scholars who aren't economists don't belong in the article.

Jonathan f1 (talk) 22:20, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * A separate article on "criticism of capitalism" already exists and covers everything in this section and more. This can be linked in the article without any need for a criticism section.


 * There's nothing of great value in the section, so it should be removed.
 * Typically, criticism should be put into articles in relevant sections, not put into a separate one. Also, what one person sees as a criticism, someone else might see as a plus or at least acceptable or something that can be fixed. For example, inequality caused by capitalism can be seen as a desirable outcome, necessary, or fixable, without being anti-capitalist. TFD (talk) 02:25, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree and support removal. --- Avatar317 (talk) 02:30, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The basis of your argument is derived from a fantastically narrow understanding of political economy; capitalism is not merely an economic system and even the works of Adam Smith would tell you that. Regardless, which site policies are you referencing? Your first bullet point seems to be a vague gesture at some uniform rule on content, but obviously a topic related to economics and politics should not be treated the same as a topic related to the sciences, otherwise there would be no need for consensus-building.
 * Further, what critiques are you expecting from pure economists? Economists' jobs are primarily to analyse trends in economies at the micro and macro levels; they aren't concerned with offering critiques of the system (i.e. global capitalism) they've spent their entire lives living under and accepting as gospel. There's no such thing as a critique from an economist who isn't political.
 * I am also unconvinced by the arguments that the section should be removed because there's already a main article for the topic and that some self-proclaimed capitalists actually support inequality under capitalism, so it can't really be generalised as a criticism. Pol Pot was fine with genociding his own countrymen through mass starvation, so I guess the critique of communist policies causing mass deaths through an inadequate accumulation of resources is not really a critique then, just an observation.
 * If the section should be removed, it ought to be because it's a rubbish section with no specifics and a lack of references to expert opinions, not because we should gatekeep critiques to economists, because there's already more coverage elsewhere on this WikiProject, or because one could argue that every critique is not really a critique because somebody could theoretically agree with it wholeheartedly. Yue 🌙 03:16, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * My agreement above is based much on my opinion being the same as North8000 (below): "...the current criticism section is mostly complaints about pretty much everything that is wrong or undesirable in the world and thus not really useful content".
 * Couldn't almost all of these criticisms have been equally leveled against feudalism? or "Communism in one country" as practiced in post-1917 industrializing Russia/USSR? --- Avatar317 (talk) 01:31, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The last paragraph is at least a GOOD critique "Other critics argue that such inequities are not due to the ethic-neutral construct of the economic system commonly known as capitalism, "...specific and detailed. But I'm sure there are too many like this to include in THIS article (but good for the criticism of capitalism article).--- Avatar317 (talk) 01:35, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This is exactly what I'm talking about:
 * "they've spent their entire lives living under and accepting as gospel. There's no such thing as a critique from an economist who isn't political."
 * You think no one here has heard this before? If this is a mainstream encyclopedia, you need to stick with what's regarded as mainstream sourcing in a subject. We cite biologists in articles on biology, physicists in articles about physics, historians in articles about history, but in an article that's part of an economics series, you want to cite every philosopher and political commentator under the sun on the reasoning that economists are all biased or brainwashed. This sort of attempt to skirt the rules would never fly in any other subject.
 * I agree with other editors that some of these arguments against capitalism can be applied to pretty much anything. The term 'inequality' is so vague as to be meaningless -there's inequality in sports, inequality in academics, and it makes sense that there'd be inequality in economic outcomes. Having a concern about income/wealth inequality does not imply anti-capitalism. Jonathan f1 (talk) 03:13, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The section serves as a summary of the linked criticism off capitalism article. And it is a relatively small section at that, so this is WP:DUE by my estimation. In fact, this was the consensus when the section was radically trimmed years back with large swaths of material being moved to the other article. Now I'm not saying the section can't be improved, but outright deletion is not justified by any of the arguments I see above. And the notion that only "economists" should be cited in the section while ignoring scholars in other fields including history, political science, anthropology, philosophy etc is just absolute nonsense, as Yue points out above.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 13:31, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

I support removal of the section and would like to make notes in two areas regarding that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:01, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It's with good reason that separate criticism sections are concerned. The mere presence of one becomes a coatrack / magnet, distorting decisions on what criticism merits inclusion.
 * Technically capitalism has a specific narrow definition (in the first sentence of the article) and probably ~95% of the world has that as one of the many components of their systems.  But vaguer meanings of capitalism could include pretty much anything related to economic, ownership, business, economic interests in that ~95% of the world and thus anything bad or undesirable in the world that is related to economics, ownership, business, economic interests. As a result of this the current criticism section is mostly complaints about pretty much everything that is wrong or undesirable in the world and thus not really useful content.


 * Agreed -things like inequality and exploitation happen in non-economic contexts so it isn't clear why capitalism should be singled out as unique. If people exploit each other in an academic environment (eg benefitting from work that's not theirs, like plagiarism) we don't say that schools are naturally exploitative. The idea that economic exploitation would end in a post-capitalist world is far-fetched, and critics of socialism say the exact same thing. Jonathan f1 (talk) 03:30, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Criticism in the lead: RFC before
I recently added a paragraph to the lead summarizing the "Capitalism" section of the article. The text in the lead was taken straight from the body. Foolishly, I did not check the talk page first, as I assumed that the omission of any criticism from the lead was just an oversight or a sign of underdevelopment of the article. I now see the discussion above at and was pointed to an earlier 2021 discussion, Talk:Capitalism/Archive 32.

I believe that not summarizing the Criticism section of the article in the lead violates global consensus of MOS:LEAD, which guides us to summarize all of an article in the lead. For this reason alone, I don't understand editors objecting to summarizing the criticism section in the lead.

As a separate grounds, WP:NPOV requires as policy that all significant viewpoints be summarized in articles in proportion to RS. Without a doubt, criticism of capitalism is a significant viewpoint (perhaps even the majority view!). Omitting any criticism of capitalism from the lead violates NPOV because it omits a significant viewpoint. Criticism is due for the lead because criticism of capitalism is prominent in RS.

After reading the prior discussion, I do not have any hope of convincing the participants in those discussions to change their minds on this. So I am inclined to launch an RFC, and I ask what the RFC question should be. We could do something specific like: "should this edit be reinstated?" or something general like "should the criticism section of the article be summarized in the lead?" The problem with the latter question is that the answer is "yes duh" because we always summarize all sections of an article in the lead.

Thoughts? Levivich (talk) 16:16, 17 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I agree that we always (should) summarize the entirety of an article in the lead. As you see in the discussion directly above, myself and others feel that any criticism of Capitalism from NON-economists doesn't belong in this article AT ALL.  My opinion is that most criticism directed toward "capitalism" is not truly criticism of the capitalist economic system, but criticism of the current state of the world (or country), in which people blame capitalism for their current life experience when they are in fact experiencing capitalism CONFLATED with racism, sexism, and other cultural norms (gender roles, etc.) set by the dominant class in society, not PURE capitalism.  Externalitys are an example of true scientific/economic criticism.
 * I feel that a good subject for an RfC would be "Should this article contain criticisms of capitalism from NON-economists? (like religious criticism)" - as such, that would gain consensus on what we have been discussing directly above, and then answer the lead question. --- Avatar317 (talk) 23:35, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for explaining that, the situation makes more sense to me now. As a starter, I think the right word isn't "criticism," but "critique." There are, of course, many and varied critiques of capitalism, just as there are critiques of communism and other economic systems and ideologies.
 * That said, I do not believe that critiques of capitalism are limited to economists. I can't off-hand think of any RS non-economist critiques of capitalism, but I bet they're out there.
 * That said, I'm not sure the question even needs to be answered. If we were to collectively gather the WP:BESTSOURCES for the article Capitalism, some of those may not be written by economists, I don't know. For any given source, the author's qualifications are certainly relevant in determining if it's an RS. But I think it's far more productive to talk about specific sources than to talk about setting rules like "economists only."
 * So with that said, I'm damn sure that if we gathered the best sources about capitalism, those sources would include critiques of capitalism. But I can see how the existing body section is more of a collection of criticism of capitalism, rather than a summary of critiques of capitalism from the best sources about capitalism.
 * And, finally, I agree that the body should be straightened out before we worry about summarizing the section for the lead. I think the best approach would be to identify some WP:BESTSOURCES for this article, see what they say about critiques of capitalism, and summarize that in the body, and then summarize the body section in the lead. Accordingly, I will not launch an RFC about the lead at this time. Levivich (talk) 00:29, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Moral permissibility of profit
The definition made it seem like benevolent or non-profit organizations were not capitalist. Capitalism permits profit, but does not require it.72.204.11.140 (talk) 14:57, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The statement was straightforward. Your edit had a long list of issues. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:05, 17 July 2024 (UTC)