Talk:Criticism of capitalism/Archive 2

Media
The page is short on pictures at the moment. ;) Infinity0 talk 18:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

First section needs clean up, badly
"Excessive inequality" needs a major overhaul - all it is atm is a list of criticisms and list of responses. It could be made to flow better. Infinity0 talk 18:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you Infinity, and certainly am willing to work with you on improving it in the near future. It may even be better to rewrite that section from scratch. The article makes the following comment:

"Some view a significant disparity and concentration of wealth to be problem and that such is endemic to capitalism, while others do not have such egalitarian concerns."

Not recognized here by "those who do not have such concerns" is that in the capitalist system disproportionate economic gain typically gets translated into social power, allowing capitalists to dominate other spheres such as government and media, and this power also gives them a consequent disproportionate control over which goods and technologies are made available on the market. So-called consumer sovereignity is a myth - what gets produced is not a straightforward response to exogenously determined consumer demand; in fact a very consequential mediation takes place that invariably privileges the interests of the powerful. It's also hard to get around the fact that a "laissez-faire" economy contains inherent developmental tendencies towards inequalities and oligopolistic structures, and that in theory a vital pre-condition for price competition is relatively equality of economic agents. It beats me how someone could suggest that "others do not have such egalitarian" concerns, Adam Smith certainly had such concerns. BernardL 19:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I think I can find that quote for Adam Smith. Infinity0 talk 20:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * "It is not difficult to foresee which of the two parties [workers and capitalists] must, upon all ordinary occasions... force the other into a compliance with their terms... In all such disputes the masters can hold out much longer... though they did not employ a single workman [the masters] could generally live a year or two upon the stocks which they already acquired. Many workmen could not subsist a week, few could subsist a month, and scare any a year without employment. In the long-run the workman may be as necessary to his master as his master is to him; but the necessity is not so immediate. . . [I]n disputes with their workmen, masters must generally have the advantage." [Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations, pp. 59-60]


 * It is certainly possible to people with opinions. But statements like "a "laissez-faire" economy contains inherent developmental tendencies towards inequalities and oligopolistic structures" needs to backed by hard statistics and studies.Ultramarine 20:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Am I the only one who sees this article heading towards a POV mess? (either pro or against capitalism, depending on who gets the upper hand) -- Nikodemos 20:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * If that happens, it would have happened on inclusion in capitalism too. The criticisms of communism turned out more or less OK, you shouldn't worry. Atm the article is fine, just needs tweaking. Infinity0 talk 21:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Ordering of sections
This article is newly created from the jumble of criticisms within Capitalism, so atm the ordering of the sections is a mess. I'm done for today, will work on this tomorrow, but in the meantime anyone is welcome to help. Infinity0 talk 22:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

My 2 cents worth. One slightly strange thing about the categories is that they don't represent a systematic thought process and thus are a bit of a hodgepodge. The article begins with a category that is an idealized theoretical construct, namely the "free" market. The next few categories are mostly types of effects: inequality, unemployment, exploitation and human rights violations. Mixed in with exploitation is profit, which is neither effect nor idealized construct but an institution. Then we have categories such as "democracy" and "imperialism" which are idealized constructs suggesting definite institutional structures. The Marxist section encompasses all of the above effects; those effects and the structural reasons for them are explained from the Marxist perspective. Finally we have "Sustainability" which is an idealized objective.

I am unsure what to make of it all. Perhaps we have to live with this type of inconsistency if we are to approach the subject from a variety of angles and intellectual traditions. For my part I think the category of "free market" should perhaps be replaced by the word "markets in capitalism" or "market allocation in capitalism." A critique of the ideology of "free markets" could be a subcategory within this category. Which leads me to wonder, if we have a category devoted to the autonomous market institution why wouldn't we have a category discussing the deficiencies of "capitalist property relations"? All the effects mentioned - inequality, unemployment, exploitation, etc. seem to me the effects of a capitalist system that consists of a complex of interacting institutions among which the autonomous market mechanism and the property rights system are paramount. In any case here follows a suggested outline:

Introduction (a couple of sentences defining the subject and stating the purpose of the article.)

Section A: Injustice, Inefficiency and Oppression (A summarizing introduction outlining these three broad objections to capitalism and explain that they are the effects of capitalist institutions which do not reward people justly or fairly, are crisis prone, do not distribute the burdens and benefits of the work process fairly, and do not allocate resources efficiently or according to the requirements of sustainability. Capitalism also monopolizes decision-making power in the hands of a relative few in pursuit of profit, which is a kind of control that impairs the development of capabilities and realization of creative potentialities of everyone.)


 * 1) Markets in Capitalism (with "free market" perhaps contained in the discussion and/or as a sub-category. The subject of "market failure" as it pertains to modern capitalism would likely be a highlight of this section.)
 * 2) Capitalist Property Relations (could define the basic dichotomy between wage-labourers and capital and the inherent antagonism of interests flowing from it, could outline why usufruct is unfair, and why the despotic control of the workplace by the capitalist conferred by the property rights system is anti-democratic and oppressive.)

Section B: Capitalism's Alleged Harmful Effects


 * 1) Inequality
 * 2) Exploitation
 * 3) Oppression of human rights and political and economic democracy
 * 4) Inefficiency
 * 5) Alienation
 * 6) Environmental Degradation and Unsustainability
 * 7) Imperialism and War

BernardL 23:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I think your sections are logical and structured. But I was trying to split off "imperialism" and "democracy" the other day and found that I couldn't (without a lot of rewriting which I don't have the time to think about and do fully right now), because the way in which it's currently written intertwines both criticisms together. (Though, if you think about it, they are slightly linked).

However, I think better titles for sections A and B would be:


 * Criticisms of theory
 * Criticisms of practice

Or something along those lines, with relevant parts linking them.

I'm not too sure about splitting the Marxist critique off into its various sections, although it seems like a good idea. The problem is we might end up with various bits of marxist theory infused throughout the whole article, and that might be frowned upon. Infinity0 talk 00:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Your comments are well-taken. I will need to digest them for awhile. And as you can see my thinking on this is still changing alot. I'll get back to you soon. I think the distinction between criticisms of theory and practice could be a useful one. BernardL 00:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

If you think of an improvement to be made for the article, certainly don't wait for my approval. Tbh, you probably know more about this than I do. WP:BB :) I'm off for tonight, cya. Infinity0 talk 00:24, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

On the subject of the Marxism section...while the current section makes a few good points about the Marxist definition of "capital" for the most part it makes a rather feeble presentation of Marxist arguments. Worse, much of the section meanders off into irrelevant territory like the discussion on modern China. One  possibility is to have a Marxist section following the "criticisms of Capitalism in practice" section. It would include, of course, a link to the main Marxism article. Moreover, the section could emphasize the undeniable influence of the Marxist critique on most critics of capitalism and succintly reinforce preceding sections, perhaps amplifying or clarifying a few points utilizing the Marxist lens.BernardL 01:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

These propesed sections are good; far superiour to the current article, which, though suprizingly NPOV, is a jumbled mess. With regard to the 'alleged harmful effects' section -- inefficiency and war don't seem to belong: anyone who's taken a Econ 101 course can tell you that competition is the most efficient means of resource distribution, period; and war is a government institution, not related to the private sector (few nations were more imperialist or war-like that Soviet Russia). Also, you might want to add 'seperation of wealth,' an obvious side-effect of caitalism.--Xiaphias 04:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you completely that the sections are very hodgepodged. I also think the structure you (originally) outlined is brilliant! I'm not sure I like the "criticism of theory" and "criticism of practice" distinction -- seems too rigid and stuffy. Anyways, I've gotten sucked into fixing up this article (for better or for worse), and definitely see your proposal as a better organization. Njfuller (talk) 23:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Shame on me for having taken (gulp) two whole years (not wasted ones though) to get back to this proposal. Looking back at it, I do tend to find the original proposal more specific and the sub-headings evocative enough to draw some ideas from people. Regarding the comment about inefficiency by Xiaphas above, I certainly I do think an inefficiency section belongs because according to the reasoning of some of capitalism's most incisive critics the system is grossly inefficient. One really has to go beyond Econ 101 to find this out though. Thorstein Veblen's classic work is remarkable, among other things, for its devastating analysis of capitalist inefficiency. There are many other useful works; and the perspective that some of the best ecological economics has brought to questions of efficiency is pertinent. I would also consider working ideas concerning primitive accumulation/accumulation by dispossession into section A. Did you have any other ideas? What's the next step? A sandbox that might start by reorganizing whatever current content is valuable according to the new outline?BernardL (talk) 03:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Random discussion about capitalism today

 * This is not the article to present the whole Marxist theory, there are many other articles for that. Ultramarine 01:39, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Which is exactly why I used the word "succinct" and a few points, etc. - I never suggested a presentation of the whole of Marxist theory.BernardL 01:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * There is already much too Marxism in this article, it is only one view and fading.Ultramarine 01:56, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Fading? In what way? Infinity0 talk 14:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Almost all Communist states have disappeared or are changing their economy away from socialism. Liberal democracy is spreading. The world is getting better in spite of Marx's predictions. Marxism is also losing its influence in the academic world. Today people argue using arguments from evolutionary psychology or mainstream economics rather than historical materialism or the labor theory of value. Ultramarine 14:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Yet more people oppose capitalism than ever. And the world really isn't getting any better. Infinity0 talk 14:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Materially the world is much better off then before. Especially developed countries like the United States, Japan etc. If you think the world hasn't gotten better than please visit Bombay, India to get an idea of how horrible it can be. India will also give you an idea of how horrible even democratic socialism can be.

I think it's true (and predictable) that critics of capitalism have become more eclectic over time; they draw on a wider variety of sources than just Marxism, but Ultramarine predictably overstates the influence of evolutionary psychology and mainstream economics while ignoring stronger influences such as are found in heterodox approaches like critical institutionalism, post-keynesianism, ecological economics and Sraffian value theory. Modern critics tend not to consciously use Marxian categories as much, although Marxists recognize that concepts developed in their corpus are provided with new garb. It is also true that, in practice, Marxist concepts are less consciously employed by anti-systemic movements than in the past. On the other hand, in two traditions that are among the most engaged in formulating critiques of capitalism, radical political economy and radical sociology, Marx remains a seminal figure. Go to the well known mailing-lists on progressive economics, and sociology where all kinds of published phd's are engaged in ongoing dialogues and the lasting influence of the Marxist critique is readily apparent. Just last year, Marx won a BBC poll naming him the greatest philosopher of all time. I think even modern critics tend to reference the Marxist critique as a standard of comparison even if they do not completely agree with it. To me the status of Marx to criticism of capitalism is similar to the status of Adam Smith to mainstream economic theory. Like Smith, Marx is a seminal figure whose originality partly lies in his monumental effort to conceptualize capitalism as a system. Like Smith, aspects of his work have been superceded by subsequent developments, while other aspects continue to be a rich mine for any one hoping to understand the capitalist social system. I'm willing to defer to the democratic will on this one (I have never identified myself as a Marxist), but it seems to me that an article of criticism of capitalism leaving out ackowledgement of Marx's influence would be similar to an article on capitalism omitting mention of the influence of Adam Smith.

Regarding the assertion that the world is getting better, more sober economists (including Alan Greenspan) are increasingly worried about the sustainability of the US economy in light of its monumental debt problems, social security crisis, and aging demographics; which has obviously ominous implications for the health of the interdependant global economy. The serious global crisis triggered by the Asian financial crisis is recent history, but some economists predict that it would pale in comparison to a crisis triggered by a fallout of the US economy. BernardL 16:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Fewer people are critical than during the sixties and Vietnam War and so on. Regarding the very soon coming crisis that will end capitalism, Marx predicted it more than 150 years ago and it has still not happened. The world is just getting better.


 * the percentage of people in developing countries living below US$1 (adjusted for inflation and purchasing power) per day has halved in only twenty years, although some critics argue that more detailed variables measuring poverty should instead be studied.


 * Life expectancy has almost doubled in the developing world since WWII and is starting to close the gap to the developed world where the improvement has been smaller. Child mortality has decreased in every developing region of the world . Income inequality for the world as a whole is diminishing.


 * Democracy has increased dramatically from almost no nation with universal suffrage in 1900 to 62.5% of all nations in 2000.


 * The proportion of the world's population living in countries where per-capita food supplies are under 2,200 calories (9,200 kilojoules) per day decreased from 56% in the mid-1960s to below 10% by the 1990s.


 * Between 1950 and 1999, global literacy increased from 52% to 81% of the world. Women made up much of the gap: Female literacy as a percentage of male literacy has increased from 59% in 1970 to 80% in 2000.


 * There are similar trends for electric power, cars, radios, and telephones per capita, as well as the proportion of the population with access to clean water .Ultramarine 16:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes Ultramarine, we can all quote statistics to favour our own position. Though none of your points mention anything about the wealth gap, apart from that dubious one which is disputed. Infinity0 talk 16:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * You have any statistics? Please present. I do not understand this obsession with equality, would be better if everyone was lived in abject but equal poverty? Ultramarine 16:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Equal poverty? boy, aren't you the pessimist! is the glass half full, or half empty, that is the question... Anyway, equality could work much the way it does in tribal societies, like in Papua New Guinea. Jared Diamond said that they practiced a form of socialism that worked very well, where everyone was happy with it, and there were minimal complaints. now how hard could it possibly be to project that idea on a broader scale??? Stevo D

I don't understand this obssession with linear averages to represent a completely unlinear system. Also, I can't be bothered finding statistics, nor do I think it's of any use in trying to convince you that the world isn't getting any better, but a search on google for "wealth distribution statistics" should get you what you want. Poverty is relative. If everyone in the world was poor nobody would notice or complain. Infinity0 talk 16:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Do you actually mean this? If everyone dies of starvation or disease at the age of thirty or earlier, no health care, no education, numerous deaths at childbirth for women, most people are constantly ill or mentally or physically retarded from nutrition deficiencies, then no one would notice or complain? Ultramarine 17:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Of course. Your scenario is typical of the Middle Ages and prehistory. People get used to better standards, and stay generally the same level of happiness. Of course, if they know better standards exist, they'll become unhappy. Infinity0 talk 17:47, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Studies shows that a higher GDP/capita is very important for happiness up to a certain level. Above this level a higher GDP/capita is not important but the developing world has not reachted that level. Also, the longer people are under Communist rule, the unhappier they are. Ultramarine 17:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Because they know better standards exist. Infinity0 talk 18:23, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I have to jump in here and agree with Infinity. As a history major, I can vouch for the fact that people will adapt to any conditions...no matter how unbearable they seem to us.  That's why we'll always have the poor (except under utopian communism)...you're not poor based on your wealth; you're poor based on your wealth compared to others.  --Xiaphias 04:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The reseach about happiness and GDP/capita disagree with you. People are unhappier in poor nations. Ultramarine 09:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Because they know better standards exist. Hence why religious people think heaven is so great, but if you're immortal you'd get used to it and want to die eventually. Infinity0 talk 16:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Random question: Ultramarine, how do you account for the empirical fact that capitalism has met with more opposition than any other economic system in history? Feudalism never had to fight a cold war with an anti-feudal system that controlled 1/3 of the world's population, nor were there any anti-feudal social movements that got anywhere near the popularity and strength of anti-capitalist movements. The same applies to pre-feudal systems. If capitalism causes happiness, why are so many people unhappy with it? As a utilitarian, you cannot simply dismiss the wishes and happiness of people who happen to be anti-capitalists, especially if they form a large percentage of a country's population (as it happened at certain times during the 20th century). -- Nikodemos 09:29, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't be ridiculous. There were constant rebellions against the feudal system although they are usually boring slaughters of peasants so they are not usually mentioned in the history books. Regarding the "ant-feudal" Communist states it was they who killed most people in democide during the last century. And as noted in the study, the longer people were under Communist rule, they unhappier they are.Ultramarine 09:35, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Ultramarine, I think you missed my point (what do Communist states have to do with it?). Of course there was opposition to feudalism, but it never achieved the popularity nor the power that has been achieved by opponents of capitalism. In terms of sheer success, if nothing else, anti-capitalism has been far stronger than anti-feudalism. Why? -- Nikodemos 09:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Again, do not be ridiculous. Under feudalism the rulers had to live in fortified keeps in order to protect themselves against protests and rebellions. Anti-capitalism is a minor movements although the activists may have delusions of grandeur. Most people in capitalist nations support the system. Ultramarine 09:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Ultramarine, they lived in fortified keeps to protect themselves from each other. You don't need stone walls to keep out peasants with pitchforks. Septentrionalis 18:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Most people hate their jobs and their bosses. So much so that it's become a common stereotype of work in general. :| -- infinity 0 18:37, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Most people in any stable system support the system. Indeed, the overwhelming majority needs to support a system in order for it to be stable. If 51% of people in capitalist nations opposed capitalism, then capitalism would fall by the end of this year. The same holds for totalitarian systems too, by the way. All stability is founded on popular consensus - just ask any sociologist. Going back to feudalism, however, rulers had to live in fortified keeps to protect themselves from each other. Rebellions weren't that common. Oh, and if anti-capitalism is a minor movement, why exactly do you spend so much time trying to fight it? -- Nikodemos 09:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Have a look at Congo Free State. Are you arguing that most people there supported the system? Ultramarine 09:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The Congo Free State was an instance of state capitalism, of course... Septentrionalis 18:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Very well, I will grant you that exceptions can exist in cases of immense disparity in knowledge and technology between rulers and ruled. But you haven't answered my question. If anti-capitalism is a minor movement, why exactly do you spend so much time trying to fight it? -- Nikodemos 09:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I've noticed that every discussion that Ultramarine joins, suddently becomes a battlezone. You try to hard to fight something that can't be stopped, change is unstopable. How many times has human society completely transformed? And each time there were those to try to stop it, who just had to adapt to the new world. Don't worry Ultramarine, we will welcome you. When socialism comes you will be amongst comrades, and then when communism arrives there will be brothers by your side. You are not the enemy, you're not the 2% that has oppressed us for so long, who's cruelty cannot be described in mere words. You're just a brainwashed minion of the bourgeoisie. Tragic, really tragic. But the gallows and firing squads wont be for you. (Demigod Ron 23:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC))

Removed content moved here
One critic of capitalism is the New York Times best selling author Ravi Batra. His thesis is that growing mal-distribution of wealth engenders financial speculative mania that can only end in a crash and a drawn-out depression. However, his predictions for such an outcome in 1990 have not been realised. His mentor, the Indian spiritual teacher P.R. Sarkar, held that economic and psychic exploitation was intrinsic to capitalism as a large section of a non-motivated population, the working class, as well as the classes of intellectuals and military people fall prey to a class of motivated acquisitors. This social dynamic results in growing inequality and hinders the development of personality and abilities of a underclass of poor and undereducated. His solution was Progressive Utilisation Theory.

Suggestion/Request for Permission
I think it needs to be made clear at the beginning of the article that capitalism is not synonymous with free markets. mutualism, for example is a free-market anti-capitalist system, and so were Proudhon's idea's based on free market transactions without the state protected monopolies of land ownership, banking, etc...

I will make this change myself if nobody objects. Colorless Green Ideas 06:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Go ahead. :) -- infinity 0 17:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Awesome, thanks, I'll do it this week. You guys are much easier to get along with than those conservatives/"libertarians". Colorless Green Ideas 04:18, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I would sugget putting this in the "Capitalism" article where the definition(s) are discussed.Ultramarine 08:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed. But the main paragraph(s) explaining mutualism and why it is anti-capitalist should probably be put here, as it is a criticism. -- infinity  0  13:54, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not even going to add anything really, just rearrange some stuff. If you guys don't like it, just revert it. Colorless Green Ideas 05:57, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Paragraph on Austrian-Economics
Under the "Capitalism and the alleged Free Market" section there is a sentence that finishes the first paragraph, and whole paragraph (the third) that basically summarize the Austrian School of Economics position on "free markets". I believe these arguments represent that school of thought fairly accurately, however, I see no need for them to be here in this article under a section that criticizes that view of "the Free Market". I there is no objection, I would like to delete them. At the very least, I would just replace them with a link to the actual page for that school of thought.(See excerpts below)


 * However, many believe that decreases in wage rates are the result of the same thing as deflation in any other market: the price of labour falls due to either a lower demand for labour or a larger supply thereof.


 * However, some economists, such as Bank of Sweden Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman as well as those of the Austrian School, oppose intervention into free markets. They argue that government should limit its involvement in economies to protecting freedom rather than diminishing it for the sake of remedying "market failure."....

I think there is adequate representation of this POV all over the Wikipedia, and it does not belong here.

A criticisms page must contain responses to those criticisms, as per WP:NPOV. -- infinity  0  21:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * oh, weird. how about responses to the criticisms or the cricisms? ;) At the very least then, must we include the image of Milton Friedman's text "Capitalsm and Freedom"? Colorless Green Ideas 22:11, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Heh, good points. I cut the content from Capitalism which included the picture - but I agree, more anti-capitalist pictures and pics relevant to the criticisms are needed. -- infinity  0  22:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Chomsky
I'm a little surprised that an article on criticisms of capitalism makes no mention of the writings of Noam Chomsky. Whether one agrees with him or not, he's certainly weighed in on the subject, and I think is an entirely relevant source. -- Yossarian  20:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. See the first few sections of this talk page on why this article is a piece of crap at the moment. Feel free to add whatever you like. :) -- infinity  0  20:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree. Chomsky is a linguist. Merely having an opinion about capitalism is not sufficient to include his politically biased views on the matter. Everyone has an opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrdarklight (talk • contribs) 09:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. Chomsky is not merely a linguist, he is one of the most well known critics of modern capitalism. His list of books alone is testament to this. Not to make a personal attack, but it's almost laughable that someone would think otherwise. Njfuller (talk) 22:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Distribution of wealth
Is the distribution of wealth honestly to be taken as a serious objection to the capitalism after Karl Marx? Since Marx's work on the effective extortion of value from the proletariat by capital has rather clearly been diffused, how can one maintain that unequal distribution of wealth is a legitimate complaint? By general rule, in market economies people make what their labor is worth; it is positively absurd to call for the redistribution of wealth from an entrepreneuer who works for the betterment of a nation's economic strength to an entry-level wage-employee who offers no special skills by which he might differentiate himself from others and thereby market his own unique labor-value as productive contributor. 71.76.136.149 18:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Interesting analysis, but I'm sure that Marx would agree when I say "that's a bourgeois analysis." (Demigod Ron 23:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC))

In the 4th paragraph of the Excessive inequality section resides a statement that seems misleading to me. "Defenders respond that since 30.1% of the individuals on the Forbes list of the 400 richest did not inherit great wealth (meaning they did not inherit at least $1 million in assets)." The statistics in the Forbes article indicate that this should be changed to read, "Defenders respond that since 44% of the individuals on the Forbes list of the 400 richest did not inherit great wealth (meaning they did not inherit more than $1 million in assets)." Please let me know if there are any objections to this. --Mehfridge 19:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

POV fork
Many of the well-referenced arguments in defence of capitalism has been deleted without explanation:

Democracy
"Defenders of capitalism note the democratization of Germany, Italy, and Japan after WWII.

Defenders of capitalism alos argue that the strong economic growth during capitalism may encourage democratisation, or vice versa. There were very few democracies before the industrial revolution and the rapid economic growth that followed it. There is debate about whether liberal democracy, in the sense of electoral rights and civil liberties, is a consequence of economic growth, a cause of it, or completely unrelated to it. These studies tend to indicate that establishing the rule of law in protecting private property and free markets, rather than mere democratization, is what is most instrumental in generating economic growth.

One of the very few studies simultaneously examining the relationship among economic freedom (see below), economic development (measured with GDP/capita), and political freedom (measured with the Freedom House index) found that high economic freedom increases GDP/capita and a high GDP/capita increases economic freedom. A high GDP/capita also increases political freedom but political freedom did not increase GDP/capita. There was no direct relationship either way between economic freedom and political freedom if keeping GDP/capita constant. It should be emphasized, however, that GDP/capita does little to indicate the amount of poverty in a nation if the Gini coefficient, which measures distribution of income, is not taken into account. Countries with the lowest Gini coefficients tend to be social democracies that do not operate on laissez-faire capitalist principles, like the Netherlands. On the other hand, studies show that increasing growth is essential for reducing poverty. If the economic development of a nation is low enough, there is simply very little to share even if there is equality."

Economic freedom


Defenders of capitalism often point to Indices of Economic Freedom that are used in economic research. The publishers are right-wing, business-orientated and funded think tanks. One index is released by the Heritage Foundation and Wall Street Journal, the other by the Fraser Institute. Both attempt to measure of the degree of economic freedom in countries, mostly in regard to rule of law, lack of governmental intervention, private property rights, and free trade. The Index of Economic Freedom defines "economic freedom" as "the absence of government coercion or constraint on the production, distribution, or consumption of goods and services beyond the extent necessary for citizens to protect and maintain liberty itself." (This is otherwise known as laissez-faire).

They use statistics from independent organizations like the United Nations to score countries in various categories like the size of government, degree of taxes, security of property rights, degree of free trade and size of market regulations. Many peer-reviewed papers have been published using this material on the relationship between capitalism and for example poverty, mostly by researchers independent from the think tanks. The Fraser Institute argues that more advanced capitalist countries have much higher average income per person, higher income of the poorest 10%, higher life-expectancy, higher literacy, lower infant mortality, higher access to water sources and less corruption. The share of income in percent going to the poorest 10% is the same for both more and less capitalistic countries. Other studies have shown similar results.

Attempts to decide the importance of the subcomponents of the indices have often yielded contradictory results. Strong property rights may be important - the economist Hernando de Soto has argued that weak property rights, especially for the poor, play a major role in poverty and underdevelopment in developing countries. Many developing countries are now trying to strengthen and simplify their property rights system after the successful application of his ideas in Peru. Others have emphasized the importance of a functioning credit system, especially microcredit.Ultramarine 18:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Inequality
Some advocates of capitalism may partly agree with the critics but think that the problem can be resolved with solutions like progressive taxation, wealth tax, and inheritance tax. They note that such taxes are already implemented in modern mixed economies. The best extent of such taxes and how much inequality there should be is much discussed and researched, but these variables can be changed without abandoning capitalism. The American Historian David Hackett Fisher, in his 1996 book The Great Wave argues that some characteristics of society commonly blamed on capitalism may in fact be the indirect result of decades-long inflation.

Other points of view on capitalism's unequal wealth distribution include:
 * Pro-Capitalist:
 * Robert Nozick has argued that no condition of perfect equality could be maintained for very long. If all agents possess the same amount of wealth, they will immediately begin investing it in different ventures which will pay off to varying degrees. But if voluntary economic exchange is seen as leaving both parties (since both would not be trading unless the outcome of the trade was mutually beneficial), even if the resulting distribution is not even, it is better than if there were no trading.
 * Lack of established property rights force the poor to operate in extralegal markets, keeping them from unlocking the capital in their assets. When only the politically privileged can leverage capital, the division between formally and informally owned property is an unbalancing barrier to the benefits of a modern market economy.
 * Wealth tends to be directed toward individuals in proportion to how productive they are in terms of creating and providing goods and services that others value, therefore the possibility of becoming wealthier than others can be seen as an incentive to benefit society. A limit on freedom of individuals to reap a disproportionate amount of wealth would dampen incentive. Technological progress would stagnate, and, as a result, the standard of living would suffer.
 * The inequality of consumption is far less than the inequality in wealth, since there is no way most of the wealthy could consume all their wealth. To the extent that they consume their wealth, they are redistributing it to others. To the extent that they are not consuming it, they are generally either managing it to create more wealth or giving it away.
 * Many rich give significantly to charity (see also philanthropist). Some argue that charity is more efficient than state welfare.
 * The economist Thomas Sowell has attributed factors such as geography, climate, culture, and natural resources as contributing factors to inequality inside of and between nations.
 * The income share of the poorest 10% do not decrease with higher economic freedom but the absolute income of the 10% poorest, prosperity, economic growth, democracy, and freedom from corruption increase, see Economic freedom index.
 * Anti-Capitalist:
 * The capitalists gather their wealth by exploiting the workers. A worker is not paid the entire produce of his labor, as the employer retains a portion as profit. Profiting in this way tends to further enrich those with capital while not significantly enhancing the material well-being of workers. This perpetuates concentration of wealth in the hands of a few.
 * Wealth and unequal distribution can create social problems (such as higher crime rates). These problems affect both poor and rich.
 * Government interference in markets can be skewed to benefit the wealthy. In particular, wealthy people have the financial means and incentives to influence or corrupt government officials and to lobby for favourable legislation.
 * Many people have little wealth left over after living expenses, so they can't make it grow quickly. This further deepens the disparity between rich and poor.
 * Persistent long-term inequality of wealth undermines the motivation of the poor to improve their stance. This creates not only direct but perpetual sociological inequity.
 * Wealthy people save relatively more than poor people. Hence some economists believe that an unequal distribution of wealth undermines an economy's mass buying power, effectively leading to lower aggregate sales, reduced wealth production, unemployment and crises. (see Keynes) Economists, however, argue that saving is also necessary in an economy, since it provides the means for investment into new technologies and processes.
 * Wealth is defined and judged incorrectly, in many different ways. In particular, people may attach value to things for seemingly irrational reasons (sentimental value). Some may also value spiritual development more than material wealth. Capitalism's focus on absolute monetary value thus undermines the legitimacy of alternate paradigms.
 * The wealthy may not put their wealth to productive use. For example, they may buy land just to deny access to it to others, for personal or environmental reasons. Other critics of capitalism, however, would ask whether or not capitalistic production narrowly-defined is a good thing, especially if it is seen as damaging the environment, and such an action of denial may be seen as the lesser of two evils.

Page title
Ultramarine, cf. criticisms of communism, criticisms of socialism.

I do however understand your indignation at deletion of counterarguments. However, a balance is needed. You have inserted way too much - could you condense the stuff down? The page is REALLY bloated atm. -- infinity  0  19:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I will see what I can do. If anything the critics have too much room. Much of the Marxist criticism are better explained in other articles. Marx and Engels make almost not attempt to describe their future society, so almost all Marxist theory is about capitalism. So it seems unnecessary to duplicate that here. Generally there are often very little references from both sides. Ultramarine 21:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Too Many Counter-Counter-Arguments
If you compare it with "critiques of Socialism" it could not be more different. Here at least half the space or more is spent trying to refute the criticism of capitalism, even the ones that are obviously true. The socialist counter-arguments on the socialism page are barely noticeable. All the Fraser Institute rubbish needs to be cut down significantly here, to somewhat equalise it with the other page.


 * Let's not get into the mindset of "the socialist article is crap, so the capitalist article should be crap too". I haven't had a look at that article so what you said might be true, but that just means that counter-arguments should be included there too. -- infinity  0  22:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

No, i think it rather means to say that the criticisms of capitalism have not been given proper breathing space without tendentious and disruptive editing from the other side, which is true. Each article entails priorities- here it should be the best possible criticisms of capitalism, it's been contravened, in part, by interventions aimed at sidetracking the main purpose of the article. BernardL 02:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that there is too many counter-arugements, and it needs to be tone down. I thought I was reading the criticisms of Socialism again. Its unfair. -unregistered user

Catholic Position
Unfortunately, the teachings of the Catholic Church may be getting construed by writers such as Michael Novak to justify the immoral practices usually associated with capitalism. The Church's actual position may help reveal the other options available than just those presented in the article. JBogdan 00:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I sent this to the person who removed the Catholic position because he thought it was not the Catholic position:
 * You removed the following:
 * The Catholic position on capitalism is explained in Pope Leo XIII's encyclical Rerum Novarum. The encyclical explains how Capital and Labor can work together for the benefit of all parties involved rather than through class strife. It is the employer's duty to pay a just wage that can adequately support a decent life for the worker. It is the worker's duty to work faithfully and to respect the property of the employer. "The market" does not justify any immoral conduct on the part of the employer.
 * This is the official stand of the Catholic Church. I added it because "Catholic" authors are writing contrary to Catholic teaching while claiming to be "traditional." The encyclical is on the Vatican's website. You can reach it here. JBogdan 02:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I replaced the Catholic position section with a broad religions section. Other religions exist, they also have views on capitlaism, therefore they should be included. 72.139.119.165 00:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Evidence of Egregious POV Pushing
Using the MS Word count tool I have come up with the following figures for this article.
 * Total number of words: 6679
 * words devoted to criticism of capitalism: 3749
 * words devoted to defence of capitalism: 2930

This means that approximately 44% of the article is dedicated to defences against criticisms. It's difficult to arrive at an article that accurately outlines the criticisms that are prevalent and academically significant if Ultramarine is constantly intervening to push his pov. May as well name it "Responses of defenders of Capitalism to perceived criticism" or "Apologetics of capitalism" BernardL 14:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * NPOV requires the inclusion of all the views of all sides, not the unopposed arguments from one side. You are removing some of the few referenced arguements in this article. Start removing all the unreferenced speculations and personal opionons first.Ultramarine 15:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * In my view, the first-order purpose of this article is to identify and articulate popular and academically significant criticisms of capitalism in an encyclopedaic manner (including NPOV). It's not an article about debating capitalism by way of a point-counterpoint procedure. Your own actions discourage this first order purpose because you stalk this page, filtering, softening and copyediting any critiques submitted to push your pov, and then inserting long non-concise and often irrelevant counter-critiques. There may be a place for counter-critiques, but they should be kept concise. The provision of references to counter-critique, rather than long meandering explication, is an effective but under-used device. It is an exaggeration that the criticisms are completely lacking in references. It is true that there is considerable criticism here that was submitted without references. For my part I have always provided references to any claims. These sections you mention without references need to be progressively replaced with sourced criticism, cogently and concisely articulated. Nevertheless, the existence of unsourced sections does not justify your insertion of long meandering counter-critiques that misdirect the article from its purpose. Your constant intervention seems to me less oriented towards constructing an illuminating article focussed on those criticisms that do exist than undermining the entire exercise, and especially discouraging editors from attempting the task. Besides, many of your arguments are bogus, being based on bogus assumptions and/or non-sequitirs. One could proffer counter-counter critiques (proclaiming NPOV!) to your bogus arguments, but this would require inserting many more words into the article, undermining its attractiveness and cogency. BernardL 16:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You have selectvely blanked large parts of the article. Sorry, but NPOV requires equal weight to both sides. In this article, or we can create an article called Arguments for capitalism. Simply deleting sourced information you do not like is not acceptable. If you continue with your blanking, I will move all the factual arguments for capitalism to a separate article and delete all unsourced text from this article. Is that what you want? Also, your ad hominem is unacceptable.Ultramarine 20:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * If you want to create an article called Arguments for capitalism go ahead and do it. That pretty much summarizes what your real intentions are anyway. Also you may have noticed that a considerable part of what I deleted was exactly  unsourced argument from both sides. The article is now more streamlined and readable- a basis on which to build an article that genuinely represents an attempt to encapsulate prevalent and/or signifcant academic critcisms of capitalism. BernardL 20:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Follow Verifiability and provide sources for all claims.Ultramarine 20:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Although it may be coming about as part of a revert war of sorts, I'd have to say I wholeheartedly endorse the mass blanking of large portions of this page that are unsourced, among both the critiques and counter-critiques. It badly needs to be rewritten from a smaller start, with more careful referencing. --Delirium 21:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * More careful citations are needed. I propose that we rename the article to "Arguments for and against capitalism" since the current name is used as an excuse for creating a POV fork and excluding opposing views. Not allowed by NPOV. Objections? Ultramarine 22:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Ultramarine, this is slightly hypocritical of you. You created Criticisms of Marxism which atm has next to NO defences of Marxism. If anything, you're the one who's gone off and created a POV fork. -- infinity  0  18:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * All the criticisms there are sourced, unlike those here were. There are also many counter-argument there, although many are not sourced. I added many mayself which seemed logical, even if there were no sources for these counter-arguments. If there is any missing, add more.Ultramarine 18:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Ultramarine, I vehemently insist on using a common standard for all articles dealing with criticisms and counter-criticisms of political or economic ideologies and movements. What this means is that whatever standards you wish to apply to this article must also be applied to such articles as Criticisms of Marxism and Criticisms of communist states. If you rename this article to arguments for and against, you must rename those others too. I would, however, dislike the renaming, for the simple reason that the resulting article names would be extremely and unnecessarily long.

On another note, I have no problem with dedicating an equal amount of space to criticisms and counter-criticisms. I just wish this was the case on those other criticism articles as well. I do, however, strictly oppose the creation of separate "arguments for" and "arguments against" articles. That is POV forking. -- Nikodemos 22:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Having just read the Capitalism wikipage, I came here to find criticisms. Instead I find a hotch-potch collection of criticisms and countering defences. Checking in on this talk page I find an ideological battleground with a supporter of capitalism using a specious NPOV argument to defend their destructive intervention.
 * I disagree with Nikodemos as it is impossible within the current limits of Wikipedia to enforce a common standard to criticism articles without a decision at the highest policy level. We can only argue the case locally. The way I see it this page is one of a set on the subject 'Capitalism'.The arguments for capitalism are to be found in the main article. This article should be just what the cover says, the one that covers the criticisms of capitalism.
 * Ultramarine says "NPOV requires the inclusion of all the views of all sides, not the unopposed arguments from one side." Given the title of the page NPOV is maintained by given space to all levels of criticism, and by the language used to describe (not advocate) the criticisms. Ultramarine and any other defenders will be best served by improving the main page and not trying to undermine the development of a coherent 'criticisms page' MichaelW 21:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's Content forking says that: ''There is no consensus whether a "Criticism of .... " article is always a POV fork. At least the "Criticism of ... " article should contain rebuttals if available''. As for Criticisms of Marxism and Criticisms of communist states articles, Marxism and Communist regimes are much more heavily criticized than capitalism. Their proponents are fringe minority while (regulated) capitalism is almost universally accepted system. These articles need to reflect that fact in order to be present NPOV. -- Vision Thing -- 21:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Another attempt to make this a POV fork
Yet again there is an attempt to violate NPOV and make this a POV fork by eliminating every counter-argument and only have a long list of mostly unsourced criticisms. See this massive deletion of the arguments of one side: I thus suggest that this article should be moved to "Arguments for and against capitalism".Ultramarine
 * No. We cannot have one article, then change its content and subsequently complain about that the title does not fit anymore. You misinterprete Wikipedia's NPOV policy. It does not mean that every argument needs a counter-argument. It means that arguments should be presented in a neutral manner. Arguments for capitalism do not belong under Critiscism of capitalism. At all. --Nyp 11:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Please read NPOV. The views of both sides must be presented."The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions. As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. It is a point of view that is neutral – that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject."Ultramarine 11:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Also read Content forking: "A POV fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. Both content forks and POV forks are undesirable on Wikipedia, as they avoid consensus building and violate one of our most important policies." "There is no consensus whether a "Criticism of .... " article is always a POV fork. At least the "Criticism of ... " article should contain rebuttals if available, and the original article should contain a summary of the "Criticism of ... " article."Ultramarine 11:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * But a rebuttal surely needs be a bit more than the poorly supported arguments that you present. You note the lack of sourcing for the criticisms, but offer counterarguments of your own construction, backed up not by academic/neutral studies, but by the writings of capitalist cheerleaders and promoters. We all understand the NPOV argument - that is about approach and language not content. The only valid point you raise is that ""Criticism of ... " articles should contain rebuttals if available." But what does "...if available" mean. I don't think it means you treating the page as an ongoing barroom debate about the pros and cons of your favourite world system. I think it means finding published rebuttals of particular criticisms.
 * There is no attempt to make a POV fork, 'criticisms of' is an expanded sub section of the main article. As I said before, if you want to support NPOV then concentrate on improving the main (pro) capitalism article. Invalidate the criticisms by improving the basic description of the workings of capitalism: invalidate the criticisms before they can be made, not after. MichaelW 21:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I have no problem deleting everything unsourced, including of course both sides. Obviously both sides should be presented fairly in Wikipedia. What you seem to be describing is to make this a POV fork which is explicitly forbidden. Again, "A POV fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. Both content forks and POV forks are undesirable on Wikipedia, as they avoid consensus building and violate one of our most important policies."Ultramarine 21:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * You can repeat the POV quote as often as you choose, but it will not make your perception of what is going on here any more correct. If we were to put the contents of this article back into the main article, as a section labelled Criticisms of Capitalism, then we would clearly have no fork, but we would have a section too large for the main article. If Capitalism works like the other pages I've watched then the overlarge section would be extracted, made a separate page and a summation included in the article. Nothing to do with avoiding NPOV or forking. Those arguments are no more than weapons of your ideological attack.


 * I was not suggesting we delete all unsourced material - I was drawing attention to your inconsistency. Better is to find suitable citations for each statement. Note this though - criticisms of capitalism do not have to be rigorously argued. The article can be a list of criticisms and their contexts. The rebuttals need be much more grounded or the page becomes an ideological arena.


 * You are the one making it an issue of "sides". Your desire for an article "Arguments for and against capitalism" reveals your agenda which is - to argue, not to help create the best Criticisms of Capitalism that we can. "Arguments for and against capitalism" is not the title of a Wiki article, it's the banner on a blog. Although some disapprove of the use of discussion pages that way, I see them as the place to thrash out ideological arguments, which is what you seem to be interested in. You are far more concerned with defending capitalism than improving Wikipedia. MichaelW 02:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Obviously this article has to follow NPOV, Verifiability, and No original research as all other articles. I find your double standard extremely strange, arguing that there should be less requirements for criticisms than for the other side. The purpose of Wikipedia is not the criticise capitalism or become a propaganda piece for one side; it is to present arguments for and against this and other subjects in a neutral way. "Arguments for and against capitalism" would be a better title to avoid misunderstanding by those who have not read Content forking. Do you want an article called Arguments for capitalism that would have a similar double standard as the one you argue for and would have a long list of unsourced advantages of capitalism? Finally, spare my your ad hominem.Ultramarine 02:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It isn't double standards, it's the difference between description and ideological argument. The issue here isn't arguments for or against, it's a description of capitalism, which includes, our current concern, a description of criticisms made of it. The policy says "...rebuttals, if available..." That to me means specific rebuttals, not out of the air arguments, i.,e. in answer to the statement "Mr X criticised capitalism for its tendency to blah blah..." a rebuttal would something like "Ms Y pointed out that the tendency to blah blah was actually caused by..." In other words the requirement of criticisms is that someone significant made them, and that they are not already taken into account by the main article. A rebuttal - a word with a narrower meaning than argument against - needs be specific. Otherwise why the statement "...if available..."
 * And spare me your cop out "spare my your ad hominem". It is you who have made an issue out of this and it is your perceptions I am questioning. MichaelW 08:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Please state what Wikipedia policies you are citing that allow unverfiably orignal research or only arguments from one side. Again, Wikipedia is not a a propaganda piece for one side. Again, do you want an article called Arguments for capitalism that would have a similar double standard as the one you argue for and would have a long list of unsourced advantages of capitalism? Regarding ad hominem, that is your attempt, I have not attacked you as a person.Ultramarine 10:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Please read what I last posted and tell me where I called for unverfiable orignal research. I haven't. I haven't attacked you as a person either. I have questioned your motives for pursuing this line. What is the main article if not "Arguments for capitalism". What seems to be going on here is that you are not willing to allow any balance to the main article in the form of a criticisms section, are not contributing rebuttals except of your own construction and are then quoting irrelevant Wikipolicy statements when challenged. What do you think about my understanding of "...rebuttal..if available..." Do you disagree and if so how? MichaelW 13:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Questioning motives instead of using factual arguments is ad hominem. The typical tactic by those lacking such. The main wikipedia capitalism article includes both arguments for and against and follows NPOV, having both sections with criticisms and arguments for. Your interpretation is that there should be a double standard for criticisms vs. arguments for. Not allowed by NPOV. All sides must be treated equally and follow NPOV, Verifiability, and No original research. Again, do you want an article called Arguments for capitalism that would have a similar double standard as the one you argue for?Ultramarine 13:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Fact: there is an article called Capitalism which has a section entitled "Critics of capitalism: - Main article: Criticisms of capitalism, Anti-capitalism". This says then that our current focus is a sub article of the Capitalism page, in which I would expect to find criticisms of capitalism, not defences. NPOV is covered by the whole set. The NPOV is mainly covered by correct use of language and constant improvement by maximising citations. The arguments for capitalism includes all the theoretical components of the main page. The double standard is maintained by you who would keep criticisms to a particular section and sub article and then attempt with terrier like tenacity to worry each example to death. Now what about your understanding of "...rebuttal..if available...". MichaelW 15:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The rebuttal section is clear; in order to avoid being a POV fork, which is an article dodging NPOV, the arguments from both sides must be presented. There is also an section called "Proponents of capitalism" in the capitalism article. So should we not also have a separate subarticle called Arguments for capitalism using the same strange rules that you argue for this article?Ultramarine 15:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * <-I'm going back over there<--<---
 * Go ahead, create it then. The reason it hasn't been previously created is that it is superfluous, the main article containing everything you would want to put in it. Meantime will you please stop attributing me with views I don't hold. This whole article needs tightening up reference and citationwise, and if rebuttals for particular criticisms exist they should be quoted, but the article primarily should be what it says, a cataloguing of criticisms which have been levelled at capitalism. Your understanding of NPOV means every description of a criticism should be matched by a description  of its counterpoint, yet the key factor in NPOV is being "neutral – that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject". Your whole contribution here is in opposition to the subject. If I write "Thomas Jefferson considered wage earners sores on the body politic" this is NPOV, it isn't necessary to write "but Thomas Paine believed they should be recompensed for their lack of property". The encyclopedic entry is what Thomas J thought, not that and an ideological counterbalance. It's concerned with descriptions of viewpoints, not interminable political arguments, which is what you damn this page to with your take on NPOV. MichaelW 21:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Having one article for arguments for capitalism and one for arguments against seems redundant, specially if both of them will include rebuttals. -- Vision Thing -- 21:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree. MichaelW|MichaelW, you misunderstand NPOV. See what NPOV states: A POV fork is an attempt to evade NPOV guidelines by creating a new article about a certain subject that is already treated in an article, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. This is generally considered unacceptable. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major Points of View on a certain subject are treated in one article. As noted in Content forking, some think that all "Criticisms..." articles are inherently POV-forks due to the name and should thus be forbidden, exactly because of misunderstandings similar to yours; if these titles are allowed, then both sides should be presented in these articles. Regarding citations they apply equally to both sides, everything unverifiable through reliable sources can be removed.Ultramarine 22:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know where you got the idea that the main article is "Arguments for capitalism". -- Vision Thing -- 20:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't know I had that idea, so really couldn't say I got it anywhere - I said the main article contained the arguments for... MichaelW 21:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You said "What is the main article if not "Arguments for capitalism"." -- Vision Thing -- 21:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * So I did, but that was hours ago - I've changed, honest I have, I won't do it again. I stand by what I've said in the last couple of posts. I think Ultramarine is defending his desire to counter any criticism which is put up, to the detriment of the article's coherence. MichaelW 03:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Much of the entry reads like a defence of capitalism. Not dissimilar to e.g. the entry for Anti-Zionism, actually. (Don't mind me, I have a flair for the obvious.) 221.157.74.88 11:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

A few pagefuls above, someone wrote: "Having just read the Capitalism wikipage, I came here to find criticisms. Instead I find a hotch-potch collection of criticisms and countering defences. Checking in on this talk page I find an ideological battleground with a supporter of capitalism using a specious NPOV argument to defend their destructive intervention." .....  Ditto! The whole "NPOV" thing is stupid; this is the CRITIQUE OF CAPITALISM page, not the "Critique (and critique of critique) of capitalism" page. Alan2012 20:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Spelling
Can someone please edit the title - I can't see how - and correct the spelling CRITICISM not CRITISCISM although maybe that should be CRITISCHISM...MichaelW 20:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I provisionally moved the page to "critique of capitalism", because "criticism of capitalism" is taken. However, I believe that a page on "critique of capitalism" is actually more interesting than one on "criticism to capitalism", which could even be left as a redirect to "anti-capitalism". "Critique of capitalism" is a critical evaluation of the achievements and failures of capitalism, with for and against arguments having in principle equal weight, as long as they are referenced. Objections? Massimamanno 09:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Added section and unreferenced text
I added a relevant criticism point. I also added a couple of "citation needed", and also added an unreferenced sentence myself, namely "point out that there seems to be no viable alernative or intermediate economic system to capitalism or state controlled economy [citation needed]" because otherwise the previous rebuttal "Defenders of capitalism note the many[citation needed] environmental disasters in communist states" made no sense to me. Criticism of communism should have no big place here: most enviromentalists are not communists and do not ask for a completely state controlled economy. To clarify, supposing that completely free trade and liberal capitalism is "bad" and supposing that completely state controlled economy and communism is also "bad" it does not necessarily follow that a partly free, partly state controlled system is bad also. At least according to my understanding of logic. Massimamanno 11:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

How can communism be a derivative of Marxism?
Small-c communism predates Marxism. Moreover, the second sentence of that paragraph has little or nothing to do with the first. Jacob Haller 00:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Ban Ultramarine from repeated POV editing this page
Look at User:Ultramarine's edit history. Blatant POV warrior. Has repeatedly blanked portions of this page, then works the wikipedia system by selectively appealing to rules.

I don't know what "official wikipedia policy" is. But common sense says this guy is a fanatic. Isn't there some way to get a user banned? Otherwise Mr. Fanatic who does 40 edits every single day for months, (for years even!) basically owns this page. 67.58.254.68 02:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * One of the reasons why I think you are right, but of which you may not be aware is that in the last several weeks edit wars involving Ultramarine have resulted in long term blocks of three other articles: Allegations of United States Terrorism, The Propaganda Model, and Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation. There could be more for all I know. He is truly a fanatic.BernardL 00:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I second that. But, when us left editors edit war with him, WP's right wing comes down strong and we end up getting sanctioned or put in the hot spot instead. At least this is what I've seen happening so far. The key is to bring this issue to the ANI board and bring it to admins attention. I think with editors such as himself, that edit war (combined with POV pushing), that a 1 revert patrol or topical article ban is indicated.Giovanni33 20:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree that his "edits" are not constructive. They're merely POV hit and runs, and it looks like he spends zero effort trying to actually improve the article. For every addition, he's there to intersperse some random (and often vague) pro-capitalist argument. Citations don't seem to be a priority, and his edits just make the article an incoherent, cluttered mess. I don't know if I endorse an all-out ban, he's entitled to his POV, but he needs to start putting more effort into edits. As it stands, it just looks lazy. Njfuller (talk) 20:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Inequality Critiques
I'm not sure if I know enough about it, but as far as to add authority to critiques of inequality, wouldn't some addition of Rawlsian Justice help? Peter Stalin (talk) 23:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, critiques from a Rawlsian perspective on the subject are certainly notable. Personally I think the whole she-bang is in need of a re-write.BernardL (talk) 04:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Is it fair to criticize capitalism for inequality, though? What system has achieved "equality"? And "equality" of what? Why criticize capitalism for failing to achieve what every other "economic system" has also failed to achieve? In other words, why don't we also criticize capitalism for failing to achieve immortality? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrdarklight (talk • contribs) 09:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Very clumsy and hard to read
I just read this entry and it is way too clumsy in its structure. Although the pro-capitalist arguments aren't out of place(even though they somehow take up nearly half the space on an article titled "Critiques of capitalism"), it seems like the organization could be better. Rather than having the pro-capitalist arguments interspersed throughout each section, it would be more readable if the counter arguments had their own seperate paragraphs. As it stands, it looks like somebody just went through and added a rebuttal to each sentence. Njfuller (talk) 20:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, so I've been going through and fixing the page up a bit -- basically just making it easier to read and adding info in areas I have some familiarity with. In particular, I'm trying to change the confontational tone of the article. Critics are referred to as "they" (as in *those* people) and pro-capitalists are referred to as "defenders of capitalism" (as if they're members of the White Guard). I'm also changing the structure, and may de-emphasize some of the pro-capitalist arguments (some are a bit redundant and often out-word the actual subject matter). Njfuller (talk) 22:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll be going through the first couple sections sometime tomorrow and adding references. They're also based on basic books by Proudhon or Marx so it shouldn't be too difficult finding the sources. Njfuller (talk) 06:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with your thoughts. This article could use some significant NPOV'ing, but more so restructuring. Indeed, a total reorganization and re-write according to a coherent plan for an encyclopedic article is something we should think about.Giovanni33 (talk) 06:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

"150 years since Marx's prediction"
This is in response to Ultramarine's claim: "Defenders of capitalism point out that it is now more than 150 years since Marx's predictions and capitalism is still existing."

First of all, it's a loaded statement. Who's to say 150 years is a long time? Last time I checked, human civilizations have been around for ~8000 years. 150 years is, what... 1% of the history of civilization? Capitalism is very young indeed. Secondly, this is a very general statement, with a very narrow outlook -- historical fact has refuted it on many occassions. See for example: German Revolution of 1919, which took it's lead from the Russian Revolution; for that case, the Russian Revolution, which many sources argue was (at least for the first several years of existence) "proletarian in nature"; or the Spanish Civil War, which had an influential revolutionary element; or the Revolutions of 1848, which had strong working class elements (e.g. Paris Commune); or May 1968 in France, which saw 6 million workers go out on strike and toss out the gov't; or the Polish Solidarity movement; or the Iranian Revolution. Basically, capitalism has been under attack since its inception. It's narrow-minded to include such a vague and loaded statement. Njfuller (talk) 20:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Communist Manifesto and Germany
I'm writing this is response to Ultramarine who insists on including a reference to the line in the Communist Manifesto: "the bourgeois revolution in Germany will be but the prelude to an immediately following proletarian revolution." Ultramarine uses this to push the line: "Marx and Engels made such a prediction more than 150 years ago."

I should add that I didn't delete the reference, but changed it to read:

"'While the Communist Manifesto (1848) was primarily a tool for political agitation, proponents of capitalism point out that Marx and Engel's stated that 'the bourgeois revolution in Germany will be but the prelude to an immediately following proletarian revolution.' They highlight the fact that this has yet to occur (despite the European revolutions of 1848 and the German revolution of 1919).'"

The reference to the revolutions was removed by Ultramarine and then Vision Thing.

Anyone who's actually read the Communist Manifesto recognizes that it was primarily used for politically agitating. Taken out of context, the line looks like a "prediction"; but in actuality was just agitation.

Also, Marx was reflecting on a new proletarian identity sweeping Europe at the time. The European revolutionary wave of 1848 was decidedly capitalist in nature, but there were important working class elements in it. Not only that, Germany did in fact have a revolution (i.e. the German revolution in 1919) involving mass working class upheaval. Just because a revolution fails to succeed, doesn't mean it's not a revolution.

Ultramarine's argument is very tenuous, and obviously doesn't wish to engage with history. I'd like to take the statement out altogether, as it doesn't actually involve the subject matter (Profit and exploitation) and the article is already cluttered with enough point-counterpoints. But if Ultra insists on putting it in, there should at least be this caveat. I'm not changing it back today, only because I don't wish to engage in edit warring (WP:3RR), but I hope history can speak for itself. Njfuller (talk) 22:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You are applying double standards. Here are you saying Communist Manifesto was primarily used for politically agitating and than we shouldn't use it as a source, and at the same time in the article you are using it as a source for claims against capitalism. On another note, when adding references you must add page numbers or they are useless otherwise. -- Vision Thing -- 08:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I never said not to use it as a source. I'll take note of the page number point. To be fair, I've been mostly linking to works on marxist.org. I'm not really sure how to link to a certain sentence or paragraph, but I try to get the chapters in question. Njfuller (talk) 15:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I have read the Manifesto. It gives a brief presentation of their thoughts at that time. Certainly not just a collection of empty slogans for a political campaign. Marx and Engel's gave many specific predictions. In later works they were much more careful to not do so. Probably because they were proven wrong quite quickly. The statement is an section called "POSITION OF THE COMMUNISTS IN RELATION TO THE VARIOUS EXISTING OPPOSITION PARTIES" at the end of the Manifesto. Some of their final words. The full statement was "The Communists turn their attention chiefly to Germany, because that country is on the eve of a bourgeois revolution that is bound to be carried out under more advanced conditions of European civilization and with a much more developed proletariat than that of England was in the seventeenth, and France in the eighteenth century, and because the bourgeois revolution in Germany will be but the prelude to an immediately following proletarian revolution." It is absolutely clear that Marx here thought that a successful major revolution would occur shortly or the very latest sometime in the nineteenth century.Ultramarine (talk) 08:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Feel free to discuss the reasons you are taking out the reference to the revolutions. I see, it's an issue of timing for you. As I mentioned earlier there were working class rebellions in 1848. And the revolution in 1919 was a couple years late, so what? These two instances (the revolutions of 1848 and the German Revolution) totally debunk your theory. It's honestly just not a good argument.


 * I'd insist that if you keep the "150 years and still waiting" argument in, that the two revolutions be included for the sake of completeness. It's just misleading otherwise. Njfuller (talk) 14:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I did not include the 150 years so no reason to include these two revolutions.Ultramarine (talk) 17:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Would you agree to delete the reference then? I see no reason to include it, other than to push a narrow-minded POV. When I began editing last week, the ENTIRE market instability section read:
 * "Various critics have argued that capitalism contains contradictions that will lead to its end in the future. Marx and Engels made such a prediction more than 150 years ago. Today it is sometimes argued that a large credit bubble threatens capitalism, at least in the US."
 * The first two sentences were a blatant straw man. And as I've shown, history doesn't really bear it out. Njfuller (talk) 20:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I have another objection. Its OR for an editor here to pull something out of the Manifesto, interpret what they think it means, and what qualifies and does not qualify as full filling what they think as a prediction, and then put their own argument in the article. We editors are not allowed to do this. If you have a good source that makes this line of argument, then it would be allowed. Other editors can then properly weight such an analysis with other views/interpretations.Giovanni33 (talk) 16:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Such a very strict argumentation would eliminate most the criticisms from the article.Ultramarine (talk) 17:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but unlike the other additions, this particular argument, I believe, is flawed, and stands out of OR. Hence, an easy resolution to this particular dispute is to see what good sources say on the issue. Also, yes, other contentious claims should be likewise referenced, if and when challenged. So your defense is not a valid one.Giovanni33 (talk) 00:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That's true, but in the spirit of trying to make the article better, we should be supplying references. I have been consciously doing so. Njfuller (talk) 20:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The source for much of the unsourced editorializing of the "capitalist proponents claim" vein is Ultramarine. All such instances amount to OR editorializing and should be removed. For instance, he made similar claims in the Marxism section where he wrote, "Pro-capitalists point out that it is now more than 150 years since Marx's predictions and capitalism is still existing," without references.BernardL (talk) 04:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Planned obsolescence and waste
I'd like to change the "Planned obsolescence and waste" section to "Inefficiency and waste". Any objections? Njfuller (talk) 02:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No objections here. It is a good idea. "Planned obsolescence" can probably be considered (in part) a specific instance of the phenomenom of waste/inefficiency in capitalism, and can be covered in the section. BernardL (talk) 03:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

General note regarding sources
If citing entire books, then page numbers must be provided to make the source verifiable.Ultramarine (talk) 06:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Qualifying statements with peacock terms
I think it would be good practice to abide by Wikipedia's policy on peacock terms. Most of the current article is editorializing (which can hopefully get cleaned up), and isn't conducive to making the page encyclopedic. Also a reminder that the page is to discuss "Criticisms of Capitalism", not to engage in an edit war over the merits of capitalism. There's already a page for capitalism... it's called capitalism. It might be a good idea to take a look at that page, as it's actually very thorough; dealing with the subject in an organized manner (i.e. every sentence or paragraph isn't followed by a rebuttal) while also maintaining even-handedness. Njfuller (talk) 21:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * POV forks are not allowed. Arguments must be presented from both sides.Ultramarine (talk) 22:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, citing entire books or just linking to an entire website like http://www.nader.org/ is not verifiable. Page numbers and exact webpages please.Ultramarine (talk) 22:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I was only discussing the fact that the article shouldn't be confrontational, there is a way to present both sides without making it read like the Russian Civil War. I took note of the page number issue when Vision mentioned it (see above). And Ralph Nader is an outspoken critic of market failures. Njfuller (talk) 23:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I doubt that Nader rejects capitalism as a system and sees market failures that cannot be fixed at all. But you need to link to specific articles by him for specific claims.Ultramarine (talk) 23:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The page is titled "Criticisms of capitalism", not rejections of capitalism. Njfuller (talk) 23:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Still, you need to be more specific with specific articles for specific pages. Otherwise I can just link to for example mises.org for every pro-capitalist argument in the article. They have probably written something on everything somewhere.Ultramarine (talk) 23:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Will do. Njfuller (talk) 00:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Seeing as I posted this to fix up the article, and not to engage in nit-picky arguments, what do you, Ultramarine, think we should do with the article? Njfuller (talk) 00:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Improving it obviously. Personally I would prefer less Marxist arguments. They are based on faulty theory. No need to repeat other Wikipedia articles. Marxists write very little of what they want instead of capitalism. So most Marxist articles are actually already about criticisms of capitalism. There are many of them already.Ultramarine (talk) 00:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess I'd say that whether you agree with it or not, Marxism has had a large influence on capitalist critique (both in theory and practice). It was one of the original criticisms of capitalism, and a large portion of later movements were derivative. I'd argue that Marx is still very important to understanding capitalism. At the same time, I agree that it'd be better to have a wider base of criticisms, for example in liberal critiques, anarchism, and anti-consumerism. But I don't think that necessarily involves de-emphasizing Marx. Njfuller (talk) 05:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. Marx is a giant on whose shoulders others stand; his influence, direct and indirect, remains unrivaled. I agree we should not limit it to Marx, but one can not have too much Marx on the subject in this article. In other words as long as the other thinkers and ideologies are covered there is no such thing as undue weight for Marx. That would be like saying talking too much about Darwinism in a biology article about Evolutionary Theory, would be undue weight.:)Giovanni33 (talk) 20:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Employment/unemployment
This section needs some work. Take the following comment for example:

"Since individuals typically earn their incomes from working for companies whose requirements are constantly changing, it is quite possible that at any given time not all members of a country's potential work force will be able to find an employer that needs their labor."

I think the word "labor" should be replaced by "skills", as the former implies the person is unable to find work at all, when the reality may be that they simply can't find work that suits their tastes.

Also, the article continues:

"This would be less problematic in an economy in which such individuals had unlimited access to resources such as land in order to provide for themselves, but when the ownership of the bulk of its productive capacity resides in relatively few hands, most individuals will be dependent on employment for their economic well-being."

What's the name of this mystery economy where everyone has unlimited free access to the land? Even non-capitalist countries must preserve land for future growth, and to ensure the environment does not come to too much harm. As an example, take North Korea. The countryside and hills have been stripped of vegetation, which is the reason for their severe floods. If someone has a working example that they wish to compare capitalism to, then fine, but its unfair to compare it to some kind of fairytale or unrealistic utopia. 92.10.182.222 (talk) 15:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

"Some critics"
I've made edits to the Communism page which were deleted by an editor, simply because I used the words "Some Critics". I was told that this isn't acceptable language to use on Wikipedia, and I must name sources or important figures who actually say these things. So I've just been browsing this article and found the same thing over and over again on the page. If someone would like to add sources to the article, then please do so. If it hasn't improved in a few weeks, I propose every reference to "some critics" be completely removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.8.123.76 (talk) 17:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Errors
"Criticisms arose shortly after the birth of modern capitalism. While some modern economists argue that real income rose during the early industrial revolution, rapid industrialization created working conditions in Europe that people at the time viewed as unfair; including 14-hour work days, child labor, and shanty towns. Popular novels arose during this time that took a pessimistic view of the industrial revolution, such as some written by Charles Dickens. These novels described social evils in urban centers and agrarian upheaval following Inclosure Acts. Some early socialist thinkers rejected capitalism altogether, attempting to create socialist communities free of the perceived injustices of early capitalism. Among these "utopian socialists" were Charles Fourier and Robert Owen. Other socialist thinkers saw promise in the industrial revolution, viewing it as a system that could potentially produce enough goods for the entire human population but which was hampered by its inefficient method of distributing goods. In 1848, Karl Marx and Frederick Engels released the Communist Manifesto, a pamphlet that outlined a political and economic critique of capitalism based on the philiosophy of historical materialism. Their manifesto has since become one of the most influential books ever written. A contemporary of Marx, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon was the first to use the term anarchism to describe a society free of government and private property in which human relations would be based on free production and consumption by workers."


 * Fiction novels are not evidence for how conditions were. Not reliable sources. "Other socialist thinkers saw promise in the industrial revolution, viewing it as a system that could potentially produce enough goods for the entire human population but which was hampered by its inefficient method of distributing goods." That applies to "Utopian socialists" also. They were not arguing for recreating some older society. The difference is that Marx did not think that socialism could be created before the right time so he did not try to create socialist communities. "A contemporary of Marx, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon was the first to use the term anarchism to describe a society free of government and private property in which human relations would be based on free production and consumption by workers." Proudhon was not the first to use the term anarchism. "to describe a society free of government and private property in which human relations would be based on free production and consumption by workers." That applies to all forms of socialism. Not only anarchism.Ultramarine (talk) 08:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The Communist states should also certainly be mentioned. Their whole existence was built on opposition to capitalism. Finally, labor unions, rising living standards, and widening of the franchise were some of the trends that socialism tried to understand.Ultramarine (talk) 08:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * This discussion truly shows your lack of understanding on the matter. It also highlights your agenda to push a very narrow-minded POV. It appears you want to minimize all other discussion on this matter other than to portray all critics of capitalism as "socialist" (a dirty word in your book). What does it mean to call Proudhon a "socialist anarchist"? That's ridiculous! Proudhon's contribution was to describe mutualism, a form of communism distinct from that of Marx and Engels. The nuance is real... He also did coin the term anarchism. My desrcription of Marx and Engels finding promise in the industrial revolution was also correct. Your edit just muddied the thought by throwing in some dogmatic, inconcise garbage. And no, utopian socialists rejected most of the basis of the industrial revolution and headed off to the countryside to avoid the cities. Marx and Engels were wishing to take hold of the existing system to better distribute its goods.


 * But none of this matters. What matters is that you wish to take a fairly clear historical account and to twist it so that its either: a) incomprehensible, b) shallow, or c) nonexistent. In your mind all that matters was the Cold War. Whether or not a Cold Warrior believes it or not, the Soviet Union was not the only game in town. Please stop. Uwmad (talk) 14:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * New Harmony, Indiana was certainly not some idyllic medieval country village. Source for that the so called "utopian socialists" rejected industrialization. See the anarchism article for the origin of the word. You ignored my other points.Ultramarine (talk) 14:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Proudhon was the first to described himself as an anarchist, see the anarchism article for the origin of the word. Not sure what other points I missed? Oh, Charles Dickens --- see Hard Times. YOU ignored my other points, basically how you're trying to derail this article. As this action especially, but also past actions, have shown. I'm going to look into arbitration if this persists. Uwmad (talk) 14:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * As the anarchism article clearly states, Proudhon was not the first to use the term which your version states. Fiction novels are not evidence for how conditions were. Not reliable sources. "Other socialist thinkers saw promise in the industrial revolution, viewing it as a system that could potentially produce enough goods for the entire human population but which was hampered by its inefficient method of distributing goods." That applies to "Utopian socialists" also. They were not arguing for recreating some older society. New Harmony, Indiana was certainly not some idyllic medieval country village. Source for that the so called "utopian socialists" rejected industrialization. The difference was that Marx did not think that socialism could be created before the right time so he did not try to create socialist communities. "to describe a society free of government and private property in which human relations would be based on free production and consumption by workers." That applies to all forms of socialism. Not only anarchism/mutualism. Finally, labor unions, rising living standards, and widening of the franchise were some of the trends that socialism tried to understand. Lenin discussed labor unions and widening franchise, for example. Bernstein the possibility of reform through elections.Ultramarine (talk) 14:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Charles Dickens not a reliable source?!? To claim that Charles Dickens was not critical of the industrial revolution is nonsense, any kid reading Oliver Twist can see that it certainly isn't a fairy tale. There should probably be an entire paragraph on the social novel, but you would likley not agree with this because MAINSTREAM CRITICISMS of capitalism and/or any attempt to make this article not just about the Soviet Union would clearly not appease your protest warrior mentality.
 * Again, Proudhon WAS the first to describe himself as an anarchist. Sure, the term "anarchism" wasn't invented by Proudhon, but he was the first to identify with it as the political identity that we now associate with anarchism. There's no dispute here -- any historian can attest to this. Proudhon's theory of mutualism (summed up succinctly in my orginial post) was distinct from socialism described by Marx (drawn from a thorough history of anarchism in the 1910 Brittanica, here). Proudhon was interested in human relations and the interations (on a micro level) of workers, Marx was interested in changing the macro social order. Your attempt to confuse the two is seen by me as an attempt to muddy the waters (i.e. lump it all into the monolithic Soviet Union).
 * Yes, utopian socialists rejected the outcomes of the industrial revolution. I would agree that the original description could be broader, there were certainly tendencies that rejected industrialism altogether (e.g. Charles Fourier) as well as tendencies that tweaked industrialism to alleviate human harm (e.g. Robert Owen). They were, however, NOT the same as Marxism. The utopian socialists were interested in dropping out of industrialism altogether and creating their own communities, Marxism dealt with transforming the distribution of goods under industrialism. Once again, "Soviet muddying".
 * Lenin interested in the "expanding franchise"? The franchise wasn't granted to women until AFTER the Bolshevik revoution (1918)... Not exactly sure what you mean by Lenin and Bernstein trying to "understand rising living standards"... They wouldn't be trying to change the system if they were content with the way things were going. I can't think of a work by either of them that addresses this.
 * Your hostility to this article is noted. Unless this article was deleted or made to be about the evils of the Soviet Union, I don't feel like you would be content. Uwmad (talk) 16:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Charles Dickens may have a personal opinion and can be mentioned as such. His fiction is however not evidence for how conditions in fact were. Owen certainly advocated and used new technologies. He had nothing against industrialization. Only how it was organized. I have not claimed that "utopian socialism" is Marxism. Where did you get that idea? Marx in contrast to the "utopian socialists" argued that the historical conditions must be right. Capitalism must make conditions bad enough for the workers so that they organize and start a revolution etc. Pointless to try socialist communities before this. Spare me the ad hominem. Conditions in Communist states should not be discussed here but they should at least be mentioned since they existed due to capitalist criticisms.Ultramarine (talk) 16:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * During the time of Marx the franchise was often restricted to those with property. When most of the males got the franchise this certainly changed conditions which thinkers like Bernstein understood.Ultramarine (talk) 16:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Other editors comment. I have plenty of ideas for expanding this article and making it into something that is encyclopedic and readable, but I'm done for now. Having Ultramarine on this page is like making John R. Bolton the ambassador to the UN. Good luck derailing. Uwmad (talk) 17:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Best is if sources would be cited for claims. I point to for example Lenin's "What is to be done" and "The State and the Revolution" where he certainly discusses the new trends such as spreading labor unions and democratic participation by socialists.Ultramarine (talk) 17:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I have always added sources in the past and was planning on doing so for this section. In any case, I'm finished with the headache of this page. I've started a discussion on Wikiquette alerts to see what other editors and administrators feel about this issue. Uwmad (talk) 20:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Wrong place for a content dispute.Ultramarine (talk) 20:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted for Uwmad's version as I find it more coherent in both content and flow to the subject matter. The additions that Ultramarine is adding to counter each point makes it hard to follow, and choppy. Material that is relevant and addresses different points should have its own section.Giovanni33 (talk) 01:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Material if factually incorrect. See arguments above.Ultramarine (talk) 09:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Why does Arguments for and against capitalism revert here?
It looks as though Ultramarine had moved this page to Arguments for and against capitalism. This was against the wishes of editors at the time (16 January 2007). Seeing as this page is not "arguments for and against capitalism" but "criticisms of capitalism", do I have permission to remove the redirect? Uwmad (talk) 03:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect where? Also see POV forks. So an article only having criticisms without counter-arguments is not allowed.Ultramarine (talk) 11:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Not sure that this qualifies as a POV fork. It's obvious you've discussed this issue ad nauseam with other editors (the majority of whom disagreed with you). After reading WP:CFORK, it was your push to create an Arguments for capitalism page that was POV-forking. Also note that you created a Criticisms of Marxism page.... so your making the fork argument is tendentious at best. I think that article is very informative though, and I wouldn't want every "Criticism of..." page deleted. I just wish you'd give this page the same courtesy you give pages that you create. Under no circumstances should this page be a laundry list of "capitalist evils". It should, however, go in depth on the history of capitalist criticism. Your adding counter-arguments to every sentence is not balance, does not make for a readable page, does not allow a constructive environment, and is not in the spirit of WP:CFORK. Uwmad (talk) 14:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The "Criticisms of Marxism" article has counter-arguments. Please add more if there are some missing. WP:CFORK prohibits articles only listing arguments from one side. So counter-arguments should be included if there are any. There are two ways we could organize this. One is to present an argument and then counter-argument if there are any. Or we could have a longer section presenting arguments from one side. Then a section for arguments from the other side. Either way is fine with me. Note also that Wikipedia already have an article about the History of socialism so no need to repeat the general history about the socialist movement not mentioning criticisms of capitalism in this article.Ultramarine (talk) 22:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course there are ONLY two options. It's not: "Here are two options that I can think of" or "Here are two options that I find suitable, do YOU have any other ideas?" Dictating options to other editors is not a discussion. Please consult WP:OWN. Uwmad (talk) 00:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If you have some further suggestions, then please state them.Ultramarine (talk) 01:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I have some of my own ideas (not "further suggestions", as if yours are primary). I think the page should be distilled down quite a bit. It's already bloated. I think there are too many section headings and there is likely a better way to organize the page. I think it should be made clear that the page is not meant to be a laundry list of capitalist injustices, but a sober discussion of popular criticisms (this includes Marxist and non-Marxist criticisms). I think your rebuttals should be scaled back substantially -- this is not "Arguments for and against capitalism" any more than the page you created was "Arguments for an against Marxism". People interested in a thorough mertis of capitalism can go to the appropriate page. In this sense, I think the redirect should be removed and the page should be retitled "Criticisms of capitalism" (as the current "Critique" of capitalism makes it sound stuffy). Uwmad (talk) 01:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks like trying to avoid WP:CFORK by only including some minimal counter-arguments. Not allowed. Both sides should be presented fairly. Regarding, "People interested in a thorough mertis of capitalism can go to the appropriate page.", what page? The main capitalism page must also follow WP:CFORK. Are you arguing for a page called "Arguments for capitalism"? Ultramarine (talk) 02:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Didn't see this here, added after the fact. I'm not advocating avoiding WP:CFORK. I'm saying that the article in its entirety (and your counterarguments in particular) are bloated. The article doesn't read well, I'd venture to say that it's unreadable. What's needed is an emphasis away from "Arguments for capitalism" and a focus on the subject matter "Criticisms of capitalism". You may have the last word. Uwmad (talk) 05:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * And no, I don't plan on adding counter-arguments to every point on the "Criticisms of Marxism" page -- there's already a page called Marxism. People going to Criticisms of Marxism are looking for precisely that, not some incomprehensible ideological battleground. Also, there was never any attempt to add an exhaustive "History of socialism" on this page. I added three paragraphs that gave a very general overview of Marxism, utopian socialism, anarchism, the social novel, government interventionism, and anti-globalization. There are many different types of capitalist criticism, but you have focused only on socialism (which you obviously have very strong feelings about). For someone who claims this article is overloaded with Marxism,, you seem very eager to play up Sovietism while deleting any reference to non-socialist criticisms. Uwmad (talk) 01:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The Communist states who based their history on the criticism of capitalism should be briefly mentioned in such an overview. Greenpeace are not rejecting capitalism. On the other hand, please explain why you deleted the sourced counter-argument "Others argue that the conditions were even worse earlier and that empirical evidence shows that even the early industrial revolution increased average living standards and life expectancy."?Ultramarine (talk) 01:32, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I never deleted that source. I actually read the entire article, it's very interesting. All I did was incorporate the two sentences into one sentence, while removing the word "Regardless" which downplayed the next sentence. Greenpeace targets corporations as well as governments, particularly around global warming. Uwmad (talk) 01:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You removed the arguments the conditions were worse earlier and that life expectancy and living standards had increased according to empirical evidence. Instead you stated as a fact that "rapid industrialization created working conditions in Europe that people at the time viewed as unfair; including 14-hour work days, child labor, and shanty towns." False. Long working days and child labor existed long before the industrialization. Greenpeace does not criticize capitalism as a system to be replaced with something else. Also capitalist libertarians or conservatives often criticize individual corporations. Some of the worst user of fossil fuels were the Communist states. One can argue for reform regarding global warming without rejecting capitalism.Ultramarine (talk) 01:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * OK.... back to your modus operandi -- hammer the other editors with loaded arguments until they wear down and concede -- to think there was a fleeting moment where some progress might be made (or where, God forbid, we might come to some agreement on the direction of the page). But ok, I'll play along for now. My original edit stated: "Rapid industrialization following the industrial revolution created working conditions in Europe that many viewed as unfair..." The "many" became lost in the flurry of following edits, it also should have read "some", I apologize. In any case, it's true that people worked long hours in the field and that children worked on the farm. So what? The sentence states that people viewed the industrial situation as qualitatively different and, in particular, viewed it as unfair. Do you like the semantics? Because I find them exceedingly irritating and also find it hard to believe you fundamentally misread the spirit of that sentence. But even if that weren't the case, Charles Dickens isn't a reliable source and Frederick Engels doesn't count (according to your standards). So it's a moot point, right? Anyways, you hold up this standard of "empiricism" (typically the Cato Institute and/or Heritage Foundation) in the sources you cite. The standard of living source is actually a discussion of both sides of the argument, with both sides presenting contradictory Empirical evidence (shouldn't "empirical" be capitalized and bolded?) in an attempt to define standard of living. You'll have to quote mine a different source -- or just stick with the Cato Institute or Heritage Foundation for real empiricism. Also, you violate WP:AWT by writing your sentence and then following it with "Regardless..." such as you did in this edit:
 * Others argue that the conditions were even worse earlier and that empirical evidence shows that even the early industrial revolution increased average living standards and life expectancy.Standard of living source Regardless, some early socialist thinkers rejected capitalism altogether, attempting to create socialist communities free of the perceived injustices of early capitalism.
 * The "regardless..." looks like an attempt to devalue the following sentence and convince the reader of your position. Just something to be conscious of. Uwmad (talk) 03:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Spare me the many ad hominems and concentrate on factual arguments. "Contemporary pessimists argue that for at least some part of the industrial revolution the happiness and well-being of the lower classes was not rising much, if at all.""So careful economic research has narrowed the debate. Whether one is an optimist or pessimist today depends on whether one believes that the sustained rise in real wages began in the 1820s or the 1840s. Virtually all participants agree that growth was slow at best before 1820 and rapid after 1840." No one is arguing that conditions worsened. Dickens wrote fiction but can and is be mentioned as a notable personal opinion. "Regardless" should be removed.Ultramarine (talk) 03:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I addressed the ad hominem concern on your talk page. However, you're running circles again. In your previous post you wrote:
 * "You removed the arguments the conditions were worse earlier and that life expectancy and living standards had increased according to empirical evidence. Instead you stated as a fact that 'rapid industrialization created working conditions in Europe that people at the time viewed as unfair; including 14-hour work days, child labor, and shanty towns.' False. Long working days and child labor existed long before the industrialization.
 * I addressed that. Now you want to debate me on the fact of whether or not I said that pessimists were arguing that conditions were getting worse. I did not, I said that they viewed it as unfair, please read my previous post. Uwmad (talk) 04:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I have not denied that many people viewed and view the conditions as unfair.Ultramarine (talk) 04:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

(The following moved here from my talk page.Ultramarine (talk) 03:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC))No ad hominem, I'm simply commenting on your editing style for Criticisms of capitalism page and letting you know that I find your conduct very condescending and tendentious. Calling you a Cold Warrior was out of line, and please allow me to apologize for that. Aside from that, I've always stayed on factual topics and generally debated the talk page as much as you wanted (typically with very little results or any attempt at solving the issue). In particular, I'm concerned about WP:OWN, WP:TE, and WP:CIVIL. The only edits you make immediately follow mine, always with some condescending "npov" or "factually incorrect" in the tagline (WP:OWN and WP:CIVIL). You make no attempt to integrate your edits into others but just hammer some sentence in the center of a paragraph, typically worded in such a manner that it downplays the rest of the paragraph or implies that any other argument is stupid -- a prime example was your "regardless" edit (WP:TE). I assure you that I know quite a bit on the subject and do not wish to be made a fool of. Uwmad (talk) 03:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I have made no uncivil comment but you at least several borderline ones such as "OK.... back to your modus operandi -- hammer the other editors with loaded arguments until they wear down and concede". The problem with WP:OWN seems to be your insistance that this article should not follow WP:CFORK but almost only have arguments from one side. Please discuss using factual arguments. Then we can have a constructive debate and improve the article.Ultramarine (talk) 03:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The modus operandi comment was an observation on your conduct, not an ad hominem. I put my original post back on your talk page, I would appreciate you letting it stay there for the sake of transparency. Uwmad (talk) 04:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * At least borderline incivility. Please keep our discussion here. I will remove the above again if you reinsert it on my talk page.Ultramarine (talk) 04:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Why do you not want it on your talk page? Uwmad (talk) 04:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Why have a discussion in two places? Another incivil comment made by you "Your edit just muddied the thought by throwing in some dogmatic, inconcise garbage."Ultramarine (talk) 04:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Another: "This discussion truly shows your lack of understanding on the matter."Ultramarine (talk) 04:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Both of those were when I called you a Cold Warrior. I've apologized for that. With your invcivility, I'm looking at more systemic actions -- such as your treatment of newcomers, your condescending tag lines. Uwmad (talk) 04:23, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * ""OK.... back to your modus operandi -- hammer the other editors with loaded arguments until they wear down and concede" was not many hours ago. What condescending tag lines? Ultramarine (talk) 04:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I've already stated this, but 'npov' and 'factually incorrect' in the tagline implies that the previous editor did not know what they were talking about. Like I mentioned, the modus operandi comment was simply how I had come to view your conduct. I meant no offense by it, I was letting you know that I find your endless discussions tedious to the point of nearly driving me away. I'm just sitting at home on a Saturday night, watching TV and flipping around Wikipedia, so I have ample time to chat with you, but I normally don't have endless hours to argue whether Charles Fourier wholeheartedly rejected capitalism or how much he was interested in tweaking the system... to me that's tedious, and in the grand scheme of the article, nonconsequential. Uwmad (talk) 04:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, in that case you will feel offended quite often in Wikipedia since arguments that statements are POV or incorrect are not exactly uncommon. Checking facts and assuring that statements are correct is sometimes tedious. That is the nature of creating an accurate encyclopedia.Ultramarine (talk) 04:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand that, but this article is not about Charles Fourier or Robert Owen. As a general descriptor, I think it would be generally acceptable to throw them together and say that they "rejected industrialism". There are instances of general knowledge (such as Proudhon being the first to describe himself as an anarchist) that do not necessitate extensive fact checking, nor require a protracted discussion. Throwing these items on the talk page under the heading "ERRORS" is not civil. Uwmad (talk) 04:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * An encyclopedia should be accurate. Owen did not in fact reject industrialism. Describing "utopian socialist"s as rejecting industrialism gives an incorrect description of a whole branch of socialism. "General knowledge" is qiote often unreliable.Ultramarine (talk) 05:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You're right Owen himself was an industrialist. But you could have easily reworded it to "utopian socialists rejected aspects of the industrial order". Leaving it in, changing it slightly, and respecting the spirit of the addition would be a better way to handle it. Instead, it looks like you search out any uncrossed "t" or undotted "i" as an excuse to implement some Reign of Terror. Uwmad (talk) 05:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "Industrial order"? Rejected capitalism, not "industrial order", whatever that is.~ Your further incivility has been noted.Ultramarine (talk)
 * If talk pages like these are common, it's surprising that anything gets done on here. Hammering new people with a series of interspersed counter-arguments that disrespect that person's effort or moving entries to the talk page under the heading "ERRORS" is a good way to weed out mainstream people and polarize the editors. I think I'll move on to some benign engineering article for a while, not too much controversy/edit warring there (the people are a little friendlier too). Uwmad (talk) 05:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It would certainly be preferable if the discussion was about the article content using factual arguments. Which would be constructive and cause progress.Ultramarine (talk) 05:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

If I may have the last word -- I think it's interesting that I pointed out aspects of your editing style that I found frustrating; finding it notable that you never even acknowledged that any of those could be true. Instead you turned it into criticisms of me (which is okay... I freely admit that calling you a Cold Warrior was inappropriate, I further acknowledge that I got sarcastic at times). It's just that my concerns seem to have gone completely over your head. That isn't fair, and it makes it nearly impossible to work with you. I'm going to stop editing on Wikipedia for a while, and probably focus on engineering articles if I return. I hope that other editors join this page and hope they do not allow Ultramarine to bully them. Note that I've posted my concerns on NPOV noticeboard to get outside discussion. Uwmad (talk) 17:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

trying to solve the low level edit war over some sentences
I merged two of the sentences that appeared to be campatible and talk about the same --Enric Naval (talk) 05:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)