Talk:Criticism of capitalism/Archive 3

'''When the title of this article changed, the talk page seems to have reverted to an old one. Since most of the talk page items here are no longer relevant, should they be archived and or deleted? If so can someone do it? I tried to archive but failed.''' World Views (talk) 19:53, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, the archives are backward (older stuff is in #2). They should be swapped, then the stuff on this page should shoehorned into the appropriate one. Then we can start fresh. I don't dare touch it, for fear of breaking something. Consider this a Support. I'm happy to see the article was renamed though. And happy to find an editor who appears untainted by the most pervasive and insidious systemic bias of them all: capitalism. It's sad, how few and far between we are. Most editors have no idea how POV this place really is. They'd need to see it through our glasses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.218.107 (talk) 04:02, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

there should be some criticism available in this article, as a response, and for a more detailed argument, one can visit the other article. Surely there is room for a few paragraphs of criticism. Why bother to remove it?

There needs to be much more here, dealing with the increased human rights abuses which have almost always accompanied attempts to introduce free markets. Naomi Klein discusses this in depth in The Shock Doctrine (2007). This is a quite separate subject to that of general capitalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.30.240.208 (talk) 17:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

It is important that any person who wishs to understand the world we live in today can easily see that this is not the only political or economic theory, in the sense that it has flaws and many people are critical of it and that these critisims are valid. by no means should anyone give the impression that these theory and systems are some kind of magical, perfect system set up to benifit all of mankind. No individual and certainly no ideology should be above criticism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bacondrum (talk • contribs) 02:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I would advise to keep the section: first, each and every article dealing with political science or economic theory should include a criticism section in order to put forward ongoing debates; it's a matter of coherence and intellectual integrity; secondly, there can be specific critics related to "free market" rather than "capitalism" as a whole. --Khaolian (talk) 18:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

there should be criticism to all the political science concepts, as it is difficult to understand them with just definitions.please try to keep some criticism in all articles. Nag97 23:15,10 November 2008 [IST}

I agree, this is a highly debated and criticized concept in social sciences. It is important to have a criticisms section included in an article on this general topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beardedpig (talk • contribs) 17:01, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I also agree - there should be a criticism section under every topic. 98.223.123.120 (talk) 18:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC)CaffeineLawyer

strongly in favor of keeping an extensive Criticism section for this article. For such a central topic (and such a long WP entry) as well as controversial topic, clearly there should be an extensive Criticism section, with only those parts of the Criticism section which strongly overlap with criticisms of capitalism having a shortened length and pointer to "Criticisms of capitalism" --Harel (talk) 00:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC)