Talk:Anti-capitalism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Emerge?

I think this article should be merged with Criticisms of capitalism, due to many simularities in arguments. anyone else agree? Stevo D

[edit] Editing Conflict

Odd...I got a "conflict" message after editing this page which stated someone else had submitted a change while I was editing mine. Indeed, someone had submitted a change, but it is not listed at all in the "Page history" section. What's going on here? Who made this change? Could this be a bug?

'Marxism is the foundation of several different ideologies, including communism and certain types of socialism.' Is this really so? Does it make chronological sense? There was communism before Karl Marx, e.g. the commune of Paris. Well, I'm not totally sure about this, so I won't alter the main page. publunch

The Paris Commune didn't preceede Marx, but you're right that communism of some sort did. OTOH, Marxism was so influential on communism that it's not wrong to say that what most people mean by 'communism' was founded by Marx. So it's tricky to know a good way to rephrase this. VoluntarySlave 07:02, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Name

This page needs to be named appropriatly. Perhaps 'opponents to capitalism'?--Sansvoix 08:48, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree...anti-capitalism doesn't describe the article as aptly as Sansviox's suggestion. --Xiaphias 07:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the name's fine. Infinity0 talk 16:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Fascism?

What happened to fascism? Isn't fascism also anti-capitalist, at least to some point?

no, fascists are capitalists.~
I'm adding stuff about fascist opposition to capitalism; fascism is explicitly socialistic. LaszloWalrus 19:25, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
That fascism is socialistic is extremely POV. -- infinity0 20:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

That fascism is capitalist is extremely POV.

Not listing fascism here isn't even saying it's capitalist. It's just saying it's not anti-capitalist. Owen 20:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Fascism is anti-liberal, anti-democratic and anti-capitalist. It places nation and race before profit, and forces capitalist to respect national interest before their private. That contrasts traditional conception of capitalism: no independent decisions, no free market, etc. And there were fascist who were in many ways similiar to socialists: for example Ernst Rohm, Strasser brothers, national bolsheviks... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.131.252.127 (talk • contribs) 13:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be arguing that fascism is not capitalist, a point which is debatable. But you're not very well making the case that it is anti-capitalist. And it doesn't much matter even if a few fascists were anti-capitalist, because you could probably even more easily find some who weren't. No source has been provided to show that fascism as an ideology is broadly anti-capitalist. Sarge Baldy 07:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Please name a fascist that beleived in non-initiation of force and that all men (including Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals etc.) should be free to do as they wish including making money. Who are the people whom you could more easily find who were not anti-capitalist. There are no non anti-capitalist fascists. There are anti-capitalist fascists. So it is an anti-capitalist ideology. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.72.176.167 (talk • contribs) 18:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

You're arguing that fascism isn't capitalist, not that fascism is anti-capitalist. Sarge Baldy 17:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

No they beleived in initiation of force which makes them strictly anticapitalist. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.72.176.167 (talk • contribs) 03:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense. That would mean any system that is not pure libertarianism (the doctrine of "initiation of force" is fundamentally flawed, but that is anthother topic) is anti-capitalist. If it were true, then Ronald Regan, Yelstin Boris, and others are anti-capitalists. Utter nonsense. Fascists are against Lazziez-faire, but they are not "strict anti-capitalists." 72.139.119.165 01:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Ideologies are not people, Ronald Reagan (from an Objectivist standpoint) would be anti-capitalist in trying to stop abortions, however he was pro-capitalist on a lot more other things. Fascism is strictly anti-Capitalist because it beleives in initiation of force, it is an ideology though. And it depends on definitons are too, I am an Objectivist along with LazloWalrus, when Objectivists talk about capitalism we mean it in the Laissez Faire way. So to us Capitalism=Laissez Faire, anti-Capitalism=anti-Laissez Faire, you say Fascists are against Laissez Faire, so from our definition they are against Capitalism and strictly anti-Capitalist.

First, at least 99.9% of people are not objectivists. Second, capitalism is not only Laissez Faire, it includes any system were most of the means of production are privatly owned. 72.139.119.165 20:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] von Mises's criticism

I think we should keep the section von Mises's criticism; while it's not the best quotation from Mises attacking anti-capitalism, Mises is one of the most famous and influential twentieth centruy economists and defenders of capitalism. LaszloWalrus 03:43, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm in two minds here. The Mises article is breathtakingly silly; unfortunately, it's breathtaking silliness from someone who probably counts as a reliable and notable source. VoluntarySlave 06:22, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree. I put the section in. I didn't have time to read the article so just threw something together from a quick look at it, hoping someone would improve on it. RJII 07:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)



This is a question of nautrality. Are we to maintain the rules of nautrality given by the Wikipedia guidelines, or are we to turn this page into a haven of opinion? I say we play by the rules, we owe the readers this much.

The criticism section was ambiguious, poorly worded, and is based largely on individual speculation. The phrase "Anti-capitalism is a result of frustrated ambition..." is a phrase that sounds more like a defense mechanism than a critical analysis that carries logical merit. A phrase along the lines of "It is believed that Anti-capitalism fails to address the issue of [.....], and fails to take into account that [.....]," would be more appropriate, and therefore, it would eliminate the need for a reference to Von Mises, who explained little more than that people who oppose capitalism are "just jealous...". This is an encyclopedia, not a political opinion forum.

Until the criticism section is corrected to conform to neutrality and logic, I will continue to keep it off this article, I will also dispute the neutrality of the revisions if necessary. Again, we owe this to our readers.

-English Efternamn

I agree. This article needs a criticism section, but should probably contain actual arguments instead of simple mudslinging. I don't think what Mises had to say even qualifies as criticism, because criticism requires a degree of argumentation. This is simply an opinion or a commentary. If the section were called commentary, at least it would be in the right place. But I don't think simple commentary is particularly relevant here. Sarge Baldy 22:19, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
As it's said in introduction, this article lists ideologies opposed to capitalism and describes them briefly. Arguments against their criticisms are presented in "Criticisms of capitalism" article. Section "Critique of anti-capitalistic mentality" is entirely appropriate for this article. -- Vision Thing -- 09:29, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
The problem is that that particular quote doesn't provide any information about anti-capitalism itself; it is just Mises' speculations about the motiviations of the people who embrace it. Actual arguments for or against the reasoning of anti-capitalism belong in the article, certainly; personal attacks against anti-capitalists do not. --Aquillion 19:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Right. It's a pretty straightforward ad hominem. Sarge Baldy 19:21, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

If anyone has the Mises book, he could probably find quite a number of relevant quotations regarding anticapitalism. The particular one there was pointless out of context. LaszloWalrus 11:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ecofeminism?

I'm not going to remove anything, but does ecofeminism really belong alongside such important movements as socialism, fascism, anarchism, and Marxism? It's really not that important. LaszloWalrus 13:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Ecofeminism is not a minor movement, even if it is in contrast to some others listed here. But that only means that more political perspective needed to be added. It certainly belongs here more than fascism, which does not even cite a source claiming it is anti-capitalist, and is generally interpreted to be exactly the opposite. Sarge Baldy 22:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
The article says most notable; ecofeminism is not one of the most notable criticisms of capitalism by anyone's account. Might I suggest that it be replaced with the more general criticisms of environmentalism, of which it is a part? While not all environmentalists are critical of capitalism, and, like social democrats, those that are tend to focus their criticisms on more limited reforms, those do make up some of the more prominent criticisms being made today. --Aquillion 06:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, like you say, not all environmentalists are anti-capitalist. Perhaps there should be an entire section devoted to various environmentalist-based critiques of capitalism, from the moderate greens to the ecofems, deep ecologists and others. The Ungovernable Force 06:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, why are we saying "most notable" anyway? As it is, the ecofeminist perspective is important as one of several critical approaches advanced by environmentalists. That its criticisms of capitalism are currently alone in this article is a problem demanding further expansion, not the removal of existing content. Owen 06:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Judaism

Is it just me, or is the Judaism item a bit weird?

"Judaism has always had a tense relation to capitalism, notable in the number of secular Jews attracted to the socialist and communist movements."

This is much too short in itself, secularist Jews are hardly speaking on Judaism's take, not to speak of traditonal Jewish involvement in banking etc. Hence the tag, which should be understood more as a clean-up tag. Str1977 (smile back) 07:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Although there has been a large Jewish presence in anti-capitalist movements, this involvement has traditionally been a secular, ethnic group orientation rather than a religious one. The statement appears to confuse Jews as an ethnic group with Judaism as a religion. It's awkward at present how it lists a secular Jewish position under a list of religious attitudes towards capitalism. Owen 07:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Don't get me wrong. Even secular Jews might be influenced by tenets of Judaism. There is a anti-usury strain in Judaism (the same as in Christianity and Islam). So what the passage says is correct, but is a highly selective choice of reality. Str1977 (smile back) 13:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Right, but it needs to explain just what in Jewish teachings influences that perspective. Otherwise it's not clear how much of it is the result of ethnic values and how much is a result of religious teachings. Owen 18:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the Judaism section for two reasons: 1) it is uncited; 2) it conflates Jews qua ethnic group with Jews qua religious group; the fact that many secular people of Jewish background have been drawn to anti-capitalistic movements says nothing (except perhaps in a very tenuous way) about the influences of the religion of Judaism on anticapitalism. LaszloWalrus 19:06, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/n/t/Talk%7EAnti-capitalism_d12d.html"