Talk:Critique of capitalism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Media 2 First section needs clean up, badly 3 Ordering of sections 4 Random discussion about capitalism today 5 Removed content moved here 6 Suggestion/Request for Permission 7 Paragraph on Austrian-Economics 8 Chomsky 9 Distribution of wealth 10 POV fork 10.1 Democracy 10.2 Economic freedom 10.3 Inequality 11 Page title 11.1 Too Many Counter-Counter-Arguments 12 Catholic Position 12.1 Evidence of Egregious POV Pushing 13 Another attempt to make this a POV fork 14 Spelling 15 Added section and unreferenced text

[edit] Media

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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? [1] 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 [2], although some critics argue that more detailed variables measuring poverty should instead be studied [3].

• 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 [4]. Income inequality for the world as a whole is diminishing [5].

• Democracy has increased dramatically from almost no nation with universal suffrage in 1900 to 62.5% of all nations in 2000 [6].

• 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 [7].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. [8] 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. :| -- infinity0 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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. :) -- infinity0 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. -- infinity0 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)

[edit] 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. -- infinity0 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. -- infinity0 22:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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. :) -- infinity0 20:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] POV fork

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

[edit] 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[9], a cause of it,[10] or completely unrelated to it.[11] 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. ^[12]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.[13] If the economic development of a nation is low enough, there is simply very little to share even if there is equality."

[edit] 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" [14] 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.[15] 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.[16] Other studies have shown similar results.[17]

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 [18] [19]. Many developing countries are now trying to strengthen and simplify their property rights system after the successful application of his ideas in Peru [20]. Others have emphasized the importance of a functioning credit system, especially microcredit.Ultramarine 18:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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. -- infinity0 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)

[edit] 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. -- infinity0 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

[edit] Catholic Position

Unfortunately, the teachings of the Catholic Church may be getting construed by writers such as Michael Novak [21]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)

[edit] 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 Wikipedia: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. -- infinity0 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)

[edit] Another attempt to make this a POV fork

Yet again there is an attempt to violate Wikipedia: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: [22] 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia:NPOV, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia:NPOV, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)