Talk:Anti-capitalism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Merge?

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

I agree with this. I don't see the need for two articles, and the bullet-point style of this article is broken beyond repair as it is. Most of the information in this article is already better explained in the other article, also. --Ryan Delaney talk 18:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
I think this article should discuss anti-capitalism, i.e. the movement, and the other article should describe criticisms of capitalism. Jacob Haller 18:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Strongly agree with Jacob. This article should be about the movement(s) and their histories/ideologies/etc, other article about criticisms, which come from range of different movements. BobFromBrockley 11:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Thirded. Criticisms of capitalism and anti-capitalism are very different things. Jiminezwaldorf 04:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
In actuality, we do not need a "critique of capitalism" entry... that is not encylopediac, that needs to be on a blog. --65.1.255.207 02:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, and your mother too. -- ~Your Uncle Fred —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.196.146.15 (talk) 08:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[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)

You are right 99.9% of people are not objectivists. For the second, Then you could say socialism isn't antifascist.

[edit] March 2007

A lot of reliable sources say fascism is anti-capitalist. That there are leftists who wish to equate the two merely means that both points of view need to be included in the article, not that only the leftist viewpoint is included. Please stop edit-warring. -- TedFrank 23:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

There are NO sources that say that fascism is anti-capitalist. Capitalism is a market economy, supply and demand, with mostly private property. This existed under fascism. --Jfrascencio 07:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Leftists generally say that fascism is capitalist, and rightists generally say that fascism is socialist. Basically, everyone tries to associate fascism with the "other side". I wonder why. -- Nikodemos 07:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Facts are not on the side of those who say that fascism is anti-capitalist and it is only a minority who say this. I ask this question: how is fascism anti-capitalist? Laissez faire is dead as a concept. Take the U.S. for example. Is there any denying that it is a capitalist economy? Is there any denying that it is opposed to laissez faire with its regulation of the economy and government intervention? Laissez faire =/= capitalism! --Jfrascencio 08:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
The U.S. is capitalism and it is generally laissez-faire. What interventionist measure do exist in the US such as some minor protectionism such as subsidies to farmers, a welfare system, are to the credit of the fascist model. This idea that you have of capitalism being defined without regard to how liberal the market is is simply wrong. If the market is not liberalized then it's not capitalism. Billy Ego 17:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that "it is only a minority" who say fascism is anti-capitalist, but that is besides the point: you concede that there is a point of view that views fascism as anti-capitalist, and that point of view needs inclusion in the article. How is fascism anti-capitalist? Look it up: several sources meeting WP:A are cited. State control of the economy and wages, as Mussolini did in Italy, is anti-capitalist. Private property existed only at the will of the state. If you're defining "capitalism" as solely "market economy, supply and demand, with mostly private property," then virtually none of the entries in the article apply: how is "social democracy" "anti-capitalist" by that definition? -- TedFrank 13:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia defines capitalism as "Capitalism generally refers to an economic system in which the means of production are mostly privately[1] owned and operated for profit, and in which distribution, production and pricing of goods and services are determined in a largely free market." Note the aspect "free market." That is exactly what fascists were against. They were against economic liberalism. If the market is not free but controlled by the state to serve national interests then it's not capitalism. It is what's known as a "planned economy" or "dirigisme." Billy Ego 14:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

"Fascism being the extreme expression of middle-classism or populism...also may be described as the extreme expression of socialism...The basic ideology of the middle class is populism...their idea was an independent small property owning class consisting of merchants, mechanics, and farmers. This element is now designated as middle class, sponsored a system of private property, profit, and competition on an entirely different basis from that conceived by capitalism." David J. Sapos, The Role of the Middle Class in Social Development: Fascism, Populism, Communism, Socialism, in Economic Essays in Honour of Wesley Clair Mitchell (New York: Columbia University Press, 1935) Billy Ego 15:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems inappropriate to include fascism in this article since fascism is generally not concerned with economics, could be capitalist or anti-capitalist, and doesn't rate a major heading here. It may be useful to differentiate fascist anti-capitalism and fascist capitalism, then link to these from the appropriate topics. This would help to reduce the large number of WP:NPOV problem articles in this subject area to only a couple. Fascism could be associated with either capitalism or anti-capitalism depending on a person's notion of fascism, and a link would expose the pov without adding bias. -- DraftSmith 11:34, 3 May 2007 (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)

seems fair enough (RookZERO 20:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Social democracy

It doesn't make sense to say "Social democrats do not oppose the actual foundations of capitalism" in an article that's supposedly "lists ideologies opposed to capitalism." Which is it? Either the article is really about ideologies that are mildly critical of the "excesses" of capitalism, or the social democrats ought to be removed from the article.

[edit] Fascism and socialism

Most editors do not agree with this "Fascism is basically socialist" marginal POV. See the recent poll at: Talk:Nazism#Survey_-_in_opposition_to_the_move. Continuing to push this marginal POV on several pages could be considered tendentious editing.--Cberlet 03:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Fascism is basically socialist. Billy Ego 03:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Of course fascism isn't basically socialist. Believing that it is is extremely marginal in the scholarly community. Obviously, wikipedia should signal that there are some that hold this analysis, and reference that, using wikipedia to push the marginal view that it is is against basic wikipedia principles. BobFromBrockley 11:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I would say that the communists being sent off to death camps by the nazis is enough to say that facism is not socialist. To respond to those that say that Hitler and the lot stopped trade for the gays, jews, gypsies, communists, and the hole lot neglect Hitler's views on these people. He did not take their stores and wealth away from them because he thought they were doing bad with it. He did so because he thought they were less than him, or damaging his power. An anti-capitalist fights for trade regulations because they believe the capitalists to be doing things immoral. A fascist does so because they don't like the people. For those of you who think my argument is weak, I say it atleast beats Billy Ego's "argument" above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.189.133.20 (talk) 06:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd argue that just because two groups hate each other doesn't mean they aren't similar. During the Spanish Civil War, communists and anarchists fought each other despite that they were tentatively on the same side.
Socialists did not kill people because of their ethnic background, but they would decimate ethnic groups that they considered to be "capitalist sympathizers". Jews were not well treated in communist countries. --71.172.37.93 (talk) 22:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] POV tag

The page caricaturizes capitalism (that Christianity condemns usury does not mean that Christianity condemns capitalism; similarly Islam is consistent with capitalism) and does not neutrally state arguments for or against capitalism. There are several factual errors, too. -- TedFrank 02:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scope of article

Shouldn't this article also refer to: (a) the movement that is often called the "anti-capitalist movement", the "anti-globalization movement" or the "movement against global capital"; (b) what is called Kapitalismuskritik in Germany - the critique of capitalism (see http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,354733,00.html , http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/jun2005/germ-j17.shtml , http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,901050523-1061439,00.html ? BobFromBrockley 11:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Guerin reference/Pollock reference

There is only a reference to Guerin himself, not to some text that points out that other Marxist theorists share the view of Guerin. Therefore the text is weasily right now. I added Pollock to add some neutrality to this section, since Pollock apparently thinks the Soviet Union under Stalin wasn't anti-capitalist either. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Intangible2.0 23:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

All other sentences in that paragraph are supported by one specific author; if we were to apply your principles neutrally and universally, the paragraph would look like this:
According to Calvin B. Hoover, Fascism rejects laissez-faire capitalism and calls for some regulation of corporations and industry in order to serve the national or racial interest. Frank Bealey claims that fascists were particularly vocal in their opposition to finance capitalism, interest charging, and profiteering. Fascists, such as Adolph Hitler, claimed to uphold private property - including private property over productive capital and the means of production - but, according to Richard Allen Epstein, said that property was to be regulated to ensure that "benefit to the community precedes benefit to the individual." Peter Davies and Dereck Lynch argue that fascist movements have regarded themselves as representing a "third way" between Marxian socialism and capitalism. Marxist historian Daniel Guerin rejects this self-characterization, arguing that fascism is a form of government control instituted to protect capitalism during a period of crisis or revolution.
If that is what you wish, I will be happy to oblige, but I think the current version is better. As far as the Soviet Union is concerned, I still do not see the relevance of Pollock's view on Stalin to Guerin's view of fascism. -- Nikodemos 23:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't have so much trouble with the Guerin piece if the reference came from a peer reviewed journal, because then you could generalize somewhat. Guerin is claiming that the policy of fascist Italy was not anti-capitalist. Pollock is claiming that the policy of Stalinist Soviet Union was not anti-capitalist. See a connection? Intangible2.0 00:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I do, but it is a POV connection. Unless I am very much mistaken, you are trying to imply that Marxists are not a reliable source of information on what is or is not anti-capitalism because some Marxists have made claims which you believe to be outlandish - such as that the USSR was not anti-capitalist. Such a view would be biased twice; first, because it is trying to imply that Marxists are not to be trusted. Second, because it is based on the premise that the USSR was, in fact, anti-capitalist (which is a POV like any other, no matter how obvious it may seem to you). But perhaps I am completely off base and your connection is something else entirely.
Now, as to the peer-review objection, none of the other references come from journals as far as I can see. But I could always look up the "fascism" entry in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia if you wish. That is a peer-reviewed source (though you may not agree with the reviewers). -- Nikodemos 01:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Agree with Nikodemos. It is not relevant to the discussion of fascism as anti-capitalism what a Marxist happens to think about the Soviet Union. BobFromBrockley 14:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Then what about putting Pollock under a newly communism subsection of the socialism section? Intangible2.0 14:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I oppose this. It is not really relevant to a single paragraph on Marxism as anti-capitalism. Lots of Marxists have lots of diferent views on this. BobFromBrockley 14:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
It wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing to point out that there is disagreement about whether various regimes identified with Marxism actually abolished capitalism; but I don't think there's widespread disagreement that Marxism (or communism, for that matter) is anti-capitalist (people who believe the USSR was state-capitalist also deny that it was properly Marxist, AFAIK). VoluntarySlave 06:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Many anarchists consider the "Soviet" Union it state-capitalist as well as the predictable product of Marxist methods. This is controversial. Jacob Haller 00:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Capitalism?

In listening and reading anti-capitalist material it's hard to tell how they're defining "capitalism." I'm having problems finding any of them explicitly defining it. It seems to be a vague enemy of theirs. But I'm starting to gather from laymen anti-capitalists is that what many of them are regarding as capitalism is actually what's known as corporatism which is where businesses get favors from government, including the military-industrial complex. I'm sure many of them are opposed to laissez-faire capitalism too because they're usually opposed to private property but I haven't seen of them defining capitalism in the standard sense which is a general free-market, laissez-faire, system. It seems like they're looking at whatever is happening today and calling that capitalism instead of looking at the definition of capitalism and determining whether what they're upset about is capitalism or corporatism. Maybe this article can discuss something about this?

[edit] Historical anarchist and libertarian socialist definitions of capitalism &c.

I prepared the following list of definitions and/or descriptions of capitalism or the capitalist system for Talk:Agorism when the same question came up. I've trimmed this copy down, but it's still quite long. These only cover anarchist and/or libertarian socialist perspectives. 00:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Proudhon, Pierre Joseph, Philosophy of Misery:

Capital, Mastership, Privilege, Monopoly, Loaning, Credit, Property, etc.,--such are, in economic language, the various names of I know not what, but which is otherwise called Power, Authority, Sovereignty, Written Law, Revelation, Religion, God in short, cause and principle of all our miseries and all our crimes, and who, the more we try to define him, the more eludes us.

To defend usury they have pretended that capital was productive, and they have changed a metaphor into a reality. The anti-proprietary socialists have had no difficulty in overturning their sophistry; and through this controversy the theory of capital has fallen into such disfavor that today, in the minds of the people, CAPITALIST and IDLER are synonymous terms.

  • Proudhon, Pierre Joseph, 1851, General Idea of the Revolution in the Nineteenth Century, fourth study, commenting on Rousseau:

After having trifled with his readers thus for a long time, after having drawn up the Code of Capitalist and Mercantile Tyranny, under the deceptive title of Social Contract, the Genevese charlatan deduces the necessity of a lower class, of the subordination of labor, of a dictatorship and of the Inquisition.

  • fifth study:

Finally, its adversaries, the capitalistic, theologically [?] usurious, governmental, partisans of the status quo [?], all those indeed who live less by labour than by prejudice and privilege.

Let this course of reduction, for however small an amount, once be entered upon, and continued as slowly as you like, faster or more slowly makes no difference; then, I assert, the social tendency in all that concerns the price of money and discount, throughout the whole territory of the Republic, will be immediately changed, ipso facto, and that this simple change will cause the Country to pass from the present capitalistic and governmental system to a revolutionary system.

  • sixth study

The school of Say, sold out to English and native capitalism, the chief focus of counter-revolution next to the Jesuits, has for ten years past seemed to exist only to protect and applaud the execrable work of the monopolists of money and necessaries, deepening more and more the obscurity of a science naturally difficult and full of complications.

  • Greene, William B., Communism-Capitalism-Socialism equates Capitalism with Plutocracy.
  • Bakunin, Mikhail, 1867, Marxism, Freedom, and the State:

The masses, without distinction of degree of culture, religious beliefs, country and speech, had understood the language of the International when it spoke to them of their poverty, their sufferings and their slavery under the yoke of Capitalism and exploiting private ownership; they understood it when it demonstrated to them the necessity of uniting their efforts in a great solid, common struggle.

  • Bakunin, Mikhail, 1869, The Policy of the International defines capitalism as the rule of the bourgeoisie:

And that poverty --- which is the common lot of the worker --- in all parts of the world --- is a consequence of the present economic organization of society, and especially of the enslavement of labour --- i.e. the proletariat --- under the yoke of capitalism --- i.e the bourgeoisie?

  • Spies, August, testimony:

While capitalism expropriates the masses for the benefit of the privileged class; while capitalism is, that school of economics which teaches how one can live upon the labor (i.e., property) of the other; socialism teaches how all may possess property, and further teaches that every man must work honestly for his own living, and not be playing the 'respectable board of trade man,' or any other highly (?) respectable business man or banker, such as appeared here as talesman in the jurors' box, with the fixed opinion that we ought to be hanged.

Anarchism does not mean bloodshed; does riot mean robbery, arson, etc. These monstrosities are, on the contrary, the characteristic features of capitalism. Anarchism means peace and tranquility to all. Anarchism, or socialism, means the reorganization of society upon scientific principles and the abolition of causes which produce vice and crime. Capitalism first produces these social diseases and then seeks to cure them by punishment.

  • Fischer, Adolph, testimony:

Capitalism now is speedily attaining its most extreme character, that is, it is develop into monopolism. Wealth concentrates itself more and more in a few hands and the misery and poverty of the great mass of people is consequently enlarging in the same degree. The rich got richer and the poor poorer. Like the ruling classes in the eighteenth century, so the same classes at the eve of the nineteenth century are deaf to the complaints and warnings of the disinherited, and blind to the misery and degradation which surround their luxuriously outfitted palaces.

  • Parsons, Albert, testimony:

In other words, his wages represent the bare necessities of his existence, and the unpaidfor or 'surplus' portion of his labor product constitutes the vast superabundant wealth of the non-producing or capitalist class. That is the capitalist system. It is the capitalist system that creates these classes, and it is these classes that produces this conflict.

The capitalist system originated in the forcible seizure of natural opportunities and rights by a few, and converting these things into special privileges, which have since become vested rights formally entrenched behind the bulwarks of statute law and government.

  • Parsons, Albert, 1887, Anarchism: Its Philosophy and Scientific Basis, chapter 2 "Capitalism: Its Development in the Unites States, continued:"

Political parties, no longer divided in interest upon property questions, all legislation was centered upon a development of the resources of the country. To this end vast tracts of goverment land, amounting to many million acres, equalling in extent seven states the size of Illinois were donated as subsidies to the projectors of railways. The national debt, incurred to prosecute the rebellion, and amounting to three billion dollars was capitalized, by creating interest upon the bonds. Hundreds of millions were given as bonuses to proposed railways, steamship lines, etc. A protective tariff law was enacted which for the past twenty years has Imposed a tax upon the people amounting to one billion dollars annually. A National Banking system was established which gave control of finance to a banking monopoly. By means of these and other laws capitalist combinations, monopolies syndicates, and trusts were created and fostered, until they obtained absolute control of the principle avenues of industry, commerce and trade. Arbitrary prices are fixed by these combinations and the consumers--mainly the poor--are compelled by their necessities to pay whatever price is exacted. Thus during the past twenty-five years,--since the abolition of the chattel-slave labor system--twenty-five thousand millionaires have been created, who by their combinations control and virtually own the fifty billion dollars estimate wealth of the United States, while on the other hand twenty million wage workers have been created whose poverty forces them into a ceaseless competition with each other for opportunity to earn the bare necessities of existence.

  • Corna & Klemensic, 1905, Resolution #20 at the Founding Convention of the Industrial Worlds of the World (fifth day):

In view of the fact that the present form of capitalism is increasing organized violence to perpetuate the spirit of despotism to predominate in this republic...

  • Bourne, Randolph, 1918, The State:

But except for these occasional menaces, business, that is to say, aggressive expansionist capitalism, had nearly forty years in which to direct the American republic as a private preserve, or laboratory, experimenting, developing, wasting, subjugating, to its heart’s content, in the midst of a vast somnolence of complacency such as has never been seen and contrast strangely with the spiritual dissent and constructive revolutionary thought which went on at the same time in England and the Continent.

  • Bookchin, Murray, 1971, Listen, Marxist!:

Writing in the middle years of the nineteenth century, Marx could not be expected to grasp the full consequences of his insights into the centralization of capital and the development of technology. He could not be expected to foresee that capitalism would develop not only from mercantilism into the dominant industrial form of his day--from state-aided trading monopolies into highly competitive industrial units--but further, that with the centralization of capital, capitalism returns to its mercantilist origins on a higher level of development and reassumes the state-aided monopolistic form.

  • Dolgoff, Sam, 1971, Relevance of Anarchism is Modern Society:

The bourgeois reformers have yet to learn that as long as these reforms are tied to the state or to capitalism, which connotes the monopoly of political economic power, decentralism and federalism will remain a fraud...

[edit] Socialism and public control

Mutualism doesn't argue for public control of the economy. It shares the goals discussed, but not the methods here labelled socialist. Jacob Haller 00:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

This source Mutalist.org says that not all mutualists consiter them selfes socialists and the wikipedia article on Socialism says that As an economic system, socialism is often characterized by state, worker, or community ownership of the means of production, goals which have been attributed to, and claimed by, a number of political parties and governments throughout history. [1]--Fang 23 (talk) 18:16, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Trying to trim and refine the intro paragraph

My proposed version follows:

Anti-capitalism describes a wide variety of movements, ideologies, and attitudes which oppose capitalism. Some of these oppose each other more than they oppose capitalism. Anti-capitalists, in the strict sense of the word, are those who wish to completely replace capitalism with another economic system; however, there are also ideologies which can be characterized as partially anti-capitalist, in the sense that they only wish to replace or abolish certain aspects of capitalism rather than the entire system.

Is this better than the present text? Any further suggestions? Jacob Haller 23:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I prefer this proposed version - clearer, more succint. BobFromBrockley 12:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fascism and undue weight

Currently, the fascism section is longer than any other section of the article, despite the fact that the claim of fascism being anti-capitalist is controversial. In fact, the controversy surrounding fascism is precisely the reason why the section has grown so long - successive editors have apparently felt the need to reinforce their side of the argument by adding more information to that section, until it has grown out of all proportion and currently represents a clear case of undue weight.

Basically, some people say fascism is anti-capitalist because it advocates certain state restrictions over private property rights, while others say fascism is capitalist because it promotes inequality and benefits the rich. That's the controversy in a nutshell. We don't need two long-winded paragraphs to explain it. -- Nikodemos (talk) 21:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)