Talk:Capitalism

	This Economics related article has been assessed as SIGNIFICANTLY PROBLEMATIC in one or more ways. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.
This article requires attention for the following reason(s): Needs expansion of the criticism section. Contains entire sections without citations.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>

, (new)

Removed Keynes Quote

Redname took out the quote, didn't give a reason. Immediately struck me as not the kind of thing Keynes said in his work. A site called quote investigator did a dive and wasn't able to verify that Keynes ever said it. I'm inclined to not revert the removal. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 19:23, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Problems in Defining Capitalism

I read this line from the current page ""it's widely recognized that capitalism developed pretty organically (with few notable exceptions like vagabond laws,[3] land appropriation and enclosure,[4] private property rights) in the 18th century"" and think "Those are some very huge 'exceptions'"...

Capitalism is a very *specific* form of economic organization with very *specific* property rules. They're not an exact match to some sort of natural rights, but they're a specific form of rules that maintains Enclosure style ownership of land by the rich, for one thing.

Two books that should be used here are The Invention of Capitalism by Michael Perelman and The Origin of Capitalism by Ellen Wood. 2604:6000:F38E:1300:E45B:8539:DDB0:4790 (talk) 12:04, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I dont get it

Does this article try to support, critisize or be nuetral about capitalism?--Delibirda the Annoying Grammar Nazi (talk) 08:14, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

All of the above, because it was written by several people over the course of several years with several different views on the subject.-Flandres (talk) 14:46, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Shoul’nt we make it more consistent?--Delibirda the Annoying Grammar Nazi (talk) 21:37, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Doing so would no doubt cause a MASSIVE flame war, especially with events going on in the world right now. I can see why few want to attempt it.-Flandres (talk) 22:11, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

within reason as this is a liberal project this wiki should be slightly pro capitalism but there are a bunch of commies here who would probably disagree with that idea. EK (talk) 10:39, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Nothing about capitalism is "within reason." — Oxyaena ^Harass 10:46, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

ok commie EK (talk) 11:01, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Wow. Looking back on this thread in light of what happened afterward...damn.-Flandres (talk) 21:21, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Man, I thought looking back in August was bad enough...-Flandres (talk) 19:49, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Raven

That entire section is one big strawman. @Raven Stop editing political articles for a while. — Oxyaena ^Harass 18:05, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

The addition by @Ary was justified. — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 18:07, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

It's a strawman. Strawmen aren't justified. — Oxyaena ^Harass 18:09, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Can you explain Oxyaena? I just added a section to make sure people aren't misguided on capitalism, but I guess you're one of those lefties that don't know much about it and since what I added hurt your ego, you decided to disallow editing. Too much for the rational wiki. It's really sad. But I guess it's what expected from someone who thinks capitalism is a virus. ^{— Unsigned, by: Ary / talk / contribs}

It is a strawman and it also mentions the common right-wing deflection in the form of Venezuela, a poor counter argument against capitalism. If you want to caution people to not pin capitalism for everything, do better. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 18:17, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I was pointing out the hypocrisy and Irony. It hurts you when someone calls Venezuela socialist right? That's what I was pointing out. Stop strawmanning capitalism, when it hurts you when someone right-winger strawmans socialism/communism with "VeNeZuEla" or "SoViEt UnIoN". Ary (talk) 18:24, 20 June 2020 (UTC) Ary.

You see, you're going off with the aggressive right-wing talking points again especially conflating socialism and communism as if they're interchangeable. If you're going to list failed societies to communists, Venezuela wouldn't be your example if you knew what communism is. No, you sound like someone who doesn't know the very clear defined distinctions of these two ideologies. Notice I didn't make any critiques of capitalism myself, and I did say that if you do want to caution users for trying to blame everything in capitalism, then do better rather than conjure up bad examples of capitalism working or being like socialism, such as listing YouTube video making (yeah that's independent contractor but that's a far cry from socialist). --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 18:36, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I know what communism is. My point was exactly what you saying right now. When you know it's wrong when right wingers say "Venezuela == Socialism/Communism". It's wrong, that's what I said. But that was the irony. You hate when rightwing strawmans socialism or communism. I was pointing out the same on capitalism. Ary (talk) 18:40, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Ary, you're new so let me give you an advice: whenever you make a talk page comment, sign it at the very end (with ~~~~). — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 18:18, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

@LeftyGreenMario I think the edits were justified. The user is new and I don't think it's fair to point blanc silence them. — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 18:21, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

The edits are a strawman, no one is silencing anyone. — Oxyaena ^Harass 18:21, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Reverting isn't "silencing"? It's quality control. The edit is poor quality. People will agree. I would've reverted! --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 18:22, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ sigh, ok, since oxy is editwarring with the new user, what do you propose as a resolution to solve the conflict? — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 18:24, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

It's not edit warring, it's quality control. — Oxyaena ^Harass 18:26, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

You don't delete the section, you make it better. "Quality Control" my ass. You deleted my entire section. Ary (talk) 18:29, 20 June 2020 (UTC) Ary

What you can do? Try to be better at identifying strawmen and right-wing talking points as well as what are bad counterarguments to critiques of capitalism? Source those claims rather than engage in weasel-wording of "some communists"? Try to query whoever made the edits to see if they're intellectually honest or not? Hold off the "silencing" accusations?

It's not anyone else's call to improve the section, just how it's not anyone's call to expand a zero-effort stub. You add an acceptable quality section first, then you can ask the community how to improve if you want. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 18:31, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Dude, I'm not a right-winger, I'm a social democrat. I was pointing out the strawman. I even linked Irony in the section. I was saying that people misuse the term "Capitalism" with every ill they see in society. I was not strawman anything. You are not replying with anything substantive. Other than bitching about "StRawMans". Can you tell me which part of it was wrong? Ary (talk) 18:36, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Maybe all of it? Like the idea that leftists think that capitalism is the root of all ills. Have you ever heard of intersectionality? — Oxyaena ^Harass 18:38, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I said "some" lefties, I've seen them all over the Reddit and Youtube. "Maybe all of it?", Wow dude, this is just sad. I was comparing both sides of strawmans and clearing out misinformation on capitalism with a separate setion. Ary (talk) 18:42, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

LGM, the user is new. I don't think the aggressive tone is warranted, considering also that we don't have many socdems on this website. We should welcome new users, not scare them. — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 18:41, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Thankyou Mr. Raven. This " Oxyaena " guy seems like a major di**. He is silencing my voice even though I added nothing wrong. I don't think he even read what I wrote. Ary (talk) 18:45, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Oxy goes by she/her pronouns, I think. I personally would just avoid Oxy. — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 18:47, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Ary, I don't care how you label yourself. Your argument mirrors right-wing talking points. Conservatives (including pundits) in the U.S. point to Venezuela all the time when there's anything remotely or a whiff of socialist that's proposed, to the point it has become a meme. If you're going to argue why capitalism works or the flaws of critiques of capitalism, do better than resorting to levying Venezuela. You weren't pointing out strawmen, you are making them, especially with unsourced and vague weasel wording. Communists? "People" Which ones? Know any notable pundits that do this?

I am not being aggressive. I may be demanding and asking hard questions, but I am not aggressive. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 18:48, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Without going into the edit warring itself, I do not see what this section admittedly adds to our article. It is of exceptionally low quality (unsourced and just a bullet point list) and the main point of it (unrestrained capitalism bad/pure capitalism doesn't exist) is already expressed under the Examples of Capitalism section. As it is, it seems like a low-quality filler bait against commies, and personally I consider our wiki to be of a somewhat higher standard than that. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 18:49, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 18:49, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

To be clear, I added the word "communists" because "leftists" was too broad for me, so the blame on that one is on me, not Ary. I tried improving on the section since I do think the article needs a less ideologically tainted section. — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 18:51, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

You're one to talk, lmao. The irony is delicious here. — Oxyaena ^Harass 18:53, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

The issue isn't whether you used leftists or communists. The paragraph seems to be obvious bait even if I swapped the mention of the word leftist for communist. I fail to see how the rest of our article is "ideologically tainted". It is in my personal opinion a very fair analysis of capitalism with its strengths and weaknesses presented as they have been criticized in history. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 18:55, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Can we just start the obligatory vote whether to keep the section or not that raven always ends up losing so that we can just get on with our lives? You know, the same thing we did with the MLK article or the Anarchism article or the template or any of the other times he has done this same exact thing?-Flandres (talk) 19:01, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I guess, why not. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 19:03, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm frankly getting rather fucking tired of these votes. Oxy has cooped Raven (but also promoted him) so do with that as you will. (Could probably use some more diffs but I think this entire debacle alone is just pointing at how frustrating Raven is to work with when it comes to content disputes). Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 19:07, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Ary, an advice

Since not many in here will give you a chance, do the following: edit your own userspace (User:Ary), write your version of the section, but this time cleaner, present it in here and we will vote on it. That seems fair. @Ary — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 18:59, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I forgot to mention: your userspace is yours. Nobody is allowed to editwar with you as long as you follow the community guidelines. — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 18:59, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Oxy is a bully, and has removed some of rights here (I think Autopatrolled). This is sad. The type of people I was pointing out that strawman capitalism all the time are like Oxy. I think I get why she is so triggered. I think she'll ban me next. Ary (talk) 19:02, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't think I will add anything here from now. Oxy literally thinks "capitalism === virus". I don't think she'll allow me. But thanks Mr. Raven, you were kind to me. Ary (talk)

Your entire edit consisted of nothing but a strawman of anti-capitalist arguments. — Oxyaena ^Harass 19:04, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Really? which part? I was just listing a few things some lefties (or righties) think of what capitalism is. I wrote a section on strawmans, plus the irony of it being the otherway around. Ary (talk) 19:07, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

@Ary, don't engage oxy, trust me. Go on your userpage User:Ary and write the section. Just do what I am suggesting. Later link the draft in here. — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 19:08, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I kinda understand the point that people on Reddit and YouTube are too quick to sweep label capitalism as the source of all bad or conjure good vs evil or dehumanize rich people when it coincides/fuels/gets fueled by other systemic problems like racism and religious discrimination but the section is just poorly conveyed. Very poorly conveyed that it reads as bait rather than caution. Ary's attitude doesn't help at all. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 19:10, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

How was it poorly conveyed? I didn't link enough sources? I can fucking point a dozen popular articles here without any source. And you could have asked me to source it, rather than just deleting it. I was pointing out the typical strawmans, but I guess Oxy is too far up her own ass. Her entire response is basically "You're strawmanning", when I was actually pointing out strawmans on both sides. I wasn't stating "Venezula === Socialism/Communism" I was saying it's the same (strawman) as saying "Captialism === As that List I pointed out". Ary (talk) 19:19, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Okay. Show me one article then that is representative of these critiques you're addressing. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 19:22, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Ary is not being entirely honest. Either that or they don't know what they're talking about. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 19:29, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Using citations to explain an opposing view is just good practice. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 19:30, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Where did I show dishonesty sir? I guess listing "Communism !== Stalinism" would get removed as well. I was just listing a few misconceptions about capitalism. Ary (talk) 19:33, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I've seen many articles here without much (or any) sources, many even have warning over top. You're a mod you know what I'm talking about. But nobody is removing those, instead asking to improve them (which is what you should've done). Ary (talk) 19:33, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

What I did was to make a list of things Capitalism is NOT. Do you disagree with that?. But I guess pointing out Strawmans is a MAJOR FUCKING STRAWMAN here. Ary (talk) 19:33, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't know what you're talking about. Show me one article.

Is what capitalism is not already conveyed in the article without being explicit? Does this article have easy misconceptions we need to cover? I'm not seeing a need for that section, at least from your attempt of it. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 19:36, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind a misconceptions section if it were just ... better. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 19:38, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

First you accused me of using right-wing talking points, because everyone you disagree with is a right-winger I guess. I wanted to add a section where I could list the things of what Capitalism is not. You could've asked me to source it better or write it better. Also, yes this article on capitalism does not point any misconceptions on capitalism. The critism section literally includes a picture of Kings and Relegion, which is not capitalism. It's feudalism. Ary (talk) 19:43, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Yeah? Even if you're a socdem you shouldn't use Venezuela as a cheap comeback given its common use among right-wing pundits? If you have to bring up Venezuela, be thoughtful and present your arguments with effort. I also don't see where the kings and religion part is in the criticism section. The only image is one that is critical of capitalism in modern history, long after feudalism. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 19:49, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

"Many communists love to strawman capitalism all the time." Firstly, not all anti-capitalists are proponents of communism. So this is in fact misleading, as it misrepresents the opposing side. That's definitionally a strawman. "Capitalism is not bad, evil, fat businessmen ruining the world. Although they can abuse the system, which is why we need regulations." This is laughably oversimplified, and does not engage with the actual arguments. Anti-capitalists argue there are systemic problems with capitalism, not that there are Bad People that Must Be Defeated. Further, regulations do not change the underlying behavioral patterns incentivized within a capitalist framework, they merely restrain them somewhat. This argument is further weakened, if not out right killed, by historical evidence of business interests funneling vast amounts of wealth in lobbying to further their interests, which includes halting and reversing regulations. "Capitalism does not enforce 'for-profit' onto society. Many non-profits exist within capitalism." This one is just childishly stupid. It's as if someone argued that because we elected a black president here in the US, racism was no longer a thing. While non-profits exist, the overall behavior trend is to try to make money off anything and everything. This is, for example, how bottled water became a major retail product. This is also the logic behind privatization, or the trend of turning public services into for-profit entities. For example, the telecom oligopoly here in the US. These trends continue even with regulation, as the underlying drive to make as much money as possible, as quickly as possible, with as little effort as possible, remains unchanged. "Workers can own means of production within a capitalist system. Examples would be from old school book authors to modern YouTubers, and etc." This is just stupid. Yes, a worker in a business of 1 to 5 has the ability to own their business, but that is not the dominant system under capitalism. The dominant system is vast multinationals which are notorious for labor violations, as well as general apathy for their workers and customers. "Capitalism is not the reason behind all problems faced by society and abolishing capitalism wouldn't solve all problems of the world. No system can guarantee a evil-free society." Again, a strawman. This is no different than a theist telling an atheist "You just hate god and want to sin, that's why you reject my views". "This is ironic since whenever you bring up Soviet Union, Venezuela, or other failed examples, they'd tell you That wasn't real communism or socialism." This is a misuse of the No true Scotsman fallacy, something I've seen a lot recently. If there are defined goals and mechanisms for a system, is it not correct to state that should something claiming to be said system that does not meet the criteria is in fact, not that system? If we use the most bog standard definition of these words we will quickly understand that in fact, the examples are not representative of the criteria. Venezuela being an example of an authoritarian variant of Social Democracy that was also done poorly, and the Soviet Union being an example of a bureaucratic oligarchy that never actually gave power to the workers. There, I debunked this entire section. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 19:53, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Can you argue that these arguments you're addressing are representative of anti capitalist critique? --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 19:56, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Dude, again? I did not point to Venezuela to say how socialism sucks. I was pointing out that just like rightwingers stupidly say socialism is Venezuela, likewise some people on the left misuse capitalism and think of it as the things I pointed out in the list. You keep repeating the Venezuela argument as I made it clear, that I DID NOT MEAN THAT I THINK VENEZUELA EQUALS SOCIALISM. Please read my edit properly. I'm a fucking soccdem and but I don't like calling ideologies of what they are not. I even laid out in my first point that regulations are needed. But No, you just got hurt by the fact I listed Venezuela. Seriously dude? How many times do I have to clarify my argument?. 19:57, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

@LeftyGreenMario They are not. They're all pretty garbage strawmen, hence my first comment in this section. Ary either doesn't actually know what positions anti-capitalists hold, or is misrepresenting them. Either way, the proposed section was garbage. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 20:06, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

@Ary You could perhaps argue that it was not your intent to say that, but you did in fact, say that. I quoted your argument verbatim. It very clearly is a scornful aside that attacks the idea of Venezuela not being an example of the failure of socialism. Further, I did not merely focus on that single argument, rather I addressed all of them. If you need me to reformat my post to be easier to read, I can do that. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 20:09, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

This is just stupid. I don't know where to begin. I guess you're one of those who think capitalism is inherently oppressive. Also read my edit, Mr. Raven edited my edit. I did not say that "Many communists" I said many lefties. You use "It's like abc said Xyz" many times. Argue on point and reply with actual answers. You're being ignorant of the things I stated. Many times businesses or people can be evil or harmful, (can exist everywhere, and we both know the examples). You just think of my points as childish without even stating why. That Theist comment was bullshit. What Multinationals do isn't representative of entire capitalism. Look at nordic countries. If someone kills another person for profit (or personal gain), I bet you would bitch about it as "Ahhh capitalism". Capitalism is not definitive system of how to do things. Again as I said, worker-owned co-ops can also be multinationals (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_worker_cooperatives) and have similar incentives. Huawei also claims to be employee-owned (but we both know how they make stuff). The problem is your point to stuff which does not represent capitalism as a whole. A guy yesterday just said "Capitalism is system in which owners profit off of workers", I bet you would agree. But that isn't always the case. I pointed out book authors and YouTubers, but that was too childish for you (for some reason). This place is not good for debate. So can you tell me a good place where we can debate? 20:20, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Very well, then I will address the original opening point. I see no reason to debate the rest of the points, as they were either misrepresentative of their intended meaning or simply ignorant of behavioral trends. As to the original opening point, "Many left-wingers love to strawman capitalism all the time." Firstly, not all anti-capitalists are left-wing. Fascists are an example of Right-wing anti-capitalism. While they will empower capitalism in the short term, long term they will seek to abolish the capitalist system as being too lenient, as it promises at least the illusion of upward mobility. Now, my original point still stands, this statement is fallacious, and just plain ignorant. To name the fallacies, Weasel wording, argument by assertion, strawmanning, and poisoning the well. Finally, I will ignore your unprovoked attacks on my character and the unfounded speculation to my motivations, as it is irrelevant to whether the statements you posted are correct or incorrect. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 20:34, 20 June 2020 (UTC).

When I said "Many left-wingers ...." It was to make a point of irony. Both sides right and left strawman each other. When some on rightwing say shit about socialism or communism (which they don't have much knowledge of). Same can be said lefties, many would just talk shit about capitalism and blame it for everything. I would again say, that many evils and bad things exist in society. Capitalism does not fucking tell you to be evil. Socialism at its core states worker-owned means of production. Even in that scenario evil exists as I pointed out. No system inherently tells you to do to batshit things. That's like saying humans are murderous just because few of them do it. Everything from humans to large multinational corporations needs laws and regulations.

I also like how conversation shifted to a debate, while LMG was completely misunderstanding my basic point of "Strawman irony" on both sides. Ary (talk) 20:42, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it's correct that both sides tend to strawman each other. I suppose you are trying to convey that kind of irony but you written it poorly. There's a suggestion that the "but Venezuela" counterpoints is valid and how it's ironic that the comeback for it is that it's not a valid example of socialism. If I've misunderstood anything, it's that the poor writing along with poor counterexamples and premise conveyed something a lot different from your intent. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 21:34, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

The saying is not "Don't judge apples by the few bad ones" it is "A few bad apples spoils the bunch". Further, and I will only repeat myself once more, the underlying incentive structure of Capitalism as a system means that anyone within that system, regardless of their reasons, will be incentivized to act in a specific trend. I.e. making as much money as possible, as quickly as possible, and by expending as little effort as possible. Regulations are limited, as multinational corporations (whose workers have zero actual say in the direction of the company) will seek to repeal, weaken, evade, etc. Because it's in their interest to do so. You talk of good and evil, as if these things were relevant in a discussion of large scale behavioral trends. They are not. They are not factors when a corporate CEO decides to slash retirement benefits. They are not relevant when a corporate board decides to engage in unsafe mining practices. They aren't even relevant when a corporation decides to file SLAPP suits to silence activists who seek to expose unsafe pollution. All of those things are driven by a system that rewards those who step on others' throats to reach the top, and punishes those who fail to do either. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 22:00, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

If you go by "A few bad apples spoils the bunch" then I guess we should cancel humanity as a whole. There's good and there is bad. We remove bad apples or fix them, we do not cancel fucking apples. Socialism isn't inherently good because the for-profit incentive is still there. Let's take Mondragon corporation which is worker-owned and fully democratized. It still exploits labor from the third world. It's just instead of a few owners, there are a lot of owners. Capitalism is not an incentive structure, It's simply right to sell labor and do whatever with one's own private property. Most humans are incentivized to do things that benefit them, again this is how humans work. AND FOR THE RECORD. My section wasn't to critique anti-capitalists or anyone. It was just listing a few things that capitalism is not. Because oftentimes it's mixed with feudalism, oligarchy or etc. I admit there are problems that go with giving too much freedom to individuals and the market (the problem of evil). Because there needs to be a balance. This is why I advocate for Social Democracy. I'm not saying you advocate for socialism or communism, I'm just comparing the alternatives to this system. 23:02, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I understand but I think for a worthwhile section you need to make a common misconceptions of capitalism. You can bring up independent contractors to say that capitalism does allow worker-owned means of production, but you have to mention the limitations and caveats to that and how they are also heavily limited in a capitalism system. You can it's too easy to pin the blame on capitalism on all problems or talk about flawed ideals that Marx trots out to try to address capitalism's failings. Sometimes the distrust of corporations goes way overboard. Synthesizing all of this is a challenge, and I think the section you wrote is inadequate and doesn't help us socdems be mindful of the critiques of capitalism we trot out. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 02:22, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank's LMG for understanding my point of view. I will write a better section on misconceptions about capitalism. Now I think I'm finally free since Oxy and Comrad have retired. 12:16, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I think the 'Criticism of Capitalism' section is worth expanding

There's a lot of stuff that we don't touch upon when it comes to this topic TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 15:56, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

While not exactly "capitalism", I started draft:market failures some time ago, it's high on my do-list but right now I don't have the time to finish it. I made the huge blunder of not adding sources (just wrote what was on my head) and will probably need to TNT the whole page. That being said, more abstract objections towards capitalism would not fit there so yeah, the section would need more work anyway. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 16:01, 21 May 2024 (UTC)