Variants and Ideologies and Related topics[edit]

The Variants are really not Ideologies. I do however agree that Technocapitalism should go to Development and that Anarcho-capitalism is not a Variant.

An Ideology is a set of ideas that constitute one's goals, expectations, and actions. Ideologies are systems of abstract thought applied to public matters and thus make this concept central to politics.

An Analysis is the process of breaking a complex topic or substance into smaller parts to gain a better understanding of it.

Instead most of the subjects in the Variants section are descriptive/analytical rather than political/ideological.

Maybe the Variants and Related topics should be combined. I'd go further and remove the Ideology section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olsonist (talk • contribs) 21:32, 22 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This template[edit]

Wow, what a hodge-podge. This template was started in February, and it seems the libertarianism template was used for its creation. Schools of thought? Shouldn't this simply include such schools as the Chicago School, the Austrian School, and the Public Choice School? Does Anarcho-capitalism belong there, as a school of capitalism? (There are some, e.g. Brad Spangler, who would argue that anarcho-capitalism is not even capitalist, that it is a stigmergic form of socialism. Even more will claim a distinction between "capitalism" and "free markets." The term is so vague and confusing, and used in such divergent manners.) Methinks anarcho-capitalism, free-market environmentalism, &c. would be better served in other sections of this template.

This template, if it is to be of any use at all, will need major changes. If there is no objection, I wish to make some of these changes. Anyone else agree? Disagree? Let me know.

allixpeeke (talk) 20:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Collapsable sections[edit]

There has been considerable discussion on the issue of the collapsable sections of templates like this, such as ((Social democracy sidebar)), ((Christian Democracy sidebar)) etc. I created a centralized place for discussion about this issue here. I invite every one to participate. C mon (talk) 18:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Attempt at remodeling...[edit]

I modified the template heavily (which was rather libertarian-biased - John Maynard Keynes wasn't even on it). I made a distinction, which I think is helpful, between schools in capitalist economics and political ideologies (social democracy vs. keynesian economics and neoliberalism vs. neoclassical economics). Many of the things listed as "Origins" weren't really origins - I mean, capitalism was here as idea and practice long before objectivism and the Austrian school were. I replaced those with five historical events and schools which shaped early capitalist thought. (though they're certainly open to debate since I took them off the top of my head)

I did remove a lot of the thinkers because the list was becoming pretty long as I started coming up with less libertarian economists (like John Hicks, Paul Samuelson, Alfred Marshall, Joseph Stiglitz, and Amartya Sen). Some of the ideas like free market roads are unique to libertarianism or anarcho-capitalism and not capitalism as a whole, so...I took those out. On the other hand, some things like competition law are probably pretty essential to most versions of capitalism but less emphasized in libertarianism and such. Equilibrium007 (talk) 08:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think that Objectivism should be included in template. Objectivism is very influential in some circles. For example, former Fed chairman Alan Greenspan is objectivist. -- Vision Thing -- 21:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Intellectual Error...[edit]

Greenspan WAS an objectivist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.161.52.179 (talk) 06:08, 24 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Don't conflate the thing studied with the studiers[edit]

There's a tendency here to conflate the object studied - capitalism - with the various people and schools studying it. To have a proper look at how scholars have studied capitalism we must not exclude some schools just because they might disagree with our own views. Wikipedia requires some neutrality here. Schools of thought on capitalism includes neo-classical economists, Keynsian economists as well as Marxian economists and institutional economists. They all had interesting views on capitalism that would benefit the learning of a student of capitalism. For this reason I've expanded the schools of thought and the people under the topic of capitalism. Nubeli (talk) 23:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you look at the other templates like ((Fascism sidebar)) or ((Communism sidebar)) you will see that critics are not included. Same standard should be applied here. -- Vision Thing -- 19:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Fascism and Communism sidebars don't have a "Schools of Thought" heading that includes theories on the topic. I suggest either the Schools of Thought is removed completely or that it be comprehensive and neutral by including all major schools of economic thought that theorized capitalism. I think a case could be made for removing the schools of thought, though there should remain a summary of the perspectives in the capitalism entry (though much condensed from the current version). Nubeli (talk) 14:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Further to the point, Vision Thing, who gets to decide who's a "critic" and who's a theorist? Is Keynes a "capitalism" theorist or a critic? How about Schumpeter? I'm sure you'll find people who can argue either way. If there's going to be a schools of thought or a economic theories of capitalism section then it needs to be comprehensive and not just pick and choose the theories that some people think are "pro-capitalism". Nubeli (talk) 14:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template repair[edit]

While this template looked just fine in FireFox, in Internet Explorer the two longest titles, "Economic theories" and "Related topics", were severely conflicting with their [Show] links. So I had to align the titles to the left and slightly increase the width of the template to fix this. Still looks just fine in FireFox.
 —  Paine's Climax  00:06, 15 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

[edit]

There's been some warring over the capitalism logo. What are the thoughts around including or removing it? Personally, I'd remove it. It's not a widely known or identifiable logo for capitalism and appears to present the POV that capitalism is all about $$, and not individual freedom. Morphh (talk) 16:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree. There are some ideologies, like communism, fascism, and anarchism, that have symbols that are almost universally recognized by adherents and opponents. I don't think that the logo on this template now meets that standard. Really, I don't think capitalism has any logo (hey, that's kind of ironic), and if it doesn't have one, we shouldn't reflect that. Equilibrium007 (talk) 00:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Essentially, I also agree, even though I'm the one who keeps restoring the star. I just don't feel that it's justified to abruptly remove visual content without some discussion.
As for possible contestants, there have been some interesting shots at the title... see [1], however there is none so far that seems to "grab" people. I think that it is strange that there's no widely recognized logo for capitalism. Perhaps it's because it's perceived so negatively by some? I vote for a giraffe kicking a lion. <grin>
Whether or not capitalism is more about liberty than luxury, the "$" has been most-used to identify with capitalism (aside perhaps from a photograph of Andrew Carnegie). To place that dollar sign within a star does, however, add more weight to "the almighty dollar" than it may be due. I'll check to see if there is a simple, nonintrusive dollar sign on Wikimedia Commons.
 —  Paine's Climax  18:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That image is better but using these currency symbols makes me think of monetary policy. While the currency is a means to determine the value of a good or service, I don't know that it represents the exchange of goods in a capitalist market. You could have capitalism with no currency using bartering. The system is distinct based on the level of government involvement in the market. Luxury, property, and the "$" exists in either case, it's just who controls it (the market or the government). Certainly capitalism is know for building wealth (individual and country) and I guess this could be expressed as a fiat money symbol, but using it as a symbol for the ideology seems out of place to me. 74.235.110.115 (talk)
It logged me out... that was my comment. Morphh (talk) 13:17, 27 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How is "capitalism is all about $$" a POV while saying it is about "individual freedom" is not?

The following comments are moved from the Capitalism page discussion. I've moved them here since the logo is part of the template and not the page. Nubeli (talk) 05:34, 13 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I must say that the logo used in this article for describing capitalism is wrong. The most recognizable logo of capitalists is the pyramid with three lines one at the top and two at the bottom. I suggest changing this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Damianandrade (talk • contribs) 00:33, 16 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What could possibly be more appropriate for the greatest wealth-generating force on this entire planet than the dollar sign? You're an idiot. Moarhate (talk) 04:04, 7 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comments like this are exactly why the neutrality of the article is disputed. Capitalism is not "the greatest wealth-generating force on the planet," it is an economic system, and as such, a symbol representative of it's economic qualities is warranted. Faja22 (talk) 02:45, 8 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And it is not limited to the US currency either, so the image should be changed into something which more appropriately represents the global economic system used today.--Nabo0o (talk) 14:38, 9 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Would it be appropriate to add this template to another page?[edit]

Criticism of capitalism might be a reasonable link in this chain of discussion. If some one that knows how to add this template... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.124.202.0 (talk) 15:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

((capitalism)) Rich Farmbrough, 21:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Portals[edit]

Portals have their place in See also I propose removing these links - the portal box shown to the right can be added to appropriate articles. Rich Farmbrough, 21:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Several links not related to capitalism directly[edit]

There are several articles that are considered marxist and part of the marxist portals that found there way into the capitalism template. Marxist ideas are also represented in Anti-Capitalism, and Perspectives on capitalism and do not need to be over represented, just as capitalist articles are not represented in marxist and similar templates and there is only 1 (or none) criticism article per template for marxist and related templates, capitalism should be similar. Many of the articles I am removing are also either partially or completely unsourced but that is a separate issue. For the time being I am going to remove them to clean up the template, allow the replacement of them with more relevant material, and generally improve the clutter of the template in this case with non-capitalism articles. I'm removing Rate of exploitation a marxist article that has been unsourced since 2008, Market fundamentalism which can go under anti-capitalism's see also or merged with the article, Capitalist mode of production which is a marxist article in the marxist portal, Post-capitalism which is marxist terminology and marxist article as well. I also propose removing Trickle-down economics too which really has nothing to do directly with capitalism and is more an economic theory or policy but I will leave that one up to debate before acting on it because it is less clear cut as to it's relation to the underlying topic and I would desire more input into it prior to it's removal. Financestudent (talk) 01:16, 13 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

POV issue[edit]

Unlike the template for Marxism, capitalism has no criticism section. Can someone say that is not NPOV? --SomeDudeWithAUserName (talk with me!) 20:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Marxism is an ideology. "Capitalism" is a concept used to describe a phenomenon. Paul B (talk) 12:04, 7 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Those are good descriptions. However, Marx is central to the modern concept of capitalism. By comparison, someone like Rand is not. Olsonist (talk) 20:43, 22 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Marx removed from people list?[edit]

I have restored Karl Marx to the people list because he played a central role in the modern concept of capitalism. -Battlecry 00:54, 8 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

do we need the images? they seem entirely decorative per WP:ICONDECORATION. Frietjes (talk) 15:28, 8 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think the images should go. bobrayner (talk) 18:09, 8 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
removed. thank you. Frietjes (talk) 14:49, 9 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Intellectual property[edit]

A few days ago, Scientus (talk · contribs) removed this template from the Copyright article with the comment "copyrights are not capital. (see https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Progress_and_Poverty for a extensive definition)"; [2]. This misses the point. It doesn't matter whether a copyright is defined to be capital; it is whether the subject copyright is within the scope of the sidebar navigation. I restored it with an edit summary to that effect: [3].

Scientus has responded by both removing copyrights and patents from the template here, as well as from the Copyright article.

I still think he's missing the point. Intellectual property such as patent and copyright, regardless of whether they are capital, are within the scope of the subject Capitalism, and should be retained.

I am restoring them for now; IP, patents and copyright have been in this template for six years. Unilateral removal is clearly a bold edit, and under WP:BRD, I'm reverting and inviting discussion here. If the consensus is removal, I'm okay with that. TJRC (talk) 17:23, 24 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Clearly neither patents nor copyrights are capital, and capitalism as a word means that which revolves around capital (definition). I wouldn't be opposed to calling patents, copyright, and trademarks corporatism, but it is unlikely the "Capitalism" article with even be renamed as such, especially as corporatism is a word with negative connotations. Just because capitalism is now synonomous with corporations doesn't mean that we get to redefine the word capital. (These exclusive rights can also be owned by individuals of course.)Scientus (talk) 21:56, 24 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think you're conflating "capital" and "capitalism". From wikt:capitalism, the first two senses are:
  • a socio-economic system based on private property rights, including the private ownership of resources or capital, with economic decisions made largely through the operation of a market unregulated by the state.
  • a socio-economic system based on the abstraction of resources into the form of privately owned capital, with economic decisions made largely through the operation of a market unregulated by the state.
Both of these are consistent with the use here and the use commonly understood by the term. I think the "corporatism" suggestion is a bit silly. I know you have some strong opinions on this, but editing Wikipedia to support them (as here) is not the appropriate vehicle by which to express them. TJRC (talk) 22:39, 24 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Since reliable sources regard IP as a form of capital, we should too. "Capitalism" is a different thing to "Capital"; but IP is still relevant here, I think (although not exclusive to capitalism). bobrayner (talk) 11:14, 26 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Intellectual property should be removed from capitalism because there are no reliable sources that it is an essential concept of capitalism. UltimateLiberty (talk) 03:25, 23 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here are a number of scholarly references that discuss the relationship between intellectual property and capitalism.--Nowa (talk) 02:18, 28 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

the [show] button should be blue[edit]

I propose that we make the [show] button blue, to indicated that it's clickable ... it's abnormal for clickable items to be styled exactly like the body paragraph text — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mapmaker345 (talk • contribs) 17:21, 13 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Criticism[edit]

Is the criticism section of this template really warranted? It isn't seen on related templates such as socialism, Marxism, anarchism, libertarianism, or even liberalism. I don't think it's fair to suggest that capitalism has been criticised more than socialism, for instance. I understand that these are other templates, but this matters from a view of consistency.

In the current template, in the section of criticism, only 3 of the articles linked refer explicitly to capitalism; anti-capitalism, Criticism of capitalism, and Crisis theory. Having an article like "Wage slavery" being linked could perhaps be akin to the Marx template linking authoritarian socialist states as a criticism, which I think is unwarranted; wage slavery is a concept beyond just capitalism. Zilch-nada (talk) 05:33, 6 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Template talk:Aspects of capitalism which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 21:18, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Categories