![]() | This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Greenspan WAS an objectivist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.161.52.179 ( talk) 06:08, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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).
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Greenspan WAS an objectivist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.161.52.179 ( talk) 06:08, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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).
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)