Talk:Criticism of capitalism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Unemployment[edit]

In no sense is the current section on unemployment a criticism of capitalism. I'm going to re-write this to explain why unemployment is necessary, in a capitalist system, in order to create downward pressure on wages and benefits, unless someone can provide a reason that I shouldn't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.114.198.119 (talk) 03:20, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted pro-capitalist content[edit]

I deleted pro-capitalism arguments because this article is called Criticism of capitalism, not Two-sided debate about capitalism.Spylab (talk) 13:04, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Criticism is the judgement of the merits and faults of the work or actions of one individual by another (the critic). To criticise does not necessarily imply to find fault, but the word is often taken to mean the simple expression of prejudice or disapproval." - wikipedia criticism page 76.66.181.58 (talk) 13:03, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have been making edits to the page, by bringing criticism over from the main page. One point I was unsure on was the counter arguments being included in any section discussing criticism. What are your thoughts?TauGuys (talk) 18:51, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clean up the style[edit]

The style on this page is horrendous, especially in the opening paragraphs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.192.32.78 (talk) 09:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chomsky?[edit]

Surely the "types of criticism" section is rather unbalanced. Marxism and religion, two massive, major, global movements with long histories, and then, occupying about the same space, Noam Chomsky, one person who is prominent in the global public sphere but is not exactly original in his criticisms of capitalism. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The big difference is that Chomsky does not believe capitalism exists. -Teetotaler 17 November, 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.181.21.166 (talk) 03:47, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article's name needs to be changed[edit]

It should be "Criticisms of capitalism" not "Criticism of capitalism". One- this makes more sense. Two- we've got "criticisms" articles instead of "criticism" for Marxism, socialism, anarchism, and anarcho-capitalism. Shouldn't this page conform? byelf2007 (talk) 4 July 2011

I agree that the title should be changed but don't know how to do it. I think the singular "Criticism" should be used for all of the articles. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 22:14, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This topic was addressed in the past. Take a look at the archives. --S. Rich (talk) 03:40, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Anarchist" section[edit]

The section named "Anarchist criticisms" is horrendous. First of all, out of a total of six paragraphs, only one deals with actual Anarchist criticisms of capitalism. The rest of the section details Marxist criticisms of capitalism. And a good portion of those "criticims" are not really criticisms, either. For example, the paragraph about China does nothing to expand on what Marxist criticisms of capitalism are. This is a serious problem that needs to be fixed. Shouldn't Marx's criticisms really be restricted to the "Socialist criticisms" section?

The second problem is minor when compared to the first, but still worthy of addressing. In the last half (last three paragraphs) of the section, there are seven "citation needed" templates.

Should the section be renamed "Anarchist and Marxist criticisms" or should the Marxist material be removed and more Marxism expounded under "Socialist criticisms"? 76.28.97.246 (talk) 20:19, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marxism is a type of anarchism. byelf2007 (talk) 13 October 2011
No, it really isn't. The relationship is somewhat complex but there is an entire article devoted to explaining it. 76.28.97.246 (talk) 23:36, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The "Anarchist criticisms" section is horrendous. I think it would be appropriate for the Marxist and Anarchist material to be separated and placed as subsections under the "Socialist criticisms" section, given that both are socialist perspectives. The material for anarchism needs to be rewritten as it is not sourced and inadequate at explaining why anarchists oppose capitalism and how their critique differs from the general socialist critique. Battlecry (talk) 04:21, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have returned to see that progress has been made, but alas it is only a little progress. Firstly, I agree with Battlecry that Marxist criticism should be put into a subsection under a general "socialist" criticism section, detailing the criticisms that are specific to Marxian socialism, with more general socialist criticisms being relegated to the "socialist" section in general. Whether the same can be done for Anarchism is, in my mind, up for debate, but if so it would probably have to be under the title of "Libertarian Socialism" to avoid confusion with more individualistic kinds of Anarchism that certainly don't deserve the title of "socialism." 76.28.97.246 (talk) 18:34, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Market failure paragraph[edit]

An anon added the following (with "ref" tags quoted so you can see them)

There continued to be criticism and critiques of capitalism into the 21st century< ref>Capitalism vs. the Climate; What the right gets - and the left doesn't - about the revolutionary power of climate change. by Naomi Klein November 9, 2011. This article appeared in the November 28, 2011 edition of The Nation (pages 11-21).< /ref>< ref>Capitalism on Trial January 25, 2012 Wall Street Journal< /ref>, with the externality example of environmental harm such as pollution or overexploitation of natural resources.< ref name="krugman">Paul Krugman and Robin Wells (2006). Economics, New York, Worth Publishers.< /ref> Climate change (global warming) is, in the words of the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change, {{Quotation|“the greatest example of market failure we have ever seen.”< ref>http://www.thenation.com/article/164497/capitalism-vs-climate?page=0,4< /ref>}}

For the first sentences, the sources are examples of criticism, rather than sources for the statement. I cannot verify the second sentence is even related to the book, and the anon is known for dissembling about countent. The third sentence (without "global warming") seems appropriate, but is WP:UNDUE without some source for the first two.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:20, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This whole section is less a criticism of capitalism than it is of free market ideology and policies. While market failures are often embedded in critiques of capitalism, the information included at present does not offer or tie into a critique of capitalism as a whole. These arguments can just as easily be used for different forms of capitalism (Social market, interventionism, welfare capitalism etc.). -Battlecry 09:13, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The following lines are a bit odd: "Market failure is a term used by economists to describe the condition where the allocation of goods and services by a market is not efficient. Keynesian economist[36] Paul Krugman views this scenario in which individuals' pursuit of self-interest leads to bad results for society as a whole."
The second sentence is odd because it seems to imply that defining market failure as a "scenario in which individuals' pursuit of self-interest leads to bad results for society as a whole" is specific to Keynesian economists or even just to Paul Krugman, but this is a very general description of market failure that you would find in virtually any Into to Micro text. -unsigned

Include ...“the greatest example of market failure we have ever seen.”[edit]

There continued to be criticism and critiques of capitalism into the 21st century[1][2], with the externality example of environmental harm such as pollution or overexploitation of natural resources.[3] Climate change (global warming) is, in the words of the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change,

“the greatest example of market failure we have ever seen.”[4]

  1. ^ Capitalism vs. the Climate; What the right gets - and the left doesn't - about the revolutionary power of climate change. by Naomi Klein November 9, 2011. This article appeared in the November 28, 2011 edition of The Nation (pages 11-21).
  2. ^ Capitalism on Trial January 25, 2012 Wall Street Journal
  3. ^ Paul Krugman and Robin Wells (2006). Economics, New York, Worth Publishers.
  4. ^ http://www.thenation.com/article/164497/capitalism-vs-climate?page=0,4

99.181.148.240 (talk) 03:14, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Still no reason presented for inclusion, and, as a minor point, these references should be quoted here or a {{reflist}} added, so that the so-called references can be seen. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:40, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The topic of "sustainability" is already listed in the article. (Sustainability being a buzz word for environmental impacts.) In this regard, the issue of climate change is partially addressed in that section in that "ecology" and environment are discussed (somewhat). "Market failure" is defined in its own article, and it does not have sustainability, environmental, or ecological aspects. With these factors in mind, including this stuff (above references) in the Market failure section is inappropriate. But since the article discusses various "particular outcomes of capitalism", there is a place for this material.--S. Rich (talk) 16:34, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why, if it's not an outcome of capitalism? bobrayner (talk) 21:44, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what your point is. The Nation article cited above has dead links (which I just now tagged as such). The WSJ Michael Casey blog does not say anything about global warming being an outcome of capitalism. My point is that if we can find appropriate WP:RS for the criticism that global warming is an outcome of capitalism, we should put it in the Sustainability section. As it stands, the proponent has not meet WP:BURDEN requirements. Why? We don't have access to The Nation material and the Casey piece does not support the contention. In any case global warming is not a market failure issue. If it can get RS, then put it in the other section.--S. Rich (talk) 23:03, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that sounds reasonable to me. bobrayner (talk) 08:55, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Some comments: The wp article Sustainability is not about "buzz word for environmental impacts". Maybe you are thinking of Planetary boundaries? I've removed the "dead link" as it works now.
I don't see global warming / climate change as an outcome of capitalism, but expansive use a greenhouse gas-producing industrialization is. It is market forces based on supply and demand without any regulation that are the issue. Without keeping a holistic view of accumulating pollution as included in cost (externality), the costs of producing global warming seems less expensive and more profitable to the capitalist (privatizing the profit and socializing the costs). The demand for mitigating the increasing global warming only rises after damage has been and is increasingly done. The Earth is finite, thus so are its resources, "services", and capacities (The Limits to Growth). Carbon dioxide is in the atmosphere about 100 years, and methane ten while adding the the warming. The oceans have acted as a buffering heat sink. The effects have been building. Pure capitalism would not plan ahead for the society as a whole. It is a matter of wording.
There are economic systems that are more complete, such such term as ecological goods and services and Ecosystem service.
Stern Review (Nicholas Stern) stating this is the “the greatest example of market failure we have ever seen.” regarding the economics of global warming and Economics of climate change mitigation is notable.
If you want another view I'd suggest William Nordhaus. The series of published discussion with some, for lack of an some other inclusive term, climate change deniers is informative. If you read "the series", note that more detailed science exists than the "deniers" presumably intentionally omitted or distorted, such as can be seen on Radiative forcing as cited in articles in Science News.
Hopefully that was helpful. I am a bit tired, so the clarity may be off.  ;-) 99.109.124.44 (talk) 08:01, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your clarity is better than usual; perhaps you should post more often at 3 am. However, the Sustainability section of this article is not necessarily the same topic as our article Sustainability. The quote seems to fit better there, if relevance (and accuracy) can be established. Furthermore, the specific quote you have refers to "market failure"; a little more context would be required to ensure that it belongs in this article (criticism of capitalism). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:05, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to see the links are working. My comment about sustainability was not about the article, but about how the word itself is a buzzword. As for your further comments, please keep in mind that here we discuss how to improve the article. (And I confess my buzzword comment strayed from that guideline; so I've stricken it.)--S. Rich (talk) 15:18, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(od) An what is the situation of this? 99.181.142.87 (talk) 06:55, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone other than you has argued in favor of inclusion where you suggested it, but only in the "Sustainability" section. I don't think there is consensus for inclusion there, but if a respectable edit adds it, I wouldn't remove it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:06, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I support its inclusion in the article. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 13:42, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Like Arthur Rubin, I will support respectable edits, but climate change edits need to go in "sustainability" -- this is not a market failure type of issue. --S. Rich (talk) 06:48, 23 June 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Mathematical/Scientific Criticisms?[edit]

I would like to point out that there is no significant criticism of capitalism or any of its fundamental institutions in this article that are based on primarily scientific and/or mathematical principles or models. By "scientific" I mean using the scientific method (including any of its forms) to obtain resultant data from which a conclusion is based on, and this conclusion should be free to be modified based on new or better data. This is opposed to assuming some model is accurate and then trying to make the world fit this model. Mathematics in all its many forms is of course essential to understand and quantify the results.

Surely, given the crucial importance of peer-review in the sciences and in mathematics - and given their standard of a more or less neutral point of view in the first place, this should be easily accomplished. 自教育 (talk) 23:44, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear... do you want the article to say that there is no criticism from this perspective? Or do you want somebody to find such criticism and add it? bobrayner (talk) 17:05, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Piketty's book[edit]

I see that some apparent sock has added this content (although I have tweaked the order here):

Since it's an excellent See also link, I'll add it and take responsibility for the addition myself. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:19, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Duplication - merge required?[edit]

There appears to be extensive duplication between this article and the article Opposition to capitalism. This is particularly true of the section on anarchism, which appears to be duplicated tout court down to the image and caption. To my simple mind, the overlap is unsurprising, as anyone who feels strongly enough to criticise "capitalism" has a preferred ideology which is opposed to capitalism. It is arguable that capitalism is not an ideology in the sense that its opponents are, as it has no overarching vision (meta-narrative?) of how affairs should be arranged - but perhaps I digress, so back to the point. I believe these articles should be merged, with a section on each ideology and what it objects to in capitalism (which would inter alia require definition of what each ideology views as being the salient points of capitalism), and a section for miscellaneous criticism of capitalism which does not fit into any formal ideology.

I have neither the Wikipedia authority, the time nor the knowledge to do this, but I imagine there are scores of editors out there who do. What about it? Could an editor with sufficient authority start a formal debate, as I've seen done for other articles? Chrismorey (talk) 06:12, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, @Chrismorey:, you have authority - don't worry about that. Your help would be welcome.
But to start the ball rolling, I've proposed a merger, below. bobrayner (talk) 13:54, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with Anti-capitalism[edit]

The two articles mostly overlap. Chrismorey originally suggested this, but I think it's a great idea. I suggest that "Anti-capitalism" content should merge into "Criticism of capitalism" because the former has less (and less robust) content, but I'd be happy with either title. bobrayner (talk) 13:53, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't agree this is a good idea. Merging with anti-capitalism would suggest that only people who don't believe in capitalism have made criticisms of it. That would really limit the amount of criticism one could cite in this article.--Equivocasmannus (talk) 00:05, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This can't be merged. "Anti-capitalism" and "Criticism of capitalism" are different: an Anti-capitalist doesn't want capitalism at all, while capitalists want capitalism even if they criticise various aspects of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.62.154 (talk) 08:57, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The best solution would probably be to merge this into a sub-section of criticism of capitalism. Then it wouldn't imply that "only people who don't believe in capitalism have made criticisms of it" like User:Equivocasmannus is worried it could. 101.127.182.94 (talk) 04:25, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose merge as the anti-capitalism movement is distinct from the arguments against capitalism. The movements themselves have features that are distinct, frequently because of their advocacy for the supremacy of other systems. Also, the size of the combined article would be unwieldy. Klbrain (talk) 21:13, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Closing, given no consensus over more than 2 years. Klbrain (talk) 21:31, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Criticism of capitalism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:55, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Criticism of capitalism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:08, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Criticism of capitalism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:11, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Criticism of capitalism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:05, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Criticism of capitalism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:34, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Criticism of capitalism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:48, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The flow of the Issues subsections[edit]

I have some idea on how to reorganize the Issues section. The key is to connect topics roughly back-to-back. In particular, the ones concerning the environment should be placed together near the end. Also, I feel like the one about the notion of wage slavery is really a subtopic of "exploitation of workers". At this time, I have not considered merging any sections.

Current order
  1. Democracy and freedom
  2. Exploitation of workers
  3. Imperialism and political oppression
  4. Inefficiency, irrationality and unpredictability
    1. Market failure
  5. Inequality
  6. Market instability
  7. Property
  8. Environmental sustainability
  9. Profit motive
  10. Comparison to slavery
  11. Supply and demand
  12. Externalities
Proposed reorganization
  1. Supply and demand
  2. Market instability
  3. Inequality
  4. Democracy and freedom
  5. Exploitation of workers
    1. Comparison to slavery
  6. Imperialism and political oppression
  7. Property
  8. Profit motive
  9. Externalities
  10. Inefficiency, irrationality and unpredictability
    1. Market failure
  11. Environmental sustainability

–LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:31, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mainstream economists?[edit]

Do any mainstream economists agree with any of these critiques? Because I strongly suspect that the vast majority of academic economists have responded to these arguments ad nauseam and don't accept the logic. If that's true then it should be mentioned somewhere in the body of the article, probably in the lead as well.

That this article is about criticism of capitalism does not (or should not) preclude the inclusion of favorable sentiment, especially if the majority of the pro-capitalist sentiment is coming from experts trained in economic science while most of the criticism is not. See the Objections to evolution article for a reference.Jonathan f1 (talk) 22:25, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Mainstream economist" is a tricky term, but as an economist I can confidently say that anti-capitalist economics completely lost the confidence of the profession, what is at most argued in learned journals (even within marxists journals, mostly) is how can we "improve" capitalism by giving more power to labour (whatever that would mean). I know there are some people like Richard Wolff who claim to be marxists and economists, but I think no other economist would share that latter view.
So I also agree that the great majority of economists reject anti-capitalism outright (and the closer you get to the top academics and policy advisers the larger this ratio becomes), it would be important to include at some length the criticism to the criticism. Marci von Heves 11:53, 26 February 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by OberleutnantMarton (talk • contribs)

Recent deletions[edit]

I have started a discussion on WP:RSN per my last edit summary regarding deletions of reliably sourced and properly attributed material, in particular material from Hickel’s 2020 book. I don’t think the removal of this material is justified by claims of FRINGE and UNDUE and should be restored forthwith.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 18:09, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Writing 2 - Digital Futures[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 February 2022 and 30 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): America5293 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Zmuhl (talk) 22:32, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:07, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Technology and Culture[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2023 and 15 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): WillyT17 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by BrendanTMD (talk) 01:28, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Admissibility Redlining "Racism By Means Of Capitalism"[edit]

You opposed my text twice:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Criticism_of_capitalism&diff=1205823467&oldid=1205761719

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Criticism_of_capitalism&diff=1210834769&oldid=1210828844

You stated: "Not really a criticism of capitalism" and "You have been reverted many times for shoehorning undue or off-topic material into numerous articles." Regarding the last bit, I strongly disagree with those people, as I do with you.

Are you seriously claiming that if capitalists run some kind of price war against African-Americans, it would not be held against capitalism?

Best regards Lau737 (talk) 12:55, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Criticism_of_capitalism&oldid=1216949645"