Talk:Capitalist mode of production (Marxist theory)

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

Untitled Original Thread[edit]

I have tagged this article as NPOV as it states one particular view as fact, ignoring NPOV and wikipedia policy. I will come back to edit it more extensively later. (RookZERO 01:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I removed the tag because I really don't see any POV issues with the article. However, it would be nice to have some inline cites within the body of the article, and I would strongly favor removing the seperate "Criticisms" section, and including those points in appropriate places in the main body. Doc Tropics 18:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So far as I can tell, this entire article simply is a summary of Marxist writings on capitalism, and for clear reasons are at odds with the description of capitalism that would come from either capitalists, more moderate socialist, technocrats, mercantilists or any number of other economic perspectives. (RookZERO 18:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
I removed the NPOV tag. Capitalists, technocrats, etc. don't speak of modes of production. Perhaps you are looking for the article on capitalism?--Horse Badorties 04:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have restored my NPOV tag. This article seems to do nothing more than recited marxist claims, and this characterization of capitalism is at odds with those of non-marxists viewpoints. (RookZERO 20:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]
RookZERO's edit appear to be nothing more than vandalism. I have reverted to the previous version. --Horse Badorties 02:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just to back up Horse Badorties: I came to this article looking for a summary of what Marx wrote about capitalism; the fact that the title includes the words 'mode of production' shows that it is an article about the Marxist point of view. I would expect to find the main body of material about capitalism in an article called Capitalism, as we do. On the other hand, I do find the long section about the former USSR etc rather inappropriate, and think it belongs in an article on State Capitalism. Marinheiro 12:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bias[edit]

Uh these quotes clearly show bias or are unjustified/without citation:

"The prices of both inputs and outputs are mainly governed by the market laws of supply and demand (and ultimately by the law of value)." Marx never claimed supply and demand was how value was determined in Das Kapital vol. I; in fact, he adamantly stuck with the labor theory of value...

"Being carried out for market on the basis of a proliferation of fragmented decision-making processes by owners and managers of private capital, social production is mediated by competition for asset-ownership, political or economic influence, costs, sales, prices, and profits. Competition occurs between owners of capital for profits, assets and markets; between owners of capital and workers over wages and conditions; and between workers themselves over employment opportunities and civil rights." But Marx notes that (in capitalism) when capital is sufficiently concentrated in few enough hands, the "laws of motion" of capital are no longer observable...

"The overall aim of capitalist production, under competitive pressure, is (a) to maximise net profit income (or realise a net superprofit) as much as possible, through cutting production costs, increasing sales, and monopolisation of markets and supply, (b) capital accumulation, to acquire productive and non-productive assets, and (c) to privatize both the supply of goods and services and their consumption." Unsubstantiated assertion ("citation needed")

Actually Marx stresses that the motive force of capitalism is not the consumption of the capitalist, but the fact that in order to fulfill his role as a capitalist he has to accumulate: the capitalist's "own private consumption is a robbery perpetrated on accumulation ... Accumulate, accumulate! That is Moses and the prophets! ... Therefore, save, save, i.e. reconvert the greatest possible portion of surplus value, or surplus product, into capital! Accumulation for accumulation’s sake, production for production’s sake ..." (see

"The finance of the capitalist state is heavily dependent on levying taxes from the population and on credit; that is, the capitalist state normally lacks any autonomous economic basis (such as state-owned industries or landholdings) that would guarantee sufficient income to sustain state activities. The capitalist state defines a legal framework for commerce, civil society and politics, which specifies public and private rights and duties, as well as legitimate property relations."

"Capitalist development, occurring on private initiative in a socially unco-ordinated and unplanned way, features periodic crises of over-production (or excess capacity)." But Marx noted in vol. I of Das Kapital that this was observable if the concentration of capital was not sufficiently developed...

"Many of the state capitalist theories, (which actually originated in Germany, where they were already criticised by Frederick Engels), define "capital" only as a social relation of power and exploitation." Citation needed for Engels' criticisms...

"This idea is based on some passages from Marx, where Marx emphasized that capital cannot exist except within a power-relationship between social classes which governs the extraction of surplus-labour. It is this power-relationship that is most important for the proponents of theories of state capitalism; everything else is secondary." Citation (and preferably passage too) needed...

""State-cap" interpretations cannot in truth be reconciled with Marx's own texts. They are very selective interpretations of those texts, which try to find analogies between particular quotes from Marx and particular features of Soviet-type societies. This, it is argued, is essentially a theological interpretation, not a scientific analysis. Because of that, there is nothing that could refute or falsify it, the interpretation is an article of faith." Clearly biased in its presentation...

" *"State-cap" theorists make their interpretation true by definition, by running together characteristics from very different historical epochs and forms of society. By the same token, they fail to identify what is specific about the socio-economic structure of different societies. The implication is that any society which is not socialist must be capitalist, and if not capitalist in Marx's own sense, then state-capitalist, i.e. just a "different kind" of capitalism than Marx envisaged. 

   * The "state-cap" interpretation makes it difficult to understand how a transition from capitalism to socialism could possibly occur, beyond general rhetoric about "workers power" and the danger of bureaucracy. There is no real economic analysis, only a statement about who holds power.
   * The "state-cap" interpretation is essentially a moral-political condemnation of Soviet-type societies, but not a serious objective explanation of the real functioning of those societies and the real progress they made.
   * The "state-cap" interpretation fails to distinguish between different kinds of markets, functioning in a very different way, and benefiting different groups and social classes.
   * The supporters of a "state cap" interpretation fail to appreciate the difference between a state apparatus which has an autonomous economic base (because it owns the means of production) and a state apparatus which depends mainly on taxes and credit to finance its activities.

   * The supporters of the "state-cap" interpretation keep changing their arguments about why Soviet-type societies are state capitalist, making their case true by definition. Initially, it was argued that state capitalism in Russia was a more advanced stage of capitalism, later that viewpoint was revised." Original research, biased in its presentation, without any citations...

Just some concerns... Pqnelson (talk) 02:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article has some neutrality problems (there are disagreements within the Marxist viewpoint about what "mode of production" means, in particular. Marx's views changed over his lifetime, and Engels used different kinds of conceptualization (particularly in his work on Family, Private Property and the State). However, I think it's a good start. There needs to be a separate page on "mode of production." From what I can tell from a cursory search of the literature on JSTOR, that term now transcends strictly Marxist viewpoints and is used throughout the social sciences, referencing Marx, but not necessarily delving into the specific critical issues that Marxists have associated with the term. Marx was also not always consistent in using "capitalist mode of production" to refer only to post-18th-century modes of production. In discussing primitive socialism, he was reluctant to refer to it as a mode of production (since nothing was produced, in his view) but later seems to recant. It's a complex topic. Marx is not a linear thinker - perhaps that should be noted.--Levalley (talk) 22:25, 31 March 2009 (UTC)LeValley[reply]

Speaking of bias, I think that this article should include something about how Western ideology has instilled a notion into people that capitalism is "better" than other modes of production. I know that ideology distorts history in a way so that the shifting of the social and/or economic order seems like it was consentual and desired by the people of the time. The general Western opinion of capitalism (that it is the greatest subsistence strategy ever devised) is a good example of this.

Post-marxist thinkers[edit]

Someone included this comment in the article but should be here Nubeli (talk) 01:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC):[reply]

This section seems rather opinionated. Also the views referred to are not pinned down to any particular writer or school. It would be more informative if that were done.

Equipment utilization[edit]

"nowadays the under-utilisation of installed productive capacity is a permanent characteristic of capitalist production (average capacity utilisation rates nowadays normally range from about 60% to 85%)"

Utilization of 60 to 85 percent in terms of OEE is indeed true, but it should be considered a feat of technology rather that "under-utilization". In traditional (pre-industrial) forms of production, the corresponding figure is likely to be as low as several percents at best. I'm going to change that passage in a while. Please correct me if you think I misunderstood something.

Sigmundur (talk) 13:01, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply[edit]

When I originally wrote this article there was no entry for the concept of "capitalist mode of production". I realize that for lack of time I have not referenced various claims yet, which is desirable, but others can modify the article if required. It is just that the modifications haven't improved the article very much so far. User:Jurriaan 12:05, 5 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.136.223.40 (talk) [reply]

In originally writing this article, I drew upon thirty years' of experience of the relevant literature and top Marxian scholars. If some twit or Marxist amateur hacks into my article, I am not very impressed with that User:Jurriaan 22:41 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the world community that is the reader and editorship of this site has any obligation to impress you Jurrian, however your point is substantive. As there's been no further discussion of the current tags I'll remove them. They are typical of a very large backward section of the public who come to these articles to in fact impress with their superficial and ignorant opinions on these matters of the utmost importance to everyone. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 08:03, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reinstating the POV tag.[edit]

This article seems to be 100% original research, lacks NPOV, and any sort of citation. Wikipedia is not a place for personal essays but is an online encyclopedia and needs referenced sources. Improvements and citations from the people interested in the article are welcome, in the meantime tagging. Financestudent (talk) 00:00, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No you're right it isn't. And your tagfest was just such a personal expression, in effect vandalising rather than working to improve the article as an obvious expression of your sophomoric views. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 22:29, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Adding that wikipedia is a community site of volunteers with no coordination of the mainspace material other than what occurs in these talk pages. I've not been a major contributor to this article, and no one individual or even a coordinated set of individuals has authored the space of content in the categories and projects relevant to this article, where you will find copious sourcing of what is a very well known body of theory, praxis, etc. If there is content in this one that is contradictory with that overall space of articles, by all means tag it specifically so that it can be addressed. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 22:58, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article does need more cites though. Most of the stuff up to the Post Modern section(s) is heavily supported by Marxist sources and should be uncontroversial within that framework source cites are not problematic, just tedious. The postmodern section is another matter and invites a contrast of polemics. Noting that I am 72.228.177.92 and I did just rework for clarity the first part of the description section. Lycurgus (talk) 16:31, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Circular description redacted[edit]

The first bullet summarizing the basic distinctions had "Production for profit and the need for producers to accumulate capital in order to produce" which is curiously false, incomplete and circular. First, Capital can and does initiate production by fiat using credit. Second this tantalizes but doesn't really provide a place to express the fact that production has increasing demands which are the basis for monopoly capital and the tendency of the rate of profit to fall. Finally, as the first shows, its circular, capital is that thing which when one has it one can set production in motion. In this it is seen as simply the reification of the current social order, which were it not Capitalism would have some other characterization of the power to set production in motion, i.e. the socially realized power, as distinct from that embodied in the objective factors such as natural resources and human labor power. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 14:41, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That this article not use latinate headings; that this article's content be, like normal, independent of external articles[edit]

  1. That this article not use latinate headings
    • English is not Latin, English is the current language of scholarship, English is the language of this encyclopaedia's readers, titles ought to be in English.
  2. That this article's content be, like normal, independent of external articles.
    • The editors of this article are responsible for its content, not editors of other articles; and, particularly when making edits which break English language rules, they ought to be discussed here. Other articles are not the authority for this article's content. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:50, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Qualified editors[edit]

As the originator of this article, I would appreciate it if editors who have NO experience, competentence, knowledge or qualifications with regard to this topic would BACK OFF and GET THEIR HANDS OFF this article. I notice for example that Lycurgus, with his typical nonsense style, fucks up one paragraph after the other, all this without providing ANY reference that might justify his edits. Sadly, this has happened to numerous articles I wrote - the Marxist exploiters ruin the articles, by introducing all kinds of garbage for which they provide NIL scholarly evidence. User:Jurriaan 27 December 2011 3:28 (UTC)

Differentia Specifica[edit]

This was made the title of the section to harmonize with Capitalism where another editor was using the term to refer to the CMoP, don't see why it shouldn't go back to the English noun phrase but with the scholarly fulminations against me in the previous thread wouldn't do so unilaterally. FTR, I never write anything in Wikipedia I don't think I can back up with sources, or very seldom and certainly not here. This is a public venue and all work is 100% open and transparent, this is hardly the only topic I contribute to. I've already gone around several times with Jurrian, pretty sure I've noted before the great hilarity/irony of this kind of pettyfogging restriction of Marxism into a dead and dessicated domain of litigious academic pedants. This is Wikipedia not Scowlerpedia.Lycurgus (talk) 03:05, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Something more I think can be said, in light of the change I've just made. In this case the prior text posed a false opposition of production for use and production for exchange which I've redacted. The text that was there was at least tacitly accepted by me but I didn't create the article or section. I've noted the problem for some time and now fixed it. Will say more on the general operation of commons encyclopædic sense in edits, in the particular context of the articles in this space if I can find time. Lycurgus (talk) 03:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Finally, should I turn out to have lots of time, I'll address the fact that "The Capitalist Mode of Production" is not something owned as concept by Marxists, Marxist academics or anybody else. Capitalist mode of production (Marxism) certainly would be in Scholarpedia, and maybe at some point there'll be a split here but even then as I've pointed out tediously above this would still be Wikipedia and anybody that can constructively edit within the site rules may. In an article space of something like that of kinetochore, i.e. in a hard body of knowledge, this isn't an issue and pedantry isn't tolerated if you can edit in an informed and intelligent way constructively on the subject aatter. Unfortunately outside of accepted "hard" domains that ethic doesn't generally apply. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 12:03, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As the originator of the article, and as somebody who is not a Marxist, I request that Lycurgus and other likeminded people BACK OFF and STAY OUT OF THE ARTICLE, since they evidently do not know what they are talking about, and introduce a ¨pack of lies into the article. The trading circuit C - M - C is NOT a capitalist circuit according to Marx. Instead the capitalist circuit is M - C - M´. If much more nonsense is introduced into the article, I am going to reset the article and wipe out the nonsense.
Who are you? How did you come to own this article? Are you so stupid that you don't realize you can be traced by your IP (212.64.48.162 Amsterdam apparently) after making statements like the above? 72.228.189.184 (talk) 11:59, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Presume user Jurrian is claiming title to the article, although it shows having been created by an ip. FTR I corrected my text to M-C-M after consulting Kapital. 76.180.168.166 (talk) 20:56, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia articles are not "owned" by anyone, even if one person wrote the whole article. They can always be re-edited by someone else, if it is demonstrated that the article does not meet wikipedia requirements. However what has happened to this article is that editors who evidently know nothing about Marx or about the subjectmatter have messed it up until it has become nonsense. A rewrite is therefore required. I suppose in self-criticism that when I originally wrote the article, I did not reference it systematically. But the way it is now, it is largely rubbish.Jurriaan (talk) 15:37, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bourgeois influence[edit]

How about a section about the relationship between the bourgeoisie and the emergence of capitalism and more specifically, mention of how many of the articles in the Declaration of the Rights of Man reflected the class interests and ideals of the bourgeois class and were in opposition to feudal rights and the lord's authority. In other words, capitalism and private property do not dangle in thin air, but are the product of history and more specifically class struggle between the feudal class and bourgeois class. There is a lot of virtual ink on the definition and meaning of the CMP but very little on some of the fundamental principles and laws of capitalism which directly reflect the interests and rights of a particular class. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ditc (talk • contribs) 21:56, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How to remove bias[edit]

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
A somewhat poorly formed RfC with no evident consensus. Please try a more focused question, perhaps a set of two or three specific proposed outcomes between which people can choose? Guy (Help!) 21:41, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Hendrick 99, TheFloydPig, Lycurgus, and PWilkinson: Should be article be redirected, or kept and improved?

User Hendrick 99 feels this article is just an opinion piece, and should be redirected to Capitalism#As a mode of production. From my point of view it notable Marxian concept worthy of its own article. The section on Capitalism has its own problems (article is probably too long as a sub section, and it needs more sources). Maybe there is a way to remove POV, perhaps by reiterating that it is Marxian theory rather than widely believed? Maybe the title should include Marxism? Jonpatterns (talk) 12:01, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonpatterns:Capitalist mode of production means the same thing as capitalism, and the content as I've merged it onto that page (with new citations added) contributes to that page as well. It's virtually the same, but put in context with other points of view. Relax, it's not deleted, more like merged. The redirect should stand. (See Capitalism#As a mode of production) Hendrick 99 (talk) 13:02, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If 'Capitalist mode of production' means 'Capitalism' why does the 'Capitalism' article have any other sections? Rather, 'Capitalist mode of production' is a particular theory regarding Capitalism. Usually, articles are merged if they're too short or not notable on their own. The section under Capitalism is potentially too long. The originally stated reason for redirecting was 'reads like an opinion piece', but didn't mention anything about duplication. There is also an article on mode of production in general.Jonpatterns (talk) 13:46, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Jonpatterns:Capitalism IS a mode of production. Hence the section "AS a mode of production. If you speak English fluently, you'll know that 'As' implies that Capitalism IS a mode of production. Seriously, it's like having a separate article titled 'Capitalist economics' or 'Capitalist market'. It's all the same thing, just different aspects of it. Don't feel bad about the article or anything, in fact the merger means this topic receives MORE coverage, as Capitalism is a more integrated page in the encyclopaedia and more users will visit it. Hendrick 99 (talk) 13:59, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Jonpatterns: If you want to improve the Capitalism article (SPECIFICALLY, to increase coverage of Marxist views of the subject), PLEASE do so. Your dedication to this article would be much better appreciated on that one, as more readers shall frequent it. Thank you. Hendrick 99 (talk) 14:06, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
pong. I am the author of much but not all of the distinguishing characteristics §, little or none outside of that. I think should stay as is but not going to defend the content, have a low tolerance for contention on such matters here or anywhere else. Also FWIW, there's a standard thing here where individuals that are offended that Marxism, Atheism, etc, even exist and the exposition of any material on such topics then becomes jihad for them with accusations of POV in the mere presentation of the subject matter from the interior perspective appropriate to the content. Again contention with such individuals on an uncompensated basis: don't want.Lycurgus (talk) 14:34, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Lycurgus and Jonpatterns: If you can't 'defend the content', you can't really defend the separate article. If a user proposes a new rendition of this article with a variety of sources from different points of view, this article could be re-instated. However, as of now, redirecting is the best option. Especially since it helps readers to get all POVs on the Capitalism page, which before the merge was extremely biased as well (but in the exact opposite POV). So it's pretty much settled then. Keep the redirect, for now. :) Cheers. Hendrick 99 (talk) 14:31, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I did defend the content, and refuted several points you made.Jonpatterns (talk) 14:33, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - do not merge - I was randomly invited to butt in here by a bot. I think the Capitalism article is too long and should be split up and replaced by a significant summary. Merging this into it has not improved it but made it a less accessible greater wall of text. Jojalozzo (talk) 02:49, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question[edit]

  • Question -- Is capitalism a black-or-white mode of production, or is all production capitalist to the extent that (in Marxist terms) excess value is extracted from labor? For example, if company A pays it's workers $20 per hour and sells goods or services which extract $35 per hour in value from them, but company B pays it's workers $25 per hour and sells similar goods or services at the same prices, extracting $30 per hour in surplus labor value, are company A and B both capitalist to the same extent? The bot sent me. EllenCT (talk) 02:16, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good question, though I'm not entirely sure how it relates to the discussion. I would say both are equally capitalist, they both are run on the same basic principles. Company A could be seen as more exploitative, taking a greater percent of the surplus profit and inflating the price. What would happen to these companies? Perhaps company B wouldn't make enough profit to expand and advertise and eventually get taken over. Or perhaps company A would go bust as its more expensive products wouldn't sell on the market. Further, Companies C and D are just as likely - C pays low and takes little surplus, D pays high and take a big surplus. Jonpatterns (talk) 11:03, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @EllenCT: I notice you are active on Wikipedia today. Any comment on my answer to your question? Jonpatterns (talk) 18:09, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Inequality hinders growth. Competition exists to help cooperation, according to game theoreticians studying genetic algorithm approaches to the iterated prisoners' dilemma. Therefore, I have no idea what would happen to companies C and D. What do you think? EllenCT (talk) 01:30, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Name change[edit]

One way to remove bias could be to make the name more explicit, options so far:

  1. Capitalist mode of production - old name)
  2. Marxian view on capitalism - current name
  3. Capitalist mode of production (Marxist theory) - third option

My preference at the moment would be option 3. Capitalist mode of production (Marxist theory) - as this is the phrase used by Marx and is more consistent with the content of the article. Any other suggestions? Jonpatterns (talk) 12:37, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I prefer "Capitalist production in Marxist theory". I am going to be bold to see if there are any objections. I don't mind being reverted, but I'm trying to make it easier for the RFC closer if everyone is okay with that name. EllenCT (talk) 16:33, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Third opinion - allow RfC before redirect, or redirect immediately[edit]

Should other editors should be able to voice their opinion in the RfC before deciding whether to redirect (Capitalist mode of production to Capitalism#As a mode of production). Or should the redirect be made immediately.

Note, the argument is NOT whether the article should be redirected or not. Rather, when the redirection should be made? Jonpatterns (talk) 14:47, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adding, per above I've developed some defense mechanisms of not even looking at stuff when it seems like what I describe above. Came back in this case to look closer. First scan indicates all the content was moved in the other article. Don't have any problem with that. When I do such operations, I always move all the back matter too. Lycurgus (talk) 15:08, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't commented on what this Wikipedia:Third Opinion is asking.Jonpatterns (talk) 15:11, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Given my acquiescence to the action, don't have a position on the speed, deliberative process under which it occurs. Lycurgus (talk) 15:25, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A third opinion has been requested, but I am not entirely sure what the two opinions are in the first place. I see that the title has already been redirected. Is there discussion about reversing the redirect, or is there some other question? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:53, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Robert McClenon: I think the redirect should be reverted until there has been a discussion on whether to do it or not. @Hendrick 99: thinks the redirect should remain. Note, there was no discussion before this major change was made, for example the WP:Merge process was not used. If you check the history you can see the edit war. Jonpatterns (talk) 20:00, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see that the article was redirected first, and then the RFC was published, and the third opinion requested, and that there is move-warring. Stop move-warring and discuss. My opinion is that the move/redirect should have been proposed and discussed prior to the redirect. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:10, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifying non position: I think the value of moving a condensed version into a much higher visibility article offsets the reduction in content, which I didn't notice in first scan. I still don't have a position though, but I do observe it was a very rapid action in a controversial and frequently contested area. Lycurgus (talk) 20:48, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have an opinion on the article or redirect, but I have a very strong opinion about editors eliminating/moving/redirecting articles without discussion. It is a habit that should be strongly discouraged as it almost always the result of an editor ramrodding his/her own POV. Red Harvest (talk) 20:53, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Lycurgus and Red Harvest: As the article specifically deals with the Marxian view of the capitalist mode of production, this article should be titled as such. Now there's little to nothing left to dispute.Hendrick 99 (talk) 02:41, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly don't understand the problem, the problem is you changing names and moving things around without discussion or consensus for the moves. So rather than "little to nothing left to dispute" there is a new thing to dispute. See WP:PMW. My opinion is that the page name should revert to the original until discussion has concluded and consensus is reached. It seems appropriate that an administrator reset the page accordingly and move protect the page (see WP:MOVE-PRO.) Red Harvest (talk) 04:16, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
pong. OK, so the situation has changed has it not? I may have missed the retitling but I believe yesterday there was a total merge and redirect which was the basis of my response above. Now the merge source apparently has reappeared with a questionable title. At this point I'm in favor of a complete revert and let a deliberative process determine the course. Hendrick 99, it is certainly the case from first principles that CMoP deserves the place in the C article you gave it, however this place isn't run on just such principles alone. I would be surprised if there isn't also going to be some push back at the merge target. You are probably best advised to set the situation back to the status quo ante now and work with people in the two articles in the normal way by placing merge to and merge from tags and let others weigh in. Lycurgus (talk) 05:36, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move protected[edit]

The article is now move-protected after a request at WP:RFPP. Please use Talk to reach a consensus on what to do with this material. If people keep changing the article to a redirect, before reaching agreement, it may be necessary to do full page protection. The current title appears to be reasonably neutral, though it's up to editors what to do in the future. Moving the contents over to a section of Capitalism ought to be subject to consensus on that page, and would surely put limits on the length. EdJohnston (talk) 22:00, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston: I'm sorry, I had read this much earlier but forgot. I prefer "Capitalist production in Marxist theory" and believe that satisfies all of the RFC concerns. All, please let me know if it doesn't. EllenCT (talk) 16:39, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since the title has been disputed, it's better if you open a formal move discussion per WP:RM#CM. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:57, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 7 April 2015[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus Harej (talk) 14:32, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalist mode of production (Marxist theory) → Capitalist production in Marxist theory – Satisfies the concerns raised by the RFC and since, and closely adheres to applicable naming convention policies and guidelines. EllenCT (talk) 01:38, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support in theory as in WP:NATURAL--let me know if there's any reason to oppose. I sure don't see one. Red Slash 05:18, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment my only reservation is that I think Marx used the phrase 'mode of production', which is more specific than just 'production'. My preference would be Capitalist mode of production in Marxist theoryJonpatterns (talk) 15:36, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: why not just drop the "(Marxist theory)" in the current title and have 'Capitalist mode of production'? The term 'mode of production' is a term used in Marxist theory and therefore there is no need to disambiguate. Ebonelm (talk) 16:37, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The term "mode" is incorrect, and based on a flawed assumption that capitalism is not an extent along a rational numeric continuum, but rather a Boolean bit. EllenCT (talk) 05:48, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • @EllenCT: The term "mode of production" may, or may not be a correct way to describe production. However, the article is about the Marxist theory. I think Marx did see it as a binary choice, that in his opinion the Capitalist mode of production necessary leads to certain outcomes. @Ebonelm: I think the issue is not to disambiguate - I incorrectly used brackets as an attempt of a compromise during an edit war. The issue is to title the article after its content. If the article is called 'Capitalist mode of production' then readers could mistakenly think the article is about that subject in general. Actually the article is about the Marxist theory of the Capitalist mode of production.Jonpatterns (talk) 13:54, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Who are you going to believe, Marx or WP:CK math? Calling it a mode is misleading, archaic, and has never been entirely uncontroversial, from first principles. The five word title is sufficient for full disambiguation and meets all the rules. EllenCT (talk) 19:31, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • Its not a question of what I believe, rather its about reflecting the sources correctly. If the 'mode of' is dropped it could mislead readers about what Marx thought. If what Marx thought goes against common knowledge then that is what should be reflected in the article and its title, because the article is about the Marxist theory.Jonpatterns (talk) 09:11, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

State-Capitalism[edit]

I'm going to radically rework this piece. It's terrible. The underlying reasons are "it makes no sense, it's stupid, other theories are just wrong", no explanation or elaboration at all. And no sources.TimIsTimisTimIsTim (talk) 11:58, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Capitalist mode of production (Marxist theory). 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) 17:58, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Serious lack of citation[edit]

Whole sections of this article are completely uncited. This is a very well studied subject and sources abound. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources) All contributions to Wikipedia must be cited, there are no exceptions to this rule. If you are an expert on this subject, you must still cite a reference.

I would also mention the Wikipedia manual of style, in particular

. Please avoid using technical language whenever possible, even if this requires more text.

---1.159.72.53 (talk) 06:58, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Capitalist_mode_of_production_(Marxist_theory)&oldid=1206539297"