Talk:Crony capitalism/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

[in]sufficient inline citations?

The article currently carries a flag from Dec. 2011 asking people to improve the article with more inline citations.

What are the procedures for deciding whether an article has sufficient inline citations? It looks to me like it has adequate inline citations today. DavidMCEddy (talk) 17:08, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Article Appears Slanted

Article seems to imply that strong government (or at least “highly-involved” government) leads to or is susceptible to establishing a crony capitalist system. The relationship is far more complex. Frankly, this article is beginning to read like something written by a Heritage Foundation member. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.209.144.90 (talk) 17:58, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

? If the 'relationship is far more complex' (regulatory capture illustrates some documented 'complexities'), then bring on the citations and edit away! Duke Ganote (talk) 18:49, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Pot, meet kettle? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.209.144.90 (talk) 15:58, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Doth thou sorely complain or doth editing test thy mettle? [1] Duke Ganote (talk) 18:31, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Nay. But given thy stated political bent, I haveth no doubt thy political hackery wouldst extendeth to this page, yay verily... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.209.144.90 (talk) 18:26, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Consider the following, from the article itself: “Crony capitalism is generally associated with more virulent government intervention, however.” “Virulent” as in strong and persistent? No. “Virulent” as in marked by a destructive course, yes. “Intentionally ambiguous laws and regulations are common in such systems. Taken strictly, such laws would greatly impede practically all business; in practice, they are only erratically enforced. The specter of having such laws suddenly brought down upon a business provides incentive to stay in the good graces of political officials. Troublesome rivals who have overstepped their bounds can have the laws suddenly enforced against them, leading to fines or even jail time.” If the former definition of virulent, then this is self-contradictory - as strong government implies organized (not erratic) enforcement. If the latter, then yes, I can agree with the statement. To assert otherwise for the former would imply a government wholly devoid (or mostly devoid) of people who take the oath of their duties seriously. Which in and of itself is a generalization - which would require some sort of proof in each case. Thus the need for the sophistry of sources ceases to exist. Just logic and the article itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.209.144.90 (talk) 20:42, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

wikilink

I just added a wikilink to the recent Canadian sponsorship scandal because this seems to me as another perfect example of the principle. le_natch 00:12, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Careful examination of the facts surrounding George W. Bush's purchase and profit from the sale of his share of the baseball team the Texas Rangers provide an illuminating example of the principle, "It's not what you know; it's who you know."

It is hypothesised that crony capitalism in the United States significantly contributed to the Stock Market Crash of 2002 due to weak leadership and inadequate regulation of shady business practices.

This sort of thing is precisely what Wikipedia has to work hard to get rid of, if it wants to become a reliable, trustworthy resource. Whether or not the above claims are true, it seems obvious that they were added to the article (as is often the case with articles related to current events) in order to make a political statement about the current Republican administration. That isn't what Wikipedia is for--in fact, it's an abuse of Wikipedia. The more dross like this is shoveled into Wikipedia, the less seriously it will be taken by people who can really make it into something great.

What amazes me is that Wikipedia is full of so many obviously intelligent people, and yet, somehow, those same people commit or let by precisely this sort of bias. Cmon people, writing from a neutral point of view is not rocket science. What amazes me is that this is not only biased, it's really, really obviously biased. I mean, if you really did think this stuff about Bush and "crony capitalism," and you in good faith both understood and supported Wikipedia's nonbias policy, maybe you'd want say, "The phrase is used by New York liberals such as the editorial staff of the Times, to make it quite clear who believes what." You would discuss the phrase, rather than use it--the difference is obvious.

Look at it this way. When a political issue, as in this case, is essentially over what sort of spin should be put on an event (concept, whatever), an encyclopedia should be in the business of explaining the dynamics of the spinning, and who the spinmeisters are. In these casees, actually using Wikipedia to do the spinning is patently sophomoric idiocy that obviously (or, it should be blindingly obvious) undermines Wikipedia's mission.

This is only one example. There are many, many other examples all throughout Wikipedia; see other current events backgrounder articles.

--Larry Sanger

My comment: the way you phrase your point here in this discussion makes it obvious to anyone that you personally dislike seeing such things; this wouldn't help people who don't have the same opinions as you, help you. Moreover, you said in your second paragraph: "... to make it quite clear who believes what." The problem is that there is no place for belief in such issues. It's proof, or disproof: facts, not trust. You simply have to ask people something like that: "please reference your work from credible, objective sources, or remove your comment", instead of going subjective and calling the process "patently sophomoric idiocy". If you want me to be much clearer, suggest something better, or suggest not. Edit wars, they say? That should be understood as "Edit peace talks" ;) le_natch 00:09, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Most of the uses I've seen of the phrase denote it as a specific type of capitalism--regular capitalism is something entirely different. As such, I thought that the first sentence pre-Lir was entirely appropriate. Meelar 06:39, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

If you wish to address an edit of mine, the best way to do so is via my talk page. Lirath Q. Pynnor

This article really should address crony capitalism as an institutional variant of capitalism. It also needs to describe the institutions of cronyism. This is no small effort, and someone needs to spend time researching this issue. Saying generalities about networks is not enough. Possible sources to dig up stuff: Mother Jones, Brad deLong's weblog archives. Call it Crapitalism if you want, but there needs to be specific references to this usage. Googling didn't seem to turn up many reliable references.

This is an important resouce article and if there is an institutional economist out there, please take it. CSTAR 19:34, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

This page seems extremely biased, though I'm not sure how to make it unbiased. LDan 22:09, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

the reason that George Bush SHOULD be included in crony capitalism is so obviously because he is the biggest crony capitalist of the all. how is that biased, his and daddys buisness connections are well know by everyone aren't they? Half the damn cabined are directors or CEOs of one business or another and the election campaign as funded by big business, and if that’s not crony capitalism, then I don’t know what is. That’s why it’s not biased.

LOL. (Hey LD) Um, yes I agree its biased. And suggest for starters removing the "crapitalism" comment. As with all articles about terms for other terms or aspects within those terms, there should focus on the use of the term itself. Im thinking a capitalism topicbox can show a heirarchy wherin (maybe) this gan exist. Elsewise link to dic:Crony capitalism. SV|t|add 18:31, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Bush is mentioned like 5 times on this page. It's obviously biased with a left slant. Why don't you just delete this page because there is already an article regarding 'cronyism'. Nearly all presidents have been accused of Cronyism. Why? Because they nominate on party lines? That's not cronyism. That's patronage.

Crony Capitalism? Not in the U.S.A. I know. Not in an era of corporate CEO's going to prison left and right. This is a simple derogatory term used to hurt the U.S. image. I'd bet most who use this term are socialist.

oh really, care to name one that is actually IN prison???

"That's not cronyism. That's patronage." bwbhahahahah!!!

July 2005 revision

I have heavily revised this page. Any comments would be welcome. – Smyth\^talk 1 July 2005 20:13 (UTC)

Crapitalism

I can't find any strong connection between "crapitalism" and "Crony capitalism" that would merit craptalism being bolded at the top as an alternate term. Crapitalism seems to be a catch-all for opposition to capitalism, and may well be applied to "non-crony" capitalism (or else part of a belief that there is no such thing).

Also, as a random comment, I randomly guessed for the uncited "a leading economist in China" quote in the older article, and it turned out to be right. Heh, who knew... not that I can actually read the article I linked as a reference from Google (dang payment required), but it clearly has the quote in the abstract, so whatever.

Some more cites would be helpful on this article. I might see if I can toss some in later. SnowFire 04:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

HA HA HA. Funny redirect.--Edtropolis 14:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Recent changes.

BernardL: as for your political viewpoints addition, it's nice that it's sourced, but... I'm failing to see the relevance of this screed against neoliberalism in this article. Also, "radical economists" seem like a pretty minor viewpoint. I've been meaning to come back to this article for some time and get rid of the random pimping of a minor Austrian school book (the Robber Barons one), but I don't think your example is much more relevant, just from the other side.

Also, I can guarantee you that "crony capitalism" is used not just by capitalists. It's used by socialists all the time (quick Google yields [2], [3] and [4] as three quick examples in a minute, and having gone to a college with a lot of socialists I know I saw it used there); it's just that they generally are referring to all capitalism when they say this (and, as the one who edited in the various "cronyism in sections of the economy" sections, I think that they have a point). Both sides agree that "crony capitalism" is bad; it's just that capitalists often use the term to explain poor-performing semi-capitalist economies, while opponents try and draw everything into crony capitalism's sphere. SnowFire 21:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

As for "radical economists" being a "pretty" minor viewpoint, Marx was a “radical economist” and so was Veblen. Robin Hahnel, the economist in question, is a prominent left economist, a professor at American University, and well known among global anti-systemic movements, so I would argue that his views do qualify as notable at least for a “political viewpoints” section. (I have several similar examples from notable "radical economists and analysts" if you do not approve of that one.) Furthermore this “example” concerns the apologetics of Michael Camdessus and Stanley Fischer- powerful global “players” indeed- so I wonder how such an example can possibly be irrelevant? I was aware that some leftists have used the term, "crony capitalism". Personally I think they are typically misguided inasmuch as "crony capitalism" is used as an overarching structural description, rather than in a qualified way to express tendencies and aspects of the overall structure; but I would suggest that the initial and primary impetus for the term's popularity has been as an apologetics for failures such as the Asian financial crisis and the Enron crisis. One can readily notice that the left usage is typically to expose the hypocrisy of someone like Greenspan blaming the Asian crisis on crony capitalism while ignoring the cronyism under his nose (ie: Enron). This is the basic intent of the second article to which you linked, from the ISR. The link to the Stiglitz review points to the same argument about hypocrisy. Stiglitz moreover tends to employ the term crony capitalism, almost ironically, but goes much farther in recognizing fundamental faults in the information processing capacities of competitive markets (even in a dynamic context), a notion which is anathema to austrians, neoliberals, libertarians, etc. who are the primary instigators and promulgators of the apologetic It is notable that the “crony capitalism” section of this linked review puts great emphasis on the Asian financial crisis and the Enron debacle, while the current wikipedia article makes no mention of it.

So to elucidate the concept more clearly than the article previously did, I thought its primary agents should be identified, moreover I thought it was wrong to present it as an alleged “form of capitalism”; the concept is not developed enough to constitute a systemic theory. It’s more of a catch-phrase than a concept derived from established academic economics literature, no matter how hard the article may try to suggest otherwise. Regarding the connection to neoliberalism, I think it is undeniable. The term came into common currency at the height of the neoliberal era, and was used by prominent neoliberals as an explanation for market failures. Some socialists engaged in the discourse on globalization have tried to turn the tables, in a mainly reactive way, by noting the hypocrisy and pointing out that capitalism generally involves crony capitalism. Personally I think the previous theories of the schools of monopoly capitalism and critical institutionalism go much further and provide far more adequate explanations of rent-seeking behaviour in an evolving context of industrial market-capitalism than the coinage of 'crony capitalism" can offer.BernardL 23:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The reason I worry about its relevance wasn't so much the source as the content. It reads to me to mostly be an attack on the IMF and neoliberal policies without as much relevance to crony capitalism. To put it another way, suppose Mr. Hahnel is entirely correct - my conclusion from that would not be anything concerning crony capitalism, but rather "the IMF is a bunch of dweebs." It'd be the same way if an article on, say, the Iraq insurgency brought up George Bush saying inconsistent things about it, praising the government one second and threatening it the next. This means that George Bush is an idiot, but it doesn't say much about the nature of the insurgency/civil war/unrest/etc.

The one part of the quote that does seem possibly relevant is "the afflicted economies were no more rife with crony capitalism, lack of transparency, and weak-willed politicians than dozens of other economies untouched by the Asian financial crisis." That said, again, even if true, I'm not sure it says much. Nobody ever said all crony capitalist economies have to collapse ("suffer corrections," whatever) at the same time. Anyway, I don't mean to make work for you, but since you did offer to use an alternate quote... do you have something that goes into more detail on why the term is "as an ideologically motivated attempt to avoid the more fundamental problems of market capitalist economic arrangements?" Also, even if the term is ideologically motivated, what do such socialists think of cases of crony capitalism - even if it is motivated by ideology, it still exists as a phenomenon worthy of study, right? I don't think it's really arguable that it's easier to get business done in Singapore or the United States than Brazil or Russia. Or, to put it in Marxian terms, "crony capitalism" is somewhere between feudalism and capitalism on the economies scale, and presumably a "fair" capitalism would be preferable since it would be at least talented people grabbing all the wealth rather than psuedo-noble families with connections.

Anyway, on another note, with the whole "who uses the term" debate... I think we both agree that both sides do use the term, though you seem to think that the "left" shouldn't. Perhaps a better approach in the lead is that rather than say "it's primarily used by free-market advocates" is to say who originated the term, something much easier to measure and thus more objective. Sadly, a Google check didn't turn up much- yes, lots of stuff on the Asian financial crisis, but that was also around the time the Internet kicked into high gear, so that doesn't say much as earlier references might not be on the net. Do you have a reference for this statement in the political views section?

The term "crony capitalism" made its first significant impact in the public arena as an explanation of the Asian financial crisis.

I'd have no problem at all moving that to the lead with a "by free market advocates" tacked on to the end and possibly an "according to SOURCE," if we can find a source. SnowFire 00:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Crony Capitalism and Gambling in the US

Isn't a clear demonstration of Crony Capitalism the prohibition of online gambling in the United States and other countries, while SOME "entrepeneurs" are allowed to explore casinos and so forth inside the country ?

The recent prohibition of online gambling in the country wasn't enforced after a strong lobbying of the "established" gambling industry ?

And what to say about Halliburton and the profits it gets from its contracts in Iraq ? What kind of oversight are such contracts under ?

Why just associate Crony Capitalism to Developing Countries ?

first off

What is the deal with this "map of perception of corruption"; that is certainly not based on any objective source. All governments have corruption, democracy has less than most countries, because of "checks and balances" making America yellow a higher state of corruption than other countries is ludicrous, this is based on a source from an outside country...OF COURSE the perception is going to be that one country is more corrupt than the other, therefore that map is certainly biased and should be taken down immediately. Secondly, the notion that anybody can be completely objective is hog wash, whether subconscious or not every source has a leaning and an agenda, simply just by omitting info can be biased even though the opposing info is "factual", because you are not providing a full picture. Thirdly Bush is a douche, but so are democrats, i.e. all politicians are douches and illustrate and practice this supposed "crony capitalism"; it is human nature, and I love when people use something like the crash of 2002 as an example for Bush for crony capitalism, people seem to forget the fact that Clinton was in office for two terms, a total of 8 years, which was when all these practices of unethical business were grown during the .com boom, lastly if you’re going to talk about Bush or republicans, etc., what about Clinton and the United Arab Emirates with our ports, is that not an example of this crony capitalism that you speak of? In conclusion, when are people going to realize that all politicians suck, they all commit practices for self interest or their interest groups...hello?? that's how they get elected-by lobbyists!!! i.e. wikipedia is ALWAYS to be taken with a grain of salt, and always assume when you are reading something on wikipedia, that there is a "slant", "bias", "agenda"; and pretty much, as well, in anything you read; wikipedia just more so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.219.49 (talk) 18:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

All nations have corruption, yes, but there are different levels of it. If you fill out an application to remodel your house, or buy a piece of property, or start a business, does it just happen? Or do you need to bribe someone, lest it take two years to process? Or do you need to bribe someone lest nothing happen at all? That's what that map measures. SnowFire 04:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Corruption Index Chart

The chart at the very top showing corruption index is confusing. Does a higher "corruption index" actually indicate less corruption? Is green better, or is red better? Could someone please update the caption to make it clear how to interpret this chart?--Laughsinthestocks (talk) 13:44, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Rent-seeking

I can't believe this term doesn't appear in this article, it's a major part of crony capitalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.64.108.61 (talk) 01:12, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Creekstone Farms case

The article's current language presents the Creekstone Farms case as a simple example of crony capitalism, presenting as simple fact that the reason the Department of Agriculture refused to permit the use of BSE kits was simple desire to keep a smaller, less-entrtenched business from competing with more entrenched ones. However, a read of the 3rd Circuits opinion in the case indicates it found the USDA had a legitimate reason for acting the way it did. The BSE test kits Creekstone Farms proposed to use were cheap, relatively inaccurate ones that couldn't reliably detect the presence of BSE at the low levels that were likely to be present if a Creekstone Farms cow was infected. If a cow had BSE, there was too high a chance it wouldn't be detected by the test. Therefore, passing the test wouldn't be sufficient evidence that a problem didn't exist. It's also worth noting that all US cattle farms were under Japan's export ban. Vetoing Creekstone Farm's method of exempting itself from the ban didn't result in any increased business opportunities for other, allegedly crony businesses as one might expect in a crony capitalism situation. The complete absence of any crony benefit increases the plausibility that the USDA's decision was based on science rather than cronyism. I find a general NPOV problem with the article as a whole, but this specific example struck me as particularly salient. Moreover, I don't see thle at an example this specific and disputable about a single, relatively obscure decision belongs in a general encyclopedia article at all, let alone having such a prominent role. Why not talk about the Teapot Dome scandal or other famous, highly notable historical examples of known collusion and corruption between business and government that have been widely covered and whose corrupt nature is widely accepted by historians? --69.126.21.96 (talk) 17:09, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

No mention of Obama?

No Solyndra/Fisker Automotive? If those are not crony capitalism then I don't know what is. Rotten (talk) 09:30, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

To substantiate the claim of "crony capitalism" in the case of Solyndra requires proof of political donations by the company or its owners to President Obama's election fund. Is there evidence of that? According to the press release in September 2009, it seems the government was concerned about job creation and simply made an error in trying to pick a winner (a common complaint about interventionist government): "This investment is part of President Obama's aggressive strategy to put Americans back to work and reduce our dependence on foreign oil by developing clean, renewable sources of energy"[5]Plankto (talk) 10:57, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Should not be connection to current status of market in any country, but in my own wiki "capitalism" (instead of "socialism") is in same category as "demons"... Maybe better show it on situations from past? Or other countries? Poland: XI cent. - XVI cent. ,1989 - 2004. (John Lock) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.204.205.2 (talk) 16:10, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Merging Privatizing profits and socializing losses

Seeing the proposed deletion of the article, Privatizing profits and socializing losses. It may be better to merge the content of that article into this one, as it is noted as an effect of crony capitalism. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 04:37, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Article seems biased

I'm not happy with this article, since the latter half of it seems somewhat biased towards capitalists. Many people would argue these days that the UK and USA strongly exhibit crony-capitalism.

Since Bush-Blair UK/Us are bastions of crony capitalism But the world map seems to omit this fact . Even in 3rd world countries Corruption is a punishable offense. But with Lobbying being a gray area this has been legalized with resp. to USA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.179.14.245 (talk) 07:30, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I think if the existing material of the section on Cronyism (I wonder if is this word used in the wiki article is an acceptable shortening of the phrase?) in sections of an economy can be rewritten by simplifying the language and making it non-biased. The article only needs to present this point of view and not offer it as the ultimate truth.

I need some help to do the same. Do I hear someone helping out?

Notthebestusername (talk) 09:01, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Crony 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) 19:35, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Crony 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) 03:31, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Crony 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) 21:43, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

"Crapitalism" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Crapitalism. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 10#Crapitalism until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 11:58, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Question about content

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I must say I disagree with calling this a form of capitalism because it undermines the free exchange of money, goods and services. The government-corporate nexus serves the same purpose as the government itself in a socialist or communist state - and in those states there tends to be the same nexus with a few favored corporations. Therefore capital cronyism - a better name - is really a variant of socialism. Other possible names are corporatism, corporate cronyism or crony socialism.

Meow1968 (talk) 19:29, 27 January 2019 (UTC)Meow1968

So, no real capitalism? Captalism is not the free exchanges of things or trade. Obviously, both actual capitalists and capitalism supporters have an incentive in defining capitalism in such a way that is "human nature" and that it actually always existed. However, reality is a bit different. Indeed, it could be argued that such capitalism never actually existed and that what we now call capitalism is a mix of mercanthilism, corporatism and feudalism. You seem to ignore all the aristocractic rule and the feudal system (I know there debates about what feudalism actually was, even if was even such a things, but you know what I mean) that preceded capitalism. Capitalism is not just an idea, it did not happen that someone like Adam Smith (unforgivable misunderstood) wrote it out and it just happened. Just like communism is not Marx. Marx did not invent communism.

I find it funny how people make fun of communists for the no true communism, but then use the same "It's not capitalism, it's crony capitalism/corporatism!". That is despite the fact I could point out how Marx spoke about the workers empowering themselves, how the communist party was supposed to be more like the "invisible dictatorship" of Bakunin and not like any other party getting in power while maintaining the same class society, how Marx's dictatorship of the proletariat was the Paris Commune in which there was direct democracy, no standing army, recallable delegates and workers actually having power rather than just nominally have it in so-called socialist countries, how Marx wanted to avoid what happened to the French Revolution in which the state just changed authoritarian rulers and ultimately thought the working class must break up, smash the ready-made state machinery and not confine itself merely to laying hold of it. Or how Marx and Engels specifically called out against the cult of personality which was ironically actually used by Khrushchev against Stalin. Or how Engels specifically wrote in a letter against economic determinism and reductionism, writing that "according to the materialistic conception of history the production and reproduction of real life is in history the decisive moment of last resort. Neither Marx nor I have ever said more. If now someone distorts that statement so that the economic moment turns out to be the only determinant, it transforms that principle into a sentence made meaningless, abstract and absurd" (I could not find the actually quote in English, so i translated the Italian version in English). Or how Engels argued that it was necessary to present a program that foresees the development of agricultural cooperatives because "when we will conquer the power of the State, we will not be able to think of expropriating small owners by violence, with or without compensation, as will instead be done with the great owners. Our task will be to direct their individual production and their private property into a cooperative regime, without using force, but with example and help" (ibidem), thus clearly showing being against the forced collectivization that happened in the Soviet Union. It is then clear that had they been alive, both Marx and Engels would have chastised so-called Marxists and socialist states just like they had done at their time in life. After all, it is not like so many anarchists and Marxists criticized these states, right? To be fair to them, some of these work were not published (especially The German Ideology and the Grundrisse) and some of these were letters, but reading Marx and Engels' letters and correspedence is of vitaly importance to understand what they actually thought. Despite all of this, this is not enough and is considered still a "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

So now crony capitalism is socialism's fault too? Anything good is capitalism, anything bad is socialism; and, of course, leftism too. But, but wait, if we are having corporatism and not capitalism, then you cannot praise capitalism for reducing billions of poverty, despite the fact most of it happened in... *gasp* ... Communist China. Despite being tightly controlled by a Communist Party who still plan on building communism and still having some economic planning and five-year plans, it is capitalist because it is actually having success and thus cannot be socialist (newsflash, China was never actually socialist, Mao transitionated it from feudalsm to capitalism and now it still is in the capitalist mode of production, albeit with a few differences than the West due to different material and cultural conditions). Even the so-called Golden Age of Capitalism, the true golden age (not the Gilden Age), which by the way happened under social democracy and not neoliberalism, was not due to capitalism. After all, it was corporatism!

Joking aside and being serious for a moment, I am sorry for dwelling, but I thought I had to explain this just like other users have to routinely explain in talk pages that no, fascism is not left-wing, Nazism is not socialism, but a fascist, far-right ideology which used populism to get in power, that no, socialism is not anything a government or state (they are actually two different things and not synonimous) does and so on and so on.

To make a serious discussion about this, I actualy think the capitalist critique section should actually specify that the criticism comes from right-libertarians and classical liberals and that there are other liberals, social democrats, Christian democrats and conservatives, among others, who confirm that we indeed live under capitalism, that this is the best system available, that there is no alternative and that the success and wealth we have is indeed due to capitalism and not corporatism or crony capitalism which they obviously oppose, but at least acknowledge we still live under capitalism.--79.36.167.52 (talk) 11:59, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree that in reality socialism often at least appears to become crony-capitalism. 92.24.179.129 (talk) 14:30, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

this entire concept is straight cat-dookie. Capitalism is capitalism. The fact there is even a page for "Crony Capitalism" is a black spot for this website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.93.235.148 (talk) 16:36, 28 July 2022 (UTC)