| Revision as of 01:43, 19 January 2006 editCJ (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users28,411 editsm Reverted edits by Piedras grandes (talk) to last version by Chira← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 02:39, 3 January 2025 edit undoJuxtaposedJacob (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers2,128 edits →Einsteins relevance in the socialism description: ReplyTag: Reply |
| (145 intermediate revisions by 58 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Talkheader}} |
|
== NPOV? == |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start|vital=yes|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Systems|importance=Mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Sociology|importance=Mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Economics|importance=Mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=Mid}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Mutualism links to wrong article == |
|
Still looks like we need to replace '''The division of economic systems''' section with something that references outside sources. Let's point to at least one outside scholar as the source of whatever categories we present as being "the most basic and general economic systems." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The mutualism link featured in most sidebars here goes to the article about ], not ]. ] (]) 04:26, 23 November 2020 (UTC) |
|
It seems that someone removed the "right wing" and "left wing" category strategy, so many of the comments and criticisms on this page no longer apply. -] 09:21, 18 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Einsteins relevance in the socialism description == |
|
== List of systems == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why is Einstein brought up here at all? He's not the most relevant or commonly referenced proponent and the paragraph and quote is disconnected from the rest of the article. In the context of the very short and neutral captialism and mixed market descriptions this article is very skewed. And referencing the position of a famous figures positive argument for an ideology doesnt give equal representation. |
|
I think that at some point it should be moved to a separate article (] is a redirect ATM). I expanded the current list, but I don't think that the division into left/right/other is the only possible (or the best), so if you want to add new lists of current systems, then please move it to the List... article. |
|
|
|
I don't think I'd mind this if there were a "laymans argument" for each ideology category. That'd be interesting but I don't think that kind of sourcing is very typical of Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 07:56, 20 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Yeah I agree with you; I removed the quote. This would be like asking J-Lo's opinion on the theory of relativity. ] <small>(]) | :) | he/him | </small> 02:39, 3 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
At the moment we have a rather good definition of what economic system is (so we understand that ] or ] are NOT economic systems, right?). --] 20:28, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: Done. Moved the long list to another article. Please don't expand the list in this article, do it in the ], ok? --] 13:10, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Since the merge was annulled, I am moving content of ] here: |
|
|
|
|
|
This article will try to: |
|
|
* list all possible economic systems by name |
|
|
* present all possible lists (cathegorisations) of economic systems |
|
|
--] 13:09, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
=== Rv/latest changes === |
|
|
|
|
|
Removed the ''others'' lists. If it is not right or left-wing, it is not to be mentioned in this list - please follow this simple rule. In case there is much confusion, we may have a list of some popular 'other' systems and explanations that they have both right and left wing variants (like coordinatorism and anarchy) |
|
|
|
|
|
Rv/latest changes in the List by left-wing and right-wing: |
|
|
* ''Anarchism'' is not left wing, it has both right and left wing variants, therefore they should be listed in their sections |
|
|
:Anarchism, in its original form, was entirely left-wing. "Anarcho-capitalism" did not develop until the 1950's, and it is a branch of classical liberalism, not anarchism (despite the name). |
|
|
* brought back ''Market economy'' to the right wing system list, it is one of the most important items there. |
|
|
:Market economy is already mentioned in the first classification of systems. And, in any case, a market economy is not necessarily right-wing (think about market socialism, for example). |
|
|
* removed ''Corporatism'' since it points to the same link as ''corporate capitalism'' ATM and the latter is better for the list |
|
|
--] 17:05, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
:Ok, I agree with that one. I didn't notice the redirect when I first made my changes. |
|
|
|
|
|
=== Problematic systems for the left and right wing list === |
|
|
|
|
|
In the right-left wing list ATM, but can be important later. |
|
|
|
|
|
* Feudalism - can it be argued as a right or left wing system at all? |
|
|
:Yes. The ''original'' "right-wing" were the supporters of feudalism in the revolutionary French Parliament. Compared to them, our present-day right-wing (the supporters of laissez-faire capitalism) were considered ''left''. Therefore, feudalists would be Far Right by today's standards. |
|
|
* Parecon is a planned economy... but left or right wing? |
|
|
:Well... most supporters of Parecon say it is left-wing... and, for the record, it's not a planned economy (at least not in the usual sense). |
|
|
* Is ''Planned economy'' a left-wing system only? Coordinatorism is a type of a planned economy, and coordinatorism can exist in both righ and left wing variants, so it seems logical that planned economy is not only left-wing. |
|
|
--] 17:05, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
:You are correct. Planned economy goes beyond left or right. And so does Market economy. They are very broad concepts. |
|
|
|
|
|
:And regarding "eco-capitalism", that's not an economic system in itself. It's not even a branch of capitalism. It is only a term describing the use of capitalist processes to achieve environmental goals (with more or less success). |
|
|
|
|
|
== To do == |
|
|
|
|
|
Section needing urgent expansion: |
|
|
|
|
|
a) traditional systems - as in pre-capitalism ones - they are not well defined (as an economic system), and I am not sure if idelogies like ] should be defined as systems? |
|
|
b) post-capitalism systems - various utopian and futurologist systems should be mentioned here |
|
|
c) red links: turbo-capitalism, corporate capitalism, and many others - whether they are synonims or little-known terms, we need to have at least a stub on them |
|
|
--] 20:28, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Choice of classification system == |
|
|
|
|
|
The division of all economies into ''market, mixed, planned'' and ''traditional'' seems rather flimsy. ''Where'' does this system of classification come from? Who has used this classification system is their work? Are there alternative classifications that might better help the reader understand? |
|
|
|
|
|
I found an example NPOV article from . I like how they conservatively limit their discussion of economic systems to '''concrete examples'''. |
|
|
|
|
|
Perhaps we should find a more conservative, and less theoretical, classification system to outline economics. Categories such as "traditional" don't even begin to describe the diversity of economics in worldwide cultures throughout history, nor does it provide a useful framework to categorise economies. |
|
|
|
|
|
I'd like to see "left" and "right" removed as well-- these words mean different things in different times and places. --] 08:39, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
---- |
|
|
What is this cr*p about capitalism being "right wing"? ] 20:54, 16 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
Why is Einstein brought up here at all? He's not the most relevant or commonly referenced proponent and the paragraph and quote is disconnected from the rest of the article. In the context of the very short and neutral captialism and mixed market descriptions this article is very skewed. And referencing the position of a famous figures positive argument for an ideology doesnt give equal representation.
I don't think I'd mind this if there were a "laymans argument" for each ideology category. That'd be interesting but I don't think that kind of sourcing is very typical of Misplaced Pages. 83.233.197.54 (talk) 07:56, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
