Talk:Neo-capitalism

This article should be deleted

1. It's a wp:neologism which means you need a lot of WP:RS saying it's a real term, not one time magazine and some fan sites have used.
2. There are few references and it's mostly wp:original research
3. It looks like a fan site for a phrase or ideology with just a few adherents
4. And it does have notability problems.

Only a very detailed history of a number of uses of the term by a number of sources, with every factoid from a WP:RS would give this article any credibility. Beef it up soon or it will get a WP:RFD (request for deletion). CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree... especially so because it appears to be a single purpose user that apparently invented all the information... and linked a few of these inventions together... probably should be speedily deleted... post haste. skip sievert (talk) 01:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I've just done a quick google, and it appears that the term has been used at various times to mean various things; the uses don't agree with each other, and none of the uses are very notable. See this article, this paper, also here and here. I would AfD it as a non-notable neologism. LK (talk) 04:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I appears that the originator of the article also recently started a blog forum with lots of apparent original research on it. It looks like the topic as presented on the article as a conjunct with a couple of sites by an editor here http://www.neocapitalism.org/ - skip sievert (talk) 07:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that some "critical mass" was required for a Wikipedia page, if it be so then so be it. Given the anti-neologism rule, I guess any page on "Neo-Capitalism" is out until enough internet pages exist referring to the new definition. May I ask is a rewrite which just describes "The Neo-Capitalist Manifesto" alone sufficiently notable (i.e. rename the Neo-Capitalism page to The Neo-Capitalist Manifesto and delete the historical use of Neo-Capitalism so it's just about the Manifesto alone), or do you need the Manifesto published and on sale on Amazon beforehand? I have no difficulty simply waiting a few months if needs be, I have a backup of the text, but as most people ask Wikipedia before anything else for a definition it would be useful. BTW http://ib.frath.net/w/Neocapitalism is a satirical website much like the Onion and therefore its definition is deliberately specious. Neo-Capitalism definitely did have a specific meaning once upon a time, though granted it is irrelevant today. (Niall Douglas (talk) 14:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC))

Just to add regarding the "no original research" rule, the Manifesto itself contains no original research - it summarises the main points of the Freeing Growth books which IS original research. I then went out of my way in the article to illustrate that really it's just a combination of old ideas and has very little new ideas, and I tried to be as objective in its description as I could. I might add that there are countless pages on Wikipedia, especially stub pages, which briefly overview a book of original research and it was this style I tried to copy. (Niall Douglas (talk) 14:35, 13 February 2009 (UTC))

This article should not be deleted

"Neo-Capitalism" is not neologism, and this active discussion is evidence of notability. References should be added to improve the article.Esasus (talk) 11:21, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I am now very confused. I have searched Wikipedia for details of the process by which content is included or deleted, but I couldn't find a page on "this is what happens". I did find this on "no original research":

If you have done primary research on a topic, publish your results in other venues such as peer-reviewed journals, other printed forms, or respected online sites, and Wikipedia will report about your work once it becomes part of accepted knowledge. Citations of such reliable sources are needed to demonstrate that material is verifiable, and not merely the editor's opinion.

Yet in my personal opinion one of the great strengths of Wikipedia is its objective overview of subjects not covered in one location elsewhere i.e. the quality should be in the description and coverage of a topic, not in the arbitrary exclusion of topics not deemed "accepted knowledge" somehow. If some bloke wishes to write the perfect encyclopaedic reference page specifically on the brass door hinge, then great!

Regarding the sources in this article, I shall add direct links into the Manifesto the page item refers to and I will also remove any commentary or personal opinion except where it contrasts with another Wikipedia page topic. I should get time to do this this coming weekend. I am also aiming for "smaller is better" so I will try to reduce the size of the article whilst also improving its focus. (Niall Douglas (talk) 16:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC))

Even if you cut it to only what is sourced, it remains unnotable and a neologism, plus other criticisms above. Thus I've started an AfD. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:04, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Now that it's been done it remains clear it is non-notable unless new sources are added to prove your point. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Post-AfD Discussion

A lot of work slammed into me last weekend (book publishing is not a lot of fun in the current economic climate), so I completely missed the end of the AfD discussion. I see someone decided to put this article back to nearly the economics stub it originally was - fair enough. I'll leave this article on the back burner for a while ... let the dust settle and I'll come back to it when I'm ready. In the meantime, I'll get on with a WikiInfo version and backport the referencing of it where appropriate into this article. I repeat my strenuous denial that there necessarily has to be a conflict of interest, if that is always the case then you can rule out almost all expert authoring of anything (Niall Douglas (talk) 09:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC))

You seem to be missing the point. You can not make yourself notable on Wikipedia, by publishing a book somewhere and then connecting that information here. That is a conflict of interest. Even if you are a genius and your book is the best book in the whole world... or if you can not spell or write and never sell one copy of your book... no difference. That is the reason to read guidelines of suggested do's and dont's. If... you become notable for your book.. then someone may connect information about it onto the format. Good luck. Suggestion... publish it yourself... then you have complete creative control. skip sievert (talk) 17:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

As for the other not terribly notable uses of the term, if they are not listed and described with real live third party sources by end of March I'll AfD it again, noting it's had a month to be improve. I think it's just a very misleading article as it is. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I've done a lot of research last few days about general opinions regarding Wikipedia's policies on notability and conflict of interest. It would appear from google searching that my experiences regarding this article are common, that many others share my concerns regarding this overly tight viewpoint on conflicts of interest and some world class leaders in their field have been similarly treated. If Nobel prize winners can't get fair treatment, then I think it best you AfD the article and we'll all go our separate ways. I've started experimenting with a free form wiki on the neocapitalism.org website and you're right, the creative control is such that I'll invest my efforts there instead. My apologies for causing such bother - in hindsight, I should have done more research beforehand, but to be honest Wikipedia could do with a bloody large banner on the new article page saying "DO NOT ADD ANYTHING EVEN REMOTELY CONTENTIOUS EVER EVER EVER!". And Wikipedia should stop with the "be bold in your contributions" which to be honest, is just plain lies. My best wishes and regards to you all in your futures. (Niall Douglas (talk) 21:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC))

Confused on what this term means.

sounds like marxists who changed to favoring capitalism but there is another understandint to this world that basically means anti-statist capitalism. http://ib.frath.net/w/Neocapitalism — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.87.99.55 (talk) 12:41, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Grossly misleading

This article is grossly misleading and needs to be deleted post haste. Hagenlund (talk) 16:43, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the article is so poorly written and sourced as to lay itself open to a charge of being misleading. But I don't think it should be deleted. The term, neocapitalism (or neo-capitalism) has been around for decades now, and refers to concepts that have been influential in sociology and economics, and that historians find important for understanding how the world of the 1930s differed from -- but in some ways survived into -- the world after 1945. Here is one source that looks at neocapitalism from a Marxist viewpoint: https://www.ernestmandel.org/en/works/txt/1967/intromarxisteconomic/3.htm Here is the citation to an article about it from 1975: https://www.jstor.org/stable/657039?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents This article from 1985 shows that Marxists are not the only ones to be interested in the term and its meanings: https://academic.oup.com/ahr/article-abstract/90/1/44/118083?redirectedFrom=fulltext (and which treats the term as near synonym of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_capitalism). Here is a simple dictionary definition: https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/neocapitalism (with a graph showing fluctuating usage since the 1940s). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.17.178.22 (talk) 00:49, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Badly written

The "origin" and "a new person" parts are very confusing, and there are several unclear parts in the rest of the article too.

The article seems to be more like an intellectual show-off of vague, complex terms than an attempt to explain.

Words like "tecnoestructura" and "tecnoburocracia" do not appear to be English words.

There are grammar errors, like " ... the neocapitalist mechanics does not lead so ...".

The use of "->" does not seem to be compliant to Wikipedia standards; there should have been proper Wikipedia references/links instead.

"United States America" is not the proper way to refer to the United States of America.

Calling USA "hegemonic and imperialistic center of the present" seems more than a political view than a Wikipedia fact.

The corresponding text at Urban Dictionary seems more precise, concise and useful, and also highlights that the term "Neocapitalism" is used to represent somewhat different meanings.

To me it appears that "Neocapitalism" (without hyphen) should be the preferred form of the word. The version without hyphen is used throughout the article, apart from in the heading and abstract. This is also in line with Wikipedia articles like the one on "Neoliberalism". Joreberg (talk) 11:17, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

A stab at improving what's here

Here is what I think can be salvaged of the article as it stands today, re-arranged and edited. There were several sentences full of jargon. I attempted to recast them into plainer English, but also to fill in some of their vagueness. I held back from adding a remark that I do believe is important, to wit, that Marxist critics have played a major role in shaping how neo-capitalism has been conceptualized by economists and historians. Fearing I'd make a bigger mess by adding such 'original research' to a 'personal essay', instead of editing the page itself I'm leaving here my suggestion for how a real expert _might begin_ to approach the improvement of this article:

Neo-capitalism is an economic system which blends some elements of capitalism with other systems.[1] It arose in the aftermath of World War II in countries whose economies were largely shaped by corporations whose success depended on exploiting new technologies. [Here I would link to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_capitalism ] In the postwar period its practices seemed new in comparison to those of capitalism in the 1930s.[citation needed] Its development over the second half of the 20th century was characterized by ongoing adaptation to technological advances and an increasing internationalization of markets. Its proponents have often emphasized the importance of economic freedom, the certain forms of planning, and private ownership of both real property and companies. Nevertheless neo-capitalism has shown itself open to state ownership of some means of production. As an ideology, neo-capitalism has tried to strike balances between economic growth, low inflation, low levels of unemployment, favorable working conditions, social assistance, and good public services, while moderating intervention of the state in the economy. One of its more outstanding representatives is the Keynesian economist Paul Samuelson. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.17.178.22 (talk) 01:44, 16 September 2018 (UTC)