The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep and revert to revision from 25 June 2020. There is clear consensus that the article in its current format has serious issues, and something needs to be done. There is general consensus that the version from 25 June 2020 is not perfect, but better than the present. So, reverting per consensus, but note that further discussion on the talk page can modify this decision/the article/etc. for the better as required - and if possible, this happening would be ideal. Daniel (talk) 04:29, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Supercapitalism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

In short: this is a WP:COATRACK that takes two very different ideas about economics and shoehorns them into the same article for the trivial reason that the term supercapitalism happens to be a homonym. No reliable sources verify that the two ideas are related or connected in any way, so it's a violation of no original research to present them together as if they are connected, making a Frankenstein article. The details below explain why these to ideas that appear superficially similar because they have something to do with economics don't belong together, at least not until we have a quality source that tells us they do. The red flag that makes this an open and shut case is that the only search result that conflates these two things is this very Wikipedia article.

A redirect to Supercapitalism: The Transformation of Business, Democracy, and Everyday Life is the obvious solution, since that's the most significant and relevant topic, and the article on that book is the proper place to discuss Robert Reich's ideas. We're here at AfD because when I boldly made that redirect I ran into pushback. Reich's supercapitalism is a late stage of capitalism that begins after 1970s and is characterized by hyper-competition, maximum consumer choice, maximum access to global markets both as consumers and investors due to the rise of global corporations like Wal-Mart and giant mutual funds and pension funds.

The far less notable prior usage of the term supercapitalism aka "inhuman capitalism" by Benito Mussolini is conceived to begin around 1900 and is the opposite of what Reich is referring to: the disappearance of free market competition and consumer choice due to rampant monopolism and trusts. Mussolini's supercapitalism is the main cause of World War I. "The ideal of super-capitalism would be the standardization of mankind, from the cradle to the coffin. Super-capitalism would like all babies to be born the same length so that cradles could be standardized; all children to want the same toys; all men to wear the same clothes, to read the same books, to like the same films; and everyone to crave a so-called labour-saving machine".

Both ideas share the notion that supercapitalism means expanded corporate power at the expense of the state and of individual citizens, but not in the same way or for the same reasons.

Mussolini's criticisms of monopolism has little modern relevance because it has been superseded by better qualified scholars without the ulterior motives of a fascist demagogue. The economic stages imagined by Italian Fascism, including the stub heroic capitalism and supercapitalism, probably should be merged back into the main Italian fascism article, or into a single article about (obsolete) Italian fascist economic thinking. It had no influence on Robert Reich and isn't of serious interest to anybody as economic ideas; they're historical and relevant only to the historical study of Italian fascism. This what we mean by Coatrack articles: it violates WP:NPOV to connect the two different things, and it violates WP:NPOV to say they are related when neither Riech nor any reliable sources even hint that there is any relationship between these two ideas that happen to share the same word. Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:15, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Weak keep and revert to version as of 25 June 2020 I do want to note that this article was originally solely about the concept in Italian Fascism, as a complementary page to Heroic capitalism, and that Robert Reich's concept was added later. Perhaps Heroic capitalism should be WP:BUNDLEd into this AFD, since the subject is so similar. If we do merge Mussolini's conception somewhere else, i suggest that this article either be turned into a disambiguation page for the 2 concepts or that a hatnote be added to Supercapitalism: The Transformation of Business, Democracy, and Everyday Life. Alternatively, we could make this article true to its origins and make it solely about Mussolini's conception - removing the content relating to Robert Reich and adding a hatnote on this article to Supercapitalism: The Transformation of Business, Democracy, and Everyday Life instead. Koopinator (talk) 20:31, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  On second thought, i personally prefer reverting to make this article solely about the concept in Italian fascism, so i guess i'll change this to "weak keep". I think merge-ability/lack of notability is a legitimate caveat, however. Koopinator (talk) 20:47, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  My issue with that is that heroic capitalism makes no sense without understanding the stages the fascists say came before, and "inhuman capitalism" makes no sense out of context of heroic capitalism. If we want an article on that, it needs to be about all these stages, not a string of stubs that treat them in isolation. So not supercapitalism, perhaps Italian fascist economic theory or something shorter and catchier. The subject of the Reich book easily meets the criteria of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC: simply look up supercapitalism and, excluding weak google hits, social media, and this very Wikipedia article, instead looking only at quality, reliable sources, they are overwhelmingly about Reich's supercapitalism, because the other one is only of historical relevance. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:47, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:15, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:15, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:15, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:15, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:15, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Revert this is blatant WP:SYNTH, but the history has a version that is not. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:45, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe @King of Hearts: can comment on their histmerge in May? The article seems to be agglomerating two unrelated topics now. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:49, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have that, you know, diff? Suspense is killing me. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:46, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, it's the same diff that Kooptinator linked? That version may have issues, but WP:SYNTH is not one of them. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:19, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't know why it didn't make sense to me before as to which link you meant. Thanks clarifying.

That version appears better at first glance but I think we need to take a close look at the way the citations are used. All of them are primary sources, words Mussolini & his pals wrote, yet the article has a layer of analysis of what those words mean that isn't in the primary text. All of which is a way of begging the question of the justification for such an article existing: do we have secondary sources to justify an article? The opinions about what the Italian Fascists believed expressed in that version need secondary sources. If we don't have them, then we can't justify this article because those opinions violate the no original research policy. Which leads back to my point that there is little interest in this topic, demonstrated by the lack of secondary sources. It deserves a couple sentences, maybe a paragraph, in a broader article: "yep, this is what those guys thought, but few care any more so it's not worth saying much about". If someone found sufficient secondary sources, I would be proven wrong. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:32, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did a Google Books search and i found 2 secondary sources.^[1][2] Koopinator (talk) 08:19, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Revert per Kooptinator, but with the see also link on the current version. That is a clear article on a concept that existed historically. Whether Reich's book is about the same thing or not is not within my knowledge; I suspect not. The article on the book reads like a publisher's blurb, but it is probably the best that we will get on a topic with the same name. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:09, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rewrite with cleanup. Contains interesting ideas about capitalism with some good citations, but inadequacies need to be fixed as pointed out by the users above. DmitriRomanovJr (talk) 10:27, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.