Talk:State monopoly capitalism

Politics Mid‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Philosophy: Social and political / Contemporary Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Social and political philosophy
	Contemporary philosophy

Socialism

	Socialism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Untitled Thread[edit]

There really needs to be a discussion on monopoly capitalism by itself. Darth Sidious 03:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article overlaps almost entirely with state capitalism - I propose a merge. Thoughts? Skomorokh ^incite 13:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem to me to be such an overlap. state capitalism is much broader (in a way that makes it more difficult to manage the competing ideas of editors). state monopoly capitalism has the advantage of being very focused. I think its current content would be in danger of being lost if merged into state capitalism, while the latter would become even more flabby than it already is. I agree with Darth Sidious that there should be something on monopoly capitalism, which currently redirects to this page. It should be a separate article. If you look around at the articles on Lenin, Bukharin, Hobson, and Hilferding, at least, there is some material already at hand on the topic, though it doesn't always use the term. Franklin Dmitryev 21:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The concept and theory of state monopoly capitalism is historically distinct from the theories of state capitalism, and also refers to a different political tradition. Stamocap theory is specifically a Marxist-Leninist tradition associated with Soviet Marxism and its Western sympathizers, which is not shared by many other Marxist traditions. Therefore I think the article should remain separate from the state capitalism article. User:Jurriaan 25 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.170.233.47 (talk)

Monopoly capitalism is different and distinct from "state monopoly capitalism." It deserves a separate page. MacInEnterprise (talk) 00:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

State capitalism and state monopoly capitalism are completely separate topics. A merge would make no sense. Rob Lucas —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:28, 15 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]

To be clear, the term 'Stamocap' refers to "State Monopoly Capitalism" and is not the same thing as either "State Capitalism" nor "Monopoly Capitalism". Enealk (talk) 04:36, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Proposal[edit]

The current title already embodies the erroneous conflation proposed by the merge and perhaps discussed in the text above. "State Capitalism" and "Monopoly Capital" are two entirely different and indeed unrelated things which it is an embarrasment for Wikipedia to be confounding. "State Capitalism" refers to the monopoly of power in states like the former Soviet Union, China, or Cuba whereas "Monopoly Capital" refers to an inexorable tendency within capitalism, a result of the progressive development of productive forces, that drives out small time producers and concentrates production in the hands of the winners of capitalist competition. Lycurgus (talk) 17:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, the term 'Stamocap' refers to "State Monopoly Capitalism" and is not the same thing as either "State Capitalism" nor "Monopoly Capitalism".--Enealk (talk) 04:35, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification Request[edit]

This may be something I can do myself, once I'm sure how to make proper attributions. The second paragraph of the introduction starts off with what I (maybe mistakenly) believe is jargon--"Statmocap". Although I had just read the first paragraph, and saw the words "STATe MOnopoly CAPitalism" in the title, the transition into the economic theory jargon was quite jarring. Once I typed the word into a search engine, it suggested an alternate spelling of "Statmokap". Should this alternate spelling, along with an explanation of the portmanteau be included in the article? Dahile00 (talk) 14:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not in love with the jargon either, but to be precise, the article says "stamocap," not "statmocap." Try googling again. Franklin Dmitryev (talk) 17:09, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Criticisms" does not mean you criticizing[edit]

The "Criticisms" section is about notable criticisms of the theory. It is not the place for editorializing, for stating your own criticism of the theory, or for statements about whether state intervention is beneficial. If you can accurately cite a notable criticism of the "State monopoly capitalism" theory--not some general promotion of the benefits of "free market" vs. state intervention--then that would be appropriate for the section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Franklin Dmitryev (talk • contribs) 00:11, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Messed Up[edit]

Some ignorant person or persons have whacked this one. It's gone from Monopoly Capital the scholarly study by Bellamy Foster and others, to "Stamocap" some immature and embarrasing OR and distortion. Lycurgus (talk) 14:52, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:CheGuevaraSmile.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:CheGuevaraSmile.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011

What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:49, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Putin?[edit]

"Ironically, one of the most prominent examples of Stamocap is the de facto economic system in modern day Russia under the current autocrat, Vladimir Putin."

I'm not sure what's "ironic" about the above statement. Someone care to explain? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.36.195.33 (talk) 00:16, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What "Ironic" is referring to is the origins of the term Stamocap - being derived from a Marxist idea that state monopoly capitalism is a derivation of state imposed capitalist socialism (socio-economic class-leveling and control) on the control and flow of capital, at the top - a 'bad thing' to Marxists. The idea is that those with wealth and power have merged and now are the same individuals, maintaining a monopoly on industry and thereby holding the middle- and working class down. What's 'ironic' is that Putin has turned Russian economics completely upside down by making 'the enemies of Marxist socialism' the de facto economic system in Russia - the former (self-proclaimed) champion of Communism (and the working class), is now the system marque. However, to avoid further confusion and distraction from the bland purpose of the article, I deleted the word, "Ironically".Enealk (talk) 04:58, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to State capitalism section?[edit]

Should be article be redirected to State capitalism#State monopoly capitalism?Jonpatterns (talk) 14:58, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Publication of the article[edit]

This article was published by Betascript Publishers in January 2010, in a collection of wiki articles titled "State Monopoly Capitalism" allegedly "edited by" Lambert M. Surhone, Mariam T. Tenno and Susan F. Henssonow (ISBN 10: 6130361505 / ISBN 13: 9786130361501). If these are real names of real people, they were not the writers or main editors of the articles, and the publication is bogus. They are stealing and exploiting the work of wikipedians, and falsely claiming ISBNs and copyright (to get ISBNs and copyrights, you have to claim authorship but they were not the authors - by bundling articles they claim to be doing something new). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.148.154.58 (talk) 14:47, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Neo-Trotskyists"?[edit]

The section about "Neo-Trotskyists" needs clarification. It looks like independent research and bad research at that (sorry). Citations are needed, or it should be removed.

First of all, the Stamocap theory was part of Leninism and Trotskyism already. No "Neo-" needed. "Neo-Trotskyists" seem to be getting confused with actual Trotskyists here. Secondly, what even are Neo-Trotskyists? There is one tiny group in the UK that calls itself that and they emerged very recently. State Monopoly Capitalism is not a distinguishing theory of theirs, it's something that all Leninists have in common.

Hilferding, who actually came up with the theory (see the German article) isn't even mentioned here! Famisht (talk) 16:20, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I very much agree. I can't think of any notable Trotskyists (notable in that the average trot would know about them) or parties thats said anything like what's in the article, and theres no sources either to give any clues. I also agree that there is no actual ideology of "neo Trotskyism". This is a bad section. 92.236.211.53 (talk) 13:57, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]