This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page.

This page is an archive of the discussion surrounding the proposed deletion of the page entitled Neofeudalism.

This page is kept as an historic record.

The result of the debate was to replace the article with a rewritten version.

Someone seems to be ripping off some obscure tracts, relegated to a fringe even among Marxist circles (and not even doing a good job at that). This is nothing more than a slogan used by a handful of neo-Marxists, albeit with a glimmer of notoriety, in their polemics in recent years, such as those of YS Brenner, arguing that deregulation is bolstering capital's power vis-à-vis labor, and setting the stage for capitalism's drift back toward "neofeudalism." Delete or redirect to a stub about one of the exponents of this term. 172 08:26, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

• Keep, without question. It's a real concept, and, yes, it's really happening. Mike Church 10:27, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
• Keep - David Gerard 11:38, May 10, 2004 (UTC)
• No vote yet, lean towards delete. This returns only 128 hits on google. Is this term famous enough? If not, the information should go into another article. Andris 14:40, May 10, 2004 (UTC)
  • I've heard it outside Wikipedia. The article needs NPOV, but that's a large article to try to merge into another ... it'd be likely to get separated out again - David Gerard 15:01, May 10, 2004 (UTC)
    • Can you give sources where it's used? The article is very short on those. I am open to being convinced that it should be kept but I would like to hear who invented this term, etc. Andris 17:45, May 10, 2004 (UTC)
      • Leftists talking rubbish on the net, usually. But it is out there - David Gerard 22:39, May 10, 2004 (UTC)
      • If the authors are able to find some of the sources (and BTW, I helped them out by citing one when I'd first added the article to VFD), the article should be redirected to the name of a key author articulating this concept (e.g., YS Brenner), which can include an overview of the author's work. But right now, this wouldn't even get a passing grade as a high schooler's essay, let alone constitute an encyclopedic entry, given that it is not even citing its sources and giving the slightest bit of indication that it is not dreamt up by a couple of Wikipedia users. 172 20:50, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
        • It wasn't "dreamt up by a couple of Wikipedia users," and the term isn't owned by a single author. It's an easily-comprehensible neologism so has taken root in people's blog blatherings and (IIRC) the less comprehensible parts of academia of its own accord - David Gerard 22:39, May 10, 2004 (UTC)
          • If you had read my postings before mouthing off, you'd see that I was the first user (and perhaps still the sole user) to even cite the name of an author articulating this concept. I said that since it wasn't citing its sources at the time, it could give people that impression, not that it was a valid impression. 172 02:21, 11 May 2004 (UTC)
• Keep - it's heard and seen fairly often in the anti-globalization camp. Smerdis of Tlön 16:29, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
  • So, just to understand the consequences of your argument, what's the difference between the propaganda of the "anti-globalization camp" and an entry in an encyclopedia? For example, do you favor turning this rant by crackpots who ostensibly take an 'anti-globalization' line into an encyclopedia article? 172 20:50, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
• Keep - while not very NPOV, it is a good topic, and yes as is said earlier often espoused in the anti-globalization camp. Maybe this page can be added to pages needing att. Burgundavia 17:02, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
• Keep - Just because you think the categories in which other people analyse the world are rubbish doesn't mean you have a right to ban them from using them. Hence a Wikipedia entry is justified, although the article is pretty bad at the moment. Most of all it needs to be put in the context of the people who use this term. pir 17:10, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
• Keep - The audacity of some people. This is a legitimate and academic term of conceptual value and significance. It is not POV, anymore than the term "conservative" or "liberal" is POV. Perhaps some people don't like to be called it? Polls show that people who, by measure of their values and policy preferences, are liberals, don't like to be called liberals. That doesn't make their values and policiy preferences not liberal. And it doesn't make "liberal" an illegitimate term.
  • Then what's the difference between (a) a polemic and an encyclopedic entry (b) a personal essay and an encyclopedic entry (c) a propaganda tract and an encyclopedic entry (d) a more-or-less credible academic dissertation and an encyclopedic entry, etc.? I'm not saying that this concept doesn't warrant mentioning anywhere on Wikipedia, but that it should be brought up instead in articles about the people/groups who use this term. Encyclopedias do not give a separate page to people seeking to selling this POV without even bothering to let readers know the source (and incidentally, whether or not the article's contents even adequately sum up what these sources are saying about 'neofeudalism'). 172 20:50, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Yo, relax "unsigned commentator". You'll see that most people here have voted to keep it. Sheesh. BTW, I do too, but I also happen to agree with the gist of 172's assessment and I question its neutrality. -- Alcarillo 19:53, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: Wow, quite a battle shaping up here, lots of skirmishes. IMO it would be no loss to delete this, the chance of NPOV seems to be remote at present. But agree deletion seems unlikely. No vote, just some advice:
    • Unsigned votes don't count. Waste of time, even possibly counterproductive.
    • Votes of users with good edit histories carry more weight. Do some work. I think both political poles encourage (;-> work, and this article still needs some.
    • But first read the policy on NPOV, and note that it is described as non-negotiable.
    • Examine yourself, and if you're not honestly wanting this article to be NPOV, find another to work on. Others will fix this one. Andrewa 20:31, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

• • I've worked up a NPOV stub that could be a good starting point; I invite comment on it. The Scratch Pad. Alcarillo 21:45, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
    • I like it. As you'll see by me having tried some edits on it ;-) Needs more before replacing the present article IMO, but would certainly beat deleting it altogether - David Gerard 22:39, May 10, 2004 (UTC)
• No vote, grudgingly lean toward keep, provided we switch to the scratch pad version (thanks, Alcarillo). It really should have more specific information on who exactly (names) uses the term where. - Nat Krause 02:03, 11 May 2004 (UTC)
• This is a horrible article, but if this is a real term (and I really don't know), we can have a write-up on it. I've done some work on the beginning of the article myself working towards this goal. The scratch pad version I think could be the basis for a much more comprehensive fix. -- VV 06:45, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

KEEP. Well. I wrote the original article here. I wrote it not so much because the specific term itself has gained any immense profile, but because the distilled concept is an extremely widespread perception of the Reagan-Bush economics. I would be the first to admit that the effects of the policies are not necessarily the intentions of the policies, but that is a matter of the inability to understand connections on the parts of some people, and does not mean that the cause-and-effect connections do not exist -- just as I'm sure there are Serbians who believe in ethnic cleansing who absolutely do not believe in genocide. In any case, it should be kept because it IS a PREVAILING view of Reagan-Bush economics among the more liberal elements of our society. Wikipedia should, in fact, enumerate commonly-held beliefs in our world, albeit in whatever NPOV terms. Oh, and 172 implied that I'm a neoMarxist. I beg your pardon. I am an entrepreneurial small businessperson who supports a democratic capitalism; I just oppose corporatism. jaknouse 16:56, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

Huh? I wasn't calling you a "neo-Marxist." I said that the published authors who've worked on this concept are neo-Marxists. And BTW, is there anything wrong with being a "neo-Marxist." Marx's work is a colossal contribution to modern social theory. **And oddly enough, I'm the "neo-Marxist" around here!** In case I come under attack for saying this, I'll explain what I mean. Much of my understanding of the modern world economy comes from Fernand Braudel's Civilization and Capitalism, and more recent scholars influenced by Braudel, such as Immanuel Wallerstein. On development, I owe a lot to Andre Gunder Frank, Cardoso and Faletto, and Peter Evans. Much of my understanding of social conflict and institutional change comes from scholars who have integrated the contributions of Marx with those of Weber and other social theorists, such as Herbert Marcuse, Barrington Moore, Eric Wolf, Jürgen Habermas, Theda Skocpol, etc., and more recently Dietrich Rueschemeyer, EH Stephens, and JD Stephens. More often, I draw on historians with roots in schools traversed by Marxist writers, such as Hobsbawm, Kolko, and Foner - just to name some coving broadly different ranges of expertise. However, I do use contending schools of thought, such as classical realism in international relations, and even the contributions of the Austrian school of economics (especially imperfect information), and overall, I probably draw just as much from Max Weber as Marx. So, you're dealing with someone who understands this language. 172 06:40, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

• • If this is a widespread perception, I would support keeping it. If the term is not widespread, it would good to change the name of the page to a more widespread one. There should be one, if it's a common view. Andris 17:37, May 11, 2004 (UTC)
    • Based on what Jaknouse is saying, maybe it should be moved to "Effects of Bush economic policy" where it could be hashed out on a more even basis? - Nat Krause 04:54, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
    • The term is used. If someone finds an obviously better name some time, it can be moved there then. The point here is that it may need a rewrite, but certainly not deletion - David Gerard 21:52, May 11, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. This term is a real political philosophy, and as minor as it may seem, reviewing some of the articles here, I found some that were infinitely more minor than this.--Beelzebubs 22:37, 11 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Infinitely more minor than something gets >200 hits on google? Maybe those pages should be on VfD, too? - Nat Krause 04:54, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
    • Divide the number of google hits by 2. Half of them are either Wikipedia mirrors or not relevant (word "neofeudalism" used in some other context). Andris 05:18, May 12, 2004 (UTC)
      • Fortunately, the abundance of these minor articles is what differentiates Wikipedia from other online dictionaries-e.g., ideally, a guest would be able to look up any topic he/she has ever heard of and there would be a page about it. However, this does bring up the question of what does constitute a relevant topic.--Beelzebubs 00:46, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, but citations would be a definite improvement as there are lots of potentially speculative claims: "...these trends widen the gap between rich and poor, increase the scope and severity of poverty and concentrate a majority of the world's wealth in the hands of a few". -- EuroTom 22:17, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue should be placed on other relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.