Talk:Criticism of Marxism/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Communism; counterarguments

Ultramarine, much of the stuff is repeated from Criticisms of communism. Could you at least remove from one of the articles?

Also, Bryan Caplan is not a major critic. You should find more notable people who have criticised human rights, AND you should include counterarguments, like you are doing with the capitalism article. -- infinity0 21:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Bryan Caplan has 145,000 Goggle hits. He has a well-known website, The Museum of Communism. He is notable enough.Ultramarine 21:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

'"Bryan Caplan" Marxism' has 11,600 hits. He is not known prkimarily for criticising marxism. Even so, please insert defences against those arguments. -- infinity0 21:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

You can do it, if you have any. There is no policy in Wikipedia that there must be a counter-argument for every argument.Ultramarine 21:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

POV-forking policy says that "Criticisms of" must include counterarguments. You yourself keep repeating this for the "Criticisms of capitalism" article, please be honourable and do the same for this article! Even if there is n

=Blo policy for this, you yourself have kept on inserting defences into capitalist articles; please treat all articles equally and do the same for this one. -- infinity0 21:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, if there are any. Feel free to add any good one, preferably sourced.Ultramarine 21:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

You know there are. I am busy with other things at the moment. Since the article does not contain counterarguments you are not following NPOV. Please think about writing for the enemy, however much you dislike to. We are trying to write an encyclopedia, please TRY to leave your personal views behind this? -- infinity0 21:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

No, I do not. Then I would add them.Ultramarine 21:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Why do you take this attitude? Do you think perhaps that if there were no counterarguments then nobody would take this position? Please, make an attempt to open your mind. -- infinity0 21:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe Marxists do not know these criticisms. If there are any counter-arguments, preferably sourced, add them.Ultramarine 21:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Look, Ultramarine, I am just requesting a favour from you that for once, you try to represent both sides of the story. That is what NPOV and the encyclopedia is about. Could you please at least just represent *both sides*? -- infinity0 21:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Here is my friendly advice to you. Marxism is fundamentally flawed. But the good news is that you do not need to be a Marxist to be a socialist. Preferably, I would suggest a social democracy. They can actually show that they have done many good things.Ultramarine 21:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, this is your problem. You think "Marxism is fundamentally flawed" is the truth. But there are many people who disagree with you. Can't you at least let them have their voice? What you are doing is the equivalent of censorship; you're refusing to acknowledge their existence and their right of speech. -- infinity0 22:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I would be happy, if I can find a reliable one, or if you can find a reliable one? Ultramarine 22:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Ultramarine. Nice to see you again. :) Now, on to business. First, let's not play any games about there not being counter-arguments to criticisms of Marxism. Most of the criticisms you listed are either directed at Marx himself or famous Marxists that died over 60 years ago. Surely you must realize that all of these issues have already generated lengthy discussion and there are probably hundreds of counter- and counter-counter-arguments. Now I understand if you refuse to go look for them - since you are not required to do so - but if we are to have a productive discussion here, I would appreciate it if you at least acknowledged their existence. Logic dictates that Marxists must have answered 60 year-old objections (and, in some cases, 150 year-old objections).

Also, forgive me for saying this, but many of the criticisms you have inserted are very bad and either not directed at Marxism alone or directed at a small detail that you could reject and still be a Marxist. As a utilitarian, for example, I do not believe in the existence of any immutable human rights. I support human rights to the extent that they increase total happiness. If there is a way to increase happiness more effectively by getting rid of an existing human right, I will be the first to say that we must go ahead and do it. Bryan Caplan is arguing from a deontological libertarian standpoint based on a belief in immutable "natural rights" that must be respected no matter what. He is playing the classical deontological trick of making his views appear more respectable by arguing that following his strict rules will incidentally also produce the best results. He is trying to have his cake and eat it too. Any philosopher would immediately call him on this.

In any case, the article as it stands now is unbalanced. I have no desire to get involved with it just yet - and besides, you're clearly not finished - so here's what I propose: I'll mark it with the unbalanced tag and you can have a free hand to develop it as you see fit, until you are done. Then I'll come over, have a look, research counter-criticisms and add them. Then we can negotiate the final form of the article. Deal?

Oh, one last thing - as infinity pointed out, this article is entirely redundant with the second half of criticisms of communism. Do you want to split off that half of the article? If yes, we'll have to rename criticisms of communism into criticisms of Communist states or something similar. -- Nikodemos 22:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Your proposals seems fine. Let me just note that it is not for logical arguments that Marxism has thrived, it is because of the emotional appeal of an equilitarian utopia. Marxists would better spend their time in labor parties. Ultramarine 22:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The emotional appeal of an egalitarian utopia does not require a complicated political theory to support it. Marxism would never have started in the first place if there weren't people wishing to create an egalitarian utopia on rational grounds. Even if you believe that Marxism is emotional junk, Marxists certainly don't, and they had to prove it to themselves and their supporters. -- Nikodemos 22:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Copy: Socialism is nice theory, if only everyone was nice and shared, then everyone would be happy. Marxism has the added advantage of having a convoluted theory that is almost incomprehensible when digging deeper which seems very impressive. The same thing applies most religions. A mass appeal and a complex theology for the intellectual. Ultramarine 22:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Ultramarine, I told you, I don't have time right now. What I am asking is a favour, that you do it. It would be a good exercise for you anyway. Just think of it as an experiment :) -- infinity0 22:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, if I knew good arguments against, I would of course be a Marxist! I started out on the far left, but the lack of arguments has moved me more to the center.Ultramarine 22:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Have you considered pragmatic far-leftism? ;) The worst thing about the far left is that it tends to be dogmatic, and that drives people away. Never forget that you can pick and choose which ideas to support, and there's nothing wrong with being moderate on some issues and radical on others. That's how I am. -- Nikodemos 22:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

That's not true, Ultramarine. You can *know* the contents of arguments without having to agree with them. Obviously, if you don't agree with them then you have your own counterarguments against that, but then it gets complicated, and that is where we stop adding content into the article. An encyclopedia article cannot contain everything. But the basic arguments from both sides should at least be included.

A good way of including both sides of an argument is to include arguments which do not directly attack each other; this avoids the desire to repeatedly make points and counter-points. -- infinity0 22:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

You seem to assume that there must be counter-arguments. But that is not true, look for example at the flat-earth theory.Ultramarine 22:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you really think that? if so, why? Marxism has substantially more people taking it seriously than FET. -- infinity0 22:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Socialism is nice theory, if only everyone was nice and shared, then everyone would be happy. Marxism has the added advantage of having a convoluted theory that is almost incomprehensible when digging deeper which seems very impressive. The same thing applies most religions. A mass appeal and a complex theology for the intellectual.Ultramarine 22:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Even if that were true, most religions also have a barrage of counter-criticisms to strike against anything you throw at them. Creationism was a sizable article the last time I checked, despite its utter absurdity. Simply put, any idea with more than a few hundred supporters, no matter how crazy, has its arsenal of arguments. For Marxist arguments, take a look over marxist.org In any case, this discussion is sterile. We already have a deal. I'll go add the unbalanced tag, and you can edit away.

Btw, the idea that "if only everyone was nice and shared, then everyone would be happy" has its merits. It leads to the question, "how do you get everyone to be nice and share?". And if you have a good answer to that question, you've got the ingredients for a great society. -- Nikodemos 22:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Creationism has difficulty responding to many questions.Ultramarine 22:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, Ultramarine, you say that you don't have to be a Marxist to be a socialist. That is true. It is also true that you can be a Marxist and not support Communist states or anything like them. Indeed, Marxism itself mostly consists of criticisms of capitalism. A Marxist could logically support any system that is more egalitarian than capitalism. A friend of mine is a Marxist social democrat (he believes that social democracy + modern western economies = a society that is fundamentally different from the 19th century capitalism that Marx was criticizing). Since Marxism is not a religion, a Marxist can freely reject any part he doesn't like. Don't like Marx's criticism of human rights? Abandon it! -- Nikodemos 22:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

A person is arguably not a Marxist if he does not follow Marx. Marx explicitly rejected all capitalism, do some forms of social democracy are certainly not Marxist. See also my reply above.Ultramarine 22:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

In that case, just about every self-proclaimed Marxist from Lenin to the present day was not a true Marxist, since they all rejected large parts of Marx's ideas. I like to pick and choose which of Marx's ideas seem good to me and support those without worrying myself about the rest. How would you classify me? Most importantly, you should avoid creating an article which implies guilt by association of the form "Marx was wrong about X, Y and Z, therefore he was wrong about everything". The ONLY reason I defend articles on Communist states and the like is because I am sick and tired of people making the leap from "some socialists are wrong about something" to "all socialists are wrong about everything". -- Nikodemos 22:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

All Marxist-leninists certainly argued that they followed Marx. Have you considered that if Marx was wrong on some fundamental things like human nature, then he may have been wrong on other things also.Ultramarine 22:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Marxist-Leninists sometimes used the most arcane intellectual tricks to somehow get Marx and Lenin to agree, and also to get each and every one of themselves agree with Lenin on everything - as you so adequately put it, they exhibited clearly religious behaviour. However, there is no particular reason why all Marxists need to act this way. Also, I happen to agree with Marx on human nature. At least, human nature is clearly not engineered for an economic system - capitalism - that has barely existed for a few centuries. If there is any human nature at all, it is logically best suited to a tribal hunter-gatherer society (preferably in the African savannah). -- Nikodemos 22:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and that belief is part of the explanation for the mass killings that occurred, as Pipes notes.Ultramarine 23:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Guilt by association. Please note that if A -> B that does not mean that also B -> A. If Hitler was a vegetarian that does not mean that all vegetarians are like Hitler. If Stalin held a certain belief that does not logically imply that all who hold that belief must also agree with everything else Stalin believed and did. I believe in a highly flexible human nature, but I am also a utilitarian, and the actions of Stalin and Mao cannot be justified on utilitarian grounds. -- Nikodemos 13:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

If you pick some parts of Marx's theory and reject others, then you are arguably not a Marxist anymore. It would be better to state socialist that agrees with Marx on some points.Ultramarine 13:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Intro

'The human rights abuses, political repression and economic problems of several historical Communist states have done much to destroy Karl Marx's reputation in the Western world, particularly following the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Soviet Union, as the Soviet bureaucracy often invoked him in their propaganda.'

This is pretty unaccepatable to me. Before even explaining what Marxism is, who is criticizing it etc., the intro talks about human rights abuses and political repression. This deliberatly places a bad spin on Marxism, without objectively explaining how these are linked to Marxism (it explains how they are tenuously linked to Marx, but this is irrelevant (who's to say Marx was a Marxist?)). The article seems 'unbalanced' anyway, but the info sets it off on the wrong foot. --Robdurbar 22:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Robdurbar 08:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Happy new year to all! Here's my problem with a section of the article: The introductory note states: "This article is on criticisms of Marxism, a branch of socialism. See criticisms of socialism for a discussion of objections to socialism in general. These concepts are not identical; many socialist supporters also criticize Marxism." Well, the first paragraph of "General criticisms" is a broad critique, not of Marxism, but of "communism." This, to me, violates the spirit of the introductory note. I'd like to take out Eric Hoffer's criticism, if that sounds okay to everyone. Thanks! --Dialecticas 05:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Hoffer is criticzing Marxism, we can replace "communism" with Marxism if you prefer. Strictly speaking there is no such thing as "communist" ideology, even if many use it as a synonym for Marxism. In Marxist theory communism is the classless and stateless society that will follow the dictatorship of the proletariat.Ultramarine 05:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, the question is, does Hoffer's The True Believer actually criticize Marxism? It just doesn't work to say "Marxism" and "communism" are synonymous. We need a citation referring to an explicit critique of Marxism by Hoffer, or else he does not belong in the article. Right? --Dialecticas 15:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

He is certainly not criticzing every communal society, but the specific ideology advocated by Marx and its followers. That is, Marxism. That is, he is not criticzing for example those living in a communal society like Kibbutz.Ultramarine 17:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

A citation or specific quote from Hoffer is needed. "Communal society," and whatever other things Hoffer is criticizing, is not what this entry is meant to be about. This entry is meant to demonstrate serious criticisms of Marxism, and not just any pov that calls variations of communalism "Marxism," or "utopian," or whatever. More info to demonstrate appropriateness is needed, or else we should delete Hoffer. --Dialecticas 00:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

As I stated, Hoffer is not criticzing all communal societies or advocates of them. He is criticzing Marxism. Read the Wikipedia article: The True Believer.Ultramarine 00:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

My point is backed-up after a reading of The True Beleiver entry. *Not once* does Marxism appear in the article. As the article states, "The True Believer" "discusses the psychological causes of fanaticism." This is not equivalent to a critique of Marxism, not in any way. The article describes a psychological analysis of all mass movements; Marxism is a philosophy, not a mass movement. I'm sorry but unless some verifiable reference is made to a direct critique of Marxism, and not tangential arguments dealing with not-specifically-Marxian phenomena, the reference to Hoffer should go. --Dialecticas 01:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Here is link giving another description: [1]Ultramarine 01:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Another: [2]Ultramarine 01:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Ultramarine, I think you could go a long way toward ending this dispute if you could offer some EXACT citation, including a line reference, that makes clear that Hoffer is specifically talking about Marxism itself. Dialecticas makes a good point that Hoffer seems to be talking about a more general phenomena, of which Marxism might be a part. Unless we can make clear that Hoffer really IS talking about Marxism, it seems misleading to cite him in an article about Marxism. That's not to say that Hoffer's thoughts are worthless, or even that they're not somehow tangentially germane to the topic; they just may not belong in an article that purports to limit itself to a discussion only of Marxism.--Kgarrett 22:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Alternatively, if we can't resolve the dispute about what Hoffer is discussing, perhaps we can add some notation about the relationship between Marxism and more general "communalist" movements and/or theories, and then cite Hoffer as a leading figure in that related debate. (Of course, that is getting pretty tangential from the main topic of the article) Would somebody like to throw out some proposed language that would satisfy both sides? It doesn't seem that Dialecticas is totally opposed to any reference to Hoffer at all, as long as it isn't misleadingly presented as a reference to Marxism if it really is not.--Kgarrett 22:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Hoffer is talking about mass movements and he argues that the followers of Marx formed one such. See the links above where he explicitly mentions Marx and Lenin.Ultramarine 00:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Ultramarine, a couple of us have repeatedly requested *specific* references/notations/quotes, and you have not supplied them. I have deleted the controversial assertions from the entry pending correct citation of passages with full references. --Dialecticas 20:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Ultramarine, do not edit this page again without the requested information. Myself, and a mediator, have detailed our concerns and your recent edit did not allay them. In fact, I believe that your insertion of "fake evidence" (providing a citation of commentary on the controversial material *does not* speak to the problem) harms your credibility. Again, do not revert my edit unless the concerns are dealt with. --Dialecticas 22:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Page numbers in Hoffer's book added.Ultramarine 08:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

To quote Hoffer "Thus by denigrating prevailing beliefs and loyalties, the militant man of words unwittingly creates in the disillusioned masses a hunger for faith. For the majority of people cannot endure the barrenness and futility of their lives unless they have some ardent dedication, or some passionate pursuit in which they can lose themselves. Thus, in spite of himself, the scoffing man of words becomes the precursor of a new faith."

"The fanatics and the faith-hungry masses, however, are likely to invest such speculations with the certitude of holy writ, and make them the fountainhead of a new faith. Jesus was not a Christian, nor was Marx a Marxist."Ultramarine 08:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Sources

This article needs to cite actual sources when refering to what "Marx said" or "Engels said". Most of M & E's works are avaliable at marxists.org so you coul get it from there. I consider that citing a critique saying "marx said x, but x is wrong" is not valid; we should cite what they refer to and what is their point separatly

There are sources. What statement is unsourced?Ultramarine 16:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

NPOV? And other points...

I think that this article is entirely necessary, but it does seem to suffer from a somewhat non-neutral POV. Although this is partly inevitable in an article that is probably intended as a companion article to Marxism, there does not seem to be much representation of how the criticisms of Marxism might themselves be criticised. For example, Richard Pipes is a neo-conservative Historian who would be expected to criticise Marxism. I have read the book of his that is cited in this article, and there seem to me to be various flaws in his argument. Moreover, it is a criticism of Soviet Communism, a political system that wasn't up and running until around 35 years until after Marx's death and which had a variety of implementations: Stalinist Communism differs in many ways from Leninist Communism, for example.

One massively valid criticism of Marxism that is not included is that offered by the various postmodern thinkers who claim it is a grand narrative. Also, Jean Baudrillard has strongly criticised the labour theory of value, and this does not seem to be mentioned in the article.

Just to lay my own ideological cards on the table, I completely accept the labour theory of value and other aspects of Marx's economic analysis, but I don't accept that the proletarian revolution is inevitable or that any form of dictatorship is a necessary evil which paves the way for the classless society. I don't want to start editing the article before my concerns have been aired since I feel we could end up with a bit of an edit war.

In short, I guess I'm asking: what is Marxism, as far as this article is concerned? It seems that the various strands of Marx's thought need to be subsectioned, and then the separate criticisms (and possible counterarguments) need to be outlined under each subsection. --Jim (Talk) 02:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

It would be good if you added any further valid criticism that know of. Regarding the labor theory of value, it is briefly mentioned but it is a complicated subject probably better discussed in detail in the article about that. Regarding Pipes, it would be good with sourced counter-arguments. Note that Pipes attacks Marxism's view that human nature can be changed radically, not really the Communist states specifically, so his criticism should be mentioned regardless of one considers these states Marxist or not.Ultramarine 02:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Accidental revert

Sorry Ultramarine, I reverted your edits in error: I thought the edit conflict was because I had pressed "Submit" twice.

I will leave in the {{fact}} in the Pipes bit though, as no citation is given for Pipes' source. Where does Trotsky say what Pipes claims he said? --Jim (Talk) 02:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

It is stated in Pipes book on stated pages but unfortunately I do not have it at home and I do not remember exactly what work Pipes quotes for this.Ultramarine

No probs. I assumed that Pipes would cite his source but I think for something as seemingly controversial as his quote from Trotsky the direct source should be indicated here: maybe what Trotsky actually wrote should be included, if only to foreclose criticisms.

I've added a little on Althusserian Marxism, and subsequent critiques. I don't want the article to expand to include every thrust and counter-thrust of the debate, but I do think the Hindess and Hirst stuff is important. I have left out Benton's counterargument because the Hindess and Hirst position is the one that is usually accepted nowadays in academia. --Jim (Talk) 03:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Interesting addition. I will probably retrieve Pipes's book from a library in the coming weeks. I need it for other articles and then I can add the citation.Ultramarine 19:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Labor theory of value

The article says:

Fundamental to Marxist theory is the labor theory of value. The theory is rejected for various reasons by the vast majority of economists today. Marginalism is seen as more correct. This is an important explanation for why Marxism has relatively little influence among economists today. Marxists have made various responses to the objections.

And that's it for the section.

Rejected for various reasons - okay... What are they? Some citations? Marginalism is seen as more correct by whom - the vast majority of economists? How is that determined? Why is marginalism seen as more correct? 202.81.18.30 04:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC) spider

The subject is quite complicated and not easily summarized in a few paragraphs in this article. Please have a look at labor theory of value and marginalism for a full description.Ultramarine 05:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

This is a very weak section given that Adam Smith and David Ricardo's labour theory of value was criticised by Marx and in effect supplanted by Marx with his 'socially necessary labour theory of value'. The criticism of Marxism cannot be confused with criticism of the labour theory of value.

The heading should be changed to "Socially necessary labour theory of value" if the article as a whole is to retain its direction as a description of Marxism.

General criticism of a "labour theory of value" is best expounded elsewhere.

ChrisWarren 08:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

"The criticism of Marxism cannot be confused with criticism of the labour theory of value"

It should be noted that most marxist, if not all, still argue in favor of the LTV simply adding the "socially necessary" part. 200.30.244.178 (talk) 15:48, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

OR

I removed this paragraph because of Wikipedia's original research policy. In particular: "Original research includes editors' personal views, political opinions, and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position. That is, any facts, opinions, interpretations, definitions, and arguments published by Wikipedia must already have been published by a reliable publication in relation to the topic of the article. ...

An edit counts as original research if it does any of the following: ...

• It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position;" -- Vision Thing -- 20:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Caplan and human rights

The section addressing Caplan's critique of Marx's views on the human rights deserves, in my opinion, further elaboration: it simply states that human rights are some sort of religious dogma, which one must accept or be doomed to hell. What declares itself to be critisizm of Marx is actually only delivering, and by omission of valid counter-argument, supporting his theses. --Golioder 20:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, also the "general criticism" is very vague. Hoffer's argument is simply saying that Marxism is a form of ideology. This alone, again, is surely an argument FOR Marxism, since it claims to be the only ideology where one knows one is in ideology - in contrast to other ideologies, such as humanism, existentialism, liberalism etc., which consider themselves to be neutral, Marxism is perfectly aware of the necessity of taking (class, sex, or other) sides. Koestler's argument, at least in the present form, doesn't seem worthy of enlisting at all. Not only is it vague and generalizing, as it throws completely different things under a single title, it also simply states Marxist views, but miscomprehends them as forming a closed system. --Golioder 20:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Hoffer's arguments regarding the views and personality of a True Believer is rather different from your description. Also, Nazists and those with a strong faith certainly do not consider themselves to be neutral. Regarding Caplan and Koestler, if there are more sourced counter-arguments, then they should be added.Ultramarine 00:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Good, "general criticism" now looks less like "vague criticism". I still find it pro-Marxist, though. - About Nazis and religious fundamentalists - they are hardly comparable to Marxism, humanism, liberalism or existentialism. I would even venture to say that no racism can pass for a "system of ideas" or ideology, it is simply a matter of hatred taking the form of thought; it is a question for medicine, not for philosophy, science or system of ideas. The latter is obviously my personal opinion, though.

And regarding Caplan's counter-arguments to Marxist criticism of human rights - I am really not a Caplan connoisseur, so I hoped someone else will have fun with finding those. I can only say that, in this article, his stance sounds like "any criticism of HR inevitably leads to tyranny, just as any post-Newton physics inevitably leads to Hiroshima". This is because it is too short, to make sure. --Golioder 20:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

We should probably remove the section on human rights. Caplan is a professor of economics, and so presumably a reliable source for articles on economic. As far as Marxism goes, though, he's just some random guy with a website; he has no particular standing as a critic of Marxism, and indeed makes obvious errors in his reading of Marx. VoluntarySlave 07:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

If there are errors, point them out using sources. Regarding the subject human rights, if anything this is a branch of philosophy, and Caplan has written extensivly regarind this.[3] Ultramarine 10:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

But he hasn't published anything on Marx, and only tangentially on human rights, according to his CV. The "extensive writings" you point to, apart from mostly being in other areas of philosophy, are personal correspondence, mailing list postings, or self-published essays - like I say, the work of a random guy with a website, not a source we have any reason to include in this article. It seems to me that the obligation is on you, if you want the section to remain, to show why we should take Caplan seriously. VoluntarySlave 17:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Using this logic, the only persons who should be allowed to criticze, for example, the Catholic position regarding abortion are persons who have published a theological paper on this subject. It would be far more interesting if the claimed errors in his reading of Marx was presented so there was an actual debate instead of using ad hominem. Also, note that almost every single pro-Marxist argument is this article is completely unsourced and using a strict standard they should be removed.Ultramarine 18:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, clearly criticisms of the Catholic position on abortion should be those from notable sources, not from, say, my blog. I don't see what your point is - if you think Caplan is a source we should take account of, fine, but explain why. The issue here is not about debating whether Caplan is right or not: AFAICS, we have no reason to take him seriously as a source in the first place. VoluntarySlave 19:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Caplan is a well-known economist and libertarian, not some random guy. Presumably libertarians are allowed to voice criticisms? Again, ad hominem is not very interesting, actual arguments would be more interesting. Caplan is merely citing Marx's own statements, not inventing them. Also, note that almost every single pro-Marxist argument is this article is completely unsourced and using a strict standard they should be removed.Ultramarine 19:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, please explain why you think Caplan's criticisms of Marxism are notable (not his writings on economics or libertarianism, but the particular writings that are being referenced here). The fact that he's a "well known economist and libertarian" is neither here or there. The question is, are his criticisms of Marxism backed up by demonstrable expertise (there's no sign of this in his CV), or have they been particularly influential (the latter may be the case, I don't know if - if you have sources that show his influence, please present them). VoluntarySlave 19:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be arguing that only Marxists should be allowed to criticze Marx. Obviously prominent libertarians can do so also, like Caplan. 140,000 Goggle hits, compared to some "Important Marxists" in the Marxism template, like Karl Korsch, who gets 51,000, or Georgi Plekhanov who gets 16,000. Again, ad hominem is not very interesting, actual arguments would be more interesting. Caplan is merely citing Marx's own statements, not inventing them. Also, note that almost every single pro-Marxist argument is this article is completely unsourced and using a strict standard they should be removed.Ultramarine 20:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course I'm not saying that only Marxists can criticize Marx. I'm saying that only people who we have reason to believe know something about Marxism should be cited as critics of Marx. Popper wasn't a Marxist, but citing his criticisms of Marx is perfectly sensible - he published extensive work on Marx, and his positions have been widely influential. Likewise Koestler and Conquest. The point is not whether these people are famous or not: the point is that their critcisms of Marxism are either taken seriously by academics, or widely influential. As far as I can see, there's no evidence for either in Caplan's case (and repeating the words "ad hominem" won't change the fact that my criticism of Caplan's notability isn't, in fact, an ad hominem argument). VoluntarySlave 20:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Evidence has already been presented for notability. It would be better to use arguments showing that his is wrong instead of ad hominem.Ultramarine 21:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

What evidence? Your google count shows he is notable, but not that his criticism of Marxism is notable, which is my whole point. Bono is notable, but that doesn't mean every opinion he has is an appropriate source to cite for any article. I'm not interested in whether he is right or wrong (Wikipedia is not based on what is true or false, but on what can be verified), but in whether he is an appropriate source. VoluntarySlave 21:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

"Museum of Communism" + caplan gets 60,000 Goggle hits, so notable.Ultramarine 22:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The section Criticisms_of_Marxism#Human_rights seems to quote Marx.

• It is not clear for the reader from which of his works these quotes stem.
• It is not clear if it is Caplan who uses the quotes to support his claims, or if Wikipedia directly quotes Marx to explain something.

So as long as the Caplan quote is still in the article, it should be clearified from which of Marx works the quotes come, and who quotes him.

Please note WP:Reliable_sources#Reliable_sources:

A questionable source is one with no editorial oversight or fact-checking process or with a poor reputation for fact-checking.

The Caplan-page is edited only by the author. Thus it is a questionable source.

Wikipedia makes the exception of

2. Professional self-published sources

When a well-known, professional researcher writing within his or her field of expertise has produced self-published material, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as his or her work has been previously published by reliable, third-party publications.

So in order to include Caplan's page as a source for Wikipedia, there should exist a publication of his claims about Marx by an reliable independent third party.

Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim:(...)

• claims not supported or claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community.(...)

It seems that Caplan's claim contradicts the prevailing view.

Thus I agree with those above who have said that the Caplan-page alone isn't a sufficient source. Schwalker 10:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Caplan is a notable source as shown above. Regarding its reliability, he is only quoting Marx and Engles and lists his sources: [4].Ultramarine 10:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't dispute the “notability” of the Caplan page, but rather its reliability as a source for Wikipedia. If it is him who quotes Marx ( Engles too? ) in this section, then the Wikipedia article should tell this to the reader. If Caplan gives the places where he has found the quotes, then it would be beneficial if Wikipedia reproduces this places, so that the reader can look it up in the original works of Marx. Schwalker 10:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, the article gives a source where Caplan lists his sources: [5]. It is not necessary to list them, anymore than it is necessary to list all the thousands of sources used in, say, The Black Book of Communism, when using this book as a source in Wikipedia.Ultramarine 12:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Please note Citing_sources#When_you_quote_someone

Say where you got it

It is improper to copy a citation from an intermediate source without making clear that you saw only that intermediate source. For example, you might find some information on a web page which says it comes from a certain book. Unless you look at the book yourself to check that the information is there, your reference is really the web page, which is what you must cite. The credibility of your article rests on the credibility of the web page, as well as the book, and your article must make that clear.

So it is necessary to make it clear for the reader that the Marx quotes come from the Caplan page and not directly from some Marx book. Also it is helpfull for the reader if they directly can see where Caplan has found the material which is taken from the Caplan page and reproduced at Wikipedia.

Perhaps I should clarify that the Caplan page is not reliable as a (sole) source for Caplan's own claim that Marx's notion of human rights would lead to tyranny and oppression of dissidents. Schwalker 13:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Clarified.Ultramarine 16:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits. Since we seem to agree on the necessity to make clear that Caplan is the intermediate source, I have allowed myself to do some more edits: Caplan does critisize Marx for broadening rather than for a rejection of (bourgeois) human rights. In my reading, it is not clear whether Caplan is quoting "political emancipation itself is not human emancipation" from the Critique of the Gotha Program. I could not find the Manifesto quote on the Caplan page, therefore removed it. Schwalker 22:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The text is called "The Attack on 'Bourgeois Freedom'" The Manifesto quote is in a section to the upper right. The political emancipation quote if from On the Jewish Question[6]Ultramarine 22:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I guess now you are using [7] as a source, while the article still says[8]. Schwalker 10:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC) Yes, corrected.Ultramarine 12:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

'The Great Contradiction'

I need someone to help me figure out what this paragraph means.

"Mark's Argument also involves a basic contradiction. If competition equalizes wages between industries, it should also equalize the rate of Profit on capital. But if the rate of profit of capital is the same between industries with different capital/labor ratios, there cannot be equal rates of surplus value per worker between industries, and the prices of products produced in various industries cannot correspond to the amount of labor embodied; this result contradicts the labor theory of value. This paradox came to be known as the "Great Contradiction." Marx saw the contradiction n his argument and attempted to Correct it in the third volume of "Das Kapital, where he argued that, although surplus value is produced in proportion to the labor employed, it is distributed in proportion to the amount of capital employed. Source: Principles of Economics, Willis L. Peterson, 1989

My apologies that I had to copy that out of a book, but I do not quite understand it. I am also unsure on where such a thing would go. Also, I have only one source for it because it hasn't appeared anywhere else.

                                                Sincerely 63.232.84.193 07:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

POV tag removed

I've removed the obtuse POV tag. The entire point of a "criticisms of..." article is to split off the criticisms section of a given topic into its own space. They are critical by definition and by design. To counter the points made in such an article is to render it moot. If the article is to become a debate, it should be named accordingly (e.g., "Debates on Marxism"). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.198.109 (talk) 12:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Question

Does Ultramarine run this page or something? It seems that any attempts to add counter-criticisms are hastily deleted, leaving poorly sourced and long refuted arguments unchecked. For example, in the Utopian Socialism section there is this (surely irrelevant) sentence:

Muravchik further argues that, in contrast, Marx made an untestable prophecy, and that Marx's view that socialism would be created by impersonal historical forces may lead one to conclude that it is unnecessary to strive for socialism, because it will happen anyway.

This has absolutely nothing to do with Utopian Socialism and is instead the return (yet) again of the fatalist approach to Marx's historical materialism. This fatalist approach is rejected by virtually everything single Marxist (I cannot think of any Marxist's who subscribe to it off the top of my head, and I know a lot of them). Presenting it here is the equivalent of a criticism pf Darwinian evolution being based on Lamarckian theory. Marx himself rejected an entirely impersonal nature of history, most famously in the "Theses on Feuerbach". e.g - "The materialist doctrine that men are products of circumstances and upbringing, and that, therefore, changed men are products of changed circumstances and changed upbringing, forgets that it is men who change circumstances and that the educator must himself be educated. Hence this doctrine is bound to divide society into two parts, one of which is superior to society. The coincidence of the changing of circumstances and of human activity or self-change can be conceived and rationally understood only as revolutionary practice." here he quite clearly rejects the personal nature of history and society. Man can change his nature, man can interact with impersonal forces. There is another quote which says this even more explicitly, but I can't find it right now. He argues that simply acknowledging these impersonal forces is useless, and that things will not change unless social practice (praxis) is derived from philosophy. In his own words "Philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it.". This is more than just a call to arms to intellectuals. If history and society are entirely based on impersonal forces, then all man could possibly do would be to interpret. But in fact man can do more - he can change nature by putting things into practice.

The argument I have presented here has been knocked up in five minutes from a single Marxist source, if I had the time I could write a book refuting this fatalist myth, but then again plenty of Marxists already have, most notably Trotsky and Gramsci. Yet when I added the point in the Utopian Socialism section that virtually no Marxist takes the fatalist/economistic/super-determinist whatever you want to call it stance, it is deleted. The reason? Irrelevance! Yet the completely irrevelant, worthless and refuted statement by some critic who has a very meagre understanding of Marxism remains!

I also deleted the nonsense criticism in the prediction section that Marx claimed real wages would only decline, yet it was brought back all the same. Seeing as only Marx critics are accepted as sources here, here are the words of Mark Blaug: "Marx never denied that real wages might rise under capitalism. He strongly implied that labor's relative share might fall but in fact never used the term relative impoverishment. The notion that he pronounced a general theory of the growing poverty of the working class is just folklore Marxism". He also writes "the gap between what Marx predicted and what actually happened over the next 100 years is so great that the Marxist system has been decisively refuted" just in case you think he's a Marxist. Impoverishment meant a relative decline in the income of workers compared to capitalists. There is a fairly good paper here that tackles criticisms like this:http://www.mtholyoke.edu/~fmoseley/working%20papers/BLAUG.pdf

So, is it Wikipedia's policy to allow members to hijack some of it's webpages? I was on the TSSI page earlier and it was the opposite of what is going on here, with a particular faction of Marxists essentially running the show and silencing all criticisms. This page certainly needs to be tagged. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.107.219.161 (talk) 17:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

That section isn't really about Utopian Socialism, it's about a criticism, from Joshua Muravchik, that Marxism's claim to be more scientific than the utopian socialists was false. I've tried to rephrase it to make that more clear, although, given that it's just as aside in one article, I'm not sure it's a notable enough criticism to have a section of its own. Perhaps it could be rolled into the "pseudoscience" section?VoluntarySlave (talk) 19:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Marx's Antisemitism

Question: What does the section "Marx's Antisemitism" has to do with Marxism? this is a criticism to Marx as a person and not marxism the ideology! Please remove it!

It does appear in his Marx's writings and had an influence. Not something he said or did in private.Ultramarine (talk) 07:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

yes but that had nothing to do with marxism his political and economic writings are not anti-semitic , and marxism itself (that what the article is about!!!!!) has nothing to do with antisemitism so i think that this topic doesn't belong here. It's absurd for an encyclopedia to have an irrelevant section on such an important topic! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.81.135.168 (talk) 10:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Marxism includes many things, philosophy and psychology, not only economics or political science. Anti-semitism is certainly partly also a political issue. But it may have undue weight and there are few counterarguments. I propose shortening the material and instead link to Marx article and "Alleged antisemitism" there. This material is already there.Ultramarine (talk) 10:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Marx may not have been a modern (racist) antisemite -- which would itself be an anachronism as well as contrary to his ancestry, but he excoriated Jewish religion (like all religion) in On the Jewish Question, finding religious Jews incapable of being 'genuine' socialists because they remained excessively rapacious and thus dependent on economic inequality incompatible with socialism. Religious Jews could only be capitalists (whether plutocrats or petty traders); Jews could achieve genuine emancipation and the equality of socialism only upon abandoning Judaism.Pbrower2a (talk) 02:16, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Removal of sourced material

See [9]Bryan Caplan is notable scholar. "Museum of Communism" + Caplan gets 70,000 Google hits. Sources are given for the quotes.Ultramarine (talk) 22:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a self-published source, and Kaplan is not a notable scholar of communism. Furthermore, the interpolation of quotes from Marx supposedly to support a particular interpretation, strikes me as original research. I'm sure there are better sources for criticisms of Marx on human rights.VoluntarySlave (talk) 22:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Further, I've just checked WP:V, which says: "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Caplan's CV does not mention any publications on Marxism or on human rights; he is not "an established expert" on either of the two relevant fields. I think this is an open-and-shut case: Caplan's self-published website is not a reliable source.VoluntarySlave (talk) 22:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Possible section merge

I'm at a loss to see why 'Human nature completely determined by the environment' is substantively different to 'Historical materialism' as well as being an egregious and inaccurate name for a section. These should be merged. Furthermore, to include a (very large) paragraph on a non-academic, minor historian (Richard Pipes) who poses very few original or interesting criticisms strikes me as rather odd. On a broader level, if my memory serves me right then the Library of Congress estimated that Marx is the third most written-about individual of all time. You wouldn't even be able to read the number of counter-arguments in your lifetime, Ultramarine. This article does include some important and influential criticisms (e.g. Popper) but many of them appear to be present for the sake of criticism itself even if they are valid. By this I mean that the article is hardly the model of an encyclopedic overview of the most influential, important and original criticisms of Marxism. Rather, it simply picks and chooses a few books that criticise Marxism at random.Supernoodles (talk) 19:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Mass deletion of sourced material

See [10]. Please explain. The included material include criticisms by many well-known figures such as Popper, Weber, and Hoffer. Exact sources are given. The section about anti-semitism was not only about Marx but also how his views influenced Marxism as Flannery pointed out.Ultramarine (talk) 19:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The edit summaries are self explanatory. Please address the issues cited there for each section before reverting. These sections were horrendously unencyclopedic, free associating OR, to trhe extent it was even research. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 19:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Hoffer did not offer a critique of Marxism

Yes, he did. Read the source.Ultramarine (talk) 19:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

rm OR section that contained no "criticism"

Fine. I will add a better source.Ultramarine (talk) 19:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC):

no Weber didnt criticize Marx' theory of alienation, rm OR

Weber doesnt mention Marx in the book at all, rm OR

Yes he did. Read the source.

Marx' antisemitism, real or not, is not "Marxism", critiques of which which is what this article is supposedly about

Again, Marx's view influenced Marxism according to some critics.

No explanations given for removing "Marx's predictions" section citing for example Popper.Ultramarine (talk) 19:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

A. No, Hoffer does not discuss Marxism he discusses communist regimes--he has maybe one passing mention of Marxism, and it is not a critique.

B. re Weber--yes, read the source. this obscure author is doing his own comparison of Weber and Marx. Weber himself did not comment on Marx' theory of alienation.

C Antisemitism--again, respond to the summary--this article is critiques of marxism--you would need to find a source which criticizes MARXISM for being antisemitic, not Marx.

D. The "predictions" section is a confusing OR (you should pardon the expression) mini essay...what is the criticism, and who is making it?

I'm not trying to be contentious--these sections are horrible, confusing rambling OR (and the remasining parts of the article are little better)--please address these issues before reverting. This is an encyclopedia, not a collection of random personal mini essays. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 19:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

E. The Black Book of Communism is a source no one takes seriuosly--it accuses communists of killing tens of thousands of people in the United States!--and ti is NOT a "criticism of Marxism", it's a Cold ar style rant. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 19:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

A. Hoffer discusses mass movements and the communist movement is one example.

B. At the very least, Weber is often seen as giving alternative explanation for Marxism. Source given for this regarding alienation, more can be added if you insist. Here is one example regarding Weber being an alternative explanation to Marx regarding the importance of cultural factors: [11]

C. From the material you deleted " In their view, Marx's equation of Judaism with capitalism, together with his pronouncements on Jews, strongly influenced socialist movements and shaped their attitudes and policies toward the Jews."

D. If if it confusing, then improve. No justification for removing for example Popper's criticism.

E. The Black Book of Communism if an academic book. If you want to criticze it, add your won sourced view. "it accuses communists of killing tens of thousands of people in the United States" Page number please, I have it in front of me.Ultramarine (talk) 20:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

This play by the letters approach is cool!

A. Then Hoffer's views belong in a critique of communist regimes and movements, not Marxism. (if we are not giong to make that distinction, then this article is even more pointless).

B. Surely you see that is original research. If Weber does not, HIMSELF, critique Marxism, then it can't go in.

C. Doesnt work--You need a specific source that says, basically, "Marxism is antisemitic because...." this is an encyclopedia article on perhaps the most notable thinker of the past 500 years (love him or hate him). Haphazard half sentence random quotes dredged up to fit a section are not encyclopedic; it's tabloid journalism. Let's try to maintain some integrity--even Hitler gets better treatment in his articles.

D. I honestly don't see what the criticism is, and it's buried in an OR mismash.

E. I may well be wrong about the US figure (it was told to me by someone else)--however, its not an WP:RS for this article, as it is a analysis of communist regimes and movements, (and includes practically everyone who ever died anywhwere if there was a "communist" state or movemetn even remotely involved. It is no more a realiable source than a critique of Iran's human rigths record wuold be a valid source for an article on "Criticisms of Islam," or a book on US involvement in Vietnam in an article "criticisms of Jeffersonian democracy" Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 20:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

A. Hoffer's charateristics apply to Marxist ideology. Not all mass movements are criticized by Hoffer but only certain that fulfill certain criteria due to their ideas.

B. Incorrect. I can state that others (sourced) see Weber's ideas as an alternative to Marx.

C. I need not present "the Truth", only a sourced view. "On the Jewish Question" is an important work in Marxist ideology and many see it as anti-semitic.

D. Then read the given source.

E. The Black Book of Communism is an academic work and is thus as reliable as a source can be in Wikipedia. The conclusion see Marxist ideology as contributing.Ultramarine (talk) 20:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

<---OK, I tried, and am not going to pursue it nor will I revert out whatever you restore. . I'll leave it to you and other editors to sort it out--hope my comments were helpful. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 20:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Frankly speaking, a majority of arguments by Boodlesthecat are not convincing. He said: "A source no one takes seriuosly ... it's a Cold war style rant.". This is a published academic book, a secondary source, which is great per WP:verifiability. All other sources by Ultramarine also looks good to me.Biophys (talk) 01:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The article is "Criticisms of Marxism." The book does not offer criticisms of Marxism, it just list supposed victims if communist regimes. And reliable source or not, no one takes it seriously. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 02:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

It does, see the conclusion. Lots of people take it seriously and is a published academic work.

B - if reliable sources criticize Marx from a Weberian perspective, that could certainly go in. I'm not sure I've ever seen it put that way; usually, the two are presented as alternative approaches, but one approach is not necessarily held to give grounds for rejecting the other. But obviously I haven't seen everything that's been written on the subject.

D - the section on "Marx's predictions" was OR except for a brief mention of Popper. But the mention of Popper duplicated, in a less useful form, the information in the "Pseudo-science" section as it was. There may be reliable sources who have criticized specific Marxist predictions (rather than making a general philosphical claim like Poppers about the lack of predictive power of Marxism), in which case the section could be resurrected with material from those sources.

E - the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" section was entirely OR (being an interpretation of primary sources), and more significantly, didn't actually include a criticism of Marxism. Ultramarine's replacement, which refered to the Black Book, did include a criticism, but of Marxism's human rights record, not of the dictatorship of the proletariat. I tried to find reliable sources for a section on Marxism and human rights a little while ago, but couldn't find anything that seemed sufficiently notable and concise to refer to. I think such a section might be worthwhile if people can find good sources. I think there may be something on the topic in Norman Geras's work, which I'll try and find. The Black Book, as I understand it, is only tangentially about the relationship between Marxist ideology and human rights violations, but might be an OK source until we find something better. VoluntarySlave (talk) 02:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

B. Sources have been given who see Weber as an alternative explanation to the Marxist one.

E I will add specific material from the Black Book and other sources such as The Road to Serfdom.Ultramarine (talk) 15:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

"Another criticism of historical materialism is due to Max Stirner, who argued that the philosophy of Hegel (one of the most significant influences on historical materialism) leads to nihilism. Marx himself wrote a lengthy, heated response to Stirner in The German Ideology, although it was not published until well after Marx's death."

Another unexplained deletion. If no explanation is given I will restore it.Ultramarine (talk) 08:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposals for section structure

The structure of the article is awful. It is completely illogical and each paragraph does not warrant a section of its own. May I make some suggestions for a logical and concise framework for the sections and the arguments which should be included in each which we can work towards:

1. Historical Materialism - everything in there at present; section on Hegel and Max Stirner.

• • Ultramarine, Historical Materialism is more appropriate title for this section than Base and Superstructure. Base and superstructure describe Marx's view of the component pieces within society but historical materialism denotes both the structure of society and the way in which society changes. This is demonstrated by the fact that historical materialism has a much clearer and more comprehensive entry than base and superstructure.If we are to describe the theory itself within the article then including the terms as a section tite is superfluous.Supernoodles (talk) 10:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

1. Implementation of Communism - inherent problems with the implementation of a communist state; anarchist criticisms of authoritarianism; Richard Pipes; Karl Popper; Violent proletarian revolution; Dictatorship of the proleteriat.
2. Economic Criticisms - Marxian labor theory of value; Business cycle;
3. Empirical and Epystemological Criticisms - Predictions of Marxism; Francis Fukuyama; Karl Popper.

There are three sections which should be deleted:

• On the Jewish question - Marx was a non-practicing Jew himself. To claim that the import of On the Jewish question rests on anti-Semitism is a gross oversimplification and a complete misreading. Marx may have accepted the common stereotype of the time that Jews are inherently greedy. However, this was not the thrust of the essay. The essay marks a turning point from the ideological to the material within Marx's thinking and was a criticism of (Prussian) society itself. For Marx, the Jew was merely a special manifestation of what he calls 'civil society's Judaism' - i.e. that society in general is governed by greed and material interests. Furthermore, it is not the case that everything that Marx wrote constitutes Marxism. If we are to view everything Marx wrote as legitimate criticism, we could spend much time discussing how awful he was at writing poetry.[12] Anti-Semitism is in no way integral to Marxism as is demonstrated by the fact that it is not mention once in the (much larger) entry on Marxism itself. If you can find me a number of prominent Marxists, ultramarine, who argue this then I will give it more attention.
  • See the actual text. Is a defence againt critique of anti-semitism. Not only marxists can criticze Marxism.Ultramarine (talk) 01:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I did not say that non-Marxists couldn't criticise Marxism (although I can understand how you got this impression) as is evidenced by the fact that I did not propose the deletion of any other arguments by non-Marxists. In any case, that would leave for a very boring world. My point was that anti-semitism is not regarded by any Marxists - or non-Marxists for that matter - to be an inherent or integral part of Marxism nor is everything that Marx said part of Marxism. It is a straw man argument. As I said before, if we were to criticise everything that Marx said then we could criticise his awful poetry [13] or perhaps his writing style or maybe his analysis of the East India Company.[14] Please find me a Marxist author who believes that anti-semitism is integral to Marxism and I will reconsider whether it is an integral part of Marxism and thus is a valid criticism. Supernoodles (talk) 09:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
• Utopian socialism - This is a critique of what Marx wrote about the 'utopian socialist' and not of Marxism. Many of the same points I made about 'On the Jewish question' apply here - i.e. that it is not the case that everything that Marx wrote constitutes Marxism. The reason that Marx criticised the 'utopian socialists' was to define his theories negatively rather than positively. Again, please provide me with a prominent Marxist who feels that this is inherent within Marxism and I will reassess this. Supernoodles (talk) 13:20, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Not only marxists can criticze Marxism.
    • See above. Supernoodles (talk) 09:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
• Historicism - Reproduction of copyrighted material from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.[15]
  • Will parapharse.Ultramarine (talk) 01:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

These sections have been deleted. Please provide arguments for inclusion here.Supernoodles (talk) 15:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Done.Ultramarine (talk) 01:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "Thornton" :
  • {{Citation | last = Bird | first = Alexander | contribution = Thomas Kuhn | year = 2008 | title = Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy | editor-last = Zolta | editor-first = Edward N. | place = Stanford | url = http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2008/entries/thomas-kuhn/}}
  • {{Citation | last = Thornton | first = Stephen | contribution = Karl Popper | year = 2006 | title = Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy | editor-last = Zolta | editor-first = Edward N. | place = Stanford, | url = http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/}}

DumZiBoT (talk) 04:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Criticism

One of the major criticisms of both Marxism (and Communism article, which just got broken off) is that proponents of neither admit that any government was ever truly Marxist/Communist and therefore neither system has ever been implemented "properly." Accounting for all the horrible failures. Notice that neither fascism nor capitalism nor various religions nor any of the many other "-isms" do this. Proponents are willing to stand by experiments by people who implemented the system "imperfectly", as indeed all systems must be implemented since people are human. Communist-Marxist proponents are still looking for that "perfect" person/group out there to implement their system "perfectly." We need a reference to sustain this not very original observation and it should be in the criticism. Student7 (talk) 01:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Three points: Firstly, the Soviet state was widely criticised by Marxists from the time of the October Revolution onwards, primarily for attempting a socialist revolution under what was seen as improper circumstances, which is to say, in a society in which a majority proletariat had not emerged, and in which much of the proletariat was still locked in a "peasant" mindset (most Russian proletarians being only first, second or third generation city-dwellers). Some, such as that of the Workers Opposition, even originated within the early Soviet Union itself. Therefore, it is inaccurate to suggest that the conviction that the Soviet Union did not achieve socialism is a purely retroactive claim, but, rather, is as old as the USSR itself. Secondly, even with Leninism- that is to say, that body of Marxist thought which held the October Revolution to be a viable route to socialism- there is a great body of criticism of the development of the Soviet state, largely but not exclusively from the Trotskyist perspective, which dates back to the Left Opposition and Right Opposition factions of the mid-1920s and concerns itself with a thorough analysis of the development of a bureaucratic ruling caste or class in the Soviet Union, rather than merely acting as apologism for the Old Bolsheviks. Thirdly, it is entirely inaccurate to say that other ideological systems have not produced similar internal criticisms; in fact, such criticisms are almost universal. To address the particular examples given above, both Italian Fascism and Hitlerite Nazism were criticised by anti-capitalist "left-wing" factions of their own movements (the National Syndicalists in Fascism and the Strasserites in Nazism), which held the cooperation with the bourgeoisie made by each movement to compromise what these factions saw as the revolutionary program of their movements, while many libertarians and anarchists (both left-wing and right-wing) see the modern liberal democratic state as failing to embody the goals of earlier revolutionary liberalism, arguing that the existence of powerful states and corporations compromises the individual and collective liberties once promised. Such criticisms are merely more prominent within Marxism, because of the popular conflation of Marxism-Leninism with all Marxist thought, and so requires more frequent and more explicit reaffirmation.

As such, the above "criticism" of Marxism is uninformed and lacking in perspective, and comprises an ad hominem attack on the perceived conduct of Marxists, rather than the ideas of Marxism, and should not be included in the article. Traitorfish (talk)23:52, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Marxist critics (some marxists) to the Soviet Union exist but they dont deny the fact that the leaders of the Soviet Union tried to apply the marxist model, as accurately as possible, including all the points in the Communist Manifesto, therefore creating a Socialist State or more precisely an Anti-Capitalist Marxist State.

The fact that even now marxists claim to uphold the notion that the country must go through the "Higher Phase of Capitalism" before turning into Socialism and then Communism sound to me a very weak argument against the fact that such marxist idea of history is unfalsifiable and we should understand that setting arbitrary conditions to the "success" of Socialism doesn't reject the fact that the previous attempts to implement said system have resulted in complete failure, not because of the lack of social matureness of the people on those countries but because of the lack of consistency in marxist economics.

And it should also be noted that many marxists still look at the Soviet Union as a "success". 200.30.244.178 (talk) 15:41, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

The End of History...

From the article:

"Francis Fukuyama argued in his essay The End of History and later in his book The End of History and the Last Man that following the collapse of the Soviet Union, liberal democracy no longer faced any serious ideological challenges and thus had proved itself to be the only sustainable and successful form of government. Marx used the phrase 'the end of pre-history' to denote the triumph of communism over capitalism. Playing on Marx's phrase, Fukuyama claimed that capitalist liberal democracy would eventually spread to all states and that this would be 'the end of history'"

In the light of present, possibly terminal, crisis of global monopoly capitalism I can't help feeling that Marx is turning out to be more right than his critics...Colin4C (talk) 20:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

If we are going to include Fukuyama's triumphalism, we also need to mention a criticism of it as the above poster notes. Maybe include a quote from Zizek about how Fukuyama basically turned out to be counting his chickens before they had hatched. It would add an important balance to this statement. I have a feeling it was placed in the article before the 08 crash. ValenShephard (talk) 10:59, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

"In the light of present, possibly terminal, crisis of global monopoly capitalism I can't help feeling that Marx is turning out to be more right than his critics..."

What happened with the so-called "terminal crisis" of Capitalism? 3 years later and still no "socialist revolution"? funny 200.30.244.178 (talk) 15:23, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

One death is a tragedy, a milllion just a statistic

The above is generally attributed to Stalin. By Bartlett. Anne Freemantle, and the NY Times, among others. It isn't in his writings. But why would it be? See discussion at http://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0405A&L=ads-l&P=5442 This attribution is about as close to an exact attribution as one ever got in the days before recording, from a tyrant, who probably said just that!

And yes, there are a lot of revisionists who are trying to "prove" he never said such a thing. Asking for a tape recording or a signed document. Right.

(Not sure why it has to go in this article however. Up to other editors).Student7 (talk) 23:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Sociobiology

I've editted this article to reflect the fact that one Sociobiologist doesn't not constitute "some". Furthermore, I feel that this component does not belong in a criticism of Marxism as much as it does in the Criticism of Communist Party rule. There are multiple brands of Marxist thought which call for decentralized societies. Considering Wilson's critique of Marxism hinges on centralization, I'd say that demonstrates that his point of view does not constitute a criticism of all Marxist derivatives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.193.204.185 (talk) 02:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I seriously think this passage should be deleted, because it's not only irrelevant but seems to be arguing against some imagined form of Marxism. The passage concludes with the statement that human beings are not ants, that all humans have the ability to bear children, and that "in fact humans enjoy their maximum level of Darwinian fitness only when they look after themselves and their families, while finding innovative ways to use the societies they live in for their own benefit"...all of which apparently disproves Marxism. Like I said, this seems to be an argument against nothing. Whoever wrote it has clearly no understanding of Marxism, Darwinism, or the concept of the metaphor. 86.142.246.130 (talk) 02:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

You could be right. It does seem like a good faith edit, however. The sally at all humans can bear children may have been slanted towards communes where all children are cared for by a few while the parents work (not untypical of ant society). This was fairly common in communist countries (and now not uncommon in supposed capitalist societies) but not really that far off the mark. It is a bit of a parody I suppose. Student7 (talk) 20:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I've deleted the passage because it had many issues like you mentioned above. It was primarly a badly formulated criticism of communalism in general, not marxism in particular. I have replaced it by the criticism of a respected philosopher from the standpoint of evolutionary theory. I hope that helps. ValenShephard (talk) 11:01, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

"Implimentation of Communism"

I've deleted a portion of this section because its author failed to divine the purpose of seperating "Criticism of Marxism" and "Criticism of Communist Party Rule". The contents, including its references to various other social catastrophes, cannot be rationally applied to all deriviates of Marxism or even Marx himself; and are wholly concerned with Marxist-Leninism and the Communist Party. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.237.196.152 (talk) 17:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Im thinking about adding something under this section, mostly pertaining to that it is argued that the concept of implementation of Communism is flawed because the enormous amount of lobbyism that one would encounter with a one-person leadership. This is not word-for-word, so any problems here?

Economic Criticism

I was wondering if we should include Alfred marshall's critique of Marx's Labor theory. Right now the article just mentions the Austrian schol, but I think Marshall presented a clear case and maybe a quote could be introduced. I have a source for it. If this is a bad idea let me know. --Schwindtd (talk) 01:29, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Added in Marshallian criticism of Marx and Labor Theory of Value. --Schwindtd (talk) 00:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

POV, originl research, bad sourcing

I think this article needs alot of work to get it up to scratch. There are several instances of POV, such as in the economic and racism sections, which presuppose alot about Marx as a character and underlying traits of Marxism. The language is also notr very encyclopedic. What are your opinions on this? I think it needs an improvement of language, a little but of cutting where sources are missing and a better representation of sources. One example is found in the racism section where Marx mentions how worker emancipation cannot happen while slavery exists, and someone has made the original research assumption that this means that slaves are holding back the workers movement. This is nonsense, Slavery as an oppression which Marx criticised elsewhere, was holding back both the slaves themselves and the general development of a proletarian movement. This needs to change. Thanks for reading. ValenShephard (talk) 10:58, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I have seen another huge flaw. Most of the racism section is attributed to a book called "The political thought of Joseph Stalin: a study in twentieth-century revolutionary patriotism". Since when is an analysis of Stalin an authority on aspects of Marxism? I could put up the countless arguments of how Stalin broke from classical Marxism (philosophy as Marx knew it, and that is what being criticised here), but that is not needed. It is absurd to criticise Marxism as a philosophy of the 1800s through a book to do with Stalin's political thought! I'll have to remove or remodel this quite significantly. I'll look for other sources, which talk about Marxism as a philosophy, not someone elses conception of what it is. ValenShephard (talk) 11:10, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I urge you to look at the book and check to see if the pages cited back up the claims in the article. Just because the book has a title dealing with Stalin doesn't mean that it can't also discuss some of Marx. For example, at Rutherford B Hayes you will find a book titled McKinley. The book is about McKinley, but has many references to Hayes. Check the book out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Schwindtd (talk • contribs) 15:34, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I guess its an odd issue for people outside of Marxism to understand, but there is general consensus that the theory of Stalinism and Marxism are two quite distinct ideologies. A book talking about the theory and thought of Stalin will be quite distant from the ideas of Marx and Engels which form the most common definition of Marxism. If we are dealing with other people's contributions then we are dealing with communism or socialism, not the philosophy of Marx titled Marxism. Do you get what I mean? This article is about Marxism, not socialism or communism or types of socialism and communism. ValenShephard (talk) 15:38, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Hold on. Is it really impossible for a book dealing primarily with Stalin to make references to Marx's original thought/ quotes on race? I think you ought to check the book out before just writing it off. As Cervantes said, "No hay un libro malo que no tiene algo bueno." - there is no bad book that doesn't have something good. (In this case "good" means useful) --Schwindtd (talk) 15:43, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I just came back to amend my reply. You are technically right, but I think I can find better sources dealing directly with Marx, not Marx through the conception of Stalin. I presume what the book is trying to argue is that Stalin's racism (he did deportations etc) stemmed from Marx. Its very common in western literature dealing with communism to pin the atrocities of state socialism all the way back to Marx or Lenin. Even if this isnt true in this case, I would prefer to find other sources, which can also be verified by any of us. On top of that, the current edits are very badly written, in non encyclopedic language, and are pushing a POV somewhat. ValenShephard (talk) 15:47, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Empirical and Epistemological Criticism

I don't think this section really goes far enough. The way economists evaluate their models and theories (which must be based on some scientific method- unlike what the Marxist retort seems to suggest) on two things a) how accurately they portray the actual economy and n) how accurately their predictions are. I think this analytical criticism should be more extensively included, showing specific flaws in Marx's analysis. Of course such criticism will have to be presented w/out POV. --Schwindtd (talk) 00:22, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Evolutionary Theory

I have an issue with this section after reviewing the source. While the author's logic is sound, it does rely on a particular interpretation of Marxism that isn't universally held by Marxists - particularly on the issue of the centralization of power. Libertarian Marxists would contend that Marx's early work stands in contrast to the refinements of Marxist theory in his later work and that the author's logic is a bit of a non-issue in that sense. I think some discussion needs to be had before any changes are made though.... Anatoly-Rex (talk) 21:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

You seem to know what you are talking about. What do you suggest? Would a rewording work? ValenShephard (talk) 22:45, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I do have quite a bit of knowledge pertaining to Marxism, however there is an underlying issue relating to the focus of this article that makes me hesitant to do any major reworking of its contents. Leninism offers many political, philosophical, and economic departures from Marx's work but because the material consequences of Marxist-Leninism are treated as being reflective of Marxism as a whole in the eyes of many, separating that which is universally applicable to Marxism from that which is applicable to only certain strands of Marxist thought will invariably be a controversial task. I have little interest in starting an edit war or committing myself to be a caretaker of this article. Anatoly-Rex (talk) 20:20, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Criticisms of socialism which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 08:45, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

NPOV tag

Articles exclusively about criticisms almost always begin as POV forks, as this one did. But when they don't, they often degenerate into POV forks. Some parts of this article handle that rather well (for example, the section on the calculation problem.) But the article must not be a repository or warehouse for arguments against Marxism, and it cannot be a sounding board for those criticisms.

Abstractions about style and article structure could benefit from a lot of work, but there are severe problems here that are easy to fix and require a tag. Here are some plain text examples:

However, this also creates another problem for Marxism.

We say this is a problem for Marxism in Wikipedia's voice, not in the voice of a critic. This and much of the paragraph that follows is a textbook POV-violation.

...that still would not make this view point necessarily true. In fact, Karl Popper has argued...

We are leading the reader to the view that Karl Popper is correct. Wikipedia's voice says that Marx is wrong and Popper is right.

Thinkers of a liberal persuasion

This is either weasel words or just bad writing. Who are the liberal thinkers?

Weasel words

At various points we succumb to more weasel terminology.

Some critics of utopian or egalitarian socialism argue

Critics of socialism have argued

Many have argued against Marxism for empirical or epistemological reasons. Some argue that the Marxian conception of society is fundamentally flawed. The Marxist stages of history, class analysis, and theory of social evolution have been criticized.

Almost a whole paragraph of weasel words!

Many notable academics such as

Implying that there are more than those actually named, these are also weasel words.

--causa sui (talk) 18:23, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

• I'm removing the above tag. Not one comment in almost a years time. Pretty convincing evidence that the article is neutral enough. 10stone5 (talk) 23:04, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• The issue still remains, almost all the issues pointed out by causa sui still remain in the article. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 09:53, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

suppressed rights, specifically which rights?

[16] this edit reverts information about the specific rights suppressed. i propose a compromise listing a few of the 10 points.

• Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
• Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
• Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels. Darkstar1st (talk) 04:05, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

It is not clear why an article called criticism of Marxism would list the ten demands of the Communist Manifesto. Most of those demands were taken up to some degree by reformers and are now generally accepted. We have laws against child labor and providing free education. Nor are these demands core to Marxism - they were merely demands made in 1848. Listing these demands and comparing them with current policies is a popular pastime for some sorts of people who think the world is run by Marxists. TFD (talk) 02:53, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

article title is broad, the section Suppression of individual rights is narrow. one editor wanted to include all 10 rights, another editor wanted none, listing 3 seems reasonable. Darkstar1st (talk) 03:14, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

The Founding Fathers confiscated property of "emigrants and rebels" (aka "loyalists"), but I don't see you starting an article called "Criticism of the Founding Fathers" and drawing the world's attention to that fact. Seems like a dual standard to me. TFD (talk) 05:38, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Darkstar1st, listing 3 seems like a good compromise.Jimjilin (talk) 13:33, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Listing 3 is not reasonable at all. 0 should be listed, per TFD's argument. Let's not fall for an argument to moderation fallacy. Zozs (talk) 03:14, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

What Marx accomplished

this passage is criticizing exactly what about marxism? intellectually exhilarating, a mighty instrument, a comprehensive, dramatic, and fascinating vision. is this really the best quote we have from a less than widely-known economist? (his name does not even rank in the top 5000 [17]). if the measurement is not the person, rather the criticism itself, where is the mention of this critique in RS? Darkstar1st (talk) 16:10, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Karl Marx a RS here?

• The hand-mill gives you society with the feudal lord; the steam-mill society with the industrial capitalist. is the supporting the section titled, Historical materialism is normally considered the intellectual basis of Marxism. How is the intellectual basis of Marxism a criticism?
• Many critics have argued who? when? weasel words?
• Marx, Karl and Friedrich Engels. Selected Correspondence. here we have the defense, neither Marx nor I ever asserted

the entire section is an explanation of why Marxism is misunderstood, not a critique. Darkstar1st (talk) 16:37, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

On your first note, I don't see the issue with the lede, it leads into a criticism of that marxist concept. However, I will agree that what follows is poorly sourced and not at all informative. If you could find reliable secondary sources for addition, that would help. I agree with your second point, its not helpful at all and could be misleading. Should probably be removed our sourced. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 23:42, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Some thoughts on this page

I feel there is a slight overemphasis of Austrian School criticisms. The Austrian school, like the Marxian one isn't really relevant in modern economics. We need more mainstream criticisms to spearhead the economic criticisms section.

That brings me to the other problem. The economic criticisms are more about socialist economics. Incentives, planning, and os forth or more issues wit actually existing socialist states, not Marxists theories. We need to have sections that go after the core tenants of Marxism more. Labor theory of value, falling rate of profit, alienation, exploitation, and so on. These theoretical ideas that form the basis of Marxism are what need to be talked about more. Just a recommendation.

EconomicHisorianinTraining (talk) 17:13, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Views of Marxism

Why don't we change this to Views of Marxism and have both posts positive and negative? WhisperToMe (talk) 13:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that would be a good idea. It would solve the recurring issue of POV with this article. Even if the name is not changed the article needs to be written as if it were titled views of Marxism: it should be written as a discussion of the criticisms of Marxism; mentioning the strengths and weaknesses of the criticisms, rather than as a mere list of Marx's perceived shortcomings. Most criticisms which were deemed wrong have been simply removed, but often it is more appropriate for them to be left in the article, with subsequent discussion about why it is that they are wrong, for example. Sarg Pepper (talk) 13:49, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Criticism (positive and negative) sets a higher standard for scholarship than mere views. However I wish to add my own voice to those of Sarg Pepper and WhisperToMe in requesting positive criticism as well as negative. If a scholar has written a notable critical analysis of Marx's philosophy, and the conclusions were broadly positive or indeed neutral, then I think it belongs here to provide a fuller picture. If you know of such, please add it to the article. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 12:11, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

The contents of the article should be incorporated into the article on Marxism and the two articles merged. If that article is too large, it can be spun out according to topic. While this type of article is inherently a bad idea, it is particularly bad in this case because Marx changed his views and there are disagreements over what he meant. TFD (talk) 07:13, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Another Russell edit war

Another slow burn edit war has begun over this text:

Bertrand Russell has criticized Marx's belief in progress as a universal law. Russell stated "It is only because of the belief in the inevitability of progress that Marx thought it possible to dispense with ethical considerations." and "Marx professed himself an atheist, but retained a cosmic optimism which only theism could justify. Broadly speaking, all the elements in Marx's philosophy which are derived from Hegel are unscientific, in the sense that there is no reason whatever to suppose them true."<ref>Russell, Bertrand History of Western Philosophy Simon and Schuster pp.788-789</ref>

(cur | prev) 10:38, 23 April 2015‎ Spumuq (talk | contribs)‎ . . (38,362 bytes) (+595)‎ . . (no consensus to remove Bertrand Russell) (rollback: 1 edit | undo | thank)
(cur | prev) 01:46, 23 April 2015‎ Xcuref1endx (talk | contribs)‎ . . (37,767 bytes) (-595)‎ . . (Still no consensus, do not know why you tried sneaking it in again Jimjilin.) (undo | thank)
(cur | prev) 01:35, 16 April 2015‎ Jimjilin (talk | contribs)‎ . . (38,362 bytes) (0)‎ . . (→‎Historical determinism) (undo | thank)
(cur | prev) 15:43, 14 April 2015‎ Jimjilin (talk | contribs)‎ . . (38,362 bytes) (+595)‎ . . (→‎Historical determinism) (undo | thank)

The edit summaries on each side look a little passive aggressive: let's bring the discussion back to this talk page. I think with the right secondary sources about Sarkar, Batra and Russell, the whole Historical determinism section can be made stronger and more interesting.

The Riggins article (about Russell, McGill and Marx[18]), if I read it correctly, does not mention historical determinism. What other secondary sources do you know that will be useful?

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 12:00, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

There are not any useful secondary sources, as the criticism is obscure and only mentioned in highly partisan websites. Riggins says that it is hard to believe Russell actually read Marx, which is probably why no reliable sources give the criticism any credence. Russell criticized Marx by attributing views to him he did not actually hold. TFD (talk) 15:10, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

The whole section needs secondary sources (not just Russell). Instead, certain editors who might know the sources are warring in a vain hope to have the last word. In the meantime, let's keep Russell out, if the only articles about him are by Marxists, Riggins and McGill. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 18:56, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Agreed that the article needs more secondary sources, otherwise, it does just become a random collection of quotes from primary sources which has made this article a huge mess. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 18:28, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

@Jimjilin: @Xcuref1endx: Stop edit warring. Even if you don't revert 3 times in 24 hours, repeated reversions are disruptive: they waste other people's time too, and there is a 50:50 chance that the article gets protected with an edit you dislike. Jimjiln: it is not enough that your proposed quote from Bertrand Russell is reliably sourced, it needs consensus as well. What compromises can you make to make it better fit encyclopedic values? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:35, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Are we forbidden now to quote or paraphrase prominent writers who have criticized Marx? If so we should throw out this article and many other Wikipedia articles. If this criticism is obscure why did Riggins and McGill find it necessary to refute it?Jimjilin (talk) 19:21, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

How about:

Bertrand Russell has criticized as unscientific Marx's belief in progress as a universal law. Russell stated: "Marx professed himself an atheist, but retained a cosmic optimism which only theism could justify. Marxists like Thomas Riggins have claimed that Russell misrepresented Marx's ideas.Jimjilin (talk) 19:21, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

References

IOW Russell criticized Marx based on his misreading and his comments were universally ignored except for a left-wing journal that pointed them out. How does not that meet the policy requirement of weight? And don't say that Russell was so important that every single thing he said needs to be reported in this encyclopedia unless you plan to edit tens of thousands of articles about topics on which Russell commented at one time or another. TFD (talk) 19:41, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Russell is notable.

Xcuref1endx is reverting three people now, why is this allowed?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Spumuq (talk • contribs) 10:16, 27 April 2015

@Spumuq: 1. Russell is notable. But not everything he said is notable. According to Jimjilin's research so far, only 2 writers, both Marxists, and only one himself notable, took note of Russell's analysis of Marx and Marxism. Furthermore, we also take into account weight, and consensus. We cannot write an effective series of articles about Marxism, unless we are selective.

2. Reversion is only allowed as long as it is not disruptive. This is why I called out the two editors who did the most reverts. Reversion will not give us a better article. Only discussion will.

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 12:50, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

The three people I reverted ignored the conversation in the talk section and went ahead with the controversial edit. Consensus has not be gained, yet the controversial edit has been put in. Spumuq, after telling me not to engage in edit war, goes ahead and reverts to include the controversial edit again. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 20:13, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Furthermore, the fact that these individuals keep on stating "Russell is notable" demonstrates an inability to grasp what the actual controversy is as the reason for its inclusion is about the notability of the criticism and NOT the notability of who is making it. This has been repeated over and over and over again. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 20:18, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't agree with your theory of notability of this criticism. Clearly many other editors don't as well. Why don't you try to make the case that this well ref'd material doe not deserve inclussion? Capitalismojo (talk) 22:22, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

@Jimjiln: Your newly proposed paragraph strikes me as much more balanced than your previous proposal. It would still help if you can make a case for its importance (not in the entire philosophical world, but only relative to important critiques of Marxism.) --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 12:50, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and its importance can be established through weighted reliable secondary sources. This is what has been requested a number of times. It's inclusion cannot be self-evident because "Bertrand Russell is notable." -Xcuref1endx (talk) 20:22, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

There are an enormous number of books and academic writings that focus on Russell's criticism of Marxism. This is a serious area of academic study, why in the world would we not include it? Capitalismojo (talk) 22:42, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

You say it is well referenced material. We would welcome some of these references so we can move the conversation forward. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 01:21, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Stop this tendentious editing. That particular bit of text is well sourced and it's relevant; one of the most striking problems we have is that some en.wiki editors have highly asymmetric sourcing requirements - anything that makes marxism look bad is automatically removed whilst requiring ever more stringent sourcing or balancing, whilst anything that makes marxism look good can be kept by default regardless of whether it's synthesis, or even completely unsourced. bobrayner (talk) 06:23, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Could you please explain where in Marx's writings he shows support for Malthusian population theory, or any of the other theories that Russell attributes to him. Then we can put them in the article and Russell's criticisms might make sense. TFD (talk) 06:38, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

it is not for us to decide if russell was correct, only report what he wrote/said criticising marxism. i agree the passage is well sourced and is relevant. Darkstar1st (talk) 06:57, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

arbitrary break

Several people have now said that Russell's analysis is well sourced. But no-one has posted any sources except for the Riggins article. Please post the other sources that you have found. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 11:22, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

A simple question: As defined by WP:RS, is the Riggins article considered a reliable source, yes or no? Hammersbach (talk) 12:10, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

agreed, one source is plenty, you may add a source to counter russells comments. Darkstar1st (talk) 12:24, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I also think that source (and Russell's original publisher) are reliable. The question is not the reliability of the sources. The question is how we get a consensus for how we select which criticisms we include in the article. Pretty much every notable philosopher, economist and historian that wrote since 1850 has published a criticism of Marx. How do we know which ones to include in the article? By consensus, weighing up the secondary and tertiary sources about those criticisms. Jimjiln's proposal to add Russell's criticism has not yet gained consensus. Capitalismojo says that There are an enormous number of books and academic writings that focus on Russell's criticism of Marxism but we so far know of just two of that enormous number (Riggins and McGill - McGill is notable but not prominent) - once we see one or two more the discussion can move forward. Until then there is no consensus, there is merely "I like it" and "I don't like it"; or more correctly "Tell my why you like it".

On the other hand, if we do include it, it is really allowing room for a Marxist to claim that Marx intended his ideas to hold even if historical materialism is neither inevitable nor axiomatic.

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 13:53, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Would it not make more sense instead of saying that in an obscure article Russell criticised Marx for determinism to explain Marx's view of history and analysis about why some writers consider it deterministic and others do not and explain the weight of these different views? That way it would read more like an encyclopedic article than a blog posting.

I also suspect by reading through this lengthy discussion that many editors have only a superficial grasp of Marxism. I myself have only a basic grasp of the key concepts. It might be better to leave the article to editors who are familiar with all the literature or at least for us to make ourselves aware of it before making changes to it.

Darkstar1st, of course it is not for us to determine whether Russell was correct, but it is for us to determine and report the degree of acceptance his criticisms have. If we are going to report a criticism that Marx was Malthusian, we should at least report how widespread that belief is. Can you recommend any books about Marx you have found helpful in understanding his writings?

TFD (talk) 15:11, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

TFD, would it not make more sense, and be more polite, instead of asking for Darkstar1st’s recommendation, that you yourself first recommend any books about Marx you have found helpful in understanding his writings? Hammersbach (talk) 16:13, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

No, because the onus is on editors who wish to add material. Besides which, there are many, many books about what Marx said, and it would be wrong to take any one of them and say it provides the complete criticisms of Marx. But since Darkstar1st wants to add additional criticism, it would be helpful if he could point out a source that explains what the criticisms are. I think a lot of the cause of animosity toward Marx is anti-Communism and the assumption is that he wrote the blueprint followed by Stalin and Mao.

Anyway as I mentioned I "have only a basic grasp of the key concepts." So I cannot recommend any books.

TFD (talk) 17:10, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

The more I read the comment, the more disingenuous I find the above "basic grasp" editor... Hammersbach (talk) 03:37, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

This being the "Criticisms of Marxism" article, why must marxist apologia always get the last word? bobrayner (talk) 22:39, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I do not think that any of the editors here are Marxists. Myself, I always argue that the opinions of people, regardless of how unpopular they are, must always be presented accurately and all criticism presented must meet weight. I believe that the best way to discredit the views of writers with whom I disagree is to keep articles neutral, rather than misrepresenting their views and adding obscure sources. I am confident that reasonable readers presented with facts will make the correct decisions and adding misleading information is more likely to create sympathy for the subject at worst or discredit the article to the extent it has no influence. Note that the websites that routinely publish the Russell comment have no influence in U.S. politics beyond a narrow fringe. TFD (talk) 00:31, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

• The apology with the last word in Jimjiln's revised paragraph (that I posted) was the article by Riggins - definitely a Marxist. That the Marxist advocacy comes second is merely because the negative criticism came first (historically). When a positive criticism of Marxism is contributed, it would only be right that a non-Marxist gets the last word in that paragraph.
• However, "Philosopher A said but Philosopher B said" is not going to improve the article much. I think the whole historical determinism section is fairly low quality by Featured Article standards, and should be started over, with great sources for both sides of the debate. (Like TFD I am not qualified. When I read an English translation of Capital, my conclusions were similar to Russell's, and I find it hard to understand the opposing side.)

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 08:24, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Actually TFD some of the editors are admitted Marxists.Jimjilin (talk) 13:10, 1 May 2015 (UTC)