Talk:Marxism/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Classical Marxism §

Too much quoting. That whole section seems more like a portion of a persuasive essay than an encyclopedia entry. It needs editing. One option is to leave the first two sentences, which seem objective to me, and then remove the rest and add a "for more information see [link to classical marxism]. --AstoVidatu 18:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

We need citations, so perhaps this material could be simplified and merged with the paragraphs above, which begin "Nevertheless, there have been numerous debates among Marxists over how to interpret Marx's writings and how to apply his concepts to current events and conditions". Make the well known and importnat point that Marx dissociated himself with various interpretations of his writings even in his day, with at least one or two quotes.

But then what about moving the historical materialism material at the top, German Ideology precis down to the classical marxism section, making a subsection - 'overview of Marxist view of history' (See suggestion below) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Andysoh (talk • contribs) 12:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

I am in favor of the merge. Probably should be accompanied by some consolidation/restructuring. Archived as page was generating length warnings and this is the outstanding issue that deserves focus. If you had something current, please copy it here or start a new thread. Lycurgus (talk) 17:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Also I would suggest that there be 3 §§: "Classical Marxism", "Marxism after Marx and Engels", and "Modern Marxist Thought and Heterodoxy in the Social Sciences". The bulk of this articles text should concentrate on the first § and the subsections of the others should mostly be summaries of other articles. For the classical section, suggest reoorganization into two top level sections with titles like "I am not a Marxist" (I believe Marx said something to this effect) and "Apostles and Apostates" which would cover developments from the death of Marx (and/or Engels) up to some milestone such as the second international, first world war or the october revolution. Time is the basis of the three sections and up to 1889, 1889-1991, and 1991 to the present are my recommendations for the division.74.78.162.229 (talk) 18:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

"I am not a Marxist". Noting that this thread more than a year old and the merge tag is more than 6 months old. If there's no further response to the tag will remove it. Lycurgus (talk) 14:33, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Untitled Comment

Marxist Theology shuold definitely include the oft quoted "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" as many first year collegians discover professors will include this quote in multiple choice: Mathadas Ghandi, Jesus Christ, or Karl Marx. The professor's point is that as a philosophical or even theological statement the quote could mistakenly easily be attributed to either Ghandi or Christ by the uninformed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.125.110.250 (talk) 00:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

This is not theology, and even the possibility of its being incorrectly attributed to Jesus doesn't make it so. And while I agree that this is a notable quote, I don't agree that the mere possibility that a professor might wish to include something in a test is a sufficient justification for including it in Wikipedia. --RichardVeryard (talk) 11:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

There is a line in this article that equates democracy with pluri-partidism. Implies that a one-party government is not democracy. Such is a political view and constitutes political propaganda. Is Not a factual view. Democracy in its simplest is government accountable to its people under electoral scrutiny. A one party goverment is perfectly capable of nurturing diferent candidates for elected offices and holding fair elections under such framework. Stapler80 (talk) 09:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

On democracy. Technically and strictly speaking, "electoral scrutiny", if it means regular elections to select the ruler or ruling party, is not even necessary - I mean not strictly necessary - if concerned citizens can present their views by petitions, public polls, street protests, etc. Nowadays it is easy with internet.

I think the section that says Pope Benefict "opposed" Marxism is not strongly supported by referenced materials. The Pope did oppose certain aspects of Marxism - yes. Yewhock (talk) 00:20, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Ordered list of Principles

I don't think

• a belief that capitalism is based on the exploitation of workers by the owners of the means of production
• a belief that people's consciousness of the conditions of their lives reflects the dominant ideology which is in turn shaped by material conditions and relations of production
• an understanding of class in terms of differing relations of production, and as a particular position within such relations
• an understanding of material conditions and social relations as historically malleable
• a view of history according to which class struggle, the evolving conflict between classes with opposing interests, structures each historical period and drives historical change
• a belief that this dialectical historical process will ultimately result in a replacement of the current class structure of society with a system that manages society for the good of all, resulting in the dissolution of the class structure and its support (more often than not including the nation state)

represents the actual correct a pædegogically useful conceptual order. My proposal is:

1. a view of history in which the class struggle structures each historical period and drives historical change in a dialectical process
2. an understanding of material conditions and social relations as historically malleable (rejection of historical determinism)
3. an understanding of class in terms of differing relations of production, and as a particular position within such relations
4. a belief that people's consciousness of the conditions of their lives reflects the dominant ideology which is in turn shaped by material conditions and relations of production
5. a belief that capitalism is based on the exploitation of workers by the owners of the means of production
6. a belief that the historical process in #1 will end in a new social basis, managed for the good of all, resulting in the dissolution of the existing class structure and its support (more often than not including the nation state)

Here, I've replaced the MR article with the 1848 manifesto and italicized the reference to the existing class structure. This is to emphasize the point that the common horror people have of socialist society, based on the failures of the last century² is a uniform flattening of society. The withering away, during which time people continue to reach adulthood in society with radically different preparations, perforce takes time, (though perhaps not as long as might be thought), and during that time people¹ just want to know that the playing field is otherwise as nearly level as possible. It is far from clear that even when that point of perfect equal opportunity is reached there will be equal results from all. So the italics is to emphasize that it is the elimination of structures based on anything other than that ultimate instrinically personal performance and not class structures in general that is the goal.

An alternative that I prefer is to exchange 2 and 6, the list given is theoretical import to praxis and somehow seems more proper from that perspective, but the exchange sounds better when viewing Marxism as praxis. Or maybe just state that the list has that order (in which case #6 would be first in the reversed list).

Also, as the original author of the text of #6 (current 07-06), I have to say, I'd like it to read:

   6. a faith in Man that the historical process in #1 will end in a new social basis, managed for the good of all, resulting in the dissolution of the existing class structure and its support (more often than not including the nation state)

I'd also like to see, if it's not there already, a mention that Marxism has relatively little value after the predicated point is reached and has been caught short more than once so far in closing the gap from the state of affairs at the point of time in which there is a sufficient mass commitment to socialist revolution perhaps for that reason and apparently has only been able to do so in China by abandoning Marxist principle. Some tendencies, Trotskyists in particular are fairly forthright about this so it shouldn't be hard to source.

---

¹ By which I mean most past, current, and prospective members of Marxist tendencies. ² Rather than the successes of this one.

Lycurgus (talk) 10:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I do not think there is a correct order. I think the use of bullet points instead of number is to signify plurality rather than order. If one wants to present an ordered list, it has to be a direct quottion from Marx as anything else (an editor proposing a "correct" order) would violate NOR. The problem is, even if Marx had a list in 1848 or 1858 one principle of marx was that to look at things in their historical context and to abstract a list from its historical context as if it has transhistorical truth seems itself to be an argument ... the editor's argument ... and another violation of NOR. Why are we concerned with a correct order anyway?

I realize one may feel for pedagogic reasons that newcomers to Marx may find it easier to follow Marx if information is provided in a particular order. This however I feel is a question of how the article as a whole is organized and I for one would welcome renewed discussion on this.

Mut Marx never claimed to be Euclid and never claimed to be providing Euclieian proofs and I just don't see where "order" comes from here. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Would say that the use of an HTML ordered list is beside the point, and particularly so since the ordering isn't by any means exact and is only meant to report the theory to praxis continuum within which these principles are generally held to be placed by Marxists, so that the order could be presented but with bullets, except that reference to specific bullets is more awkward than numbers. Also changed stricken wording above per your advice. And actually I don't think it's unfair to say that Marx did consider himself the founder of scientific socialism and therefore sort of a Euclid of the social sciences. Finally, it should be possible to use any order character set, not just arabic numbers by, e.g., adjusting the list style, to get the indexability. 74.78.162.229 (talk) 15:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe more of a Pythagoras. 74.78.162.229 (talk) 15:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Bullet points are no more awkward than numbers. Of course it is unfair to say Marx was a Euclid of the social sciences, since Marx never said that and it reveals a misunderstanding of marx and of Eulid (especially Pythagoras). Finally, you write, "to report the theory to praxis continuum within which these principles are generally held to be placed by Marxists," well, okay, just provide a verifiable and reliable source indicating this is a notable point of view and thus complies with our policies. If it doesn't comply with our policies of course we cannot make the change. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

To whom does "our" and "we" refer in your last 2 sentences above and what is your authority to speak for that group? Lycurgus (talk) 16:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

"All Wikipedia editors" in both cases. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:16, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Acknowledged. 74.78.162.229 (talk) 23:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Layout

The current layout highlights the principles above as they were arrived at independently by various editors and also is a superior layout in the sense that there is no broken flow in any browser tested by me. The introduction of an "Overview" section was not discussed. Of course if there's a concensus to return to the broken/unflowed layout, just because it's the norm in a lot of articles where nobody has addressed it, will concede to that opinion Lycurgus (talk) 22:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Also no browser without at least a 0.75% market share can reasonably be a standard for layout/compatability. I will (and believe I am already) accomodate all with at least that. 74.78.162.229 (talk) 22:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The issue isn't with a specific browser, but with certain combinations of font size and browser width. With the TOC floated left, if your font size is small enough (or your browser window wide enough) that the TOC plus the template take up less than the whole width of the page, you get a column of text squeezed in between the two. Unless your browser window is very wide indeed (and/or your font size is very small indeed) this can be hard to read. TBH, even when it works, I don't see what the advantage of the left-floated TOC is. VoluntarySlave (talk) 23:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Accomodating every possible combination of font size (outside normal bounds) is silly¹. I test on a small laptop and a mac with relatively low res. I normally use small fonts on my central desktop. "Squeezed" is your subjective impression. The point of the layout is to highlight the principles next to the TOC overview. What you call "squeezing" is precisely this normal flow of the text over the page, which otherwise would be broken by a TOC control which hasn't been specialized in order to accomdate this article's content, achieve the indicated framing effect, and thus improve the quality of the article. 74.78.162.229 (talk) 00:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
¹Given the current accessibility standards of wiki.

Also I made the TOC slightly narrower and verified that under the circumstances you mention the text between the TOC and the template as large as them combined. 30% is the minimum stated in the guidelines for this (and TOC less than twice the wiki nav, also checked) .74.78.162.229 (talk) 00:45, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Will wait (at least) the standard day before reverting the last change and if necessary beginning a Rfa. 74.78.162.229 (talk) 01:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Both my desktop and my laptop have fairly standard font sizes (12pt here on my desktop) and 1280px horizontal resolution, which is pretty standard, perhaps a touch larger than average (see this, for instance). In both cases, the space for text between the contents and the template is significantly narrower than either the template or the contents, about 20 characters. This is far too narrow to be readable. However, I can see the logic in having the summary next to the table of contents. It turns out we can specify the width of the TOC in the template, so I've done that (setting it to 35% of the body area, which I think should come out as 30% of the width of the page), and also moved the Marxism template down.VoluntarySlave (talk) 02:03, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, what I see now is fine. Great if you could center in that space (prolly should be done as a CSS class/object per the guideline) , but fine as is too. 74.78.162.229 (talk) 02:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Needless to say, I didn't check the new layout in different browsers. Assume the person modifying the layout does that. 74.78.162.229 (talk) 02:40, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

FTR, I think the prior layout looked better and it's doubtful anyone is going to correct this properly with the appropriate CSS fix, however I can't spend any further time on superficial shit like this. Hell really is other wikipedians :) 74.78.162.229 (talk) 12:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Article History Template

Today's FA's talk page has a template "Article History" which may be useful in charting a course for this article. 74.78.162.229 (talk) 01:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Opening

Okay, I don't get having the opening text being next to the table/content. The text should be above the contents like it is for all the other articles. I'm reverting it back and having the Marxism templete put up. Bobisbob (talk) 21:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

"I don't get X" is not an intelligent formulation or rational argument against X. But it, together with completely ignoring the stated reason, is what would be expected from the evinced personality type replete with standard typos and the other tedious signs of low intellectual attainment. 74.78.162.229 (talk) 09:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Is there a point to what your saying or do you just have ad hominems. Try reading WP:NPA before being an ass. Bobisbob (talk) 05:14, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes the Ad Hominem response is the right one: when the logical content presented is being ignored. From this point you will get the last word. 74.78.162.229 (talk) 11:29, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Apparently it wasn't logical since you didn't bother to change it. Do what you want with it then, if editing this means having to work with the likes of you then forget it. Bobisbob (talk) 17:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

user:Summerwithmorons tries to sell us Dahrendorf as Marx

[1]

Well, this article is on marxism, which is a much broader subject than Marx's thought.--User:SummerWithMorons (talk) 13:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Please excuse your handles exposation in the revision comment. Marxist thought always refers back to the work of Marx and Engels in one way or the other. Marxism is about a synonym for historical materialism, to which Ralf Dahrendorf clearly is not commited in his work. I don't think you would find a reliable source calling D. a Marxist, who himself says that he isn't one. --Schwalker (talk) 15:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

question

I know it is an importnt facet of Marxian theory of capitlism that capital is mobile, and that it is way more mobile today than in Marx's time. Can anyone suggest a few short, well-respected, and accessible sources that goes over this, both in theory and in today's economy? thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 00:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I actually know of quite a few source but digging them up wont be easy. Dintonight (talk) 23:51, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

deleted from intro

I removed this material from the intro for what I thought were obvious reasons. Summerwithmorons put it back in. So I am removing it to talk and spelling out my reasons:

Any political practice or theory that is based on an interpretation of the works of Marx and Engels may be called Marxism. The distinctive Marxist approach originates from Marx's critique of political economy, in his works Das Kapital and Grundrisse. His earlier writings, The German Ideology and The Communist Manifesto, are instead the roots of Communism, and are those that Friedrich Engels co-authored.

• The fact tag for the first sentence is silly. The introduction to the article should introduce the article as a whole; it should summarize what follows. What the introduction says is developed in detail in the body of the article, and it is there where we should put citations to support various points of view.
• The notion that the distinctive marxist approach originates from Kapital and that earlier works such as the Manifesto and the German ideology are instead the roots of communism would be rejected by virtually every Marxist scholar. Summerwithmorons provides one citation. But thisa is a disingenuous move.

• first of all, the citation does not say that the German Ideology and the manifesto are the "roots of communism"
• second of all, the citation does say that the German Ideology and the Manifesto are sources of Marxist ideas.
• third, the claim that only some works are sources of Marxism and others, not - a claim not supported by the cited text - is highly contentious. Highly contentious claims should not be presented as facts at all, this violates NPOV
• fourth, highly contentious claims should not be forwarded in the introduction, which should introduce the entire article. If there are some people who make a contentious claim, it should be discussed in the body of the article
• Finally, many people have written on changes in marx's views throughout his career and writings. This discussion belongs in the article on Karl Marx, not on Marxism.

To put this material in the introduction does immediate damage to the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:44, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The lead needs inline citations as any other part of the article. Arguments like "this citation request is silly" are no escape to this wikipedia policy. Almost all the article is unreferenced and his current value from a scholar/academic point of view is close to zero.--Sum (talk) 23:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The Evolution article has no citations in its first paragraph, for obvious reasons. If the body of this article needs work, including more citaations, I am all for that. Be that as it may, the first paragraph should introduce the article as a whole; it should summarize claims made in detail (and cited) in the body. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps in dire need of a complete re-write

One mention of the term "dialectical materialism" in the entire piece? And it's in a section way down near the end of the article, and its used in a manner that acts like it's already been introduced before and explained sufficiently.

Unfortunately this is one issue with Wikipedia, articles are chopped up and put in at different sections, so there is no continuity. But for Marx's sake, we can do better than tossing in the most fundamental term in all of Marxism halfway through and then assume the reader knows what it is. PyroGamer (talk) 03:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

You'll find that sort of thing in most of the articles on religions.86.42.213.201 (talk) 14:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the way to help an article in an early development stage, as this one, is to add academic sources and add material citing them. There is too much stuff on wikipedia that has no scholar/academic value.--Sum (talk) 15:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Interestingly enough this article went through an entire (and I mean entire) rewrite a year or two ago. Lots and lots of discussions went on about how you could possible represent all that marxism is and means to many people in one article. The current structure was based upon the reasoning that it needed to be able to sufficiently summarise every important point with links to more specific articles that could go on in much more detail into the different interpretations and important concepts of Marxism.

That 'dialectical materialism' is one of marx's famous concepts is in no doubt. But how do you give it due weight along side every other important concept espoused by Marx and all of the spin offs that came from him? I'm not sure there is a satisfactory answer to that by my suggestion would be to add 'dialectical materialism' to the 'Main ideas' sections which would allows it to feature prominently, early in the piece, with a clear definition (that is, if one can come up with a clear definition).

Further, given the angst that went on in developing this article to its current level, and the number of people who have put in lots of effort to discussing and getting consensus on all the changes in this article since, I am going to remove the tag about a re-write from the article itself - I don't think it is appropriate to tag an article of this length/complexity that is in fact very clearly structured as 'poorly organised'. Further, I think that given the complexity/sensitivity, this is one particular article that doesn't need people happening along and "being bold" in reorganising the information. That doesn't mean that a discussion can't take place here on the talk page about what might and might not need to be reorganised, and that changes can't be agreed to and made, but that it should be done in a considered fashion by people familiar with the content and the article. I think the tag is just asking for trouble. An alternative would be to place the tag on this talk page (even though it is not designed for that). This would highlight someone's opinion that the article's structure might need to be reconsidered without inviting people to just jump in and make changes. Personally I think issues can be addressed without this tag. JenLouise (talk) 11:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, this article is chaotic —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.175.93.54 (talk) 15:14, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Marxism is a controversial issue, that saying, the beginning of the article should have something like this "Marxism has been a complicated philosophy as in any conclusions of Marxism will always leads to disagreements among Marxists, non-Marxists, and scholars alike." That way the readers would keep in mind that 'Marxism' can be a blurry topic with many interpretation being derived from this philosophy

Value, Price, and profit

is the name of a very important essay by marx, along with Wage Labor and Capital. As with the first chapter of Capital, it make sclear that Marx understood that value and price are two different things. Wages are the price of labor. Marx is indeed concerned with the relationship between price and value, no doubt about it. But it is a mistake to collapse value and price. My edits provide an expanded explanation because the preivious explation was misleading. If my edits are still flawed, I suggest it is because I did not expand enough. perhaps this "concept" should be broken into two (or three) or maybe it just needs further explanation. But what was there before was just a misrepresentation of Marx's arguments. By th way, can you provide the quote where marx says that capitalists do not cheat workers? Slrubenstein | Talk 02:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I do agree with you that the section on exploitation isn't very clear, and could be improved (perhaps we could have separate sections on the labor theory of value and the idea of surplus value?) I also agree with you that it's a mistake to collapse price and value; but I think that's precisely what you are doing when you cast Marx's theory of exploitation as being about price. The point of Marx's theory of exploitation is that workers are paid according to the value of their labor-power, while the commodities they produce are sold according to their value as commodities, hence the generation of surplus value; it's a relationship between values, with prices only relevant to the extent that they are related to values. From Capital v. 1, ch. 6:

“ Suppose that in this mass of commodities requisite for the average day there are embodied 6 hours of social labour, then there is incorporated daily in labour-power half a day’s average social labour, in other words, half a day’s labour is requisite for the daily production of labour-power. This quantity of labour forms the value of a day’s labour-power or the value of the labour-power daily reproduced. If half a day’s average social labour is incorporated in three shillings, then three shillings is the price corresponding to the value of a day’s labour-power. If its owner therefore offers it for sale at three shillings a day, its selling price is equal to its value, and according to our supposition, our friend Moneybags, who is intent upon converting his three shillings into capital, pays this value. (my emphasis) ”

It seems clear to me in this section that Marx is concerned with the relationship between what the workers are paid, and the value of their labor-power; further, Marx views value as being at least semi objective, not something simply determined by the market. So I think your revision at least makes the explanation less clear, by focussing on the issues of price and labor markets, which are irrelevant to exploitation; further, at least one sentence very much misrepresents Marx, when you write that "Marx argued that the wage - the price of the labor-power - should reflect the price of the commodity produced when sold on the market." This is the opposite of what Marx thought. He argues that wages in a capitalist system will, quite legitimately, reflect the value of the labor-power sold to the capitalist, not the value of the product of that labor. Marx says repeatedly throughout chapter 6 of Capital (as well as elsewhere) that the sale of labor-power, in which exploitation takes place, is an exchange of equivalents. For instance:

“ This sphere that we are deserting, within whose boundaries the sale and purchase of labour-power goes on, is in fact a very Eden of the innate rights of man.... Equality, because each enters into relation with the other, as with a simple owner of commodities, and they exchange equivalent for equivalent. ”

So, although I do think that the section on exploitation (and, indeed, the other "main ideas") could be better explained, but I'm not sure your changes actually do make the explanation better. I'm also a bit concerned that the section has very few citations; perhaps we should look at how introductory texts on Marxism explain these ideas; I'll see what I can find.VoluntarySlave (talk) 03:08, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I do not think we are far from a compromise. I definitely agree value is objective and not determined by the market - it is only wages which are objective and determined by the market. Marx is always in the early part of capital seeking to find equivalences between very different things. Labor power has a value. Labor has a price. How much labor value is woth what price? This is his question. He is not conflating value and price. I feel the earlier version of this section did conflate the two. I think you do this when you write, "workers are paid according to the value of their labor-power, while the commodities they produce are sold according to their value as commodities." Marx knew that the price of commodities is determined by supply and demand. Value is a quality, price a quantity. He is interested in the relationship between the two but you write as if they are the same, as if the value of a commodity is its price. Not so. Marx also understands that the wage, the price of labor, is determined by the law of syupply and demand, that is what he means when he says it is a commodity, bought and sold on the market. I do not disagree with your main points but I do observe that Marx himself does not conflate price and value when he says that the wages (PRICE) of labor should correspond to the "price" of the commodities produced. Slrubenstein | Talk 04:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Odd formulation

In section Main ideas, "Base and superstructure":

• The relationship between superstructure and base is considered to be a dialectical one, not a distinction between actual entities "in the world".

Couldn't be true. Marxism is neither dualist nor idealist. Everything should be derived from matter and "reality" as per materialism. The author of the sentence certainly meant something else, such as "two intertwined structures affect each other in a dialectic development, and in real life it is hard to distinguish the working of the two structures". Or the author haven't understood correctly. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 17:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Marxist schools of thought to List of communist ideologies?

The "Marxist schools of thought" section should probably be changed to remove Marxism-Leninism, Anti-Revisionism, Trotskyism, and others. They're basically an alternative version of the ideologies that used to be on the Communist page. A new page called List of communist ideologies was created, so shouldn't we redirect curious users to that page instead of explaining Marxism-Leninism, Trotskyism, etc. on the Marxist page? Neo-Marxism and such can stay though. The difference I see is that M-L and such are ideologies which have Marxism as their base, whereas Marxism is about economics, sociology, psychology, etc. --Mrdie (talk) 09:29, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Lead section

I think this rewrite to the lead section needs to be discussed. It seems far worse than the previous material to me, as it represents a single version of "the original Marxian vision" -- a subject of intense controversy, which this text doesn't acknowledge at all. This new text narrates (somebody's personal version of) "what Marx thought" in Wikipedia's own voice, with no sourcing and no acknowledgement of the complexity and plurality of views. Further, "the original" (what Marx himself thought) is not the sole or primary subject of this article; the old and more carefully discussed and revised material made it much clearer that the article's work is to describe the various things called Marxism. And there's some really terrible weasel-wording -- who are "most modern observers" and why are they vaguely disagreeing here? I think we need to go back to the older version and work from there. -- Rbellin|Talk 17:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I am torn. I contributed heavily to the previous version and of course have a bias for it. That said, I think Jdevine's rewrite is pretty good. I appreciate Rbellin's concerns, and hope that we are able to have a meaningful discussion about this, with many people participating. One basic principle I press on others: the introduction should introduce the body, and represent the body. The main reason to change the intro is to make it represent the body more usefully and accurately. If there are substantive problems with the article, the place to work them out is the body, first, and only then the intro. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I think, but might be mistaken, this three-part introduction comes from Lenin's The Three Sources and Three Component Parts of Marxism. I don't know of sources since which have used this as a means of description (but I am not much of a Marxist scholar, so I may be the wrong person to ask). I'm also not certain that the description does not predate Lenin. If anyone can clarify... I'm perhaps more in favor of the original version, all things being equal, but am not terribly opposed to the new. --TeaDrinker (talk)

I think it is a good idea identifying that citation. While the new intro have many merits, this intro also possibly introduces Lenin's POV (as per TeaDrinker). I propose that the intro is kept, attributed to Lenin, sourced and maybe shortened, while alternative ways of characterizing Marxism are considered. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 11:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Criticism

I have always favoured that as opposed to a criticism section, some of the better articles fit criticism into the whole. So I have been bold and done this here. I have incorporated what is approproate into the article itself.

I saw this at an article and its very appropriate here:

Q6: Why isn't there a criticisms/controversies section?[hide] A6: Because a section dedicated to criticisms and controversies is no more appropriate than a section dedicated solely to praise and is an indication of a poorly written article. Criticisms/controversies/praises should be worked into the existing prose of the article, per the Criticism essay.

That is how we should work at this article, based on this principle. I have removed some of the criticism totally because it is simply an unsourced statement of opposing ideology. It is already implied that opposed ideologies will think that Marxism will not work, and the reasons given are very common and found in more appropriate articles elsewhere, exponed in more detail and actually sourced. Thanks for reading. ValenShephard (talk) 17:14, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I propose this link be added

• Marxism Unmasked: From Delusion to Destruction Lectures on Marxism & Socialism by Ludwig Von Mises —Preceding unsigned comment added by JoeMclynn (talk • contribs) 04:52, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

What is your rationale for wanting to add this particular link over the thousand of other potential links that could be added on Marxism? You may have a good reason, but since you don't explain, it's impossible to know. In particular, I'm concerned that this is published by the Foundation for Economic Education, which according to it's Wikipedia article researches and promulgates free-market, classical liberal, and libertarian ideas, and as such is hardly a neutral source of information on Marxism. -Lilac Soul ^{(Talk • Contribs)} 06:39, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposed splitting off "Marxist schools of thought" as it's own page

Proposed splitting off "Marxist schools of thought" as it's own page in order to get down to a more acceptable page size. Thoughts and suggestions? Financestudent (talk) 18:55, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I have now split that section off. Marxist schools of thought needs improvement but I am sure there are people who would be interested. Financestudent (talk) 22:31, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that three days discussion in which no other editor has participated, represents adequate consensus for a split, and I'm sure that other editors will make their views known in due course. Rodhullandemu 22:38, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to move it cut it or mess with it, I won't reverse whatever is done to it in relation to the split after this point, but the page is created if anyone wants to mess with it. I can't help that no one replied but I reasoned if it was controversial people would have spoken up considering the amount of people who watch this page and it's talk. Financestudent (talk) 22:56, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

You're right, it's up to people to voice their objections. I don't have any problem. As long as we can always re-consider or re-configure later if people complain. la gaie (talk) 23:04, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not necessarily being critical here, just pointing out that Bold, revert, discuss may be more easily achieved by waiting for input; if there are no objectors, I'm OK with that. But I could foresee an edit-war ensuing, with resultant unnecessariness. That's my point. Rodhullandemu 23:08, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit waring would not occur since I really don't care if it gets reverted and the new page deleted and I won't split it again. I was trying to shorten the article in a way that didn't delete content while at the same time improving readability. If the consensus is to undo that I have no problem with it. Financestudent (talk) 23:14, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Also wanted to add the WP:BRD page recommends "Try to move the discussion towards making a new Bold edit as quickly as possible, preferably within 24 hours or better yet, considerably less time than that." Given 24 hours or less as a guide line 3 days for an edit that merely moves content doesn't seem very radical. If people have an issue with it though like I said I'm fine with it being reversed. Financestudent (talk) 23:20, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

19th century economists

Someone asserted in the article that Marx's criticisms of capitalism were contrary to the views of capitalists or economists at the time. I am not certain of this and would want to see good sources to support it. Much of marx's views on the economy come straight from Smith or Ricardo. As to the claim that capitalism was making people poorer - well, surely Charles Dickens agreed. I have no doubt that Parliament thought that all of its laws curtailing people's access to land and forcing poor people into the poorhouse, and the massacre at the Chartist demonstration, were all justified but that does not mean that they thought that capitalism would make everybody rich. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:49, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Working Definition of the term

Given that Marx died without seeing the Russian Revolution, two world wars, Stalin, Mao etc. what does it realistically mean to call oneself a Marxist in the 21st century? Are there a core set of beliefs? If so what are they?

Marx said in his later life, when asked if he would assemble with a group of Marxists, "but I am not a Marxist." People have scewed his meaning for their benefit (i.e. Mao, Hitler, Stalin, etc...) The goal is not for the government to own all resources and everyone own nothing; the goal would be to eliminate private ownership (thus, money that creates the accessibility). Marx, in his analysis of human nature, disagreed with the other social scientists of his time in the existence of a common mind or "universal mind"; such an understanding holds individuals accountable, or humanity, for social problems (suicide, depression, crime, etc...) Although some of these problems are individual based we cannot blame individuals entirely, in a social setting, without understanding the cause completely. He believed humans were defined by their historical and social conditions - not to say they were not born once, but that when they were born they are not completely a blank slate, they are born into a specific condition, marked by history and society. So if we do not hold individuals accoutnable in general, we must hold the system so. Once again we do not blame government officials, because we cannot blame individuals, but rather, the system set in place that allows those individuals to abuse their power - Capitalism. In a capitalist system, my needs are made conditional since it requires me to enter into wage labour (servitude of an owner) to work for my ability to gain access to what I need. Instead of the notion that by virtue of my human birth, I deserve accessibility - such an understanding is based on unconditionality. Since owners increase their wealth, thus ensuring unlimited accessibility, through increased extraction and accumulation of resources through private ownership; it must be Capitalism as a system that is creating environmental destruction, through alientation to the environment, since we cannot hold the individuals completely accountable because what they are doing makes sense in a capitalist system, they are simply playing the game really good. So, to answer your question; in light of something like environmental devastation and increasing third world poverty (created by the existence of capitalist based, first world wealth), we must destroy the capitalist suystem in order to stop our alienation from community and what we need (resources), and therefore the drive, to become increasingly wealthy through private ownership. It is through such a movement that we can fix "poverty" (since poverty can only exist in relation to wealth - in a capitalist system) and environmental devastation. So - Marxism, holds the key to such problems, I believe in the 21st century, it means everything. It ultimately becomes a debate about conitional freedom or true human freedom' - accessibility. Unlike the communist states, we cannot create a system, like many people think, to target our alienation. The core set of beliefs remain, as they were, when Marx first wrote his works, since the communist states of the 20th century were not marxist to begin with. They misrepresented Marx for their own benefit. If you want to fix poverty, you dont strive for wealth, you get rid of the system that creates wealth, and therefore, poverty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.139.0.55 (talk) 12:13, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

informal request for comments on Commodity fetishism

Could people well-familiar with Marx's work comment on this discussion? Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 13:51, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Issues over the Soviet dispute section

Whilst it is true that Marx argued a fully communist society would be both classless and stateless (in a certain sense, although sometimes he refers to it as a state fully subordinated to the people, certainly a very different form of state than Soviet Russia at any rate) Marx did believe that a workers state was a necessary transitional form between capitlism and communism, so it is slightly disingenuous to suggest that "To Marx, the notion of a communist state would have seemed an oxymoron.", yes he probably wouldn't think any society which still had a state was a fully communist society but one of the key differences between Marxism and anarchism was that Marxists see the state as a necessary tool in the transitional period. I am not suggesting Marx would have endorsed soviet Russia but the fact that it was a state is not enough to establish this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.92.163.247 (talk) 14:41, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

POV and Left Communism

Half the section is a generalization of Left Communists. On a related note, whoever did all this {{cn}} needs to see the MOS and read the Manifesto... Some basic elements of Marxism were tagged for citation being needed.

--Σ _☭^★ 06:20, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Influence section

The Influence section mentions some names that allegedly influenced the marxist thought, but there is no explanation, there this is unsubstantiated claims, that require proper explanations. In particular I am curious on how Adam Smith influenced marxist thinking (beside the obvious that he kind of started the fields of economics). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.143.50.151 (talk) 10:06, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to merge Neo-Marxism with Marxism

The content in Neo-Marxism can easily be explained in a new section in Marxism, and Neo-Marxism is of a size that will not cause problems in article size. --The Σ ^talk_contribs 18:08, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

This discussion seems to be over before it has started. It's almost two months, and there's only been a single comment. I shall remove the merge suggestion templates. — Fly by Night (talk) 01:03, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Only a single comment because pretty much nobody watches this page. Σ (talk | contribs) 01:11, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I have nominated Neo-marxism for deletion, Please see: [2] Slrubenstein | Talk 09:49, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Lack of Balance

In this entire entry, there is one brief mention of the "millions" that died in the USSR. I find this to be a stunning bias in support of this ideology without offering the clearly documented history showing that Marxism and its followers were either directly or indirectly responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of people through forced collectivisation, "re-education", and social engineering.

-Agreed.

What has the actions of dictators in the USSR got to do with the philosophy of Marxism? The wikipedia page on Adam Smith does not reference the millions of people who have died/suffered at the hands of capitalist regimes - is this a 'stunning bias'? Why do people continue to equate the philosophy of Karl Marx with the ideology of so called 'communist' regimes? Read Das Kapital before you make such ignorant judgements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.60.101 (talk) 20:51, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Commodity fetishism

Does anyone watching this page have access to reliable secondary sources on this phrase? If so, would you pleeeeeeease go to the article and revise it accordingly? It is in desperate need of significant interpretations of this concept, from reliable sources. See also this notification at the NOR noticeboard. Thanks Slrubenstein | Talk 17:54, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Marxist Economics

I just arrived at this article redirected from 'Marxist Economics'. Surely that should redirect here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxian_economics

No it shouldn't. There should be an erudite and well composed lede here but suppose it's right thing to let it be determined by the masses. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 16:22, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Forgot Daniel Deleon in People list

Forgot Daniel Deleon in People list.

New Union Party Socialist Labour Party of America

date 72.228.177.92 (talk) 16:20, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Hobsbawm87.jpeg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Hobsbawm87.jpeg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 10:35, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Hegel

How can you post an entire article on Marxism without once mentioning Hegel from whom Marx borrowed his idea of a material dialectic?Quazor (talk) 04:18, 29 April 2012 (UTC)Quazor

Maybe because the article isn't about marxism at all but about someone's idealized notion of marxism. For example, the definition here of "proletariat": in Marx's day, the proletariat was the home weavers & crofters that opposed mass textile production in factories. These weavers & crofters belonged to guilds: their "trade unions" of sorts & their advocates. Only after the mass production in factories came to stay & was subsidized by governments (especially in the regions Marx knew well: Central Germany) in the form of tariffs & shipping fees did the guilds disappear & the proletariat either find other work or get absorbed into the factory milieu. "Proletariat" as used in the article was Lenin's, not Marx's, definition. BubbleDine (talk) 00:46, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

This statement is in a source by a socialist political theorist and scholar

This is what I added to the intro: "Later in their lives, both Marx and Engels advocated the development of socialism through parliamentary means where-ever possible." This is a paraphrase I made of material from the source: Michael Harrington. Socialism: Past and Future. Reprint edition of original published in 1989. New York, New York, USA: Arcade Publishing, 2011. Pp. 42. Somedifferentstuff says "Harrington is wrong" - is Harrington wrong about this material shown above? Harrington was a socialist political theorist and a scholar, I purchased this book from a university book store, it is a serious scholarly work. I have however addressed a possible concern of POV by adding a quote from Vladimir Lenin that is essentially the opposite of Harrington's view. Somedifferentstuff, if you think Harrington is wrong that Marx and Engels later in their lives supported promotion of socialism through parliamentary means where-ever possible, then you need to present evidence that clearly disproves Harrington's claim.--R-41 (talk) 12:17, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Feedback

If the intention of this article is to teach people about Marxism, there's a big issue here. The very first sentence: "Marxism is an economic and sociopolitical worldview and method of socioeconomic inquiry centered upon a materialist interpretation of history, a dialectical view of social change, and an analysis–critique of the development of capitalism". The kind of person who understands what that sentence is saying most likely already understands what Marxism is. It's in dire need of simplification, you don't want to alienate your audience in the very first sentence. Calibas (talk) 05:05, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. The reading level of the article is written so far above average reading levels so as to make it worthless to the common reader. The information may be absolutely correct, but it is written so opaquely that it is meaningless, and ultimately unhelpful to most who will try to read it.Rainexpert (talk) 01:13, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Requesting a simpler introduction

The introduction should begin with an explanation written in basic, simple English. 'Dialectical' and 'materialist' are obscure academic terms that are inappropriate to a general purpose overview.

Here is a (bad but better than nothing) starting point: "Marxism is a political movement to run the world's economy based on social needs rather than corporate profits. The philosophy was created by Karl Marx in the late 18th century as an alternative to capitalism. Major components of Marxism include producing goods and services using cooperative groups, eliminating corporations, eliminating the class distinction between rich and poor, and the provision of extensive free social services such as education and healthcare. This heavily influenced formation of the USSR..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.14.152.118 (talk) 22:03, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Your starting point is not better than nothing. It would leave a reader dreadfully misinformed about the philosophical bases of Marxism and a comprehension of how broad a school of thought it is. Your starting point is, at best, a vulgar opinion of communism (and equally as uninformative).

Any discussion about Marxism is predicated upon an understanding of dialectics and materialism, and these terms (which are not difficult to explain, but not so simple that other words can be substituted where they are used) are explained in the article itself and are hyperlinked to their own. You are expecting far too much from this introduction. What you want to do is practically impossible - any attempt to do it would either complicate or obfuscate the introduction.

If you absolutely must try to make another starting point, I think that you should read and understand the article. You have not demonstrated even an elementary understanding of what Marxism is. 60.225.33.120 (talk) 13:56, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Marxism rises again?

To answer the significant question, we should first determine what precisely we mean by Marxism. If Marxism is conceived of as a deterministic ideology or a new miraculous faith, i have to say this distorted kind of Marxism died once forever. Since it was misunderstood and manipulated by the fanatic ambitious politicians like Stalin, Chinese government and Castro, etc. But if you mean that the capitalist order is once more questioned by Marxian concepts, my answer is yes. With each crisis, capitalism legitimacy is challenged harshly and as the closer the imperialism banking gets to bankruptcy, the more Marx's criticism and ideas are recalled and reviewed. Marxism has risen again more powerfully than before because the economic actors of the world market has multiplied and class consciousness has spread across even the eastern world this time.Tooraj-Prospero (talk) 16:14, 3 June 2013 (UTC) Why Marxism is on the rise again. I can get a mundane idea about this but it isn't enough to post this on this article. Komitsuki (talk) 07:17, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

That formulation decontextualises the quote, and thus completely distorts its meaning

is the reason given for inserting OR into the article. the source listed is specific using the version an editor recently reverted. unless there is a policy for changing the quote/translation from a source, i ask the edit be restored to the version mentioned by the source. [3] Darkstar1st (talk) 02:03, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

'ce qu'il y a de certain c'est que moi, je ne suis pas Marxiste' ('what is certain is that I myself am not a Marxist') from the source Darkstar1st (talk) 02:06, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

equally puzzling is the quote already appears in it's correct form in the etymology section above, why change one but not the other? Darkstar1st (talk) 02:09, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Translation is not an exact science, and there could be several valid and correct ways to translate the phrase. But, as the source here quoted here makes clear. Marx wrote this in the context of a polemic against Guesde and Lafargue, and that his view was that, if their politics represented Marxism then he was not a Marxist. Omitting this essential qualifier transforms the phrase from a polemic against a particular interpretation to a timeless statement, and thus distorts its meaning. I had not noticed other, incorrect, uses of the quote in the article; but my (and others') failure to address these does not invalidate my attempt to do so here. RolandR (talk) 08:24, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

then you will need a new source for the translation, as the one above most certainly uses the word certain, which you have replaced with OR. i will wait to allow you to present new sources to support your edit. Darkstar1st (talk) 10:46, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

the translation is actually quite simple in this case, several sources have it the same and none the way you reverted, si leurs politiques représentés marxisme or if their politics represented Marxism, instead the actually letter reads, 'ce qu'il y a de certain c'est que moi. moi means "i", and "de certain" means "certain". Darkstar1st (talk) 13:45, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Once again, you demoonstrate your ignorance of the subject. The phrase is not a direct quote from Marx, but rather from Engels writing after Marx's death, reminiscing about his comrade. The phrase appears twice in Engels' corresponddence, only once in French. In November 1882, in a letter to Edward Bernstein, he noted "Now what is known as ‘Marxism’ in France is, indeed, an altogether peculiar product — so much so that Marx once said to Lafargue: ‘Ce qu'il y a de certain c'est que moi, je ne suis pas Marxiste.’ [If anything is certain, it is that I myself am not a Marxist]"[4] In August 1890, he wrote to C Schmidt "little Moritz is a dangerous friend. The materialist conception of history has a lot of them nowadays, to whom it serves as an excuse for not studying history. Just as Marx used to say, commenting on the French "Marxists" of the late [18]70s: "All I know is that I am not a Marxist"."[5] So Engels himself, recalling Marx'x words in French, translated them differently ion different occasions. But what is quite clear from both occasions when Engels wrote this, is that he was pointing out that Marx distinguished himself, not from Marxism, but from what he termed French "Marxists", ie those who misapplied his writings and insights. He did not say simply "I am not a Marxist", but "If that is Marxism, then I am not a Marxist". Your pedantry about the exact translation (and remember that we are discussing an English translation of a German translation of a French original statement) is entirely beside the point, and cannot be used to remove the vital "If that is Marxism" from the quotation. To satisfy you, I will add a further source, from leading Marxist academic Stuart Hall, in which he explicitly uses the formulation I have reinserted into the article. RolandR (talk) 16:49, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

how would Hall know what Marx said 100 years prior to his birth. Hall is referring to the same letter (we assume as he does not source the qoute in the book). ignorance is rampant in wp, example, i never claimed Marx did or did not write the letter, rather my problem was the source used different text, which i suggest by cited verbatim, then add Hall's interpretation if you wish. Darkstar1st (talk) 17:45, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

'Overview' section

According to MOS:LEAD the lead functions as the introduction and overview for an article. I suggest getting rid of the 'overview' section, moving material as necessary to the lead or to other section of the article. LK (talk) 07:39, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Neue Marx-Lektüre

Add a section for New Marx Reading (e.g., Backhaus and Reichelt) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.68.252 (talk) 20:30, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Marxism

where could I go to learn more about Marxism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.162.89.2 (talk) 11:33, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

[6], [7], and [8] should do well as a basic introduction. [9] describes historical materialism. [10] covers the basics of value, price, and profit in the labour theory of value, and you can go further by looking into Capital, Volume I. Then, you can look into crisis theory, or look through [11]. →Σσς. (Sigma) 23:07, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

minor phrasing change to first sentence

I can't seem to figure out how to edit this article, but I would like to propose a minor change to the first sentence. As it reads now: "Marxism is a socio-economic and political worldview or inquiry based on..." I would suggest changing "... or inquiry based on ..." to "...or _mode of_ inquiry based on...". I believe this new phrasing flows better and is more appropriate to the context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.84.35.145 (talk) 04:02, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it needs editing bad. The whole first part looks like somebody was mentally masturbating in public.

--108.216.66.44 (talk) 21:37, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Lead section

This page currently opens: Marxism is a socio-economic and political worldview or inquiry based on a materialist interpretation of historical development, a dialectical view of social transformation, an analysis of class-relations and conflict within society. Marxist methodology informs an economic and sociopolitical enquiry applying to the analysis and critique of the development of capitalism and the role of class struggle in systemic economic change.

These sentences are inaccessible. While I see that this has been brought up in the archive, users who raise this concern seem to either be ignored or told that there's no problem.

First, "a socio-economic and political worldview or inquiry" is linguistically vague - what clauses are the "or" connecting? Is our choice between a socio-economic and political worldview or an inquiry? Is it between worldview that is both socio-economic and political or an inquiry? Or is it just a choice between the political worldview or an inquiry?

Furthermore, what does "socio-economic" mean in this context? Is this distinct from the political? Doesn't a list which includes "an analysis of class-relations and conflict within society" imply both of these descriptors anyway?

We then learn that Marxist methodology (methodology relating to what? practice? action? what is a Marxist method? why is methodology being discussed in the second sentence when it isn't mentioned again until the last paragraph of the entire article?) informs an "economic and sociopolitical 'enquiry'". So once the reader has wrapped their head around the "socio-economic and political... inquiry," they are then instructed to comprehend an "economic and sociopolitical" approach. Is this supposed to be significant? I have absolutely no idea.

I believe the opening paragraph should follow in the footsteps of Kantian ethics - describe Marxism as an influential economic and political theory put forth by Karl Marx in the first sentence and provide a very brief summary of major concepts (historical materialism, dialectics, class conflict, critique of capitalism). Thoughts? I don't feel that opening unclear prose and barrage of jargon is something that blue links can successfully satisfy. --Lunar Jesters _(talk) 17:17, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. Like many wiki articles, the lead is full of jargon and does not satisfy the conditions set out at wp:lead : "the lead should be written in a clear, accessible style". Too many big words. Poujeaux (talk) 18:24, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

"Libertarian socialists"?!

The section about "communism" contains this funny little oxymoron. I'd like to ask the editors to remove it, as it's factually wrong, and completely meaningless. Libertarianism is an ideology in and of itself, and is in total opposition with any form of communism or socialism. The word the writer must have been seraching for is "anarcho-communist", or, if we're talking about mainstream social democrats, "democratic socialists". There is no such thing as a libertarian socialist. 64.134.152.35 (talk) 18:52, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Are you sure? --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 19:07, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Noam Chomsky would disagree with you.[12] RolandR (talk) 21:20, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I think most theorists would disagree with him, if not just for his absurd simplification of two hugely complicated concepts--Drowninginlimbo (talk) 21:28, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

The OP doesn't know what libertarian means. Libertarian is a word that also exists outside the U.S. political context... Zozs (talk) 01:16, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

：but usually it is not .

General improvements

Is there anyone who would be opposed to a complete rewrite of the article? →Σσς. (Sigma) 07:00, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Considering that it was selected as a high quality article on the Communism portal, you should probably make a specific case for rewriting it. 74.128.43.180 (talk) 20:10, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

This is not a bad article, but it's not good either. My main problems are the "variants" section and the emphasis on social democracy sizing and positioning it in a way that appears to inflate its importance. As we go down the page, the sections on variants get worse and shorter, and have a significant overlap with subjects already covered in the "Political Marxism" section (ML, Maoism, Trotskyism, and left communism show up twice, for example). And then, the article ends with a giant paragraph about Austrians.

A complete rewrite does not necessarily require blowing it up and starting from scratch. What we can do at the moment is copy the current list-like-formatted variants section to Variants of Marxism or something, and reduce the section to a few paragraphs. Sticking to paragraph form as it is now is in no way going to cover every variant.

→Σσς. (Sigma) 20:52, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Go for it. I'll be happy to be a contributor. Zozs (talk) 12:19, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Weirdly Austrian-focused 'Economic Critiques' section

Austrian economics is hardly relevant today - and while it's definitely interesting from a historical perspective, it's unusual that every economist mentioned (with the exception of Ladislaus Bortkiewicz) is from the Austrian tradition. A large part of the section seems to be refuting socialism specifically as opposed to Marxism - and we can find far better critiques of socialism from economists far more important than Von Mises. It just seems strange that a third of the criticism section should be taken up by a specific and more-or-less irrelevant school of economic thought - it would make far more sense using that space to briefly mention what positivists like Karl Popper say about Marxist theory as a whole, or something. John.f.d.hartman (talk) 11:41, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Marxism

Can any one make me understand what is marxism — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.114.69.221 (talk) 20:36, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

|}

The collapsed text is a request that would turn the talk section into a general forum. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 21:28, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Marxists' websites section

I had removed this section. It was not useful and did not serve any benefit to the reader in learning anything about Marxism. It seemed to have existed as a spam section for certain political sects to advertise their organization. This is a violation of WP:EL. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 21:25, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Adding to Article

I would like to add relevant, well-sourced material from Bakunin and Thomas Pickety. Any objections?

Anarchist critique section:

In 1872 Marx's rival Mikhail Bakunin wrote that Marxism: "can excite the imagination of the workers, who are as eager for justice as they are for freedom; and who foolishly imagine that the one can exist without the other; as if, in order to conquer and consolidate justice and equality, one could depend on the efforts of others, particularly on governments, regardless of how they may be elected or controlled, to speak and act for the people!" Bakunin went on to predict: {{quote|For the proletariat this will, in reality, be nothing but a barracks: a regime, where regimented workingmen and women will sleep, wake, work, and live to the beat of a drum; where the shrewd and educated will be granted government privileges; and where the mercenary-minded, attracted by the immensity of the international speculations of the state bank, will find a vast field for lucrative, underhanded dealings.[13]

Economic critique section:

Thomas Piketty wrote: "Marx totally neglected the possibility of durable technological progress and steadily increasing productivity, which is a force that can to some extent serve as a counterweight to the process of accumulation and concentration of private capital. He no doubt lacked the statistical data needed to refine his predictions. He probably suffered as well from having decided on his conclusions in 1848, before embarking on the research needed to justify them." Pickety added that Marx "devoted little thought to the question of how a society in which private capital had been totally abolished would be organized politically and economically - a complex issue if there ever was one, as shown by the tragic totalitarian experiments undertaken in states where private capital was abolished." Pickety, Thomas Capital in the Twenty-First Century (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press, 2014) p.10

Please be specific if you have objections. Thanks!Jimjilin (talk) 21:04, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

If no objections I'll just add this material.Jimjilin (talk) 20:46, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean, "If no objections"? You know full well that elsewhere at least nine editors have already objected to this out-of-context cherry-picking, while not one has supported you. Attempting to shoehorn this content into multiple articles, and to force the same discussion on multiple talk pages, is classic uncooperative editing, and is not acceptable. Please accept that your proposed edits are not accepted, and cease this disruptive behaviour. RolandR (talk) 21:15, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Some objections were made in another article, but this article represents a different topic! Why do you say my additions are cherry picked? The article already contains examples of cherry picking: the views of Zimbabwean Trotskyist Alex Callinicos, Ernest Mandel, and V. Gordon Childe among many others are discussed. Why do you feel my additions are out of context? Piketty is an economist and Bakunin an anarchist.Jimjilin (talk) 19:17, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

If no other objections I'll just add the above mentioned material.Jimjilin (talk) 14:01, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

The addition of this material has been opposed by many editors, in several articles. You have received countless warnings about your disruptive editing and your refusal to accept consensus, and if you persist in this uncollaborative behaviour I will report you to the administrators' noticeboard for appropriate action to be taken. RolandR (talk) 16:57, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

In this article only you are objecting. Some editors felt the additions were inappropriate for another article. You are deleting additions for no reason. Please stop violating Wikipedia policy and work for consensus. If you have specific concerns I'd be happy to listen to them.Jimjilin (talk) 14:53, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

You are in error when you say I added the Bakunin and Thomas Pickety material in several articles. I only added the material in one other article. Please don't make false accusations against other editors. Again you are in violation of Wikipedia policy.Jimjilin (talk) 15:08, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Your attitude and behaviour have become completely disruptive, and are by now a massive waste of time. As far as I can see, the addition of this, or very similar, material has been opposed or reverted, here or on other articles, by many editors other than myself, including AndyTheGrump, Xcuref1endx,TFD, Archivingcontext, Wikidgood, Uspzor, Dustin, YeOldeGentleman, and Neonorange. Your continued attempt to shoehorn this material into one or another article demonstrates determined refusal to listen to other editors, or to abide by consensus. Please establish a consensus before again attempting to add this material to any article; current consensus is clearly opposed. RolandR (talk) 15:47, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

As I have already pointed out at Talk:Karl Marx, the Piketty qoutation is a misrepresentation of his actual views on Marx. The paragraph following the one quoted continues:

Despite these limitations, Marx’s analysis remains relevant in several respects. First, he began with an important question (concerning the unprecedented concentration of wealth during the Industrial Revolution) and tried to answer it with the means at his disposal: economists today would do well to take inspiration from his example. Even more important, the principle of infinite accumulation that Marx proposed contains a key insight, as valid for the study of the twenty-first century as it was for the nineteenth and in some respects more worrisome than Ricardo’s principle of scarcity. If the rates of population and productivity growth are relatively low, then accumulated wealth naturally takes on considerable importance, especially if it grows to extreme proportions and becomes socially destabilizing. In other words, low growth cannot adequately counterbalance the Marxist principle of infinite accumulation: the resulting equilibrium is not as apocalyptic as the one predicted by Marx but is nevertheless quite disturbing. Accumulation ends at a finite level, but that level may be high enough to be destabilizing. In particular, the very high level of private wealth that has been attained since the 1980s and 1990s in the wealthy countries of Europe and in Japan, measured in years of national income, directly reflects the Marxian logic.

As is self-evident, Piketty's opinion of Marx's theoretical significance is considerably more positive than the paragraph being quoted by Jimjilin would suggest. This - selective use of quotations to misrepresent the actual views of the person being quoted - is what 'cherry-picking' means. If Jimjilin thinks that the views of Callinicos, Mandel or Childe are being misrepresented in this article, can he/she please tell us how? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:21, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Jimjilin had made me repeat my argument more than three or four times already on one article. I think there is a competency issue here and an issue of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Administrative steps should probably be taken. I'm tired of writing "See above".-Xcuref1endx (talk) 03:34, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree; this is classic refusal to listen, is disruptive, and is wasting everone's time. If s/he again adds this text, which has been opposed by several editors, to any article, I will indeed request admin action. RolandR (talk) 18:09, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Xcuref1endx, it's not that I don't hear you, I just disagree with you.Jimjilin (talk) 04:07, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I am happy to see AndyTheGrump's specific criticism. I would be happy to include extra material from Picketty.Jimjilin (talk) 04:07, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

RolandR you seem to be guilty of refusing to listen. For example, You continue to make false charges against me after I pointed out your error. You claim I have inserted this material into "other articles" when I inserted this material into only one other article. Most of the editors you mention did not weigh in on this specific material and as I have pointed out most have not opposed the inclusion of this material in this particular article.Jimjilin (talk) 04:07, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

No further discussion on this topic I feel would be any help to anyone. Jimjilin's inability to understand the concerns of other editors is clearly disruptive and I would recommend bringing this to the attention to administration.

This response “I am happy to see AndyTheGrump's specific criticism. I would be happy to include extra material from Picketty” to andythegrump exemplifies the issue. Andythegrump essentially just copied and pasted his concerns about the cherry-picking nature of Jimjilin's desired addition from the Karl Marx page where Jimjilin first attempted to put it in. Jimjilin responds strangely by acting as if this is the first time he saw the rebuttal and the cherry-picked quote placed within the appropriate context. Jimjilin probably would have noticed that this very argument has already been used against the inclusion if he read Andythegrump's statement that he had previously pointed this out to the editor. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 00:41, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Xcuref1endx, please stop the ad hominems. How does one act "as if this is the first time" someone saw a rebuttal? lol Do you object to the quote I added from Piketty plus some material from AndyTheGrump's quote?Jimjilin (talk) 22:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Bakunin's critique of Marx

I suggest we add the material by Bakunin as suggested by the editor above. Bakunin is widely known, even by Karl Marx himself:

• [14] God and the State was translated multiple times by other anarchists, such as Benjamin Tucker, Marie Le Compte, and Emma Goldman, and he continues to be an influence on modern-day anarchists, such as Noam Chomsky. his critique is relevant and occupies a large section of his own article, yet no mention in this article yet.
• [15] Marx even refers to Bakunin, Bakunin found Marx's economic analysis very useful and began the job of translating Das Kapital into Russian. In turn Marx wrote of the rebels in the Dresden insurrection of 1848 that "In the Russian refugee Michael Bakunin they found a capable and cool headed leader." Darkstar1st (talk) 20:21, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

No, what the proposing editor fails to recognize is that we are not looking to the notability of the individual making the statement. If that were the case, we would have no solution to stop editors from throwing in cherry picked or non cherry picked quotes from every major thinker in the world of the 20th century because it is likely that have had an opinion of Marxism published somewhere. We would have to look to the notability of the criticism itself. Furthermore, Bakunin's criticism is already mentioned in the Criticisms of Marxism page. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 02:53, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Good point Darkstar1stJimjilin (talk) 04:59, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Xcuref1endx, I hear your criticism very clearly, but I disagree. You seem to feel Bakunin's criticism is less notable than the obscure thoughts of some obscure individuals discussed in the article. Why?Jimjilin (talk) 04:59, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Xcuref1endx, please tell me why you feel Bakunin's criticism is not notable. Just because we mention Bakunin's opinion in one Wiki article doesn't mean we must avoid mentioning another of Bakunin's opinions in another article!Jimjilin (talk) 22:34, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Bakunin's criticism (specifically the quote I mentioned above) is discussed in Noam Chomsky's INTELLECTUALS AND THE STATE. Bakunin's criticism (his Letter to La Liberté, which contains the quote) is listed amongst other fundamentally important political writings (from Burke, Marx, Mao, Mussolini, etc.) in Ideological Voices An Anthology in Modern Political Ideas.Jimjilin (talk) 01:48, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Bakunin's criticism of Marx's "barracks regime" is also discussed here: https://ceasefiremagazine.co.uk/in-theory-bakunin-2/ Bakunin's criticism of Marxism as authoritarian discussed here: http://www.socialist.net/marx-versus-bakunin-part-one.htm and here: https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/bio/robertson-ann.htm Bakunin's criticism of absolutism found here: https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/bio/index.htm Jimjilin (talk) 01:30, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Given this new evidence does anyone still believe the Bakunin quote is not notable? If not I'll just add the quote.Jimjilin (talk) 02:10, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

It may be notable but not merit inclusion anyway - for example because it might be undue weight relative to other people who could be quoted. I think that in order to introduce quotes one should show that the quotes themselves have been the object of significant discussion. Given the amount of people who have had something important to say about Marx I dont see why specifically Bakunin should have a quote.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:18, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I want to include the quote in the Anarchist Critique section. Isn't Bakunin an important anarchist? Isn't his criticism of Marx of consequence? I have provided evidence the specific quote has been considered notable. I have provided evidence that Bakunin's opposition to Marx's authoritarian tendencies has been widely discussed.Jimjilin (talk) 02:26, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Given how brief that section is I think it makes more sense to expand it wiuth a prose summary of what Bakunin and other anarchists have said, instead of giving a quote. I am sure that that quote does not actually summarise all the anarchist critiques of Marx. So no, I dont think you should add it. Quoting people is easier than writing, but it doesnt make for a good encyclopedia articles. Also adding some critiques from the right seems a more pertinent task at hand here than adding quotes to the anarchist section. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 02:30, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

maybe if we added a few more sources it would help illuminate the relevance and notability? [16] Marxism is the ego trip of intellectuals who try to fit everything into their theory of byzantine complexity Darkstar1st (talk) 02:36, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Blog quotes like those really dont do anything either to assess notability, relevance or weight.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 02:49, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Those are not reliable secondary sources....-Xcuref1endx (talk) 09:17, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Maunus|snunɐɯ, what blog quotes?Jimjilin (talk) 13:00, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Xcuref1endx, why do you feel Ideological Voices An Anthology in Modern Political Ideas and INTELLECTUALS AND THE STATE are not good sources? And I am just establishing notability not using them as sources.Jimjilin (talk) 13:00, 28 February 2015 (UTC) Maunus|snunɐɯ, I've responded to your suggestion to use "a prose summary of what Bakunin and other anarchists have said," and reduced the quotation. I hope that's okay.Jimjilin (talk) 12:25, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 April 2015

151.233.247.48 (talk) 06:19, 18 April 2015 (UTC)عزیزم

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 19:51, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Socialism is Communism in Marx

The article speaks of two stages of the society after capitalism(ascribing this division to Marx).This is wrong.This is rather the idea of Leninised Marxism arising from Lenin's misreading of Marx's Critique of the Gotha Programme where Lenin confuses two meanings of socialism ascribing hem to Marx.First, socialism as the lower phase , and communism the higher phase of the post capitalist society. Secondly, socialism is thought to be the transition to communism. For Marx, on the contrary, between capitalism and communism there is a revolutionary transformation period during which the whole capitalist mode of production undergoes revolutionary transformation before arriving at the first stage of communism. For Marx there is no distinction between the two. They are equivalent. This can be textually demonstrated, for example from Marx's economic manuscripts of early 1860s and his 'main manuscript' for CAPITAL volume 3 where Marx speaksof the society after capitalism 'socialism' and does not mention communism any where.(almost the same passage appears in two texts).Similarly, later (1876) in his remarks on Johann Most's simplified version of his CAPITAL voll1, Marx wrote, 'The capitalist mode of production is really a transitional form which by its own organism must lead to a higher,to a cooperative mode of production, to socialism'.(My translation from the German).For Marx the equivalent terms are, communism,socialism,cooperative society, Association of free individuals, the Republic of labour.Society of free and equal individuals, all based on the self emancipation of the most oppressed in capitalist society, the wage slaves. 173.178.132.39 (talk) 18:31, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

This is not a blog. Ogress _smash! 18:40, 24 August 2015 (UTC)