Jump to content

Talk:Marxism/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Wikipedia is not the Fourth International under Leon Trotsky


Bloody legacy

During the International Conference “Legal Settlement of Communist Crimes”, which took place in the European Parliament on the Platform of European Memory and Conscience, was made the comparison of Karl Marx and Leon Trotsky with Hermann Göring. According to The Black Book of Communism, communists have killed nearly 100 millions people in different countries.

To be part of the article. >><< Jaccy Jaydy (talk) 00:35, 10 January 2016 (UTC).

It's not clear to me how this is sufficiently notable, in the context of an ideology that had such an enormous influence on 20th century politics. While you are at it, perhaps you could produce figures for how many people Capitalism killed in the same period. William Avery (talk) 14:45, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I can explain. Article tells about Marxism (not about capitalism). Iron fact: if Marxism does not exist in the nature, does not exist this number of these victims.

Influence ..(the most terrible influence in the world history). See above. If Lenin was stupid, even in this case - see above. Marxism - core for the implementation (even if interpritation by stupid communists). We can place this topic in the biography of Marx. But I think that Marxists not will be happy of such option. I try use "soft version", nobody uses the word "nazism". Nobody compares number of victims (by the way). Only facts: was comparison (related to Marxism), mentioned terrible number (related to Marxism). Marxism is not only Marx (Engels also). They together = Marxism. Lenin and Trotsky never were stupid people (any researcher knows better than I). They could understand Marx on highest level. But nobody displays this causal relationship. Jaccy Jaydy (talk) 19:31, 10 January 2016 (UTC).

There's not much else to see other than someone's bourgeois agenda being wrong on the internet. It should be no surprise that material that looks and sounds like bad propaganda has no place in an encyclopedia. →Σσς. (Sigma) 22:51, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Users Gorin1245 and Jaccy_Jaydy have been blocked. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Jaccy_Jaydy William Avery (talk) 13:55, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Communism and death toll

Since around 100 million people died around the world because of communism, we should write about it. It's important to respect the people who died and never forget them. When an ideology kills so many souls, more than any other man made or natural catastrophe, we can't just brush it under to rug. It would be unfeeling and dishonest. The marxists and communists here should really go into themselves and be ashamed. 80.212.44.121 (talk) 02:37, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

This issue has already been discussed in the Talk page section above. There's an extensive article on subject you describe at Mass killings under Communist regimes. At the start of this article it says "For the political ideology commonly associated with states governed by Communist parties, see Marxism–Leninism." I think you are probably on the wrong page. Polly Tunnel (talk) 15:39, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Marxism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:06, 13 February 2016 (UTC)


Section 'Relation with industrial revolution' is subpar

I don't understand the purpose of the section named above. It also has several grammar problems. I started trying to correct them but after a while I switched to thinking that the whole section should be removed, as it does not really help understand anything, and it does not bring any new thought or knowledge to the article. How does one propose removing it? Cristianbravolillo (talk) 21:14, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Hilarious date allergy

The first paragraph of the lead ends with the following sentence:

It originates from the mid-to-late 19th century works of German philosophers Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels.

Fasten your seat-belts, that's about it for pertinent dates until midway through this long article.

No dates in remainder of lead or sidebar. The very long section "Concepts" contains a date in the leading epigram (quote from Marx dated 1858) and a date in a sidebar (Lenin 1913). No dates in text.

Small section "Relation with industrial revolution" contains no dates in text. Sidebar quotes Castro, 2009.

Small section "Revolution, socialism, and communism" contains two dates, all related to the Russian revolution, none particular to Marxism.

Finally, in a medium section on "Classical Marxism" we reach this fabulous sentence:

As such, Classical Marxism distinguishes between "Marxism" as broadly perceived, and "what Marx believed;" thus, in 1883, Marx wrote to the French labour leader Jules Guesde and to Paul Lafargue (Marx's son-in-law) – both of whom claimed to represent Marxist principles – accusing them of "revolutionary phrase-mongering" and of denying the value of reformist struggle; from Marx's letter derives the paraphrase: "If that is Marxism, then I am not a Marxist."

Wow! A folded semicolon (most usage guides are against this), followed by an abstract elaboration (complete with parenthetical) — plus an appositive phrase — the elaboration now descending into Orwellian, ideological code language, but let's not stop at "reformist struggle"; let's instead have another semicolon to permit some Talmudic Yoda to enter the conversion ("paraphrase derived from Marx's letter is"): if all that is below a Fog index of 1000, I'll eat my hat. But at least we can take home '1883'.

This puts me in mind of David Byrne's book How Music Works.

From How does the art of spaces influence musical composition?:

As he points out, certain types of music seem to work better for specific places. Rap and hip-hop have their best moments in car sound systems; punk was at its best in asymmetrical and small places like the CBGB, and arias inside gothic cathedrals —places where a jazz concert, for instance, with its intricate melodies and sharp pitch changes, would not sound to its full potential. Today we can listen to each layer of sound through our iPod's headphones, and Byrne deduces that this influences the type of music we make.

Is it not possible to explain Marxism without introducing so many subtly balanced plates and so few actual dates? — MaxEnt 19:11, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Method or worldview?

Is Marxism a method or a worldview qua a perspective? It can't be both simulatenously (in the exact same term and article) It seems to me that the article is incoherent in this aspect. 78.69.217.113 (talk) 15:28, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Search image

When this article appears in Bing search it's a pornographic image of a penis and vagina. Not really sure where it's coming from or how to fix that.174.125.71.105 (talk) 19:45, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Isn't this intro term wrong?!?

In the intro, one sentence states (emphasis & double emphasis added):

According to Marxist perspective, class conflict within capitalism arises due to intensifying contradictions between the highly productive mechanized and socialized production performed by the proletariat, and the private ownership and appropriation of the surplus product (profit) by a small minority of the population who are private owners called the bourgeoisie.

So, wouldn't the use of "socialized production" here mean that the production (that is done by the proletariat but owned by the bourgeoisie) is socialized and therefore there would be no conflict? I thought socialized production was the solution to the conflict between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie over the surplus of (capitalist?) production, but I guess I could qualify as coming from bourgeoisie, so maybe I'm missing something.

However, if I'm right that this term is incorrect, then I caught this error by idly skimming the intro and THAT makes me nervous about the state of the rest of the article.

Sorry all I can do is point this out, but my real-life limitations won't let me do anything more. Thanks in advance, Geekdiva (talk) 18:18, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

No section on Dialectical Materialism?

How come there is no section on Dialectical Materialism, the philosophical basis of Marxism !?

[Undated, malformed new section saved without signature. Original: 116:25, May 30, 2016‎ User:94.156.18.174 (talk). Reformatted & wikilink added to allow discussion and eventual archiving by Geekdiva (talk) 20:09, 16 August 2017 (UTC).]

No mention of Dictatorship of the proletariat

Why is there no mention of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictatorship_of_the_proletariat in the whole article? Griii2 (talk) 10:30, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Academic Marxism ?

The section says about archeology only, so the name should be Marxist archelogy.Xx236 (talk) 07:02, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I just fixed that adding marxist sociology and economics.--Eduen (talk) 07:55, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

History section need more content on the theorectical evolution of marxism

It is a good thing that it has a lot of content on marxism and general world politics but marxism is also a theory behind that present both in political and academic debates. --Eduen (talk) 07:57, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Marxism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:48, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Frames?

"analysis that frames capitalism through a paradigm of exploitation" is not NPOV, "frames" is derogative. (1) analysis of capitalisme isn't marxism in general as it leaves out "historic materialism" as its epimistological foundation. (2) It is an ecomic analysis, a still valuable though not perfect one. It is no more a "frame" then any other serious study of (capitalist)economics. Victor50 (talk) 13:29, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Khmer Rouge

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1997-06-27/news/9706270087_1_pol-pot-khmer-rouge-cambodian-leader French Marxism And Young Cambodians Were A Deadly Mix Xx236 (talk) 10:49, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

History and Leninism Specifically

The History section of this article is essentially a footnotes version of leninist states, but it doesn't give any indication that no serious marxist thinker would consider these to be an "example of marxism", especially when leninism dictates policies that are flagantly to counter to Marx's writings such as property, privatisation and commodity production, and doesn't cover the many ways they were criticised theoretically by people like bordiga and luxembourg.

A better history section would be more focused on the currents of marxism and how they were influenced by events across the iron curtain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.136.41.240 (talk) 22:16, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Marxism#General_criticisms

The second part is about economy, isn't it?Xx236 (talk) 10:52, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Partially, why what changes would you make? Pokerplayer513 (talk) 01:47, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

I would propbably move the second and third paragraph to Economic critiques, but I don't know the quoted sources.Xx236 (talk) 08:47, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Late 20th century and 21st century are poorly sourced

What is the source of to ameliorate capitalist elements of Chinese society and achieve socialism.? The official Communist opinion is the Cultural Revolution "brought serious disaster and turmoil to the Communist Party and the Chinese people."
Khmer Rouge aren't mentioned.

Xx236 (talk) 08:52, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Eduard Bernstein ?

Eduard Bernstein is linked in Etymology only. Doesn't he deserve more attention? He is quoted in Orthodox Marxism.Xx236 (talk) 09:15, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Meaningless addition

A new editor has twice added in the opening paragraph the sentence "The theory can be used as a reference regarding the struggles of the proletariat and their reprimand of the bourgeoisie". The first time, they used the misleading edit summary "A key work of Marx left out". I struggle to make any sense of this addition; it is unsourced, poorly written, and does not add to the meaning of the lead. Nor does it appear to summarise content elsewhere in the article. If any other editor can understand this sentence, and turn it into a meaningful and useful addition, please do so. But the original sentence should not be included in the article. RolandR (talk) 19:02, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree with you about that sentence. That original sentence does not belong in this article.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 02:29, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Unverified, ambiguous, and superfluous line should be removed on 2 October 2019

Change "Marxism has been adopted by a large number of academics and other scholars working in various disciplines." to be removed.

This line is unverified, ambiguous, and superfluous because the line "According to a 2007 survey of American professors by Neil Gross and Solon Simmons, 17.6% of social science professors and 5.0% of humanities professors identify as Marxists, while between 0 and 2% of professors in all other disciplines identify as Marxists.[43]" already gives insight on how widespread Marxism is in Academia. Cody.TV.Weber (talk) 14:10, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done Sceptre (talk) 15:18, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Article is mainly about traditional marxism?

I get the feeling both the intro and many parts of the article treat "traditional marxism" as "marxism in general". I do not find any previous discussions about this in the archive, but if there is one please link. In short, what I propose is to edit the wording of the intro and other parts so that traditional marxism is not presented as "marxism" (which implies traditional marxism is the "true" marxism), and untraditional marxism is presented as some "deviation" from "true marxism". Sigvid (talk) 12:16, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Sigvid: The article is about Marxism in general. While it can be improved, it mentions and has links to Classical Marxism, Orthodox Marxism, Leninism, Trotskyism, etc. What would you want to change, and what sources would you use to support such change? --MarioGom (talk) 16:15, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
MarioGom Yes, I am aware - and I do recognize the difficulty in writing about "marxism in general" considering it's many "branches". I am mostly interested in post-marxism, and from what I have read (a book by Richard D. Wolff and Stephen Resnick, an article in Rethinking Marxism also by Wolff and Resnick, and ~10-20% of Post-Marxism: An Intellectual History by Stuart Sim) post-marxists question many of the tenents of "traditional marxism". For example, the marxism that Wolff and Resnick defends (in their book Contending economic theories: Neoclassical, Keynesian and Marxian; should be noted, however, that they do not call their form of marxism "post-marxism"), is overdeterminist (but with no "last instance determinism" like with Althusser) and as such they deny historical materialism and the mode of production as the only determinant of everything else in society. Also, their definition of socialism/communism doesn't imply planned economy - rather so do they see "communism" as a type of fundamental class process that is not achieved by the state/bureaucrats replacing the state (and as far as I understand them their form of "communism" is compatible with a "free market"). I have yet to delve deeper into other post-marxists, but from what I've gathered from Stuart Sims book, it's a very diverse group of theorists. What I propose is to reword / reorganize the article so that traditional marxism isn't presented as "the" marxism. For example, the segment "Overview" describes a traditional marxist view on marxism. Historical materialism is it's own segment - I'd suggest this be a subsegment to "traditional marxism", or at least re-worded so that it does not imply that all forms of marxism defends historical materialism. The "criticism" segment also seems to mainly deal with traditional marxism, and as such should either be a subsegment to "traditional marxism" or reworded. Sigvid (talk) 20:25, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Sigvid: I would suggest improving the Post-Marxism article and then adding a summary section of it to Marxism. --MarioGom (talk) 17:55, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
MarioGom I'm on it (it's going to take some time), but I still think parts of this article need to be reworded. Classical marxism is still not the only type of marxism, and since this is a article about the broad term "marxism", neither classical marxism nor any other type of marxism should be given interpretative prerogative. Sigvid (talk) 12:52, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Can you point to an example of a part of the article that favors the interpretive framework of Classical Marxism that you are talking about needing attention? Also, to the extent that there is a majority consensus among self described marxists, is it possible to avoid representing that consensus in a general argument in a way that will not be able to, and probably should attempt, to give equal time and weight to every minority viewpoint?

Elborgnine (talk) 22:51, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Fails to Mention

The page fails to mention the origins of anti-capitalist theorists. Starting with Rousseau but especially Adam Fergusons "Essay on the History of Civil Society". This book was among if not Hegels biggest inspirations and Hegel of course inspired Marx and Engels. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.97.104.30 (talk) 22:46, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

This page fails to mention Marxism's relationship to mass killings and terrorism. How is that possible?Glewis104 (talk) 21:47, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
@Glewis104: What relationship? You might be confusing Marxism with something else. BeŻet (talk) 12:09, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Post-Marxism in the lead section

“It has been argued that there is a movement toward the recognition of historical and dialectical materialism as the fundamental conceptions of all Marxist schools of thought. This view is rejected by some post-Marxists such as Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe, who claim that history is not only determined by the mode of production, but also by consciousness and will.“ This sounds awfully much like the stuff Bernstein wrote in “Evolutionary Socialism” and Trotsky wrote every time when touching on Historical Materialism. As such I can’t believe that is the distinguishing factor Post-Marxism, as that would still be inside the bounds of Historical Materialism. NatriumGedrogt (talk) 22:38, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I just came to this talk page to criticize that sentence. It implies Marx didn't think consciousness and will also act upon society. But that's the whole point of the third Theses on Feuerbach. People also consciously change society. That absolutely should be made clear in the lead. --108.169.173.242 (talk) 15:24, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
I agree with the above. --2600:1700:94C0:8460:14FE:BBB2:95A5:F35 (talk) 21:21, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Further reading

This article contains a "Further reading" section. I would recommend that this be removed. There are thousands of books published on the topic of Marxism; the "Further reading" section can only serve to become a place for individual authors to promote their own works, or for other editors to add their own favorite work, with little evidence that the suggested works are significant works in the field. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't like those sections in general, because there doesn't seem to be a way to establish a "correct" list. I'd also be for removing it. BeŻet (talk) 20:53, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
I think a "where to go next" section might be useful for the interested reader. How about referring them to e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxist_schools_of_thought and/or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxist_philosophy? If you can't find a marxism author of your favourite flavour there, you're not really trying. There is of course also the extensive library section found at https://www.marxists.org/archive/index.htm , but that is perhaps too much of an endorsement to be uncontroversial? T 84.208.86.134 (talk) 02:36, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Huenneke.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Political Sociology

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2022 and 17 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): GabeRoberto (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Ruthwillbepresident, Ctucke22, Jrath1.

— Assignment last updated by ImagineWorldPeace (talk) 18:33, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Age-old confusions & The purpose of this article

There has been a request by User:Beyond My Ken to bring this to discussion prior-to edit thus I will do so here. It appears an unresolved discussion occurred above at a previous time, with acknowledgment of the inappropriateness of the terminology.

The adjectives 'a left or far-left methodology' used in the first line of the article, characterising the Marxism as a mode of academic analysis with political bias is confused and misplaced. Critically, the editor who included these adjectives is confusing (as is often the case) Marxism as socioeconomic analysis (i.e. historical materialism) with Marxism as the collection of various opinionated political perspectives arising from the interpretation of the socioeconomic analysis with the same name (i.e. school of thought). This is an exceptionally common confusion, but not one that should be made on Wikipedia of all sites.

It is my understanding that this article exists dedicated to Marxism as the mode of socioeconomic analysis (i.e. historical materialism); since a separate page exists dedicated to Marxism as a collection of schools of thought); with links redirecting to schools of thought within the article itself. Should this article be intended to be an overview of Marxism as a whole (i.e. anything that might be referred to as such), encompassing both analysis and schools of thoughts then this should be stated; and moreover the adjectives used in the first line would still remain misinformed and fundamentally incorrect since are currently listed as adjectives for Historical Materialism - not the schools of thoughts. One might argue that Marxism (as a socioeconomic analysis and theory of historical materialism) should have its own dedicated page, given its influence on history, but I won't make that argument here.

To summarise, whatever the case these adjectives (while ‘correct’ for Marxism as a collection of schools of thought) are misplaced on this article, thus should be removed. Moreover, there should be a discussion on what this article is (see latter paragraph) to decide if there is any place for such adjectives in the article at all.

DocHeuh (talk) 06:20, 5 October 2022 (UTC) I'll give this another week, and take an absence of response as no objections to a change. DocHeuh (talk) 15:07, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

–––Deleted. DocHeuh (talk) 17:14, 1 January 2023 (UTC)


Continuation of DRN discussion concerning violation of WP: NPOV

User: Czello One simply needs to review the edit history to recognise the consensus, with multiple users (including but not limited to) User:DrLeonardHMcCoy, User: MaxWM7096, User: Enigma91, User: Granger Barnett, User: WilliamThomas22 over the last few months alone flagging violation of WP:NPOV. You yourself have repeatedly reverted many of these edits. The consensus is clear. Despite this (and the border-line vandalism of assigning political bias to an historical approach to analysis), I still opened a discussion (above) in the pursuit of proper discourse; despite your revision often being made with 24hrs of an edit, the discussion I opened went 3 months without a reply. I thus logically judged the discussion closed and made the edit. Re-opening the matter as you wish to requires discussion on this talk page - and should not be handled by making immediate reversal of edits which when proposed went unchallenged for over 3 months, nor edit-warring in the face of corrective action. DocHeuh (talk) 17:02, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

The consensus evidently is not clear given that several editors have reverted the description, and several more below favour its inclusion. There is now a formal discussion open to settle this, let's leave it there. — Czello 19:57, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Discussion of WP:NPOV in first line

As per ongoing discussion, I will raise the issue officially (again) here to seek consensus.

This discussion concerns the proposal to suggest political bias to the use of historical materialism as a methodology for explaining class conflict (Marxism). Marxist school of thought (political philosophies arising from use of Marxism) may quite rightly be assigned political bias, however it is entirely inappropriate to define an historical and sociological approach (i.e. Marxism) as such. Assuming good faith WP: AGF one might assume the first line of the article appears from a frequent misunderstanding.

Tracing back the edit history, the edit to amend the first line to include political categorisation can be seen to be first made by an non-user (IP address only), to be then reverted by User:Lol1VNIO citing (correctly) a failure to adhere to WP: NPOV. At a later point this was added back in before being reverted again on 31/07/22 by User: Enigma91 once again for violating a NPOV. Immediately following this User: Acroterion reverted the revision claiming an "undiscussed revision"; which of course was not true since the absence of political adjectives was the page's status quo. Despite it not being their responsibility to, User: Enigma91 raised this in the discussion page; and as User: Czello noted, no clear consensus was reached during this discussion - meaning that the page should remain as its status quo i.e. absent of political description. Regardless this back and forth has continued since July, with passing users (e.g. User:DrLeonardHMcCoy, User: MaxWM7096, User: Enigma91, User: Granger Barnett, User: WilliamThomas22) noting and removing the improper description using political bias, immediately followed by reversions by almost exclusively by either User: Czello or User: Acroterion.

I move to reach consensus and enable closure this matter (while clearly noting that the 'status quo' of this page is an absence of political adjectives; tracing back to when the WP: edit warring began on 31/07/22; thus a failure to reach clear consensus should maintain the absence of political adjectives no matter what the page looks like now or during this discussion). Please provide comments below. DocHeuh (talk) 17:02, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

"the proposal to suggest political bias to the use of historical materialism as a methodology for explaining class conflict (Marxism)" Not sure what that really means, but nobody responded to your comments in January and October, and there appears to be a moderate preference for "left wing" as opposed to "far-left-wing," with some debate concerning where that should go. In as few words as possible, what are you suggesting? Most of the edits you've cited were made as drive-by changes by editors with few contributions and no discussion or attempt to gain consensus. Acroterion (talk) 18:11, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Re; your first comment the fact that you're "not sure what that really means" is precisely my point; and highlights a confusion between two distinct uses of the same term. My precise suggestion is that characterisation as "left" in nature is appropriate for use of one of these terms but not the other. Namely it is not suitable to describe Marx's use of historical materialism as a methodology for explaining class conflict (which is the academic theory called 'Marxism'), but is appropriate for a number of the political philosophies ("Marxist Schools of thought") emerging from application of the former (often mischaracterised as 'Marxism'). Please note the difference between the term as an noun i.e. 'Marxist' which may or may not be characterised as 'left-wing' and as verb 'Marxism' which is appropriate to be categorised with political descriptors. DocHeuh (talk) 17:06, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
(edit conflict)To be clear on the change you're suggesting, this discussion is aiming to remove "left-wing to far-left" from the lead, correct? In which case I'd ask why it would not be neutral to describe the "method of socioeconomic analysis" (as the article words it) as left-wing, particularly when it is well sourced? (Side note, though this isn't an official RFC I have notified WP:PLT of this thread for their input). — Czello 18:15, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Here from WP:PLT. I also don't see what the issue is here. Marxism—whether the context is political, economic, or sociological—is widely agreed to be left-wing or far-left, and I don't know if I've ever seen a reliable source that says it isn't either of those things. Describing Marxism as far-left isn't any different than describing fascism as far-right. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:54, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Yes, agree entirely. It's well-sourced and I think it's frankly a WP:FRINGE view to suggest it's not left-wing/far-left. — Czello 19:07, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Heuh0, it appears you've been posting messages on the talk pages of users that support your version of the article. I'd like to remind you of the Wikipedia behavioral guideline on WP:CANVASSING. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:28, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Also from WP:PLT. I generally agree with DocHeuh that the method of analysis, which can be used by followers of any polictical ideology and the various political ideologies influenced by Marx, which are left-wing, should be seperated. I would suggest to just re-write the lead, so that it refers to both, the method and the broadly left-wing ideologies. ΙℭaℜuΣatthe☼ (talk). 20:09, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
As per my reply to User: Acroterion; I think this suggestion is a sensible common ground. My issue lies only with the clear lack of sensitivity to the two separate uses of the term (one academic and one political). Marxist schools of thought does have its own page, thus I assumed (perhaps incorrectly) that the intention for this page was for Marxism (as the academic theory) thus being inappropriate for political characterisation. Should this page instead be intended to represent all (including often mischaracterised) uses of "Marxism", I see no problem. But critically, this should be made immediately clear to prevent misleading readers. DocHeuh (talk) 17:06, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
The reason for my original change back in July is that having the "left / far-left" be the first words describing Marxist ideology appears incredibly misleading and inaccurate. As evidence by my change at the time, while I do not feel indicating such an association between Marxism and political affiliations is inherently incorrect, having its position in the opening paragraph (let alone the first descriptor) is a mistake. Assigning such a designation does go against Wikipedia's pursuit of neutrality as others have pointed out. I further find the claims of "well-sourced" debatable and the terms themselves of minimal informative value given the lack of a standardized definition.
Political leanings, given the inherent variability and transient nature of the meaning "left/right-wing" on a historical and contemporary level, make such a descriptor a function of opinion and not of a real inherent fact to Marxism (or any ideology described as such). Political "leanings" are seemingly only assignable after the fact and very relative to the location and time of the political scenario in question. The first cited source does show association of Marxism and the political left of its time. But does left/far-left politics of 1871 France hold the same meaning as today? What are the tenants of left/right affiliations in 1870s France? What are they even now? The second source doesn't say. It only uses Marxism and Maoism as frequent, but not exclusive examples, of whatever "radical-left" means. At best this highlights the contemporary association of the concepts. Wikipedia's own article on far left politics struggles to define it concretely, and for good reason. Its only mention of Marxism is regarding its association of the term in political news media and nothing else. The third source highlights contemporary definitions of far-left and extreme-left in Europe, but again it's contemporary and in the context of Europe. Is far-left, left, right, etc in Europe the same everywhere else? Not relative to the United States and almost assuredly not to many other countries. I suspect a decent variance in such terms exists within Europe itself. This source also discusses how such left leaning groups have changed in the last ~50 years (at the time of writing). So the author, from an ethnocentric perspective, describes modern left/far-left is different than what was in the previously.
Rather ironically, it would seem those citing the first source neglected reading near the beginning in which it also states: "...an objective view of what is right and left is obscure". It's a great point, because it is obscure. We are using this label from what loose contemporary social understanding exists regarding the meaning of these terms. I feel the few supporting keeping the "left/far-left" descriptor are failing to separate modern political discourse to what actually defines something (in this case Marxism). We can remove left/far-left descriptor from the page and nothing about Marxism is lost. What does it even mean? It's not a rhetorical question but rather highlights my point. Thebigguyalien mentions that Marxism being far left is the same as fascism being described far right. But again, these terms are so nebulous with very ephemeral meanings. I could easily make the case that US conservative politics is "on the right". Conservative politics of today, among other things, would seem to heavily emphasize minimal government involvement and oversight. Yet fascism is probably the best definition of maximal government oversight/involvement, but is also far-right? Is right/far-right politics defined by minimal government oversight or heavy? What is either side defined by?
I belabor this to not define political leanings, but rather highlight their near non-existent utility in defining Marxism (or really anything for that matter). Such subjectivity has no place in the pursuit of an objective detailing of any concept. The sources cited, when they are not actually highlighting the unestablished meanings of these terms, only serve to show a contemporary association of the concepts from maybe a western perspective? That's why I would prefer to revert to the time when the "left/far-left" descriptor was absent entirely. It seems to only confuse the subject and adds nothing to what Marxism is. I also think a variation of my previous edit would be adequate. That version put it at the end of the opening paragraph stating that Marxism is associated with some modern political concepts of "left/far-left". This importantly delineates the actual concept from modern political discourse and shows only that the two are sometimes associated, but not inherently tied together. DrLeonardHMcCoy (talk) 01:46, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Remove far-left and left-wing adjectives from the first line

The far-left adjective makes a subjective assumption that does not conform to a neutral POV. In addition, how can a method of analysis be considered left-wing or right-wing in the first place? The history and origins of this method of analysis are left-wing, but we cannot consider the method itself to be. That would be like claiming the "scientific method is a left-wing method of analysis". Enigma91 (talk) 23:20, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Did you read the references you removed? Acroterion (talk) 23:24, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Yes, the definitions in those references are incorrect.
Reference (2): The definition on dictionary.com claims that Marxism is an ideology; however this Wiki itself already states that Marxism is "a method of socioeconomic analysis".
Reference (3): This says communists have a "commitment to Marxism", which simply means that communists follow that method of analysis. That doesn't make the method itself left-wing or far-left as there is nothing in historical materialism with which we can make that claim. Another example is psychology which is defined as the study of mind and behavior: there are different schools of thought under psychology but it doesn't give the act of studying it any political flavor. Marxism is a specific method of analyzing and studying history and societies; the call to action based on the outcome of this study can be said to be left-wing or right-wing, but not the method of study itself. Enigma91 (talk) 22:24, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
So, I guess you didn't read them. (1) is borked right now, must not have paid The Man for their hosting (2) "Radical left" is defined using Marxism as the example (3) "Contemporary far-left parties in Europe" are discussed in extensive detail. Your analysis or deconstruction isn't usable for content on Wikipedia. Acroterion (talk) 23:23, 4 August 2022 (UTC) Acroterion (talk) 23:23, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
I've read the discussion here, and I've looked at the article a few times, and I prefer the version where the left and far left adjectives are used later in the paragraph and with respect to *political* tendencies. Marxism is a way of investigating reality. That is not where the left or right qualities apply.
As a marxist I consider my political leaning as left. It irks me to see marxism described as "left-wing" even though there are economic schools of thought I would call right-wing. I do have a sense though that the article is not fully neutral when it judges what I think of as a scientific approach as being politically skewed.
It is complex, as deciding what is or is not scientific itself is hotly debatable. Yet the criteria about what is scientific is not left or right wing leanings, even though there may be correlations.
I say revert. Waltzzz (talk) 00:21, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
Sources predominately call it left wing. It's not really at all deniable that Marxism is a left wing ideology. — Czello 07:45, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
Left wing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:48, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
The Austrian School of economics has a predominantly right-wing perception. Yet that article doesn't say that the "Austrian school is a right-wing to far-right school of economic thought". If Marxism is labeled as left-wing, then Austrian School of economics and Chicago School of economics should be labeled as right-wing. Enigma91 (talk) 21:36, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
What other articles do is irrelevant to how this article operates. — Czello 21:51, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
I agree with removing the "left/far-left" label. Marxism is a method of analysis and a theory of history, not a political ideology. Magnetizedlion27 (talk) 01:15, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
It is overwhelmingly described as left wing by sources. — Czello 09:47, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
I think the important distinction to make is between a materialist-marxist inquiry (the 'theory' which absolutely is neutral and is part of a much older tradition than a left-right division in political thought) and the political applications of the conclusions of these analyses.
To give more insight for the first point, Marx's ontology is inherited from authors like Lucretius, and is founded on the argument that, in order for us to be able to have senses and exist, the world must be made of material in flux, which "swerves" and folds in on itself. In his dissertation, Marx very thoroughly explains a pedetic dialectic which founds the rest of his work. He makes a few important claims: that matter does not move in any determinate manner, and that matter is fundamentally relational (beyond simple cause and effect). Moreso, while Marx obviously draws moral and political conclusions based on his analysis, the analysis itself is purely a "kritik" (examining the conditions for the existence of, e.g. capital, exploitation, etc.). There's a reason why marx himself said he wasn't whatever people thought a "marxist" was. ' GuugWiki (talk) 23:55, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Making Clarifications and adding a section on Marx's ontology

Hey everyone! I've read through the article and think that adding a section on Marx's ontology (and in particular his doctoral dissertation) could help frame some of the other concepts in the article. One point in particular is that it helps to clarify what exactly constitutes the "base" in the base-superstructure metaphor; namely, that it is nature.
In addition to this I see that the lead has remained very much the same and still includes the political modifier before explaining a distinction between the 'theory' and 'applications'. I would like to try and rewrite it soon.
Before making any changes to the article, I'll post them here, but I would also appreciate feedback for whether or not these changes are warranted or if there is a better place for them. GuugWiki (talk) 00:25, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Issue with the overview

As it stands, the overview only seems to describe vulgar Marxism and is likely to be misleading. While I get the need for simplicity, it seems like a problem to offer as simple and uncontroversial something rejected by almost all contemporary Marxists (ie, economism / determinism). It seems to me that not the materialist conception of history but the analysis of capital & the production of surplus value should anchor this section. It’s both far more comprehensively presented by Marx and closer to something like the consensus view than the ever-controversial problems of base & superstructure, etc. 2603:7000:3E00:38DE:301D:7EBF:245F:E498 (talk) 02:39, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Marxism/Archive_4&oldid=1248798490"