Talk:Marxist philosophy

Marxism and Reification

The fundamental flaw in Marxism is in assigning productivity as an incidence of reification. Since Marx worked in the limited science of the early 19th century, he could not foresee the development of modern energy dynamics. We know from modern science that productivity growth is the absolute requirement for allowing a return on investment, and that without increasing productivity economics ceases to be a system that allows for needs satisfaction. In plain English, this means that if we can't do a job better and better then no one can have any more, and so whatever life you have is all you are going to have...unless we can increase productivity. Since all living systems that reach their peak inevitably go into decline, following Marxist theory will result in reification of productivity, and hence lack of productivity increase and then inevitable decline. Marx tried his best to figure out how economics works, but the science he was using was just not up to the job. We are doing a much better job today of understanding economic growth and decline, which Marx himself surely would have agreed with. This essentially consigns Marxism to the dustbin of history...while the idea of revolution is surely attractive to many who feel repressed, there is nowhere to look but one's own circle of productivity for the answer. Workers of the world...get to work!

Cool story bro!

discussion of merge with/separation from Marxist theory

This article was (relatively) recently merged with Marxist theory, and I can't seem to find any discussion of the reasons for this change. In my opinion, the two subjects deserve to be separated for better coverage -- of the broad theoretical program of Marxism, as opposed to the narrower set of works that are emphatically within philosophy but informed by Marxist thought. (Since many Wikipedians who edit this set of articles seem interested in Althusser, I'll just point to his essay "Is It Simple to be a Marxist in Philosophy?" as a good piece on this distinction.) The older version of the article, as of about this edit, was more specifically about Marxism in philosophy; since then, a lot of (good!) content on the roots and development of Marx's thought has been added, and it's not apparently primarily covering its philosophical aspects. Now, I may be somewhat biased because I wrote much of the older version (though I'll happily concede that it needed a lot of improvement and augmenting whether kept separate from Marxist theory or not) -- but in any case, I'd like to hear other Wikipedians' opinions about the separation or joining of the two topics. My own opinion is that both Marxist theory and Marxist philosophy are better served by coverage in separate articles, though there is inevitably a lot of overlap. -- Rbellin|Talk 05:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC) This may have limited relevance to the question of the merger, but the representation of Hegelian philosophy on this page is woefully inadequate; in particular, the attribution of the thesis-antithesis-synthesis idea to Hegel comes via Kojeve (as far as I know) and is NOT an Hegelian notion. This section should be cross-checked with, eg the Stanford Encyc. of Philos. page on Hegel for accuracy. As a 'philosophy' page, in particular, as opposed to a 'theory' page (accepting that there is some such distinction) this should be a priority. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zturnbull (talk • contribs) 17:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

very uncommon word

Perhaps "rejectal" should be replaced with something else like "rejection" in the following sentence: "The criteria of acceptation or rejectal .." as rejectal doesn't seem to be an English word .. although I know words can be coined ad hoc. Also, I think "acceptance" is less posh a word than "acceptation" and would better convey the intended meaning as well, so it should be used instead "acceptation".

Nicely spotted: seems rejectal is not an English word; and "acceptation" is a word but highly nuanced version of acceptance. Oops, was going to change them but they belong to Althusser's quote. :-( Manytexts (talk) 03:56, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Marxist sociology

I wonder if we should have a redirect here (till the article is created), or would it be misleading? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

whats the deal with Deng Xiaoping and Stalin?

Why are they even on this page? I don’t think Stalin is known for his theoretical contributions (heard he'd had a mean streak with intellectuals) or Deng's commitment to worker's liberation but maybe there should be a page dedicated for bureaucratic state-capitalism that gets called "Socialism and or Marxism and or Communism and or State-Communism and or etc."

I thought Stalin played a major role in codifying Lenin's ideas into the ideology of "Marxism-Leninism".64.85.231.70 (talk) 01:14, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Sartre

Can't edit, but it seems rude to exclude Sartre from this page, particularly the list of significant marxist theorists, given his influence over French and African Marxist movements in the late 20th century and his recent resurgence. Can somebody add it pls? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.131.103.58 (talk) 16:34, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Editor bias

Before adding any new section(s), it might be a good idea to improve the quality of the article as it stands now. One way to do that is to look for statements without any references. You will find there are many.

This article needs and is missing citations in many places precisely because it contains original research that no secondary literature can be drawn upon to support. The POV of the editor and his or her take on the subject is quite clear. Look at the section on human rights for example. It is a loose collection of quotes and names put together to support the editor's take on Marx's philosophy concerning human rights. And what the relevance of the last paragraph is ("But the communist revolution does not end with the negation of individual liberty and equality ("collectivism"[14]), but with the "negation of the negation"") with respect to the rest of the section is very unclear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.68.252 (talk) 21:04, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Ernest Untermann

Add a reference to Ernest Untermann, in Science & Revolution (1905) he critically explicates materialist monism. The book is free to read on google, it has been linked on Untermann's wiki page. 71.20.33.60 (talk) 09:06, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please make your request in a "change X to Y" format. It's not clear what sort of "reference" you want added or where. Rivertorch (talk) 16:48, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 December 2014

Antonio Gramsci should link to this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_Gramsci Wiki enhancer (talk) 06:03, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Done — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 06:27, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Kołakowski should be quoted

Xx236 (talk) 07:04, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory has an RFC

Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:06, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Anti-Engels bias and bad writing

First red flag, the extremely broad and vague claim that Soviet Union "enforced a rigid reading of Marx"... Okay, the reader already knows there are going to be weird anti-Communist stereotypes in here.

Strange writing: "Marxism's philosophical roots were thus commonly explained [by whom? none other than Lenin, of course] as derived from three sources: English political economy, French republicanism and radicalism, and German idealist philosophy. Although this "three sources" model is an oversimplification [according to whom?], it still has some measure of truth." [Doesn't everything have "some" measure of truth?]

Also strange: ""Vulgar Marxism" (or codified dialectical materialism) was seen [by whom...] as little other than a variety of economic determinism, with the alleged determination of the ideological superstructure by the economical infrastructure. This positivist reading, which mostly based itself on Engels' latter writings in an attempt to theorize "scientific socialism" (an expression coined by Engels) has been challenged by Marxist theorists..." [no, dialectical materialism opposes positivism - Engels specifically criticized positivism and empiricism by way of his critique of agnosticism in a preface to Socialism: Utopian and Scientific]

^ this weirdness seems to be copy-and-pasted under Historical Materialism section...

Some weird editorializing, at the end of the Historical Materialism section: "Marx...does not fit into any pre-existing ideological straitjacket." Who says ideology is a straitjacket? This makes it sound like Marx opposed all ideology and philosophy, or was becoming eclectic late in life. No, he rigorously opposed idealism, but his late work in Capital, for example, sees further, deeper than most *because* of his liberatory dialectical materialism.

Lastly, Mao is only cited once, in a list at the end... There's only one mention of Plekhanov, no mention of Ilyenkov, one of the most important Soviet philosophers... No Ai Siqi, no real treatment of Marxism-Leninism or Marxism-Leninism-Maoism as developments of Marxist philosophy. No mention of the philosophical debates in the USSR and China under the "Differences within Marxist philosophy," it's all just Western professorial b.s. There's a rather dismissive picture of "vulgar Marxism" as nothing but cold, Soviet dogma, while the real fiery, creative life of Marxism in the 20th century extends through the West. I'm not even sure how to start, but the article should not misconstrue the ideas of Marx (or Engels, or Lenin, or Mao - "codified dialectical materialists" all), and should more fairly describe how Marxist philosophy has been developed by actual revolutionaries, not just how it has been debated about in Western and Continental academies.

Replace the content of "Notable theorists and works"

should the content of this section simply be replaced with "Main Article:List of contributors to Marxist theory"? i think it should, given that its essentially just a list of Marxist theorists, just like that article. Comradeka (talk) 22:41, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

"Hegel on his Head"

If you Google the well-known (among the sort of people who would edit the talk section of this article) phrase "Hegel on his head", as in Marx turned Hegel on his head, the Google-highlighted result is this page.

However, that is not what Marx said. Marx said "with him it is standing on its head. It must be turned right side up again". (Source: Afterward to the 2nd edition of Capital)

This is especially concerning because previously this article (mis)quoted Marx as saying "turned Hegel on his head". The fact that the phrase "Marx stood Hegel on his head" is frequently said does not mean that Karl Marx said it, anymore than Rick Blaine said "play it again, Sam", or Sherlock Holmes said "elementary, my dear Watson".

Marx is saying Hegel is standing on his head, a metaphor for idealism, and must be turned "right side up" on his feet, a metaphor for materialism.

I have changed all references to "on his head" to "on his feet", removed the quotes to indicate paraphrasing, and provided a source.

Shama From MySpace (talk) 23:07, 19 June 2024 (UTC)