Template talk:Marxism/Marxist theory

Picture

Part of the series on Marxism

Sociology

Alienation

Antagonistic contradiction

Bourgeoisie

Class consciousness

Commodity fetishism

Exploitation

Labour power

Proletariat

Relations of production

Underconsumption

Dunno what picture to use. Marx was good, until I put this template on Marxism, which meant there were two Marxes next to each other - ugly. Any ideas? -- infinity0 11:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Remove the Marx and Engels pictures from the introduction of the Marxism article and place them further down. :) Keep a Marx picture here... perhaps a different Marx picture. -- Nikodemos 20:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

How about creating a picture of a real hammer and a real sickle? -- infinity0 20:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Too Leninist, I think... how about that stylized fist-symbol? Like here. -- Nikodemos 20:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Let's see how it looks. Is it fair use? -- infinity0 20:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it's in the public domain. Do a google image search for "socialism fist" and you'll find numerous different websites and organizations using that symbol. -- Nikodemos 23:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I uploaded that image; here's how it looks: What do you think? It makes the whole template red, which might not be that good. -- infinity0 12:58, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the picture of the semi-young marx is good here, on a side note I added Marxist feminism to the template.-RainyDayCrow

I dunno. The picture of older-Marx is instantly recognizable--pretty much anyone would look at it and say, "Hey, that's Karl Marx!" Whereas I doubt anyone but historians or serious Marxists would recognize the picture of the younger Marx. It's not a good icon, precisely because it's too obscure. I mean, sure, people will say "It's in the Marxism box, I bet it's Karl Marx", but that's different. Narsil 22:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Red Stars, Hammers and Sickles and the rest of it

I think the template for this series should reflect the intellectual side Marxism which developed in the Twentieth Century, principally in Western Europe but also in America and elsewhere. This is not the same thing as the ‘religious-like’ Marxist-Leninist and Stalinist political movements which adorned themselves in these symbols.

My suggestion is that these symbols should NOT pepper this series of articles, but should be used to give the flavour to those political figures and movements which relished in them.

--PeterBowing 08:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

NB the people who have made the template have done an excellent job.

Thank you :) I saw all these wonderfully detailed articles on Marxist theory, and thought that they deserve to be formally linked together somehow. -- infinity0 15:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Colours

Hmm... I'd have preferred it if the template was some shade of red, to link it with socialism. Guess it's just a personal preference and a slight touch of nostalgia for me, though. -- infinity0 15:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Removing the category 'Marxist politics'

I think the person who removed the section on Marxist politics (on the grounds that all Marxism was politics anyway) made a serious mistake. Academic Marxism, infusing sociology, economics, history etc. is distinct from Marxist politics which is the study of the strategies of political movements.

The concept ‘surplus value’ for instance is principally an economic or perhaps sociological concept, but the concept ‘the dictatorship of the proletariat’ on the other hand has little to do with explaining the world ‘as it is’ but is concerned with political thinking.

Of course I accept that many of topics on the list that fall into more than one category in the menu, and obviously on many of these issues there is not a consensus among Marxists themselves.

Well, I dunno. I saw that there were two sections, Maxist philosophy and Marxist politics which both only had two links in each, and thought it was untidy too. Have a play around with the links and the categorisation - I don't really mind too much as long as it doesn't make the template look ugly. -- infinity0 17:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Important Marxists

I think perhaps this section should be removed seing as this template is meant to refer to the theory itself and not people such as Lenin or Adorno that interpretated it. Any views on this? Horses In The Sky ^{talk contributions}

Yes, but Lenin/Adorno did change or even "update"/"add" to Marxist philosophy greatly, whether you agree with them or not. W123 16:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't Mao Zedong be on the list, seeing as he was a Marxist, created Maoism out of Marxism-Leninism and probably was the single most important person in history when it comes to spreading the Marxist ideas (even more so than Lenin and Stalin i believe).

A great many of these "Important Marxist" are hardly Important at all. Who the hell are a bunch of them? As a communist I don't want to include a list of White Professors who wrote books on marxism. I think this section should be scrapped. With the Exceptions of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, and Mao. Che Guevara did not add anything to communist Theory, sure he's a fashionable Adventurist but an Important Marxist? No. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.150.46.68 (talk) 22:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you can't seriously have Adorno on there and not Mao?! Cripipper (talk) 14:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I find it problematic that a bunch of lesser known western philosophers have place over famous leaders like Stalin, Mao, Castro, and so on. Even if the output of a Castro, for instance, is less than say, Anton Pannekoek, that minor output has had a tremendously more important impact on the world than Anton Pannekoek, whose thought has never significantly influenced any workers movement anywhere. Similarly, on this view, Guy Debord is not a more important theorist than Kim il-Sung. His Juche ideology has an impact in the real world, whatever you think of it. So this is not addressing the question of "important" in the sense of "better", which can never be resolved, but "important" in the sense of practical consequences in the world.Ibarrutidarruti (talk) 01:07, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

The template is concerned with Marxism as an intellectual/theoretical tradition, and the Marxists mentioned are important by virtue of their having made important and original contributions to Marxist theory. There is no question that political leaders like Stalin, Mao or Castro are far more well-known than Gramsci or Althusser, but the amount of influence this or that person who believed himself a Marxist has had on history is not relevant in this context. In other words, save those guys for the Communism or Marxism-Leninism templates. Hanshans23 (talk) 01:32, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

For example, late nineteenth-century/early 20th century social democrat leaders like August Bebel or Wilhelm Liebknecht called themselves "Marxists", and undoubtedly they had an impact on the course of events in Germany in their lifetimes, but the important theoretical contributions of that movement came from Bernstein and Kautsky, so they are the figures that get mentioned here Hanshans23 (talk) 02:08, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

You are wrong on two counts. First, the title of the sidebar is "Marxism", not "Marxist Professors" or "Western Marxism" or "Marxism Intellectuals". Therefore, the "Prominent Figures" sub-category applies to Marxists such as Stalin, Mao, Kim il-Sung and others of that ilk. Second, even if we presume your arbitrary designation that "Marxism" means the Marxist "intellectual/theoretical tradition", figures such as Mao and Stalin are firmly lodged in the very heart of that tradition. Stalin's writings on linguistics and the national question have seen widespread adoption with Marxism, and were acknowledged even by his foes in the international communist movement. For his part, Mao's philosophical texts have had an impact far outside of the milieu of Chinese communism, eg. a generation of French philosophers, Zizek, and so on. So to say that a Situationist like Debord is more apropos to the Marxist "intellectual/theoretical tradition" than they is plainly false.

Please sit back and consider the opposing position being stated here before you just revert the edits of others. If you still insist on your position, at least be clear that (1) it is an ideological, not a factual position and (2) you need to explain how it nevertheless does not violate NPOV.Ibarrutidarruti (talk) 18:32, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, I can get with that argument. What I can't stomach is the belief held by the poster above that, bar Marx and Engels themselves, the only Marxists who are genuinely important are those that came to prominence through their involvement in military campaigns against capitalism. Hanshans23 (talk) 02:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

No, it's about "Marxist theory" (& Marxist philosophy). Korsch and Debord are (important) philosophers, they're prominent to any serious study about Marxist philosophy (see the work of Balibar, for example), that's why they belong here. --Inbloom2 (talk) 22:26, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

lol, it sure is -- now that you've changed the title from "Marxism" to "Marxist Theory". That is not the point, however. The point is that figures such as Stalin and Mao are also Marxist theoreticians, and -- stay with me here -- they are so whether you like it or not. Figures such as Stalin, Mao, and Kim are Marxist theoreticians because (a) they are Marxists and (b) they theorized a good deal. These are simply historical, if uncomfortable, facts. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say you were just unaware of those facts rather than make the stronger claim that you are simply deleting entries from the "People" subsection for mundane ideological reasons; which of course would be a flagrant violation of Wikipedia's NPOV policy. And nobody wants that to happen, right? But whatever the case, much of the voluminous philosophical, theoretical, and technical output of Stalin and Mao can be found at libraries and around the web; for instance, at http://www.marx2mao.com. Given that level of output, and the fact that they are the "face" of Marxism in a way that others in the "People" subsection are not, it is clear that any such list would be just faulty without their inclusion.

Incidentally, your claim (which is a strawman argument) that people are saying "Debord does not belong here" is quite irrelevant to the matter at hand.Ibarrutidarruti (talk) 20:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

It's "Template:Marxist theory" - I haven't changed it.

Those that you name were dictators, pure and simple : nothing more, nothing less. That's what the historians & the Marxists thinkers say. That's why they don't belong in the template.

Giving a Stalinist link won't help a bit here. --Inbloom2 (talk) 23:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

At last, the truth outs. So this stuff about "important" is nonsense. Fine. I'll grant that Stalin, Mao and Kim were dictators. Suppose they should not be on the list then. That is to say, to be on the list, you need to be a Theoretician first, and not some other type of thing. According to that logic, then, this will be a very small list indeed. Poor Antonio Gramsci - out, due to the fact he was General Secretary of the PCI - a prosaic politician. Pannekoek - out, since he was an astronomer. Engels will certainly be out, since he was an industrialist. Bernstein is of course out, since he was a politician. And so on.

Does this make any sense? Of course not, because it is absurd. Hence, you must admit that your personal ideological positions or moral qualms about "dictators" have nothing to do with whether or not they should be on the list or not. The only thing that should matter is their contributions to Marxist theory.

Also, the bit about the Stalinist link - I don't know if or how a link can Stalinist, but if a Stalinist told you to get off the train tracks, would you not listen, even if a train was coming? Ibarrutidarruti (talk) 17:33, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Gramsci, Pannekoek, Engels and Bernstein are known because they were theoreticians. Not those that you only want to impose. Period.

The contribution to Marxist theory is the only thing that matters here, you're forgetting it and that's why you're doing wrong. --Inbloom2 (talk) 22:05, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Great! we are in agreement that 'contribution to Marxist theory' is the only valid criterion in play here. Therefore, Stalin, Mao, and Kim belong to the People subsection in light of their respective theories of Marxism. So what exactly is the problem? Ibarrutidarruti (talk) 23:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that reliable sources don't think the same as you ; in fact, more the opposite of what you're trying to add.

We should only have prominent Marxists theoreticians in the template. And you want to add people who are largely seen as not "prominent Marxists theoreticians", and more : as not "Marxists theoreticians" at all ! --Inbloom2 (talk) 08:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Using completely meaningless weasel words and vague appeals to authority won't change a thing. Ibarrutidarruti (talk) 09:16, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

This Template is about Marxist Theory ; people there ought to be widely recognized as Marxist theorists. --Inbloom2 (talk) 18:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but your problem is that the statement "people there ought to be widely recognized as Marxist theorists" says absolutely nothing about whether a given entry actually *is* a Marxist theorist. I think that we ought to be concerned with the facts of the matter, rather than somebody's personal wishful thinking about the matter. It is all rather tawdry and obvious that the phrases you have been employing like "reliable sources", "largely seen as", "widely recognized as" are simply referring to your personal opinion. There could certainly be a place for that, but it is not here. Ibarrutidarruti (talk) 19:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

See for example : http://www.marxists.org/archive/selected-marxists.htm --Inbloom2 (talk) 00:29, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

A selection of marxists. Wonderful. How about addressing the actual issue? Ibarrutidarruti (talk) 01:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

It's a selection of "Important Marxists", that's the issue. Those that you try to impose despite the facts aren't in there - because they're not seen as "Marxist theorists". --Inbloom2 (talk) 13:21, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Vandal. Ibarrutidarruti (talk) 03:32, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

The reason why you can't answer is obvious : just because you're wrong. --Inbloom2 (talk) 15:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Reification

Any objections if I add a link to reification in the box? I think it's a pretty central concept in modern interpretations of Marx's thought. The article at this point in time is a little short, but I plan to expand it in a few minutes. Just thought I'd propose this, though. Deleuze 05:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Not sure if it's *that* important; it seems to be a subcategory of "commodity fetishism". -- infinity0 21:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Nice template

I just saw this box on Western Marxism. You lot have done well here. Thanks for this. --Duncan 09:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I wrote this as I edited sidebar

(strongly recommend an actual page for listing all recognized Marxists. Pivotal contributors to Marxism and immediately surronding currents should alone be displayed in Sidebar)

I add that I kept Gramsci only because he was a intellectual influence in the same vein as the others I kept, but obviously the purist and and simplest way is the Lenin-Trotsky-Marx-Engels + Luxembourg and Kautsky as the major heads of Marxism. Bernstein was a renegade by his own intention, but he was also a commanding head in this respect. Gramsci was not but he was still a more or less original contributor and more a less a standout influence on new currents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.31.189.211 (talk) 03:14, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Kim Il Sung and Juche

I think Kim belongs in the People section. Kim propounded what he called the Juche idea, which is the official ideology of the Workers Party of Korea. Some of the textual evidence for the claim that it is a development and/or re-conceiving of Marxist theory is as follows.

"The new outlook on the world established by the Juche philosophy does not deny the world outlook of dialectical materialism."

"The Juche view of the world that the world is dominated and transformed by man is inconceivable separately from the materialistic dialectical understanding of the essence of the objective material world and the general law of its motion."

"the world outlook of the materialistic dialectics is the premise for the Juche philosophy"

"Our scientists and people must study and follow the Juche philosophy, but they must also know the philosophical ideas of Marxism-Leninism."

Source: http://libweb.uoregon.edu/ec/e-asia/readb/108.pdf

Discuss. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibarrutidarruti (talk • contribs) 19:29, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that Juche is a uniquely Korean concept, which didn't affect the international Marxist theoretical debate in any significant way. There is a clear differentiation between Stalin/Mao on one side and Kim Il-Sung on the other in this sense. --Soman (talk) 08:07, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that is true. During the Cold War, the DPRK occupied an ideological middle ground between the USSR and the PRC, while claiming to uphold "anti-revisionism" through the Juche concept. In the modern day, the Nepal Workers Peasants Party, which has representation in Nepal's Parliament, is ideologically close to the DPRK. At the website of the Korean Central News Agency of the DPRK, you can see reporting on many "Juche Seminars" held around the globe (example). Finally, a quick review of the Korean Friendship Association website shows the international character of that organization. --Ibarrutidarruti (talk) 23:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I've never seen a book about Marxist theory this last twenty years that even mention this 3 about "Marxist theory". That's why they don't belong to this Template. --Inbloom2 (talk) 18:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

No answer to that, of course. So why be ridiculous and add this one ? --Inbloom2 (talk) 13:22, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Ibarrutidarruti, please stop editwarring by reinserting Kim Il-Sung. There is no scholarly source calling Kim a Marxist theorist. What a News Agency or Workers Party of northern Korea says is irrelevant for Wikipedia, and besides even they don't call Kim a Marxist theorist.

On the other hand the members of the Frankfurt School are recognized theorists of Neo-Marxism.

Greeting, --Schwalker (talk) 07:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. --Inbloom2 (talk) 23:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

With regards to the Kim inclusion: First, I do not think you are correct in stating "What a News Agency or Workers Party of northern Korea says is irrelevant for Wikipedia". Second, I do not think that sourcing Kim's Marxist credentials needs to be "scholarly" either -- but even if it was the case, this is a very strange claim for you to make here, seeing how I specifically referenced a page from the University of Oregon above, doing precisely that! So I don't think you are making a very coherent case on this point at all, and I certainly don't think I am editwarring. Still, I welcome any reasonable arguments against Kim's inclusion ongoing.

With regards to the Frankfurt School, it is not a person, so it does not belong under the People section. If you want to add Marcuse or another member of the school, then do that. Ibarrutidarruti (talk) 01:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

The quotes given above taken from a paper of the University of Oregon are not attributed to any political scientist, but to the Workers Party of North Korea. So these quotes are no scientific source. And even in the quotes, nowhere Kim is called a Marxist Theorist. These quotes are of no relevance here. According to WP:No Original Research, we as Wikipedia are not allowed to deduce on our own that Kim was an important Marxist theorist from these quotes.

Frankfurt School ist a group of people, (not a formal institute (or a building)), who collaborated in several ways. If the template would instead count up all their important theorists, then on the one hand side, this collaboration would not be represented, and on the other hand side, half of names of the template would be Frankfurt School members.

The matter is not what I or you want to add, but what relevant sources say. So I can't understand why you remove "Frankfurt school", but at the same time advise others to inlcude Marcuse or other members.

--Schwalker (talk) 08:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

RFC

Was Kim Il Sung a Marxist theorist, and should he be listed as a person of Marxist theory in Template:Marxist theory and List of contributors to Marxist theory? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Schwalker (talk • contribs) 17:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

• per RfC: rulers of (purportedly) Marxist regimes are not theorists, any more than a US president or a British prime minister is a democratic (or capitalist) theorist. Theorists are the people who add to or change the fundamental understandings of a subject, not the people who try to put those understandings into practice. Kim Il Sung is not a theorist by any stretch of the imagination. also (side point) you might want to shift the Frankfurt school to the Philosophy section, and list a couple of its more prominent members (Arendt, Horkheimer, etc.) in the People section. --Ludwigs2 20:50, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

But on this logic, one could claim Thomas Jefferson, for example, had nothing to say and no impact on the theory of bourgeois democracy. I think you would have a difficult time actually substantiating this extremely strong claim: that is to say, the idea that people can't chew gum and walk at the same time. So this line of reasoning per se is inadequate.

So, all we are left with is the bare claim "Kim Il Sung is not a theorist", which holds only as much water as the claim "Kim Il Sung is a theorist." --Ibarrutidarruti (talk) 00:38, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

No, one couldn't, because Thomas Jefferson (while not a major theorist) was a prolific writer and contributed a lot to early liberal democratic theory. the man drafted the Declaration of Independence, for heaven's sake, which is arguably the most frequently quoted source for liberal ideology in the known universe ("We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"). yes, he was a political leader as well - there's nothing precluding someone being both - but he is not a political theorist by virtue of the fact that he was a political leader. Show me philosophical (or otherwise scholarly) works published by Kim Il Sung that changed the scholarly understanding of what Marxism is, and then you have grounds for calling him a Marxist theorist, otherwise, no. --Ludwigs2 01:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm not willing to go along with your arbitrary criterion that a theorist has to match the stature of Thomas Jefferson to be included, sorry. That would require removing at least Louis Althusser, Georg Lukács, Karl Korsch, Antonio Gramsci, Antonie Pannekoek and Guy Debord, and I don't see the point of that. On the other hand, Kim Il Sung is the "Thomas Jefferson" of the DPRK, so it is strange for you to demand this.

As for your demand that the respective entries in the People section are required to have a special access to "what Marxism is", it is already a hodge-podge of representatives of wildly contradicting (and for the most part, non-falsifiable) schools of thought. The only way to solve the problem is to rely on WP:NN, which of course Kim's Juche theory satisfies. --Ibarrutidarruti (talk) 20:00, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

excuse me, but what in heaven's name are you talking about? Althusser, Lukács, and Gramsci, at least, have all published several philosophical/theoretical books on Marxism, and they are all recognized as major theoretical influences in the scholarly. Kim Il Sung has published revolutionary speeches, so far as I can tell, and only in publishers who had a definite reason to fear for their lives if they refused. You will not find a single academic department (outside of North Korea, and maybe not even there) that teaches Sung in courses on Marxism, whereas the other authors I listed are near mandatory for any comprehensive coverage.

If you want to make a case for Sung's inclusion, make a case: show me where he's written philosophical works, and where those works have been accepted and used by other scholars. then I might accept that he's a notable Marxist theorist. But don't waste my time with the kind of ridiculous drivel you spouted out in your last post. --Ludwigs2 21:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

First of all, I'm contributing in good faith so please cease your needlessly rude approach to me. Thanks!

OK, you seem to think that because Kim was a scary dictator that killed people it invalidates the possibility that he had something novel and notable to contribute to Marxist theory. But this objection is untenable: Althusser killed his wife, but he is still a Marxist theorist. Unless, of course, you think that being a white academic is some kind of trump card that being a Korean politician is not per se.

As to whether or not Kim is "notable" in this regard: this might seem strange to you, but "academic departments" in the West do not have a monopoly on truth. Neither does Wikipedia require the imprimatur of said sources for inclusion. Now, I have already shown above that Marxism is an intrinsic feature of Juche above. So we can't debate that aspect. As far as Juche being a "philosophy" in its own right, there are seminars, journals, institutes and all the other trappings that accompany various "respectable" schools of thought featured in this template and elsewhere.

There are a variety of pages on the web that attempt to explicate Juche. For example:

1.The Origin of the Juche Idea

2.The Philosophical Principle of the Juche Idea

3.The Socio-Historical Principles of the Juche Ides (sic)

4.The Guiding Principles of the Juche Idea

5.The Historic Significance of the Juche Idea

The wonders of Google can find you more, if you look. As an aside, while I categorically deny the validity of your ad hominem argument that sources on Wikipedia can't be Korean, I note that none of the sources above are hosted from the DPRK or by the WPK.

Kim Il Sung is clearly the author of a notable body of work within the Marxist milieu, albeit overlaid with influences from Hegel and Confucius and seemingly informed by Hobbes and Machiavelli. Whether or not we are comfortable with that fact.--Ibarrutidarruti (talk) 22:46, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

so, you cite five different sections of the same book (all from the same website) and note that as 'a variety of different pages'? and you wonder why I'm frustrated with this conversation... either defend your position seriously, or don't defend it at all - this half-assed cruft is just a waste of everyone's time.

with respect to Juche: As far as I can tell, 'the juche idea' is nothing more than the idea that man is the master of all creation, and therefore (through some logic that escapes me, and isn't ever made explicit) each man should see himself as the master of the revolution. 90% of the text you linked to above is exhortations about how magnificent and glorious the concept of Juche is, and the remaining 10% is an odd admixture of differing ideologies, without any analysis, consistency, or even much in the way of explanation. it's the kind of thing I'd expect to see (and do see) from college seniors when a paper is due the day after a big party. this isn't philosophy or theory, it's pure, unabashed rhetoric. there is no argument being made here; there is simply an incitement to do as the great leader says. if you seriously consider this philosophy, then I suggest you sit down with a couple of books from some of the other authors on the list and acquaint yourself with what philosophy is, because you obviously have no idea.

Further, Wikipedia requires reliable secondary sources to demonstrate that a topic is noteworthy. there are precious few secondary sources that advocate the juche idea (such as it is), and of those I don't think any of them are reliable scholarly investigations - certainly not in reliable academic sources about Marxist theory. at best, the juche idea is a tiny minority voice with little impact on greater Marxist thought as a whole.

I will say it adds a fascinating wrinkle on wp:RS issues - how do we account for a self-published source that can enforce his self-publication because he runs an entire nation?

I really don't care about whether Sung was scary or killed people, or whatever. that's irrelevant. what I care about is keeping the line between philosophy/theory and propaganda clear. Ronald Reagan is not a political philosopher for having coined 'trickle down economics' to justify his economics policies, and Kim Il Sung is not a political philosopher for having coined the term 'juche' to justify his political regime. unless you can come up with some indication that other independent philosophers and scholars have found some worth in Sung's rhetoric, oyu really don't have a leg to stand on here. --Ludwigs2 23:43, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, I truly don't have a horse in this race, but it is becoming clear from the quality of your responses that you simply have an ideological axe to grind. But just in case you are not, and you have somehow misunderstood me, let me clarify a few points:

so, you cite five different sections of the same book (all from the same website) and note that as 'a variety of different pages'?

Technically speaking, that is enough. However, I have sourced 5 distinct websites, 4 in response to you. What have you provided?

and you wonder why I'm frustrated with this conversation... either defend your position seriously, or don't defend it at all - this half-assed cruft is just a waste of everyone's time.

Wikipedia is a volunteer effort. People contribute based on their interest. If it bothers you, move on.

Wikipedia requires reliable secondary sources to demonstrate that a topic is noteworthy.

Secondary sources have been provided. As far as noteworthiness, Juche is the guiding philosophy of the government of DPRK, a medium sized country of 23 million people. So, these conditions have been satisfied. How you feel about it is a different question, but that does not concern the rest of us.

with respect to Juche: As far as I can tell, 'the juche idea' is nothing more than ...

One individual's ability to understand something strictly speaking is irrelevant. I don't understand most of the theories of Postmodernism, but that doesn't mean that Postmodernism doesn't have something original to say.

how do we account for a self-published source that can enforce his self-publication because he runs an entire nation?

As said above, those websites are not Korean. They happen to be based out of Japan and India, based on the domain TLD and the "Contact" pages. Reading comprehension FTW. Or is it that the whole world outside of Western ivory towers an undifferentiated brown blob to you?

what I care about is keeping the line between philosophy/theory and propaganda clear.

That is outside the scope of this template. But good luck with that. --Ibarrutidarruti (talk) 01:02, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

you are quite correct, you don't have a horse in this race. when you decide to get one (i.e. to take this effort seriously) come on back. --Ludwigs2 02:09, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you seriously arguing against Wikipedia's NPOV? OK. --02:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibarrutidarruti (talk • contribs)

against?!? dude, you are pushing a really ridiculous, unfounded point to the extent of edit warring it in, without the slightest regard for proper sourcing, proper consensus, or proper discussion, and you're accusing me of violating policy? I am going to do you the grace of assuming that you really believe what you're offering here, but dammit man, get out of your head and listen to what other people are saying to you. --Ludwigs2 03:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment on RFC Yes, Kim Il Sung was the creator of a prominent branch of Marxist theory. That this theory is not standard, and did not gain much traction, in non-Korean circles doesn't mean he wasn't its creator. By contrast, there have been many Communist leaders who did not engage in extensive attempts at theorizing. Include him. Ray^Talk 01:04, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

RayAYang, who exactly has called Kim Il Sung where a "Marxist theorist"? Greeting, --Schwalker (talk) 10:20, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey, you guys asked for the RFC, not me. I'm not fond of splitting hairs. People who originate theories are theorists, even if that's not their principal profession. Ray^Talk 16:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

You may call it "splitting hairs", but the encyclopaedia relys only on policies WP:No Original Research and WP:Source, not on users opinions. Greeting --Schwalker (talk) 08:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

• Reply to RFC. It seems that Juche isn't Marxist[1], so Kim Il Sung is not a Marxist theorist. Fences and windows (talk) 17:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

• Links I don't have much knowledge to answer that question, but if anyone interested in reading on the subject but some links might help.

http://purl.library.uoregon.edu/e-asia/ebooks/read/kim-lit.pdf http://purl.library.uoregon.edu/e-asia/ebooks/read/super-ed.pdf http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/dprk/2008/dprk-080505-kcna04.htm http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/opinon/2009/05/246_22987.html http://www2.law.columbia.edu/course_00S_L9436_001/North%20Korea%20materials/comrade_kim_il_sung.htm http://arts.monash.edu.au/korean/ksaa/conference/33kwangshickkang.pdf

Official party site

http://www.korea-dpr.com/users/banzeminzon/Kim%20Il%20Sung%20condensed%20biography(e).pdf http://www.korea-dpr.com/library/103.pdf http://korea-dpr.com/seminar/polishuk.pdf http://www.korea-dpr.com/library/110.pdf http://www.korea-dpr.com/seminar/aucpb.pdf http://www.korea-dpr.com/library/202.pdf http://www.korea-dpr.com/seminar/hudson.pdf http://www.korea-dpr.com/library/558.pdf http://www.korea-dpr.com/songunseminar/doc/2.%20Franco%20Constanzi-President%20and%20Basis%20of%20the%20Songun.doc

Juche#Relation to Marxism, Stalinism and Maoism and List of notable Marxist theorists may also help. Kasaalan (talk) 20:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Kasaalan, thanks for your efforts, but i'm afraid that contribution does not help much. a) It is a collection of internet-links, which perhaps belong to the topic or not. I don't think anyone is interested to work through that collection. b) Articles of wikipedia are no source for wikipedia, since wikipedia has to avoid to construct a Begging the question-fallacy. Greeting, --Schwalker (talk) 08:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I have a bias related to my attempts to edit Sung out of List of contributors to Marxist theory on the grounds of unsubstantiability and/or fallacy. I suggest someone reference Dae-Sook Suh Kim Il Sung: the North Korean leader Columbia University Press 1988 ISBN 0231065736, 9780231065733 as the review on GoogleBooks claims, "The author spends considerable time outlining Kim's political thought (known as chuch'e, which is roughly translated as ""basis for action""), which aided in establishing his ascendancy. Suh analyzes Kim's thought and finds it to be both an inadequate exposition of nationlism and having little relevance to Marxism-Leninism; at best, it is a platform of Korean self-reliance." and if they do get their hands on it, please let us know over at Talk:List of contributors to Marxist theory. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Colour scheme change

I changed the colour of the words in the table so that the words and links would not look like red links. It Is Me Here (talk) 18:42, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

'Sociology - Anthropology' heading

On my monitor, the title to this section is too long and overlaps with the border of the template. It makes the template as a whole look poor. What if the title simply said 'Social Sciences' or something similar?

Discuss. --Ibarrutidarruti (talk) 21:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Stalin and Mao

The names of Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong should stay in the "persons" section in my opinion. Both had benn considered Marxist theorists at least for some period of time in the past. Today even their opponents agree that Stalin and Mao have been influential for Marxism as theorists.

Greetings, --Schwalker (talk) 06:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Mao I could agree with (though mostly by repute - I don't know much about him); Stalin I'm not so sure about. can you point to theoretical works he's written that are accepted as foundational material for anyone studying Marxism? remember, this isn't a list about famous socialists; this is a list about notable theorists of Marxism. --Ludwigs2 13:04, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

For example an article of which I know is Lesarten der Marxschen Theorie by Ingo Elbe (in German, "Readings of Marx' Theory"), which refers to Stalin as one of the founders of Marxism-Leninism.

Greeting --Schwalker (talk) 13:26, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't doubt that Stalin was considered one of the founders of the socialist state, but again, this is an incredibly loose definition of the term theorist. anyone who is involved in politics - and particularly anyone who holds a high office - is going to be involved to a certain extent in the definition of state policies and practices, and is going to justify their actions through reference to theory. this does not make them theorists, however. a theorist is someone trying to explain how a system works, not someone trying to make a system work. If we extended the logic you're using to the physical sciences, then every auto designer, inventor, and mousetrap maker would be considered a theorist. but no: Einstein is a theorist (because he refined our understanding of how the universe works), but the guy that designed your flat screen TV is an engineer. Stalin, Mao, Sung, and a host of other Party leaders are political engineers - leave the term theorist for people who really work with theoretical issues. --Ludwigs2 03:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I can agree with what you write about political officials, but it does not imply that someone involved in practical politics can't be a theorist too. Stalin wrote among other things the article Dialectical and Historical Materialism (1938), which has more than 70 google.scholar citations. The article of Elbe (which of course is critical of Stalin) refers to it:

"Perfektioniert ist diese ‚schlagende’ Logik in Josef Stalins über Jahrzehnte hinweg für die marxistische Theoriebildung des Ostblocks maßgebender Schrift ‚Über dialektischen und historischen Materialismus’"

"[...] This 'striking' logic has been perfected in his work 'Dialectical and Historical Materialism' which over decades remained authoritative for research in Marxist theory in the Eastern Bloc."

So even those who don't like Stalin recognize his influence on theory. Greetings, --Schwalker (talk) 06:49, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

again, I don't disagree that one can be both a political practitioner and a political theorists, but there is a need for caution here. In most every other academic field, the scholarly authority of a theorist is determined is determined by the extent to which other scholars use that theorist's work. for instance, in something like psychology or sociology you have a relatively small number of people who created or expounded on seminal theories in ways that other psychologists or sociologists rely on for their research, and these theories are considered seminal for their intellectual and analytical qualities. in politics, however, there is a political advantage in having yourself portrayed as a seminal thinker regardless of your actual scholarly merits. You and I both know that someone who receives an honorary degree from Harvard is not qualified to be a professor the way someone who receives an actual degree is, and you and I both know that a that are always toadies who spend an inordinate amount of effort massaging the egos of powerful people; and yet you still want to equate people like Stalin and Sung (who are given vast leeway by the scholarly world because of their obvious political clout) with people like Marx, Althusser, Trotsky, Gramsci, and etc (who are given vast respect by the scholarly world because of their intellectual accomplishments and lifelong dedication to the pursuit of understanding). In the Ancient world rulers depicted themselves as divine; in the middle ages they depicted themselves as virtuous; in the 19th century they started depicting themselves as intellectuals - in each case they did it because that was an effective way of claiming authority, not because they were actually divine, virtuous, or intellectual. The only judge we have for whether a politician (or anyone) is a political theorist is whether other political scholars (outside of the political influence of the person in question) treat them as political theorists

In short, I can find thousands of people world-wide who cite Marx in a theoretical context, hundreds of people who cite lesser-known theorists like Trotsky and Althusser, but Stalin (and Sung, and maybe Mao) might have a handful of academic citations. and how many of those will be left when you weed out Party voices, in-house commentary, and sheer toadyism? Propoganda is not a substitute for proper research, and wikipedia shouldn't treat it as such. --Ludwigs2 13:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Well also if we don't like it must not forget that Marxism has a history, and Stalins influence is a chapter of it. As a matter of fact, the acknowledgement of Stalins theoretical work up to the Mid-1950s was not confined to the domain of his political rule in Eastern Europe. For an example, even the young Louis Althusser put Stalin in one Line with Marx, Engels and Lenin in his chapter On Marxism (1953). So the renunciation from Stalinism was a difficult process for the left in western countrys, too. Greetings --Schwalker (talk) 14:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

There are three main justifications that I can see for Stalin being required on any 'canonical' list of Marxist theorists.

The first is just what Schwalker has mentioned, that he is simply a dominate historical fact within Marxist theory.

The second justification is that it is logically coherent. By all accounts, it was Stalin who invented the ideology called "Marxism-Leninism". Gramsci was a Marxist-Leninist. Althusser was a Marxist-Leninist. Therefore, if Gramsci is on the list and Althusser is on the list, it is logical that Stalin on the list.

But above and beyond that, Stalin happened to have theorized a great deal. He intervened in a wide variety of intellectual debates of his day, ranging from genetics, to linguistics to art. But he is perhaps most known for his work on the national question, which even Trotsky notoriously approved of. --Ibarrutidarruti (talk) 22:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I am incredibly happy to have Mao here, his contributions to theory are obvious and substantive. Stalin is more difficult, I find myself hard pressed to consider the notability of Stalin's theoretical contributions, which is an issue not readily found in GoogleScholar for (Stalin as a marxist theorist). Ben Agger "Critical Theory, Poststructuralism, Postmodernism: Their Sociological Relevance" Annual Review of Sociology Vol. 17: 105-131 (doi:10.1146/annurev.so.17.080191.000541) is a sufficient academic appreciation of Stalin as a Marxist Theorist, but not necessarily a notable one. Miten and others (1949) "The Contribution of J.V. Stalin to Marxism-Leninism" translated at http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv4n1/stalin70.htm makes an excellent argument that Stalin's notable contribution was on the national question--the bated way they deal with his other contributions (as excellent praxis but not theory) I think is indicative. There is a colinear debate at Talk:List of contributors to Marxist theory and I'm preceeding to cite Stalin's status as a recognised Marxist theorist, and as a notable Marxist theorist on the basis of these two citations.Fifelfoo (talk) 01:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Frankfurt School in the "people" section

It is quite common in literature about Western Marxism to count up the Frankfurt School alongside with other individual theorists. For example see a Review (1977) of Perry Andersons Considerations on Western Marxism:

"In this group he includes such diverse figures as Lukacs, Gramsci, Korsch, Benjamin, the Frankfurt school, Della Volpe, Colletti, Lefebvre, Sartre, Goldmann and Althusser."

So the term is used for a group of people in the first place, not for a philosophical concept. --Schwalker (talk) 13:19, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Its also common to see "the Trotskyists", "the Stalin School", "the Maoists" et cetera. I fail to see the import of such a trivial point to the template here. --Ibarrutidarruti (talk) 20:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC)