Jump to content

Talk:Karl Marx/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13

Examining sources show that one statement in the Criticism section is a blatant lie

Specifically: "Worldwide poverty has increased since the end of the 19th century especially considering that the richest are richer than ever but the poor have remained at the same level and the percentage has risen in the last 30 years"

This is blatantly false. Even on the same page of one of the sources cited it says: "Poverty has decreased over the last 2 centuries" (Sylvia Whitman (June 2008). World poverty. Infobase Publishing. p. 3. ISBN 9780816068074. http://books.google.com/books?id=fk4QHyTMhQkC&pg=PA3. Retrieved 5 March 2011.)

The other sources show that absolute poverty worldwide has decreased 20% since 1980 (according to the UN). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.244.9.8 (talk) 20:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


Yes, and one of those sources (#166 in the article's works cited) is being cited as "The developing world is poor and unsuccessful in the fight against poverty," but when you click on the link it takes you to an article actually titled "The developing world is poorer than we thought, but no less successful in the fight against poverty," and the abstract states that this study shows the poverty rate in the developing world declining faster than in Europe and the U.S. This article seems to have been vandalized to deliberately mislead readers, somebody change it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.42.81.164 (talk) 23:04, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Article protection

Protecting the article against editing seems to be unjustified. There was some edit warring (some done by me, which I apologized for, and admitted was a mistake) but nothing sufficient to justify protection. The article had already calmed down somewhat when protection was needlessly imposed; it should be removed. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:44, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I've halved the protection time, but I'll keep it in place for that time to make sure that any edit war participators are aware that they need to stop.--Slon02 (talk) 01:09, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for reducing the protection time. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 23:27, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Quotations

User:Redthoreau has just restored two completely superfluous quotations praising Marx, one from Che Guevara and the other from Robert C. Tucker. I can appreciate the reasons why someone might want to restore the quotation from Tucker (although I wouldn't restore it myself, as I think there are better ways of saying that Marx was a significant figure). I can't see any proper reason for restoring the one from Guevara. It's just Guevara saying how wonderful Marx and Marxism are, and it's no more relevant or appropriate than a quotation from Ayn Rand or Ludwig von Mises (or any number of other right-wing figures) about what a terrible person Marx was or how destructive Marxism is. The purpose of this article is to provide a neutral account of Marx, not to make him look as good as possible. Redthoreau, please see WP:NPOV. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 00:46, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I actually think the Tucker quote is no less POV than the Che quote. Tucker spent his entire life studying Communism, the Soviet system, etc. Even if he disagreed with every single thing that Marx wrote, his perception of Marx's influence is likely to be distorted. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 01:29, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
As I said, it's a quote that I wouldn't prefer to use myself - though I can see why others might. Hopefully the implications for NPOV of filling the article full of block quotations praising Marx are reasonably clear; it comes across as simply a way of promoting Marxism, just as filling the articles full of quotations attacking Marx would be a way of attacking Marxism. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 03:59, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
On a different issue, I have problems with this edit. I can't see any good reason for changing "Marxist" to "Marxian". The change should be undone, as it introduces more obscure and less readily comprehensible terminology. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 03:59, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Polisher, quoting a Marxist revolutionary who carried out revolution based on their interpretation of Marx is of course a relevant person to cite in a section on Marx’s political influence with Marxism. Ayn Rand is irrelevant here, but had she proclaimed herself a "Smith(ian) revolutionary" (from Adam Smith) and become a well known and influential figure in Smith(ism), then perhaps her take on Mr. Smith would be relevant to his article. As for the Tucker quote, again this is the view of a notable individual who studied Marxism. Just as the critical views of Marx are relevant in the criticism section, a positive view of Marx is relevant to a section on his legacy. As for your running litany of objections that read more like WP:IDONTLIKEIT, I would remind you of WP:OWN.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 18:25, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, that's an excuse for POV pushing, and a pretty cheesy one. The section entitled "Marxism" is about Marxism. It's grotesque to suggest that it should reflect only Marxist views. Under WP:NPOV, anti-Marxist views, from Ayn Rand or anyone else, are no less relevant than pro-Marxist views. Placing a giant quotation from Guevara at the start of the section gives it undue emphasis and is simply a way of using the article to promote Marxism - it's pro-Marxist POV pushing, just as placing a giant quotation from Ayn Rand about horrible Marxism is would be anti-Marxist POV-pushing. I am sceptical that the Guevara quotation should be included at all, but if you think it should be, please find a way of including it so that it doesn't seem to dominate the entire section. Same remarks apply to Tucker. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 20:18, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Also, the fact that there is a section entitled "Criticism" in this article shouldn't be used as an excuse to turn the "Legacy" section into nothing but a collection of comments praising Marx or talking about how important he is. "Legacy" does not mean the same thing as "Praise". A person can have a negative or a mixed legacy as well as a positive one. In principle, I would be in favour of amalgamating the "Legacy" and the "Criticism" section into one; there seems little justification for having two separate sections, when criticism of Marx is certainly relevant to his legacy and vice versa. You might conceivably have a point if the "Criticism" section were only about criticism of Marx, but it isn't. A sentence such as "in the wake of the economic crisis of 2008 some thinkers like Terry Eagleton, David Harvey, and David McNally have given renewed impetus to the debate on whether Marx was right that capitalism inherently tends towards crisis" is not a "criticism" of Marx, even though it appears in the "Criticism" section. On the contrary, it's a statement suggesting that Marx has an enduring importance - and its presence in the "Criticism" section simply shows how pointless having a section devoted to "Criticism" is. If criticisms of Marx in the "Criticism" section are going to be followed by comments suggesting that Marx might have been right all along, then calling the section "Criticism" is simply wrong, and the logic of having a separate section isn't apparent. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:37, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Of note, I have always preferred "Legacy" sections to "Criticism" ones.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 05:36, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Tucker quotation

I've just removed the following content, which was added by Redthoreau: "As a result, Robert C. Tucker has hypothesized that 'knowledge of the writings of Marx and Engels is virtually indispensable to an educated person in our time', while postulating that 'not to be well grounded in the writings of Marx and Engels is to be insufficiently attuned to modern thought.'" There are at least two problems with it. Firstly, it is poorly written: it seems very strange to say that someone "hypothesized" that knowledge of a writer's work is "virtually indispensable to an educated person in our time" or that he "postulated" that it's bad to not be well grounded in the writings of one or another author. I appreciate that the point of using terms like "hypothesized" and "postulated" is to preserve NPOV, but it just seems like very strange and awkward writing. Secondly, that's the second time that Tucker's views are mentioned in that paragraph, and the source used is the same as for the previous mention. It makes no sense at all to cite Tucker twice in that way. He should be cited once, with all relevant material kept together. I would ask Redthoreau to please work out the problems of this material on talk before readding anything. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 04:15, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I believe your concerns were valid, and have tried to rework the sentence while taking into account your critique per WP:BRD. Thoughts?  Redthoreau -- (talk) 05:34, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
What you've done is an improvement over the way you added the material before. I am, however, unsure that it serves any useful or encyclopedic purpose to quote someone as saying that "knowledge of Marx's and Engels' writings are 'virtually indispensable to an educated person in our time.'" WP:UNDUE is a relevant policy here. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 08:04, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
The "encyclopedic purpose" I believe lies in the fact that it lets the reader know that according to some academics (particularly those with a favorable opinion of Marxism like the distinguished Tucker) being well versed in what Marx said is a necessary prerequisite to being an "scholarly individual." I don’t particularly hold this view (which I know is irrelevant) but I have encountered it (which is know is also irrelevant). However, I believe it is a prevalent view in academia (especially in many of the Humanities) and well within the confines of WP:UNDUE to let the reader know that this perspective exists. Do you question per Undue whether this view in fact is representative enough for inclusion, because I believe it could be sourced numerous times if need be?  Redthoreau -- (talk) 10:45, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
I doubt very strongly that it is helpful to readers to quote someone saying that knowledge of Marx's writings is essential to being properly educated or scholarly. One could probably say that, not only about Marx's writings, but about the writings of every noteworthy figure in the history of western philosophy, but what would be the point? If a particular writer was clearly very influential, then it ought to be obvious that it's a good idea to know something about his writings. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 20:28, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Why was the picture changed?

Seriously, the brownish, full-body shot of Marx on a chair is much better than the one being used now. Why was it changed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.59.155.78 (talk) 19:30, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Agree. I see this has been reverted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:26, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Labour, class struggle and false consciousness

I thought this section was informative but doesn't emphasize that alienation, class struggle, and especially labour and labour-power all stem from what can be taken as a first premise, that the concepts all stem from private ownership of the means of production. The description of this is included in "Economy, History, and Society" but appears secondary to these ideas, whereas I think most would agree that Marx's defining innovation was to show precisely that/why private ownership of the means of production in industrial society is so problematic. Without this first premise, if it can be construed as such, concepts of alienation, etc. appear almost non-sensicle or isolated as part of his overall philosophy. It's worth noting, however, the concept of human-nature appears a primary premise before anything is said of the means of production (his view of human nature involving work appears universal across all societies), though Marx's aim is to show how human-nature is transformed in a new society with private ownership of the means of production. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.72.44.213 (talk) 18:16, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Founder of Social Science

Marx was a philosopher, but he wrote in the tradition of holding philosophy and science to be one and the same. This is evident in his thesis on Democritean and Epicurean philosophy, his rejection of idealist philosophy, and naturalist and empericist bases for all of his concepts, especially that of Man. There is also an implicit naturalist moral theory throughout all his work, particularly in his earlier writings, which many conveniently pay less attention to. This is in stark contrast to the economic and sociological theories found in social science, which pride themselves as being free of morality and based upon statistics, mathematical calculations, and behavioural psychology. As such, he was not a sociologist or social scientist as people claim. He could instead be classified as a natural philosopher and empiricist in the tradition of Aristotle, rather than an idealist in the Platonic tradition (like the Hegelians and Kantians). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.72.44.213 (talk) 22:42, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Please find a source for any material you want to include. Material in Wikipedia articles needs sources: see WP:VERIFY. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 22:46, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Well here in UK college level sociology you study Weber, Durkheim and Marx's views as the three main views, looking at each topic (crime, education, family etc) in context of those and other views, so yes Marx and the result of his influence is important to understanding sociology, the study of society. Now if you dont mind I want to go back to sitting on my ass all day.

JTBX (talk) 17:02, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Trivially, the introductory chapter of Capitalism and Modern Social Theory by Anthony Giddens (an established authority in sociology and the former head of the LSE) positions Marx (along with Durkheim and Weber) as one of the founders of the modern social sciences. This is also a basic tidbit you're likely to run into in any introductory theoretical text on anthropology, sociology, or social theory. If I can remember the actual context of where Marx was cited I'll quote Giddens, but maybe someone could help me out on where it should or shouldn't go. Kate (talk) 21:39, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

description of class struggle in lead

Some changes have been going on recently in regards to the description of class struggle in the lead.

  1. The version as of yesterday read, "...class struggle: a conflict between an ownership class which controls production and a lower class which produces the labour for such goods."
  2. User:JTBX changed this to "... class struggle: an ownership class controls production and profits from the labour of a lower class which produces such goods."
  3. This is, in my opinion, not the best wording, -- we no longer have the "between" which indicates a struggle, and "produces such goods" is rendered unintelligible and referentless with "the labour for" excised. I changed it to "... class struggle: in capitalism, this struggle is between the capitalist class, which owns the means of production, and the workers, who have only their labour power to sell." I feel that this is more precise, more clearly worded, and actually more in line with Marx's conception of class struggle.
Since the sentence is about class struggle in general ("all societies"), I feel it necessary to specify that the struggle between the owners of the means of production and (wage) laborers is the form this struggle takes under capitalism.
"Controls production" is too vague (controls what aspect of production?); I think we need to specify ownership of the means of production.
The point of the Marxist analysis of the lower class is that their only asset is their labor power. Many social analysis acknowledge a rift between powerful and powerless classes, but the point of Marxist analysis hinges on the distinction between those with and those without access to the means of production. I do think that my proposed version describes class struggle concisely and more or less precisely; if others disagree, I would still be in favor of the older version (No. 1 above), as it's clearer than the one that replaced it. Sindinero (talk) 13:57, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
As an afterthought and a point of etiquette, non-trivial changes to the wording in the lead should probably never be classified as minor edits... Sindinero (talk) 22:02, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
You misunderstood completely and carelessly. Read the lead sentence that you wrote, then read the sentence right after. Marx's analysis is describe by (generic) two classes one ownership, one labour based throughout history (feudalism and so on), then the next sentence it states "heavily critical of current form of society, capitalism," making it confusing to read as capitalism is introduced twice. Marx's analysis of dialetic is historical, all societies feudalism>capitalism etc progress through the class struggle, the next part is a definition after the semi-colon of class struggle generically. Then we have a sentence after describing Marx's capitalism specifically. The way you have written it introduced capitalism twice one sentence after the other. The version I put it to was used for a long time before you changed it and makes better sense. JTBX (talk) 16:34, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Wage slavery

Is this mentioned in the article? What about the lead, seems pretty important to me. JTBX (talk) 16:43, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Major problems with (lack of) referencing

I am very worried about the recent edits to the article (mainly by WellsSouth (talk · contribs)). A lot of unteferenced content has been added, looking just at the first half (up to and including The Panic of 1857: The First World-Wide Recession section), I count numerous sentences, and two entire unreferenced paras. I tagged them all, and I am deeply worried that the article is no longer GA due to insufficient referencing. On a side note, many new headings use improper capitalization (regular nouns and adjectives should not be capitalized). Lastly, a number of paragraphs added seem simply irrelevant. In the mentioned The Panic of 1857: The First World-Wide Recession two out of three paras simply deal with the recession, and do not mention Marx or his thought at all. This article is not a place to discuss world's history during Marx's lifetime. I am afraid that if this is not going to be fixed, we should revert the article to a previous version, before the swaths of unreferenced content were added (per WP:V). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 16:48, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

  • I couldn't agree more: I was inclined to revert the lot. Drmies (talk) 16:52, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I last looked at this yesterday evening sometime, there was one edit that seemed unobjectionable. It seems to have exploded since then, and I can't really find sources for much of this information. I think it should go. Kate (talk) 19:05, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm going to revert. I consider this edit to be fairly typical: it involves the citation of a primary source in a paragraph whose importance is not clear and which contains original research/analysis. Here is a typical example of a slightly different kind, which likewise seems to involve original research and extrapolation and the reference given is quite unclear; you'll find more of the same in the editor's other contributions. That referencing, by the way, is not up to par with GA standards. I've reverted to a version from mid-April, which is 30k lighter. Thank you all. Drmies (talk) 15:11, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Pronunciation Guide

kar'ull marksTheThomas (talk) 21:58, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Marx's racialism

SOAPBOX
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

See Nathaniel Weyl, "Karl Marx, Racist", 1979.

See http://www.wnd.com/2006/06/36692/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.171.217.231 (talk) 15:05, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
See WP:FRINGE. Also how does a racist like Nathaniel Weyl become an expert on racism? TFD (talk)
And how does a site which features on its frontpage an article called "Are blacks hypocrites or stupid? Part 1" claim the right to accuse anyone else of racism? RolandR (talk) 17:35, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Place of marriage

I know this is a very minor issue, but the often-cited claim that Marx married in the Pauluskirche is probably false, as that church underwent a major a renovation in 1843. Thus, nearby Wilhelmskirche is the most likely place of marriage. I'm referring here to a historiography published in 1951 (Geschichte der evangelischen Gemeinde Kreuznach) which has been cited by a local newspaper recently, so I'm going to look that up in the German National Library. Just to let you know, 'cause probably every source published in the last 50 years claims otherwise, and sooner or later someone will insist on their factual accuracy. --Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 18:47, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

So I finally looked it up, and the statement about the renovation seems to be correct. The Wilhelmskirche was the only other church building of the town's Evangelical church parish at the time, so it can be assumed they married there. --Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 09:53, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Globalisation

cf David Renton (2001) "Introduction" Marx on Globalisation David Renton ed., London: Lawrence and Wishart ISBN: 0 85315 909 2. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:54, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

eBookEden

I have pulled eBookEden as a reference from this article, as it is a circular source. See also Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks/Def#eBookEDEN.com. The source was added to this article in April 2011, long after the content which it supports. And tracing the history of this article shows plenty of signs that they copied from us. Take, for instance, the first paragraph they offer on the Communist Manifesto:

Manifesto of the Communist Party (German: Manifest der Kommunistischen Partei), often referred to as The Communist Manifesto, was first published on February 21, 1848, and is one of the world's most influential political manuscripts. Commissioned by the Communist League and written by communist theorists Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, it laid out the League's purposes and program. However, Marx does not have a lot to say about the precise form that communism would take, focusing instead on an analytical approach to the class struggle (historical and present) and the problems of capitalism.[1]

We can see the seeds of this language in the earliest edit we have (from 2001) for the article The Communist Manifesto: "one of the world's most influential political tracts". We can watch this develop in the text it would later become...

At the point of the last diff, the lead paragraph is identifiable as that from the eBookEden publication, and the natural evolution of that content in Wikipedia is clear.

Since eBookEden copies from Wikipedia, it is inherently unreliable. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:56, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Moonriddengirl, that looks like a significant improvement. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 20:45, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Founder of Social Science

Hello:

I have a suggestion for editing that you might like to consider. In the "Founder of Social Science" section, it says that "unlike philosophers, Marx offered theories that could be proven by the scientific method." I don't think this is correct because philosophy can be proven by the scientific method. Insofar as logic is part of the scientific method, so then is philosophy. As other examples, Aristotle's theories often attempted to prove things emperically, and so did other emperical philosophers like Hume and Locke. So....I think this statement in the section is misleading. In fact, the statement concerning Marx being the founder of Social Science would also be untrue since empericist philosophers before him could also be credited with proving things emprically. In all, the section rests on the assumption that philosophy and empericism are different, and that empericism is social science, while philosophy is not. That needs some kind of reference.

Thanks for your time!

70.72.45.98 (talk) 22:06, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

The article says that Marx was "one of the three principal architects of modern social science", and the entire section is sourced. What distinguishes philosophy from science is that it cannot be proved or disproved by the scientific method. Certainly much of what Aristotle wrote, such as about biology, can be considered ancient science. But those theories can be proved or disproved. However claims about metaphysics, epistemology, etc. cannot be proved. TFD (talk) 22:21, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I hate to argue, but the idea that philosophy and science are different is not sourced, and even the concept of teleology formulated by Aristotle remains a major concept in biology and other sciences. Also claims about epistemology and metaphysics can be proved and disproved, just ask any philosopher of science or logic. Additionally, mathematics, a science, was considered by some such as Leibniz and others to be merely logic, showing again that science and philosophy are not distinct. I think more needs to be said about the difference between philosophy and empericism, which is at the heart of social science in order to make the claim that "unlike philosophers, Marx provided theories that could be tested by the scientific method." Otherwise, the writer is simply assuming the distinction people make between social sciences and philosophy, or science and philosophy more generally.

Happy writing!

70.72.45.98 (talk) 23:43, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

The question of whether/how Marxism is scientific has been controversial. I'm not sure if we can do justice to the controversy here. It's important to note Marx's deep interest in the natural sciences, and we could add on this using the recent scholarship of John Bellamy Foster. Itsmejudith (talk) 06:08, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
The article does not say that Marxism is scientific, merely "Marx offered theories that could be proven by the scientific method". (The next discussion thread is about a theory Marx offered that can be proved or disproved.) IP, the passage, which is sourced, does not say that "philosophy and science are different". And claims about epistemology and metaphysics cannot be proved or disproved, otherwise scientists would be able to prove or disprove the existence of God just as they were able to prove the existence of Pluto. And just because biologists may use such language as "the purpose of the eye is to see" does not mean that they subscribe to Aristotle's theory of causation. TFD (talk) 07:03, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I think Itsmejudith has a good point. Aside from that, Deuce: if Marxism is not scientific, what does it matter that his theory could be proven by the scientific method? That source might say that philosophy and science are different, but then that is a flawed source. Science and philosophy can be the same. To say that epistemological and metaphysical claims cannot be proved otherwise sicentists would be able to prove the existence of God, assumes that ALL epistemological and metaphysical claims can be proved or disproved. But I never said all could be, merely that epistemological and metaphysical claims can be. The epistemological claim that we know the earth is round can be proved easily. Just look on the NASA website for pictures of the earth! The metaphysical claim that gravity exists was just recently proved by NASA scientists as well. Again, you're simply assuming that metaphysics and epistemology and science are different, but there is good evidence to show they can be the same. Lastly, it is true that teleology is still alive in biology. Just look at the way cells function, even DNA. They are all taken, not merely described, as having a purpose. This is not merely a matter of language, the very concept is at the heart of a lot of phenomena in the sciences!

70.72.45.98 (talk) 20:45, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Re your comment, "if Marxism is not scientific, what does it matter that his theory could be proven by the scientific method?" Liberalism is not scientific either that does not mean that no claim made by a liberal is subject to verification. The claim that the earth is round is not an epistemological claim. (You need to look up that word.) "Gravity exists" could be a metaphysical claim, but scientists are merely developing theories that have predictive ability, not writing about metaphysics. How do you know that time, space, matter and causation exist outside our experience? But this is getting off topic. You began the discussion by misrepresenting what the article said and now you are making claims about ontology that have no bearing on the article. TFD (talk) 23:11, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi, no, not at all. The article assumes science and philosophy are distinct, but this has no source other than saying that Marx is considered to be the founder of social science. So I did not misinterpret the article. Furthermore, you are wrong, KNOWING that the earth is round IS an epistemological claim. I know the meaning of the word very well. That gravity exists is also a metaphysical claim because it is a claim about what exists physically. "Metaphysics" was simply given the name because it refers to what was written about reality AFTER Aristotle's Physics. In that sense, scientists are writing about metaphysics, and they are writing about epistemology because epistemology refers to making claims about how one can know anything about reality. Liberalism can be scientific insofar as it is talking about human being and society, all of which could be tested by the scientific method. So I think you have distorted my words. Please read carefully next time. Thanks!

The Working Class in the East.

It is not true that the wealth of the working class has grown. Considering that the working class were defined by Marx as those who have nothing to sell but their labour, the working class are the people who work in factories producing products for the middle and upper classes to use. These people, thanks to the effects of globalisation, no longer live in the west, where minimum wages are high, but rather in countries such as South Korea, China, and India, where minimum wages are low, and hence attractive to companies. The working class have not become richer, they have merely had their jobs moved elsewhere, and hence very much ceased to exist in the countries where factories are dwindling. Taking the example of one country on its own (for example America) cannot give us a good example of how the working class are fairing, and it would be utterly biased to write a section based purely upon the wealth of the working class in a single country. Also, considering that it has been written earlier in the article that the global wealth of the poor has not improved at all in the last 150 years, but rather lowered, it is contradictory to write lower down that the lower class have only become richer. I believe that changes made to add this information (that the lower class globally have not grown wealthier) would be appropriate. 124.168.86.167 (talk) 06:01, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Have you got a source for this? David Harvey? Itsmejudith (talk) 06:10, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Marx did not define the working class as factory workers only. TFD (talk) 07:10, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
The IP's argument doesn't depend on that. If you take the West on its own, the absolute impoverishment thesis is impossible to maintain. But as production - including services - is increasingly outsourced to poorer countries, something more like an absolute impoverishment may be occurring. Or not. We would need a source for it, anyway. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:47, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

"Personal life" to "Biography"?

I suggest moving the "personal life" section under "Biography." I can find no reason why it should sit in a separate section after "Thought." Also, the first graph of the "Hegelianism" sub-section should be incorporated under "personal life." Any objections? Archivingcontext (talk) 05:31, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Done. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 06:14, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Page protection

Given the amount of vandalism, can we put a lock on the page to protect it in accordance with WP:PP? Archivingcontext (talk) 11:54, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

A semi-protection, perhaps. Certainly not a full protection. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:43, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Lead

A user has recently restored the claim that Marx is considered one of the greatest economists to the lead. I find this quite outrageous. There may be those in the economic profession who consider Marx a great economist, but there are also those who do not consider him anything of the kind; indeed, some consider Marx's economic theories to be wrong. Per WP:NPOV, it seems wildly wrong to mention only favorable views of Marx's worth as an economist in the lead. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 19:23, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Before this is added to lead, I'd like to see this claim shown in several encyclopedias and textbooks of economics. Also, per WP:LEAD, this should be discussed first in the body (Economy, history and society section seems appropriate) before making it to the lead. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 20:37, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough. I will work on incorporating this into the body first with further citations on the matter. It may be a stretch to find Marx in economics textbooks, however, as the study of economics took a wildly different turn in the 19th century with the rise of marginalism. The classical study of economies in context of a normative view of society, which forms the basis of the thought of Smith, Ricardo, and Marx, was dropped in attempts to formulate timeless theories of general explanation out of particular phenomenon. The shortcomings of such practices in the past 10-20 years, however, have led many back to the classical economists (including Marx). Archivingcontext (talk) 01:05, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Many books and articles can be found (including right-wing accounts, which otherwise despise Marx) talking of his economic theories and their greatness. He is widely considered, even by numerous immensely rich CEOs and capitalists, to be one of the greats, despite their dislike of communism. He was also voted the greatest thinker of all time in Britain, in a poll-type thing they held. Though some may disagree, he is undoubtedly considered by many to be one of the greatest economists of all time. The statement in the lead did not say that he was, merely that many consider him to be so, and that is the case. The differences of opinion, and a brief discussion could indeed be added to the body; that is a good idea. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-2014647/Karl-Marx-John-Maynard-Keynes-Ten-greatest-economists-Vince-Cable.html http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/bios/Marx.html#lfHendersonCEE2BIO-050_footnote_nt440 And a book titled "the great economists: from Marx to Keynes", by one of the other great economists, Joseph Schumpeter http://digamo.free.fr/ten10.pdf Sarg Pepper (talk) 01:56, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd suggest you rewrite this into a paragraph, add some more references, and add it to the article's body, not the lead. If enough reliable sources are found, we can consider the claim back for the lead. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:30, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

A sound plan! Where in the article could it be placed? Sarg Pepper (talk) 08:13, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

We need a source that explains what his influence was. I disagree with Piotrus however who thinks he has had no influence and suggest that he read about communism. TFD (talk) 08:45, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't have time to do it right now because I'm trying to get PhD apps done, but some good sources for this would be The worldly philosophers, by Robert Heilbroner and Capitalism and modern social theory by Anthony Giddens. Both of these have extensive (but layperson-friendly) treatments of Marx and his influence on economics and the modern social sciences. They easily support the assertion that Marx is considered one of the great economists, whether you agree with his ideas or not. (There is plenty of disagreement about most economic ideas, after all!) Kate (talk) 09:28, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Is it or is it not the case that some authorities consider Marx's economic theories mistaken? If the answer is that some do, then, per WP:NPOV, the lead certainly should not call Marx a great economist without noting the existence of other points of view. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 18:39, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
If some theory appears to be (fully or partially) wrong, that does not necessarily cast a shadow on its author. As XX century demonstrated, Newtonian theory of gravity was not fully correct and needed in some adjustment. However, that did not prevented Feynman to consider Newton as the greatest physicist.
Marx, along with Smith and Keynes, belongs to one of the greatest and most influential economists in history ("the greatest economists, Smith or Marx or Keynes, have changed the course of history; they are as worthy the attention of pure historian as Louis Napoleon or Woodrow Wilson.", Hick, The American Economic Review (1974) p. 307-316). That Marx was one of the greatest economists is quite obvious, and it would not be a problem to provide necessary amount of sources to support this fact. I suggest Piotrus to self-revert.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:11, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Many authorities consider Marx's theories mistaken in a variety of ways (including a lot of modern Marxist economists). This is a different question from whether he's considered influential as a seminal political economist, which I would argue is a majority view. In particular, Marx was instrumental in formulating an idea about the nature of capitalism and the role of capital. As an analogy, many of Freud's theories are considered outdated or downright ridiculous today, but that doesn't mean he wasn't influential in psychology, since he was instrumental in defining psychology as a field and establishing practices such as the talking cure. Spelling out the nature of this influence is probably a valuable addition to the simple statement that Marx is considered influential, since it would add depth and better understanding of the problem to the article. Kate (talk) 19:24, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Calling someone a "great economist" implies more than simply that he was influential; it implies that his views were, or were likely to be, correct. So it's clearly a controversial statement, in Marx's case. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 01:32, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
That is Platonism. What does "correct" mean? Were Newtonian views "correct" or not? Were Smith or Keynes "correct"? In actuality, Keyenesian views have been severely criticized, and even proven to be wrong. I am sure that can be said about almost every economist. However, all of that is just speculations. We have many reliable sources that call Marx "one of the greatest economists", so the statement in the lede is in accordance with our NPOV, V and NOR policies, and, therefore, it should be restored.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:21, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
NPOV requires that articles be written neutrally, balancing favorable and critical views. Mentioning that Marx has been called a "great economist", without mentioning the less favorable (to put it mildly) views of his work that his critics have put forward, plainly is not neutral. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 02:52, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Frankly, speaking, I didn't see sources that seriously contest this statement. Yes, many authors point at Marx's mistakes (he, as well as many his peers, sometimes was wrong), however, I don't know serious authors who argued that Marx cannot be considered as a great economist.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:13, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
In other words, because I provided no sources that contest the claim that Marx was a "great economist", you conclude that none exist? Frankly speaking, it seems obvious that if someone's economic theories were wrong, then he was not a "great economist" in any meaningful way. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 03:21, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Firstly, I didn't write that. I wrote I am not aware of the sources that dispute the idea that Marx was one of the greatest economists. I didn't claim such sources do not exist (it would be too arrogant to claim that something doesn't exist), although, frankly speaking, I would be surprised to learn they do. Of course, I do not mean newspaper articles authored by rightist journalists...
Secondly, your idea that every thinker whose ideas were, fully or partially, refuted, criticised or significantly modified cannot be considered as a greatest thinker (economist, philosopher, physicist, etc) is very original, and I do not think it is correct. Moreover, I never heard Marx's theory was found to be wrong: most his critics point at some local omissions and flaws, however, noone refuted it as whole.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:36, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Using a standard of absolute correctness would, by necessity, suggest that there are no great economists. I cannot think of a single leading economist who has not, at one time or another, been shown to be misguided on empirical or ideological grounds. For example, you might refer to General equilibrium theory, a theory that won Kenneth Arrow the 1972 Nobel Prize. There are serious, serious empirical problems with this theory, to the extent that general equilbrium as formulated by the Arrow-Debreau model is not used today. That was only 40 years ago. Are we to consider Arrow to be a mere hack, because his model no longer works? Not hardly. Why should we hold Marx (or any other economist) to a standard of total correctness in order to agree that they have influenced the field? Kate (talk) 08:18, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Maybe we should take the definition used by others, rather than synthesizing our own at this point. For example, Joseph Schumpeter, who lists Marx first in his book Ten Great Economists. There are plenty more, including the two I listed above, that clearly rank Marx as a great economist in precisely those words. I'm not going to look for them, though, because I need to stop yak shaving.Kate (talk) 08:24, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

It's not a statement that he necessarily was, nor indeed is it Platonism. It is merely an assertion that he is held by some (or many) to be a great economist. It is true that many are harsh critics of his work, however that is usually of his work on communism, socialism, and revolution, not on economics, about which he is still considered a great economist. And he doesn't even have to be right to be great: Aristotle was the first ever great biologist, and is still seen as a great biologist, even though we now know many of his statements to be incorrect. Inspiring or influencing those in your field necessarily makes one a great member of that field, if one's ideas are wrong. Newton was a great scientist, though we now know much of his science to be incorrect. Sarg Pepper (talk) 03:10, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

The relevant issue here is NPOV. It violates NPOV to put praise of Marx such as "great economist" in the lead while not mentioning that Marx has been subjected to any kind of criticism. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 20:31, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

The most relevant WP:NPOV clause says "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements." The edit you reverted says " He is also considered one of the greatest economists in history". Obviously, this statement is presented as an assertion, not as fact. Secondly, you failed to provide even a single source that says the assertion that Marx was not one of the greatest economist is incorrect. We can discuss NPOV issues only after you will provide an adequate evidence that the statement you removed has been seriously contested. What you provided so far is just your unsupported considerations about Marx's errors (which is (i) insufficient, and (ii) irrelevant). If no reasonable arguments will be provided in close future, I'll restore the statement which, in my opinion, fully complies with our NPOV, NOR and V policies.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:55, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
There's no need to find a source that specifically says something like, "Marx was not a great economist." The exact wording is not important. What is important is that some economists reject Marx, making it an NPOV violation to put things like "Marx is considered a great economist" (which implies he was one) in the lead. Preventing things like that is the intention of the policy. Getting legalistic about the wording doesn't help us here. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:28, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
The statement "some economists reject Marx" does not imply the statement "Marx is also considered one of the greatest economists in history" has been seriously contested. At least, you provided no evidences for that. You should either provide your evidences (sources), or stop that.
Is Napoleon considered one of greatest military commanders? Yes. Was he eventually defeated? Yes. Does it mean that the statement " he is generally regarded as one of the greatest military commanders of all time" is not neutral? No.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:49, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Without making a statement regarding what should be included in the lead, I find this discussion of what constitutes "great" to be a curious distraction. I don't think any statement strongly linking greatness with correctness is credible in the face of numerous examples to the contrary, many of which have already been cited here with no serious refutation. This discussion would be better served with an analysis of the sources rather than (what feels like) a one-sided debate over terminology. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 22:53, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I find these comments irrelevant and beside the point. The issue is perfectly simple: should praise such as "Marx has been called a great economist" be in the lead when no criticism of Marx is mentioned. And the answer, per WP:NPOV, is: no. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 02:39, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, but this your comment is totally irrelevant. The statement is "Marx is also considered one of the greatest economists in history", and the reliable sources have been provided that fully support this claim (BTW, one of those sources is authored by one of the most influential economists of XX century). If you are able to provide any reliable source that challenge this claim (per NPOV), please do that. If you have nothing to present but your own considerations, please, stop it.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:01, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Would a revision of the proposed statement to Marx is considered one of the great economists, although his ideas have also been seriously criticized resolve the problem? Both statements are true, both can be supported by sources in the body of the article, and would seem to address NPOV concerns. Kate (talk) 10:21, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Frankly speaking, I can't name even a single XIX economist whose ideas have not been seriously criticised, amended, expanded, etc, so the latter statements is a truism. --Paul Siebert (talk) 15:48, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
That's undoubtedly true, but not all of them are considered great - no one would consider Jean-Baptiste Say a great economist, even though Say's law has been seriously amended, for example. I think this is kind of a case of all squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares. You know? Kate (talk) 22:02, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
The impetus behind including such a statement in the lead is to give emphasis to Marx's lasting contribution to the field of economics, which is fact as shown in the original reference and the three other reference provided in the debate above (one of which is an encyclopedia article). Given the statement in the lead about the social sciences and social movements, this is a natural place to insert a reference about Marx's influence in economics. Rather than word it subjectively about greatness, however, I propose to make the insertion more descriptive by saying something about Marx as one of the founders of modern economic thought, something like, "His work in economics helped lay the foundations of modern economic thought and his ideas played a significant role in the formation of the social sciences." Also, we should work on an "economic thought" section, perhaps as 2.3 under "Thought"--to paraphrase Mark Blaug, Marx wrote only sparsely on social class, history, etc, but voluminously on economics (http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/bios/Marx.html#lfHendersonCEE2BIO-050_footnote_nt440). Archivingcontext (talk) 15:37, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that is a good expansion of the text removed by Polisher of Cobwebs. However, I do not understand why should we remove the (quite an obvious and widely supported) idea that he is considered one of greatest economists.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:48, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Per WP:NPOV, the lead obviously needs to mention criticism of Marx. You can't fill it with praise of this very controversial figure without mentioning the criticism. That there isn't "even a single XIX economist whose ideas have not been seriously criticised, amended, expanded" is irrelevant as an objection - Wiki articles are written for people who don't already know things like this. I think Kate's proposals are along the right lines. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 20:35, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
In actuality, the article devotes almost no attention to criticism of Marx's economical theories. Yes, the article points at some criticism of some of his predictions, however, that hardly warrants mention of any criticism in the lede. Since it would be incorrect to say that Marx's economic theory as whole was shown to be considerably wrong, we can speak about mentioning of criticism of some concrete Marx's ideas only, and only if this criticism is properly explained and attributed, similar to what has been done in the article about another greatest economist John Maynard Keynes. In connection to that, I suggest you to add to the article, what concrete Marx's ideas were criticized, and by whom. After that, we can speak about addition of the info on criticism to the lede.
Meanwhile, please, re-add properly sourced material to the lede. You had no reason to remove it.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:10, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
PS. It would be desirable if Marx's critics were of the same caliber as Marx himself: in the article about Keynes his critic is Friedman.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:10, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
I explained my reason for removing the material. It is an NPOV violation to place vague praise ("greatest economist" - whatever that is supposed to mean) of Marx in the lead without any counter-balance of criticism. "It would be incorrect to say that Marx's economic theory as a whole was shown to be considerably wrong" is your personal view of Marx, it appears. I am not going to argue with it, except to note that it is irrelevant (the same applies to, "It would be desirable if Marx's critics were of the same caliber as Marx himself"). Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 03:47, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Would you please provide some references of the criticism of Marx's economic thought that you continue to refer to. This will not only help ground our discussion here, but also aide in the writing of the lead and proposed section. Archivingcontext (talk) 07:18, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes, Polisher of Cobwebs, you explained the reasons, and we find your explanation insatisfactory. You failed to provide any source that demonstrates that considerable part of Marx's economic theory has been shown wrong and useless, and that it was criticized more severely that the theories of other great economists. Therefore, your considerations are just your considerations, and they cannot serve as a ground for removal of properly sourced statement from the lede. Moreover, the statement that Marx's theories were shown to be wrong simply do not follow from the article (it tells just about some minor criticism). Therefore, you have no right to insist on your revert. If you want to demonstrate the criticism of Marx was so severe that the words "he is considered as one of greatest economists" cannot be in the lede, please do that. However, both the sources provided and the article as whole convincingly demonstrate that that statement can and should be in the article. Your references to NPOV are totally unjustified, because you seem to misunderstand what does "NPOV" mean.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:55, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Re your "I am not going to argue with it, except to note that it is irrelevant (the same applies to, "It would be desirable if Marx's critics were of the same caliber as Marx himself")." It is absolutely relevant, and this your statement is an additional demonstration of your misunderstanding of NPOV. The article about Keynes mentions criticism by Friedman, and that is in full accordance with NPOV. However, it would be totally incorrect to include criticism by some obscure local newspaper. Look at WP:YESPOV, the example with Wiesenthal and Irving. Again, we have an opinion of Joseph Schumpeter, and, if you want opposite opinion to be presented, find a quote from Keynes, Friedman, or from another great economist who deserves to be considered as Marx's peer.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:00, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
I restored the text removed by Polisher of Cobwebs, because his unsupported references to NPOV are not sufficient for removal of properly sourced text. If Polisher of Cobwebs still believes that the text is non-neutral he may start a discussion on the WP:NPOVN.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:02, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Capitalism Assumptions

I noted that the article has a few assumptions on capitalism, mainly being that a characteristic of it being that the lower class is exploited by the wealthy. Also, that the labor unions have successfully improved worker's conditions. This is found under the section of Debate on Marx's predictions. I'd argue that whether capitalism creates a system in which the wealthy exploit the poor, and whether labor unions have actually provided a successful counterweight to this, is a topic which is too debatable and should not be taken as a fact under an assumption. In fact the article not only states this as an assumption but also explicitly states it as "true" and shows a clear bias towards Marxism. The article should present Marx's ideas without displaying any sort of bias in the description. Some editing is necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.173.124 (talk) 09:58, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

The article makes no assumptions about capitalism and no one questions whether labor unions have improved working conditions. TFD (talk) 17:41, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
The economists of the Austrian school actually do; it would undermine their laissez-faire ideology to admit the obvious, so they insist that gains in working conditions have been due to the rising productivity of labour, increased access to 'superior labour' as the guild system collapsed, etc, so rising wages reflect the rising contribution of labour to the production process (ie: 'inferior labour' and 'superior labour' each got what they deserved), while trade union organization does nothing but distort the market and make unconscionable violations of 'individual liberty', blah blah. Wetdogmeat (talk) 18:52, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Doesn't the argument that unions distort the market really mean that they were effective, even if their results were against the greater good? TFD (talk) 21:42, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
'Effective' in that they have an effect, but not the commonly attributed effect of raising living standards or improving working conditions. Those developments are attributed instead to the 'rising tide' of capitalist development and would have happened even if unionisation had never occurred. Unions cause price inflation, declines in productivity, and wage decreases in non-union work (from which, of course, they do not conclude that non-union work should be unionized), and, most amusingly, they even 'exploit' investors. Wetdogmeat (talk) 23:12, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
This section also appears to be in violation of WP:NOR. In fact the only "debate" that is at issue here is the one in the very last sentence. Unless this section can be rewritten to highlight a real debate about Marx's predictions on the progression of capitalism with reliable sources I suggest it be cut. Archivingcontext (talk) 03:14, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Reference number 9 "Classical Sociological Theory"

Reference number 9 in the article cites Calhoun, Classical Sociological Theory (2002) p. 23-24. There are no less than nine references in the text to this single citation, but unfortunately the pages cited refer to the Enlightenment and not Marx. (Although I must say I don't have access to the 2002 edition and am looking at the 2012 edition, so perhaps someone can confirm that this is the case in the cited edition as well, which I suspect it is for the editions can't be that different.) It may be overkill to excise all the passages that use this citation, but clearly some passages make claims that are found nowhere in the book, even in those sections on Marx. For example, the first half of the "Totalitarianism" section under legacy relies heavily on this reference, yet I can find nothing in this book to support the claims made here. Can someone supply proper references? Archivingcontext (talk) 03:43, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Debate over predictions and theories

The debate section is adequate, and I believe it perfectly valid to leave it in the article. It has sixteen sources, a perfectly acceptable amount, and includes no original research. The statements made are along the lines of 'it has been argued that this is the case, but this also is true' or 'some argue this, but Marx actually said the following:...'. The debates exist in literature, and the editor is not fabricating them. sources 164, 165, and 166 are from the literature. Sources 167 and 168 are quotes from Marx himself. 169 - 174 are all based on literature discussing the subject. I don't understand how or why the claim of original research can be justified, and even if it were that does not merit the removal of the entire section, but rather the editing of it. When quotes by Marx saying that he doesn't believe revolution in a feudal country will lead to socialism, but rather capitalism, are quoted and preceded by the statement 'Marx wrote that socialist revolutions held in countries that were not yet capitalist would only act to bring capitalism to the country: not socialism' this is not original research; it is the mentioning of a relevant quote. Not all sources have to be literature. Literature on the topic does indeed exist, but it is simpler to go straight to the man himself for a quote, provided that conclusions are not unfairly drawn from the quote. Finally the fact that most of the section is backing up Marx's predictions does not merit its removal. The section is about debate, and if one side of the debate has since been debunked they still merit mention; just mention in a 'it was claimed... but this is now known to be false' way. This is a debates section not a why Marx was wrong section. I have replaced the section. If there are still issues point out the specific areas and they can be amended. Sarg Pepper (talk) 03:20, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

That section seems clearly argumentative - it reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. I agree with the reasons Archivingcontext gave for removing it. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 05:19, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

His reasons were not clear, and are discussed above. You need to provide evidence that every single sentence of that section is faulty or it should not be removed, only amended. Since not one error has been stated, the only issue being 'I don't like how it sounds' there is no grounds for its removal. If you wish to rewrite it so you don't think it sounds like an essay, that's fine, but don't simply delete it all. Sarg Pepper (talk) 06:24, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree. If something is written like an essay, then it's not appropriate to an encyclopedia article. Furthermore, you're in no position to continue restoring that material when multiple other editors have taken the position that it should be removed. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 07:04, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
The section is bad through and through. It's an argument for a particular take on Marx's ideas and legacy, rather than documenting what his ideas actually were. The content is not NPOV encyclopedic content. I have some sympathy with some of what is presented, but it's arguing for this take on Marxism rather than for Marxism as a whole. As such, each sentence in the section has to be removed - if you think you can present a version that is not, as Polisher of Cobwebs says, basically a short essay I'd be interested to see it. Cadriel (talk) 09:18, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

It certainly has its flaws, I agree: I think a rewrite is a good option, I just didn't think we should remove the entire section without discussion about replacing it. I'm willing to have a crack at writing one. If you chaps could give me a couple of examples of the issues you have with the article that would be good (a specific sentence, for example); so I know what to avoid in the rewrite. If not, and it's just that the feel of the section is wrong, I'll just try my hand at it regardless and try to keep it sounding like an encyclopedia. I'll post my attempt on the talk page so we can discuss it, as it will not be great first try. Is this good for everyone? Of course if anyone else wanted to write one instead that's fine as well. Sarg Pepper (talk) 11:40, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Something that might help explain some of the opposition to this section (I think - at least, this is what I see) is that by going back and forth between secondary sources and primary sources (Marx) to frame a debate, it seems like synthesis, like the sort of thing you'd do for a term paper. This is a valid thing to do sometimes, but it's not helpful when presented as a debate in the literature, because it's not really in the literature. By going to the secondary sources to frame the debate (which will sometimes refute, and sometimes support, Marx's arguments) it would feel more balanced, personally. It would also help, perhaps, if we could lose the prediction verbiage. Marx wasn't a prognisticator, or even a futurist, so to talk about which of his predictions has or has not come true in some fashion is sort of beside the point, IMO. Kate (talk) 23:43, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Here is a sample of the objectionable writing in that section: "Marx predicted socialism would eventually replace capitalism. It has been argued that this was incorrect, as since the late 20th century state socialism (which some historians link to Marx) is in retreat, after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the shift towards a market economy by the People's Republic of China. Marx actually wrote, however, that socialist revolutions held in countries that were not yet capitalist would only act to bring capitalism to the country: not socialism. China and Russia were both feudal (and hence pre-capitalist) at the time of their revolution, so this prediction has actually so far been accurate." As I say, it looks like part of an essay about Marx, written to expound a particular perspective. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 01:20, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
This interpretation of Marx is not settled and should not be considered as such. For instance, "some historians" without being followed by references falls under weasel words that should be avoided. I don't think you can rewrite it without being essentially POV. I think a better replacement would be less concerned with "correcting" alleged misconceptions about "predictions" and instead focus on scholars who differentiate between the young Marx and the late Marx, and ones who consider Marx's work to have a fundamental unity. Cadriel (talk) 01:45, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I find Kate's comment above to highlight the real problem with the section under consideration: its entire premise about Marx's predictions being right or wrong misses the point. Coupled with all the other problems pointed out in our discussion here, I just don't see how it could be rewritten in an adequate and acceptable way. More useful, it seems to me, and more appropriate for this section of "Legacy," would be a sub-section on the intellectual influence of Marx's ideas in economy, philosophy, and society beyond just the long paragraph of secondary quotes masquerading as the "influence" section. Archivingcontext (talk) 05:06, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

"Totalitarianism" section

I hate to do this, but it appears that the "Totalitarianism" section needs to get the ax as well, at least in the form that it is in. I am checking out the references and they just don't add up. The first four references do not refer to what is written in the article. The Classical Sociological Theory references do not state what it is cited for here, as pointed out in my talk comment above on "Reference number 9." The Sherman, Reinventing Marxism reference is a gross distortion of what the original text says, i.e. that the Soviets transformed Marxism once in power. The next three citations I have not been able to locate the original book, but they are all from a single source, hardly justifying the claim that "critics" and "theorists" in general hold these views, and is in violation of WP:Weasel. The rest of the paragraph, beginning with "lastly" is about a backlash to communist governments rather than the totalitarianism legacy of Marx's thought.

This section may be able to be saved with a little rewriting and proper citations, but I wonder if this article on Marx the man is the right place for it. It was Marx's followers who made the system of Marxism, and it is this that may have been exploited and twisted into forms for state controlled governments. In order to deserve a place in this article, a more nuanced argument would have to found on the seeds of totalitarianism in Marx's thought and how they blossomed to leave the legacy of totalitarianism. Archivingcontext (talk) 09:27, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Have to agree here; this section belongs on the criticisms of the soviet union page, but considering it begins by stating 'the following section is about things that are contrary to Marxism' I think it's worth deleting. Revision can be attempted, but ultimately would probably still have the problem of being about men who claimed (tenuously) to be followers of Marx rather than about Marx himself. I know Karl Popper believed Marxism would sow the seeds of totalitarianism, but because, as the section says, Marx is vehemently against totalitarianism, I think that belongs on the page criticisms of marxism, or possibly on marxism, rather than on a page about Marx himself. I'll remove it for now, I think. Sarg Pepper (talk) 11:45, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm for this - there is a lengthy Marxism page where this debate is appropriate. I do think there is room for two further discussions in the Legacy section. First, as I said in the discussion of the "predictions" sub-section, it would be worth covering some of the debate around the young Marx / late Marx distinction and how this is viewed. Second, I think it's worth having something about the "end of history" narrative (Fukuyama et al) in the '90s which in many ways was viewed as a refutation of Marxism and the swing back with recent scholars such as Eagleton, Harvey et al which was in the final sentences of the Totalitarianism sub-section. Cadriel (talk) 15:13, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
It appears to be OR. We would need sources that connect Marx to totalitarianism. TFD (talk) 20:07, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Significance and impact of Marx is not reflected in the article, volume wise

Gentlemen, it should be noted that that the wiki page for Jesus is significantly longer than Marx's.Expand the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.68.252 (talk) 10:31, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Why do you assume that all of the editors are male? And peremptory instructions carry no weight here; if you have any specific suggestions for improving this article, then either propose them here, or, even better, register an account and edit it yourself. RolandR (talk) 10:53, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
We're not all gentlemen. Size isn't everything. And you're welcome to help out if you like. Kate (talk) 14:16, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

|}

NY Tribune Corespondency

The article states: Marx also briefly worked as correspondent for the New York Tribune in 1851.[91]

Though the statement may be technically correct, he, in fact, worked as a NY Trib correspondent from 1851 to 1862. The following link provided by the Tribune includes probably more than 500 articles: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/subject/newspapers/new-york-tribune.htm.

207.199.194.114 (talk) 04:05, 21 December 2012 (UTC) Keith B. Davis December 20, 2012

Socialism

The following text in the article is incorrect: "He argued that under socialism society would be governed by the working class in what he called the "dictatorship of the proletariat", the "workers' state" or "workers' democracy". He believed that socialism would, in its turn, eventually be replaced by a stateless, classless society called communism".

Marx used the words "communism" and "socialism" interchangeably. I.e. communism was the same as socialism, and socialism the same as communism. Leninism and its offshoots are the only variants of marxian communism that consider socialism a transitional society. Since "socialism" according to Marx was the same as "communism", and communism is classless, the dictatorship of the proletariat does not exist under communism/socialism, but rather it is the stage in which the bourgeoisie are being expropriated, society and economy reorganized, etc.

Seralys (talk) 04:25, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

You would need to produce references to support your claims. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 04:29, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Also, you need a secondary source, not quotes from Marx that we need to interpret. TFD (talk) 06:43, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
"Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat' Marx's Critique of Gotah Programme

"The dictatorship of a single class is necessary not only for every class society in general, not only for the proletariat which has overthrown the bourgeoisie, but also for the entire historical period which separates capitalism from "classless society", from communism. Bourgeois states are most varied in form, but their essence is the same: all these states, whatever their form, in the final analysis are inevitably the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. The transition from capitalism to communism is certainly bound to yield a tremendous abundance and variety of political forms, but the essence will inevitably be the same: the dictatorship of the proletariat." Lenin's State and Revolution CH 2

""The first phase of communism, therefore, cannot yet provide justice and equality; differences, and unjust differences in wealth will still persist, but the exploitation of man by man will have become impossible because it will be impossible to seize the means of production – the factories, machines, land, etc. – and make them private property.... Marx shows the course of development of communist society....which [firstly] consists in the distribution of consumer goods "according to the amount of labor performed" (and not [yet] according to needs)."

"But the scientific distinction between socialism and communism is clear. What is usually called socialism was termed by marx the "first", or lower, phase of communist society. Insofar as the means of production becomes common property, the word "communism" is also applicable here, providing we do not forget that this is not complete communism." CH 5 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.68.252 (talk) 02:41, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

political economy not economy

he was a political economist, not an economist. Big difference, no? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.68.252 (talk) 02:33, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Estate

Engels's estate is said to have been worth $4,800,000. It is not clear if this includes inflation or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.246.4.155 (talk) 15:20, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Said by whom? In any case, this has nothing to do with Marx, and if it has any verification should be posted to the Friedrich Engels talk page. RolandR (talk) 16:12, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Estate (2)

The $4,800,000 comes from Simon Sebag Montefiore, in footnote 123. Marx's daughters benefitted, partly, so it has a lot to do with the Marx family. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.221.117.141 (talk) 10:42, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

The fact that, twelve years after his death, Marx's daughters were beneficiaries of a will is of absolutely no relevance to this article. RolandR (talk) 12:58, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Dictatorship of the bourgeoisie?

Did Marx actually use the phrase "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie?" And did he do so prominently enough to deserve a mention in the lede? Archivingcontext (talk) 01:51, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

No, he never used the term, only Lenin did, for example in State and Revolution, and in Thesis About Bourgoise Democracy and Proletariat Dictatorship (http://www.marxists.org/espanol/lenin/obras/1910s/internacional/informe.htm) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.22.228.53 (talk) 22:46, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Punctuation error

Under the "Helganism and Early Activism" heading it says "Jenny von Westphalen had brains and thanks to her father also had aneducation." It is missing a space between an and education"

Fixed. Thanks. Given the breadth of the section, its title is a bit of a misnomer. Other suggestions?Archivingcontext (talk) 03:44, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 March 2013

In the opening paragraph the sentence:

"He is also considered one of the greatest economists of all time."

Should be changed. The word 'greatest' is opinion and many would view this as inaccurate and misleading given that socialism has repeatedly failed and true communism has never come close to being achieved because it is a ridiculous idea. I fail to see how his economic ideas could be considered 'great', a statement like that needs to be backed up by far more reputable sources from numerous economists from different backgrounds and beliefs, not just left leaning economists/politicians.

The word 'influential' is far more appropriate as this implies neutrality as to whether his ideas and theories were good/bad, but instead implies that they had a large impact for better or worse.

However the end of the introduction already has a similar sentence:

"Marx has been described as one of the most influential figures in human history."

Therefore I suggest replacing the word 'greatest' with 'most influential' or preferably just remove the first sentence I mentioned completely (for the sake of repetition as the final sentence is so similar)


Hutchski (talk) 01:44, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

This formulation has been discussed at length[1], and consensus reached that it is appropriate. The assessment is ascribed to several reliable sources, while your own assessment of Marxism as "ridiculous" is highly contentious, and you are not yourself accepted as a reliable source here. Therefore, unless you can convince a significant number of editors here to overturn the previously-agreed consensus, then the sentence should not be rephrased as you propose. RolandR (talk) 02:11, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


In that case I'd like to try and convince other editors to overturn the previous consensus, as I believe that this is factually incorrect, bias (when Wikipedia is meant to be neutral), and doesn't have enough reputable and varied sources to back up such a strong claim.

Saying someone is 'great' should require supporting evidence from sources from people with differing points of view as well as people who support the persons ideas. For example I could undoubtedly find a few sources from right wing thinkers suggesting that Jimmy Carter is the 'worst' U.S. president in modern history. Does that mean it is justified and fair to state that on the introduction of his Wikipedia page? Absolutely not, because it is opinion and only backed up by sources with a specific point of view. All 4 sources which back up the statement which says Marx is one of the greatest economists of all time are from Keynesian economists/politicians who share his point of view.

Not only that but there is no empirical evidence to support this statement, in fact there is more evidence to the contrary showing that his theories have failed repeatedly:

-The Soviet Union is a prime example of his theories in action, and this ended in the collapse of its economic system and government.

-Socialism and the ideas associated with it have allowed countless dictators to rise up throughout Asia and South America over the last century, and have resulted in enormous economic hardship for these countries and the hundreds of millions if not billions of people who live under these regimes. The only country which is now showing success is China because it is starting to embrace the free market principles that Marx opposes.

-Capitalist economies which embrace the opposite ideas of Marx have continued to prosper and grow and have increased the standard of living for billions of people.

-His prediction that capitalism would fail, and that communism would be the natural and final evolution of socialism have not come true. Despite numerous Socialist governments around the world, none have ever shown any signs of becoming a stateless, classless, moneyless system which is what he predicted would happen (this is what I said was ridiculous, I did not call Marxism as a whole ridiculous, merely the idea of a government naturally fading away into a stateless, moneyless utopia, and I think many would agree that that is unrealistic)

So how could an economist be considered 'great' when his theories have failed so many times in history, and no economy has ever prospered under these ideas? Surely a great economist is one where his ideas have created economic prosperity and there is solid evidence to support that? If anything there is more factual basis to state that he is one of the worst economists of all time, as his ideas have caused the failure and stagnation of numerous economies around the world and hardship for millions of people. He may have been a unique and revolutionary thinker for his time, he may have influenced millions of people and helped shape the world we know today, but to call him a great economist is simply not factual.

Please provide examples which support the idea that his economic theories of Socialism/Communism have been successful and created economic prosperity? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hutchski (talk • contribs) 10:07, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't need to prove that Marx's theories have been successful, and your attempts to disprove this are of no relevance here. All that is needed is to establish that he has been considered one of the greatest economists. This is shown clearly and incontrovertibly, with several reliable sources. Please stop soapboxing, and dedicate your efforts to improving Wikipedia in accordance with [[WP:5|our central guidelines. RolandR (talk) 12:32, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


I am not trying to promote any agenda, I saw a clearly bias statement on Wikipedia and felt the need to help keep this website neutral unlike most of the internet. All 4 sources for this statement are Keynesians and left wing thinkers, yet the statement implies he is widely considered a great economist by everyone. By the same logic, you could put in the opening paragraph on the Wikipedia page for Hitler "He is also considered one of the greatest German leaders of all time." and reference 4 prominent Nazis/fascists to back up this statement. Would that be acceptable too? Hutchski (talk) 13:16, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

If you want to add that statement to the article on Hitler, feel free to raise it, citing the relevant reliable sources, on that article's talk page, and see if you find a consensus for your proposal. It has nothing to do with this request regarding this article. RolandR (talk) 16:34, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I do not want to add that statement to the article on Hitler because it is inappropriate and a controversial and broad statement which most people, including myself, would disagree with. However, it would not be hard to find some quotes by Goebbels, Himmler and other prominent Nazis to support that claim, but does that mean it should be stated in the opening paragraph in such a broad statement? Of course not, because the statement is only backed up by ideological supporters of that person. The same principle applies here, you cannot make such a broad statement that Marx is considered "one of the greatest economists of all time." and only reference people who share similar beliefs to him, it is completely bias.

I'd also like to quote some rules for Wikipedia articles which this statement clearly breaks:

"Be careful with weasel words

Weasel words are a way to give unconfirmable assertions the appearance of fact. "Houston is considered the friendliest city in the world." Really, now. Who says so? Do not use expressions like "is claimed", "is thought to be", and "is alleged," without saying specifically who is doing the claiming, thinking or alleging."[2]

"Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil.""[3]

As explained above (the word 'considered' is even used in the example of what not to use), such broad statements should not be made, instead the sentence should refer specifically to the people who say so. An accurate phrase would be for example "Vince Cable lists him as the 4th greatest economist of all time." That is an undisputed statement. Whereas the broad terminology which is currently used does not state who considers him to be one of the greatest economists of all time, and therefore leaves the impression it is a widespread belief which it is not, and the references do not support that either.

Another rule it breaks is:

"Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements."[4]

If you view the Wikipedia page for Criticisms of Marxism[5] and scroll down to the economics section you can find numerous criticisms by economists who would not consider him to be a good economist at all which is completely counter to the statement. Hutchski (talk) 00:10, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I've created a new section with a survey and a request for comment from other editors (the instructions suggest creating a new section). I was advised to do this to help build a consensus as opposed to going through a dispute resolution. I'm still learning how use Wikipedia as a registered user so I apologise for any errors made while trying to resolve this problem! I think this section should probably be archived/closed now as the new section is more appropriate to discuss this. Hutchski (talk) 09:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


I have closed the {{edit semi-protected}} request as there is no consensus for the requested edit at this time. Feel free to continue this discussion to work towards a consensus. Thanks, —KuyaBriBriTalk 15:28, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Just plain "German pronunciation", please

It's true that German pronunciation varies geographically. However, there is a received standard pronunciation of the German language in Germany (geographically identified as that of Hanover). However unfair or needlessly prescriptive that may be, it's what's taught to learners of German as a foreign language, and to native broadcasting speakers in Germany. In any case, the subject of geographical variation in German pronunciation has no business in this article! I'm going to drop "Berlin" from the "German pronunciation" line.—Wegesrand (talk) 13:33, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

edit

The following statements need to be edited not only for grammar but content as well

Despite Marx's stress on critique of capitalism and discussion of the new communist society that should replace it, his explicit critique of capitalism is guarded, as he saw it as an improved society compared to the past ones (slavery and feudal).[8] Marx also never clearly discusses issues of morality and justice, although scholars agree that his work contained implicit discussion of those concepts

Marx doesn't write too much about communist so I dont know if it's worth mentioning that. Also, take out the word 'should' (which is a value judgement, i.e. comparing what is with what ought, should, or thought to be) but rather use 'would' (not a value judgement but rather a logical conclusion).

If you want to make the point that Marx didn't see capitalism as all that bad, at least compared to other modes of production, you could write about some of the things he saw as improvements (e/g/ incredible capacity to revolutionise the means of production/productive forces/technology; the socialisation of the labour process which did not exist under handicraftsmanship labour; the element of cooperation (albeit coerced see for eg chapter 13 COOPERATION V1 of Capital or rather, because wiki uses secondary sources, use Harvey's 2011 book on reading capital where he writes about all of this) In short, due to the rnature of capitalism and the way in whcih it regulates/organises human working activity, people from all around the world come together — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.68.252 (talk) 21:49, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

______

Actually, this article is in serious need of head-to-toe proofreading. Having so many grammatical errors, missing words, etc., makes the whole enterprise appear amateurish. kentfx 10:52, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Karl_Marx/Archive_10&oldid=1136866910"