Jump to content

Talk:Karl Marx/Archive 11

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

Karl Marx "considered one of the greatest economists of all time". Should this statement be removed, edited or left unchanged?

this statement should be removed, as he is not, and few conseder him to be, a great economist.Lee Tru. (talk) 11:40, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Is this sentence appropriate, especially in the opening paragraph?

Should the statement in the opening paragraph "He is also considered one of the greatest economists of all time." be removed, edited or left unchanged? Hutchski (talk) 09:25, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Survey

  • Remove Unspecified and controversial claim, clear use of a weasel word [1]. While it could be edited, there is already a similar statement at the end of the lead. Hutchski (talk) 09:25, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Remove That's about as NPOV as it gets. Present NPOV articles and resources about Karl Marx's economic theories, and any he implemented - and let the reader decide if he was "one of the greatest" whatevers of all time...Patriot1010 (talk) 06:22, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Notice At least one editor of this article is attempting to intimidate other editors, and is engaging in WP:Hound and attempting legitimize it with WP:Gaming. Please remember, The contribution logs can be used in the dispute resolution process to gather evidence to be presented in requests for comment, mediation, WP:ANI, and arbitration cases, thus engaging in this behavior will not go unnoticed in this case. Patriot1010 (talk) 18:07, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Remove Hilarious. Zaminamina Eh Eh Waka Waka Eh Eh 18:54, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Retain As per previous discussion of this, it is incontrovertible, and relevant, that many historians, economists and other reliable writers consider Marx to have been one of the greatest economists. This is not an assessment of the validity of his work, far less of the use of it by successors and epigones, but a statement about the importance of Marx to this field of study and knowledge. The statement is eminently NPOV; we are not making any value judgement in Wikipedia's voice, but citing the views of relevant experts. RolandR (talk) 19:03, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Leave as is. The current wording is not our own, but that of multiple sources across the political and economic spectrum. Claims of an unbalanced POV are very difficult to sustain, given that one of the supporting citations is to Joseph Schumpeter and another to the Daily Mail. These are not extremist, leftist, or even particularly unconventional sources, nor is the current wording a value judgment or, what was the phrase, support for Marx's agenda or something like that. (No one support's Marx's agenda these days, not even Marxists.) I do think the suggested wording of "most influential" would also be acceptable, given that it means, substantively, the same thing, though it is not less (or more) weaselly. Kate (talk) 19:23, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Retain Kate put this quite well and I second her position. My own opinion is that this comes at a point in the lede to explain who is the subject and emphasize his significance. One of the most influential and enduring legacies of Marx was his work on economics, which is quite apart from his views of communism. The enduring importance of this work in economics has been pointed out in numerous references, both in the article and by RolandR below. This is a fact and should be in the lede of the article. The question, then, is the wording of it. It seems to me that the work Marx did in economics is valued by economists on all points of the spectrum and that he is in fact considered one of the greatest economists of all time. But perhaps we might be able to phrase it in a way that would lend itself to greater explanatory power here in service of the lede, something like, "Marx's work in economics laid the basis for our understanding of labor and its relation to capital, and has informed much of subsequent economic thought." (BTW, Hutchski, why are you so invested in this? Why create a new account just to take up this one issue?) Archivingcontext (talk) 01:00, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Wow Archivingcontext, you sure are editing this article like mad - but you won't include your own suggestion? Why is that? Patriot1010 (talk) 20:49, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Apologies, I thought my suggestion was clear: change it along the lines I suggested above. I agree with most of what everyone is saying here in favor of the proposed edit, as it seems to me better to put an explanatory statement in the lede about what he did and how it has been influential. (Many of my edits today have also been with this in mind--to change statements of influence or praise to sentences of substance.) Thanks for taking the initiative. Archivingcontext (talk) 01:07, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
A possible edit then? I think "Marx's work in economics laid the basis for our understanding of labor and its relation to capital, and has influenced much of subsequent economic thought." would be an acceptable revision. I think the thing that strikes many as "laughable" (of whom are non-marxists anyway) is the claim in contention is cited from a UK tabloid by a politician, (among other things). There are as many credible sources that say he was a great economist as those that say his economic theories fail - but all agree he had tremendous influencePatriot1010 (talk) 04:32, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
I like that rewording, actually, since it explains exactly what is considered to be great and/or influential about Marx, rather than being a generic statement that keeps bringing us back around to this particular discussion. Kate (talk) 08:11, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Agreed I completely agree, I think Patriot1010's copy-edit is far more neutral and specific as well. Thank you Archivingcontext for coming up with the basis for an edit of this statement which so far everyone seems to agree on, I hope we may have reached a solution! (In response to your question, I was simply reading the article on Marx and felt that the statement was really bias, unlike anything I've ever read elsewhere on Wikipedia, simply because I feel that it implies that Socialism/Communism which Marx is widely known for, are great economic theories. It's a bit like reading 'Communism is considered one of the greatest economic ideas of all time', even though that's not what the statement is necessarily saying, it could easily be read that way and I think that's why it's caused so much controversy. The updated statement clears everything up. I do admit that this edit request has been a little more involved and time-consuming than I had originally anticipated! I had signed up before this though.) Hutchski (talk) 14:12, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Hmm it seems user RolandR will initiate an edit war for any changes, despite any agreed change, and ignore this talk page...note sent to admin.Patriot1010 (talk) 14:22, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
I wouldn't be so quick to assume there was consensus as yet. To date, six editors have commented, which is a tiny proportion of those who have edited the page and have an interest in it. Three votes to eliminate the statement (one with no particular policy-based reasoning), three votes to keep it, and three comments that Archivingcontext's reworded statement would be acceptable. While that's progress, it's not even close to a consensus, and this discussion hasn't been going on very long at all. I feel it would be best to remember WP:Deadline, and keep talking about it until we get to a real consensus, rather than edit-warring over something so inconsequential. Kate (talk) 14:33, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Indeed, it appeared as an RFC for deletion, with no consensus on deletion - but decent participation and discussion, a fairly painless consensus through editing resulting in rewording and no activity for a few days which usually is adequate for something trivial.Patriot1010 (talk) 15:17, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Edit Consensus From what I've read, it appears we have gone from 3 remove against 3 retain, to 5 agreeing to compromise on an edit (Myself, Patriot1010, Kate, Archivingcontext and GabeMc), with only 1 remove (Zaminamina) and 1 retain (RolandR) left, of which neither have commented on the proposed edit. So far no one has actively disagreed with the proposed edit "Marx's work in economics laid the basis for our understanding of labor and its relation to capital, and has influenced much of subsequent economic thought.". So surely it is now appropriate to update the statement on the article, as there is so far a consensus around the new statement compared to a dispute over the status quo which is supported by fewer people? If there is disagreement on the new edited statement by other contributors then the debate can continue, but in the meantime surely the statement with most broad support should be written in the article? Hutchski (talk) 11:30, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
EDIT: Whew, thought we lost user Zaminamina, s/he is just called LiquidWater now and there is a normal redirection. Patriot1010 (talk) 22:04, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
You forgot the Muppets Patriot1010 (talk) 07:01, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Support proposed copy edit as it supplies the reasons why Marx is considered to be important to economics. John Carter (talk) 15:46, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I uh can't see it in the article ._. MIVP - (Can I Help?) (Maybe a bit of tea for thought?) 12:37, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Change "greatest" to "most influential" because his inability to see that an oligarchy formed from 100% property taxation has all the problems of a plutocracy only moreso, including breakdown in means of supply and distribution because of the lack of self-organizing market behaviors, clearly qualifies him as one of the worst economists in many people's opinion including mine. EllenCT (talk) 02:27, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep. Whereas I personally have nothing against "most influential", the sources say "one of the greatest economist". Please, stick with what the sources say. These sources, without any doubts, are mainstream reliable secondary sources, so we have no reason to question the opinion of their authors. Whether Marx predictions were correct or wrong is absolutely irrelevant to this discussion: until the evidences are provided that these sources reflect minority views or are unreliable, we cannot arbitrarily decide what these sources should say in our opinion. If the sources cited here say "greatest", we should use this word, if someone dislikes this word, they may try to find more reliable and more mainstream sources that say otherwise (which would hardly be an easy task, because the sources used here are really good). Let me add to that that local consensus has no precedence over our V policy.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Change to most important/influential. Greatest is a weasel word, and simply doesn't comply with NPOV. 069952497aComments and complaintsStuff I've done 21:07, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

  • I believe it's broken these rules as quoted from Wikipedia:

"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. Such controversial and contested statements should not be stated as fact.

While it could be edited, there is already another similar statement at the end of the lead:

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

While I also think this itself should be edited to specify the BBC online poll it refers to, as well as the specific position in the top 100 that Michael H. Hart lists him, either way this already describes him as an influential figure and therefore 2 similar statements in the opening paragraph seems unnecessary. Hutchski (talk) 09:25, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

It has been stated in the discussion prior to the RFC that "consensus was reached" to leave this item in, and if one looks at the archive this is hardly the case, the previous discussion is progressing the same as that one - an editor discusses concern that this statement is NPOV with a single editor in favor of it, engaging in WP:Game by fillibuster. This appears to be a repeat. To make a claim that any idividual is "one of the greatest" is inherently subjective and does not pass the NPOV test, no matter the "cited work.."Patriot1010 (talk) 18:49, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
I disagree with your assessment of the previous discussion. To my reading, it appears that two editors wished to remove this formulation, while four argued that it should remain. Further, Wikipedia is not claiming, and noone is arguing that it should claim, that Marx was "one of the greatest economists". Rather, we are stating, with citations, that he is so considered, by reliable (non-Marxist) writers and economists. RolandR (talk) 18:55, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
To my reading, the claim is contested, there was some discussion on possible sources, apparently credible, then a dispute resolution between you and another individual where you state "I have no interest in discussing this with this user, who has made a total of twelve edits to Wikipedia, half of which consist of hostile soap-boxing on the article talk page. As far as I am concerned, there is no dispute and nothing to discuss"Source, in addition there is a tie between those pro and against removal (not that WP:CON by vote is consensus anyway). As far as the calim of "reliable (non-Marxist) writers and economists" support this statement is amazing, since the citations are a Marxist Sociology Professor, an economist who blasted Marx , an economist that was quite tepid on Marx(and admittedly the most neutral of the bunch) and last but far from least, we finally have the "Source" of the "Undisputable claim:" a UK tabloid article quoting a politician. I mean come on. This is why there are commentators stating this item in the lead is "laughable." ..Now I will concede and would agree as indisputable is that Marx influenced the greatest economists of the classical and modern era.
So, perhaps this phrase would be more suitable, and credible: "He influenced the greatest economists of the classical and modern era."[1] - and note an additional reference which refutes the claim Marx was a "great economist" from a highly respected international journal called the Economist. Perhaps you have heard of it?Patriot1010 (talk) 04:08, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to respond to the points made by Kate and RolandR. Regarding the sources I wouldn't say that they're particularly diverse, the article in the Daily Mail was written by Vince Cable (a social democrat politician, not exactly a prominent economist), not a Daily Mail editor. And even he lists Adam Smith as number 1, yet there is no statement like this on Adam Smiths Wikipedia page. The rest of the sources are all people whose views were influenced by Marx, there are no prominent capitalist economists cited as supporting this statement. And there are no official polls or studies cited which show broad support, merely individuals who cannot represent a majority thought which this statement implies. Even so, it still indisputably breaks the rules I mentioned and quoted, this statement should specify exactly who considers him one of the greatest economists. Why does it not state for example 'Joseph Schumpeter and Vince Cable consider him to be one of the greatest economists of all time'? And even then, a statement like that is not really appropriate in an opening paragraph, it should be put into a section such as 'Legacy' and have a counter view to show balance. As you can see this statement is inappropriate for many reasons and any one of them should be grounds for removal. Hutchski (talk) 19:59, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

None of these sources is a Marxist sympathiser. Vince Cable is currently the Business Secretary in the Conservative-led British cabinet, not in any way a socialist, let alone a Marxist. Joseph Schumpeter was Austrian Finance Minister, Roberto Mangabeira Unger was Brazilian Minister of Strategic Affairs. Of course these are capitalist economists. RolandR (talk) 20:35, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Would you not agree that they are all social democrats who support a particular viewpoint? Maybe the request to cite capitalist economists would be better phrased as citing some classical liberal economists as I appreciate they are all technically capitalists. My point is that all 4 sources represent people with a similar viewpoint and are not diverse (Vince Cable is a Liberal Democrat, his role in a coalition goverment doesn't change that at all). In any case, the sources are just one issue, my main issue is with the terminology and the fact that this statement uses weasel words which are against the rules, the statement itself does not refer to the sources in any way but it implies a generally accepted opinion of many, when in actual fact it is only refering to 4 people. Hutchski (talk) 20:58, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
The fact that only four sources are cited in the article does not mean that there are no others. We could add, for instance, the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco[6], Mark Skousen[7], Robert Heilbroner and Lester Thurow[8], Steven Pressman[9], Fernand Braudel[10], Paul Samuelson[11] and even The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Economics[12]. And there are countless more; do you want me to fill the whole page with citations? RolandR (talk) 21:40, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Please, no more Marxists, and UK tabloids. And no a reference to a wiki page on a San Francisco bank does not claim "Marx was one of the greatest economists" "The real power he claimed for his system was predictive, and his main predictions are hopeless failures... He rightly underlined the importance of economic cycles (though his accounts of their causes and consequences were wrong)." - note the highly respected International Economics Journal that is from RolandR - and there are countless more. As Kate and Archivingcontex and GabeMC stated - one thing that could be changed and be credible is the Marx influenced economists. But that's about it. Patriot1010 (talk) 04:21, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
No, I'm saying that the sentence should refer specifically to the sources and not make such a broad statement. A number of those sources also don't refer specifically to greatness but to influence which are entirely different as one implies success and admiration while the other just implies impact and influence for better or worse. That's another reason such general statements shouldn't be made as not all of the sources may be supporting exactly the same statement. You still have not countered the argument that this statement is a prime example of using weasel words to support a viewpoint without refering specifically to the sources. Let me repeat the rule it clearly breaks:
"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."[13]
"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.""[14] Hutchski (talk) 22:32, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Summary of Reaching Consensus though Editing WP:EDITCONCENSUS so far

After an edit request (See Edit request on 5 March 2013) lengthy discussion, an RFC was made to address the contentious comment "He is also considered one of the greatest economists of all time"

After some additional discussion and input from editors, the reaching consensus through editing process a compromise, or "attempt to find a generally acceptable solution" was found to change the aforementioned contentious sentence with this sentence, (keeping the existing sources):

"Marx's work in economics laid the basis for our understanding of labor and its relation to capital, and has influenced much of subsequent economic thought."

Following the generally accepted reaching consensus through editing process, (WP:EDITCONCENSUS) the article was edited with the generally acceptable edit, then reverted by another editor with the edit summaryWP:EDSUM: "As noted at the Talk page, there is no consensus for this edit. Please leave the text as it is until we have agreed a change" (Which is clearly BRD aka WP:SQS) since the editor refused participation - but what does that matter?), and even though a change was agreed on, and the revert edit summary stated exactly what should be avoided according to WP:REVTALK (Avoid using edit summaries to carry on debates or negotiation over the content), we are at the "seek a compromise/reach new consensus" stage again in the process.WP:EDITCONCENSUS Editors are encourage to edit the previously generally acceptable solution to make it less contentious and/or acceptable for the betterment of the article.

The RFC will close April 11th, 2013 unless the editors wish to keep it open - as per (WP:RFC)Patriot1010 (talk) 19:01, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I would strongly suggest that formal closure by an uninvolved party should be pursued, given the contestation of the subject matter. I would also suggest that if there is a change being made, it is clearly a sign that there is not yet a consensus. Again, we are not under a deadline, and it's clear that consensus has not yet been reached, so there is no reason to make this statement as yet. If everyone could consult WP:RFC and refresh their memories on what is supposed to happen here, that would be good, because that doesn't seem to be happening. Kate (talk) 19:52, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
So are you still requesting formal closure Kate? That would he highly unusual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patriot1010 (talk • contribs) 16:58, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Just to clarify, this section was made to document the reaching consensus through editing process which just occurred, if everyone could please consult WP:EDITCONCENSUS and refresh their memories on what is supposed to happen here, that would be good (there is a diagram also), because that is what is happening. No deadline has been expressed or implied, simply an iteration of a generally accepted practice, and formal closing is not included in this process at this time.Patriot1010 (talk) 21:11, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
It is worth noting that as per WP:CONSENSUS, consensus does not have to be absolute. Nevertheless, it seems reasonable to me to let the RfC run its full term, and request closing it at the administrators' noticeboard at the end of the regular term. John Carter (talk) 15:46, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
I think that the idea that Marx "laid the basis for our understanding of labor and its relation to capital" is still off. There are a lot of people who don't buy that "basis". The line "influenced much of subsequent economic thought" is a bit weaselish and almost begs for a "which" tag, although I'm not too concerned about that. I suspect the idea that Marx totally missed the implications of the marginal theory of value won't get in the first paragraph (I'm not seriously suggesting this by the way). JASpencer (talk) 22:04, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Agree with JASpencer's first comment above. "laid the basis for our understanding" is far too strong. Whilst few economists would question the idea that Marx directly and indirectly influenced their thought (even if only as a theory to pull apart), I don't think you'll find many that agree with the implication their understanding of capital and labour was based on his writing. I think "Marx's analysis of labor and its relation to capital was a major influence on subsequent economic thought" is more accurate, as well as having the virtue of brevity.Dtellett (talk) 23:58, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Again, if the sources say "greatest", please, stick with what they say. In addition, not only did Marx's "ideas played a significant role in the establishment of the social sciences and the development of the socialist movement", he, along with Popper is a father of contemporary sociology. Why doesn't this article say that clearly? --Paul Siebert (talk) 05:02, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Non sequitur

"Disapproving of his son's drunken behaviour, Marx's father died in May 1838, resulting in a diminished income for the family."

there has to be a better phrasing to describe the separate (unless otherwise indicated) phenomena of the father's disapproval and subsequent death. Asdf98761 (talk) 03:40, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

FYI: Marx's Jewishness

I think this is handled veyr well in the article, but for the record I am noting that he was Jewish according to Jewish religious law because his mother was Jewish and Christian according to Christian religious precepts because he was baptised. Telaviv1 (talk) 12:06, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Cite refs

Had a dabble but I'm only really familiar with sfn's.Keith-264 (talk) 16:53, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 14 March 2013

Dates and places for when Karl Marx met Friedrich Engels differ on each persons individual entry.

From Engels' page: "In 1842, the 22-year-old Engels was sent by his parents to Manchester, England, to work for the "Ermen and Engels' Victoria Mill" in Weaste which made sewing threads.[13][14][15] Engels' father thought that working at the Manchester firm might make Engels reconsider the opinions he had developed.[8][14] On his way to Manchester, Engels visited the office of the Rheinische Zeitung and met Karl Marx for the first time. They were not impressed with each other.[16]

From Marx's page: "On 28 August 1844, Marx met German socialist Friedrich Engels at the Café de la Régence, beginning a lifelong friendship.[65]"

I'm no expert, but one of these must be wrong. 86.172.109.10 (talk) 11:33, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

You bring up a good point; however, the {{edit semi-protected}} tag is only to be used when you have a specific "change X to Y" request. I have closed the edit request; however, please do not interpret my action as a closure of this discussion. If you get no response to your question here, please consider soliciting help from one of the WikiProjects identified at the top of this talk page. Thanks, —KuyaBriBriTalk 14:46, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

The account of both meetings is correct as all standard biogs show. What is wrong is that this Marx page does not say the Paris meeting was the second one. Someone needs to edit that in.Alf Heben (talk) 22:19, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

labour theory of value

It is incorrect to say Marx adopted the labour theory of value under the influence of Hodgskin. All standard biographies state that he adopted it under the influence of Adam Smith and David Ricardo, both of whom he read long before he came across Hodgkin. Where he does refer to the latter in his Theories of surplus value it is to criticise him for failing to explain surplus value on the basis of the labour theory, something Marx himself took pride in accomplishing. Please can someone delete this Hodgskin reference.Alf Heben (talk) 22:32, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Have we gone through Richard Wurmbrand's opinion before?

Currently there is a conflict in Chinese wikipedia about whether Richard Wurmbrand's view that Karl Marx is a satanist should be included in the article. I see that the English article doesn't include one. I wonder if anyone had discussed this issue before so I can know more about this issue.--Inspector (talk) 04:17, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I would be surprised if this had ever been considered seriously here. It is such a ridiculous statement to make. Ungodly, yes, diabolical even if you were coming from a strong anti-communist perspective. But no, he wasn't a satanist. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:07, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Since few sources mention his views, they are probably best ignored in this short article. TFD (talk) 18:58, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Not a surprise that I might find a limited range of arguments when few people has replied. Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2013 April 16#How should ideas be considered “significant minority views” as in WP:RS?. Anyway I just don't want to get involved in this war.--Inspector (talk) 07:55, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
This is not a significant minority view. Also, it is not our business to discuss what should or shouldn't be in the Chinese Wikipedia. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:50, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Not a Prussian

In view of the associations of the term Prussian, it is very misleading for this article to start by calling Marx "Prussian-German", just as it is lower down to refer to his wife's family as Prussian. Correct in both cases is "Rhenish". It is true, as the article goes on to say later, that the Rhineland was ruled at that period from Prussia but that does not make Marx Prussian, any more than the fact Wales was ruled from England for centuries makes the Welsh English. Please can someone delete Prussian, or replace with Rhenish.Alf Heben (talk) 22:47, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to carry out the edits yourself; for adding the "Rhenish" a reference would be needed, per WP:V. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:49, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Mistake on Marx's fiancee

Jenny von Westphalen is termed here a "baroness". This is a mistake of both usage and fact. In English the daughter of a Baron is not called a baroness but the right honourable (see Wiki on Baron). It is true the German term for Baron, namely Frieherr, does qualify the daughter as Freierin and it would have to be translated as baroness but here there is no question of translation so this misleading term should be avoided and replaced by "aristocrat". As to fact: the presumption here is that Jenny's father, Ludwig, was a Baron. He most definitely was not. How has this mistake arisen? Probably by a confusion arising from his possession of the noble particle "von". Reference to Wiki on this shows that large numbers of nobles carrying this particle as part of their names were not titled at all. The first thing that alerted me to this mistake is that when Marx wrote an effusive dedication for his doctoral dissertation to von Westphalen, he did not address him as Freiherr which he most certainly would have done had he been a Baron. Turning to Ludwig's Wiki entry we find the claim that his father Philipp was made a Baron in recognition of his services in the Seven Years War. But this entry is not written by a German Historian but by a Marxist who gives as his authority the English translation of Mehring's book on Marx! But Mehring does NOT say that Philipp was made a Baron (so this article too needs correction). So what was Philipp's reward. Turn to the German Biography (http://de.wikisource.org/wiki/ADB:Westphalen,_Philipp_von) and we see he was created "Edler von Westphalen". The Wiki entry on Edler informs us this is the lowest possible rank, below that of hereditary Knight (=baronet), whereas of course a Baron is above a knight. The literal translation is "noble" but Wiki says it is no longer translated but treated as part of the name. Conclusions 1. Please delete "baroness" someone. 2. Please someone rewrite Ludwig's own entry in accordance with the above. Alf Heben (talk) 20:56, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

That's a well reasoned argument. Why don't you do those changes? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:46, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Not well researched enough! I think I have now discovered the origin of the legend. None other than Jenny herself. According to H. F. Peters Red Jenny (1986) p.xiii she had the following visiting card printed on arrival in England:"Mrs Karl Marx, née Baroness Jenny von Westphalen". One could excuse Jenny wishing to underline her nobility. However, not only does Peters not question this title he himself state on p 5 that Philipp Westphal was elevated to Baron von Westphalen. As far as I can see this must be incorrect because surely the German Wiki entry <Christian Heinrich Philipp (seit 1764) Edler von Westphalen> must be right, relying I assume on the Universal German Biography which says that on 23. Mai 1764 the Kaiser ennobled him mit dem Prädicate „Edler von Westphalen“. This is below a Knight (Ritter) and a Baron (Freiherr) as I said.Alf Heben (talk) 11:13, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 16 May 2013

78.60.141.229 (talk) 18:38, 16 May 2013 (UTC) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hdclcrRkc7g&t=14m28s

An unexplained link to a YouTube upload of a documentary apparently relating to the Soviet Union is not an 'edit request'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:48, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello there fellow editors. Having been an on-off contributor to this article for several years now, I have noticed a recent proliferation of space bars on the page; linking to Marxism, communism, socialism, and organized labour. By this reasoning, hypothetically we could also add space bars linking to philosophy, sociology, and economics too. But is this all getting a bit much ? In my subjective opinion, they are not aesthetically pleasing, and clog up the page. At the same time, I really don't see much value that they bring to this particular article; we already have linked words to these subjects. I am of the opinion that some – if not all – of these space bars should be removed. Any thoughts ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:01, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Saw this on my watch list and have to say was funny to see all the templates. Have removed a few that are duplicated at the bottom as footers.....see what others think. I also trimmed down the portals that were intruding into the refs rendering the ref columns coding useless.Moxy (talk) 07:03, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Good call. If we have to have any side bars, then Marxism is surely the most relevant. If we allow more, then we are simply opening the floodgates. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:28, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
I would suggest that we move the Marxism sidebar further down the page, aligning it with the "thought" section rather than the "early life" section. It would simply be more relevant there. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:29, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Okay, I've gone ahead and experimented with this, to see if it works better. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:28, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

insert blank space between these two words in the text of the article

"economystimulated" Remus Octavian Mocanu (talk) 06:06, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

no "criticism"-section here?!

Even worse, there seems to be no criticism at all in this article, even though his views let to the deaths of millions. Also, it's known he was a racist (see: http://www.zeit.de/1998/23/Karl_Marx_der_Visionaer_und_Rassist), yet, the article does not mention this. NPOVismymiddlename (talk) 12:23, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Criticism sections are signs of poor articles and should be avoided. There is no mention in the article about Jesus either that his followers killed millions of people and the 911 attacks and that critics have claimed he was a racist. TFD (talk) 15:52, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
"his views let to the deaths of millions..."
Please. Trying to tie Marx to the mass murder of Stalin and Mao is... Well, let's leave it there and keep the discussion polite. LudicrousTripe (talk) 18:19, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

CANNOT EDIT ARTICLE

Why is it not possible to edit this article?? If there is a good reason for locking the article page down, please make a PROMINENT note of it. If not... then why is it un-editiable? TreebeardTheEnt (talk) 02:25, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Here is the entry in the protection log: "10:36, 13 June 2013 NawlinWiki (talk contribs block) changed protection level of Karl Marx‎ ‎[edit=autoconfirmed] (expires 10:36, 13 December 2013 (UTC)) ‎... (Persistent sock puppetry)". You are a new editor. You will become autoconfirmed in a few more days and then you will be able to edit through the semiprotection. EdJohnston (talk) 02:35, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Marx from the Bible, "From each according to..." Acts 4:34-35

It'd be interesting for this to be noted parenthetically that this was taken directly or indirectly [I heard directly since KM read the Bible] from the Bible:

Acts 4:34-35 "In fact, there was not one who was in need, for all those who possessed many things would sell some and the money be laid at the feet of the apostles.

"In turn, distribution was made by them to each according to his need." 74.60.161.158 (talk) 00:52, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

to include this, we'd need to be able to cite a reliable source stating that Marx took this from the Bible - see our policy on original research. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:37, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Marx in Soho

I could not find a reference to Howard Zinn's one-person play Marx in Soho (1999), which is a wonderful portrayal of the personal life of Marx during his later life living in London. Could this be included in the works about Marx in the article? There's a YouTube clip of Brian P. Jones performing this play in Santa Fe, New Mexico in 2012. I won't include the URL here, but it's easy to find. --Saukkomies talk 18:10, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

non-neutral 'Marx's work in economics laid the basis for the current understanding of labour and its relation to capital'

"Marx's work in economics laid the basis for the current understanding of labor and its relation to capital" should be rephrased as "Marx's work in economics laid the basis for some current theories of labor and its relation to capital"

Stating that his work is the basis for the 'current understanding' implies strongly that ALL modern theories rely upon his work. This should be changed for the sake of Neutral point of view. https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_viewSilhouette568 (talk) 18:01, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Seems neutral to me. Do you have any sources that contradict it? TFD (talk) 18:48, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Capitalism http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/History_of_capitalist_theory
It might be helpful to point to a specific person who holds views that are in contrast to Karl Marx's views. I would submit Milton Friedman who believed that the relation of labor and capital was based on Voluntary Cooperation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LS82SQASgTI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPyoEbU_wc4 Milton Friedman expresses a view that is held by much of the Republican party in the United States of America. These views are formed from the works of Adam Smith (http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Adam_Smith) specifically The Wealth of Nations (http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/The_Wealth_of_Nations) and are often said to be in conflict with the views of Karl Marx. Silhouette568 (talk) 06:24, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
How is "voluntary cooperation" contrary to what Marx wrote? TFD (talk) 12:57, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
In what terms is Marx the basis of our understanding? In Neoclassical economics and Keynesian economics he is ignored - the foundations there are based on individualism and an updated form of marginalism. However in economic sociology Marx's work can have a claim as forming a basis on which subsequent thinkers and theorsits built on - including Max Weber, Arlie Russell Hochschild and Pierre Bourdieu. In a sense you are both right. What you are looking is not how much Marx influenced subsequent thinking, but which subsequent thinking he influenced. It would read better as "Marx's work in economics laid the basis for the current sociological/socio-economic understanding of labor and its relation to capital", or something along these lines. --Tco03displays (talk) 00:21, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Labor works for capital in return for pay. TFD (talk) 01:01, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
In Marxian terms, labor (that is the proletariat in a capitalist mode of production), produces surplus-value, a fraction of which is returned to him/her as a wage while the rest is accumulated by the bourgeois (capitalist), giving him/her his/her wealth. It is NOT what you are describing, and this view is not included in neoclassical and Keynesian economics. What you are describing comes from the theories of Adam Smith, a thinker who pre-dates Marx and was an influence on him.--Tco03displays (talk) 01:33, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
While Marx accepted Smith's classical liberal labor theory of value, he said that labor works for capital in return for pay. I do not think that economists have rejected that theory or his description of it as capitalism. I suggest you re-read a book by your favorite Austrian economist and see what he says about Marx's influence. TFD (talk) 04:13, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
I did read the first volume of Das Kapital, and the more I talk with you, the more I think you haven't. This is going nowhere.--Tco03displays (talk) 10:44, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

For what its worth I feel obligated to state agreement with Tco03 on this matter. Marxist theories of labor, while still popular in many ways, do not form the foundation for modern understanding as expressed by the Austrian or Chicago schools, nor does Marx's thoughts on the matter serve as a sort of global underpinning for modern understandings. Please note I am not making a judgment as to which view is correct. This is obviously a very contentious issue. In order to maintain the most informative possible article I think it may be necessary to explain a bit of the controversy in article. I would hate to see the article continuously defaced or something similar. Jaydubya93 (talk) 17:17, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

The article does not say that modern writers accept the labor theory of value which in any case was not created by Marx but appears in Smith and Ricardo and formed part of the classical liberal ideology. The relationship between workers and capital is that workers work in return for pay. Can you tell me which modern economists reject that view? TFD (talk) 17:28, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
If all Marx meant is that "workers work in return for pay," then his view on the relation between labor and capital would be banal. It's unlikely that other economists would be influenced by a platitude. I doubt that's the claim the sources the contested sentence is attributed to have in mind.2601:B:C580:F45:226:6CFF:FE2E:33D (talk) 16:57, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
It is only banal because it is generally accepted today. But in pre-capitalist society, there was a relationship of lord and master and people were obligated to work. A person's occupation was his "calling", i.e., what called had called him to do. Marx saw that human relationships had changed and called the new system "capitalism." TFD (talk) 19:19, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

The Jewish Question

The article strays quickly away from his foundations. He was Jewish from birth to death yet there's little that perpetuates this. I believe in order for anyone to understand Marx, the following quotes should be entered (by him); The Jew has emancipated himself in a Jewish manner not only by gaining financial power, but because through him and without him money has become a world power and the practical Jewish spirit has become the practical spirit of the Christian nations. The self-emancipation of the Jews has gone so far that the Christians have become Jews. Yes, the practical dominion of Judaism over the Christian world has reached its normal, unambiguous expression in North America." - "We recognize therefore in Judaism a generally present anti-social element which has been raised to its present peak by historical development, in which the Jews eagerly assisted, and now it has of necessity to dissolve itself. In its final meaning the emancipation of the Jews is the emancipation of humanity from Judaism." - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.238.24.223 (talk) 17:15, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Marx was not "Jewish from birth to death"; he was baptised at the age of six, and later disavowed any religious belief or faith. Thde quotes you mention, from On the Jewish Question, should certainly not be included without contextualising them and showing their role in the development of Marx's critical thinking. And this is how they are treated in the article on that work. To simply add them to this article, without any explanation, would serve no purpose except to imply (falsely) that Marx was an antisemite. Looking at the few other contributions from this IP, I'm afraid I find it difficult to assume good faith in their editing related to Jews> RolandR (talk) 00:00, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

- The quotes should be added in because it demonstrates what was truly priority in his writings. He may not have been religious, but he certainly saw himself as Jewish, to denote him as simply German is a lie, and degrading to the man himself. He often connected his views on Judaism with Communism, this is a another fact, I can drop more quotes directly from his works pertaining but let's work one at a time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.101.238.5 (talk) 00:41, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Who says it was a 'priority'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:10, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
In this brief article, we provide weight to various acts and writings of Marx according to the weight they are normally assigned in books about him. I notice for example that in the fourth edition of Karl Marx: His Life and Environment, Isaiah Berlin briefly mentions the essay on p. 73.[15] Can you provide any biographies of Marx that provide the same emphasis you think it deserves? TFD (talk) 02:01, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

russia being socialist

russia is at best a state capitalist country the revolution of 1917 saw the end of feudalism and the beginnings of capitalism in russia.The revolution of 1917 followed previous revolutions in england,france,germany etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.100.165.121 (talk) 16:37, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

See WP:NOTFORUM AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:46, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Why? What he said is relevant. This article names the USSR and China as socialist states, even though it is disputed whether they truly were or not (in any form and to any degree, in any stage or time). Many groups and sources describe them as state capitalist. Zozs (talk) 01:25, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Zozs has removed the word 'socialist' from the following sentence "Revolutionary governments self-described as socialist and Marxist took power in a variety of countries in the 20th century, leading to the formation of such socialist states as the Soviet Union in 1922 and the People's Republic of China in 1949." without an edit summary. I reverted the edit, reinserting the word 'socialist'. Zozs has again removed the word 'socialist'.
Wikipedia is not a place for political discussion, this should really be a discussion of how reliable sources have described the founding of the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China, and a chance to consider WP:BRD: Boldly make an edit, the edit is Revrted, Discuss the edit]]. This does not mean Zozs should replace the challenged edit: removing 'socialist'. - Neonorange (talk) 02:47, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
"USSR was socialist" is disputed by reliable sources, "USSR was self-described as socialist" is unquestionable.
Sources: 1 2 3 4 5 6 6 7, "State Capitalism versus Communism: What Happened in the USSR and the PRC?" Zozs (talk) 04:23, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Please take to heart WP:NOTAFORUM. You have listed seven sources that are entire articles, amounting to tens of thousands of words. Many of these sources come from secretarian debates within the US New Communist Movement in the 80s, WP:TLDNR. Well, I did read, but my conclusion is that the sentence you repeatedly revised, "Revolutionary governments self-described as socialist and Marxist took power in a variety of countries in the 20th century, leading to the formation of such socialist states as the Soviet Union in 1922 and the People's Republic of China in 1949." is as fair a judgment as we can devise from reliable sources. The key phrase leading to the formation of such socialist states as the Soviet Union in 1922 and the People's Republic of China in 1949. isn't negated by subsequent changes, such as the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, but it is also and encyclopedia that develops by consensus. It is not a study group, nor a place to push a political line. - Neonorange (talk) 16:15, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
That's my very point. IT'S NOT THE JOB OF THE "KARL MARX" ARTICLE TO PUSH THE VIEW THAT THE USSR ACHIEVED SOCIALISM. It is COMPLETELY USELESS, and anyway it can be DONE IN COMPLETELY NEUTRAL TERMS. I am not pushing any view here. I am pushing that it is either removed (not very relevant for this article, it is debatable how much these states followed Marxism anyway, in any case even less relevant to Karl as a person) or it is wrote as "they described themselves as socialist" which is completely neutral and could not give any sort of problem. Zozs (talk) 16:22, 2 June 2014 (UTC

This is Wikipedia; a collaborative process that includes editors from the entire political spectrum. It shouldn't work; yet somehow it does.WP:CONSENSUS evidently works. Otherwise this discussion could not take place. Don't expect to win a political argument here. In other words, don't be an idealist, attempting to cut articles to fit your worldview (whatever that may be). Wikipedia is not what any editor thinks, but a balanced use of reliable sources. - Neonorange (talk) 00:45, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

The text did not say these states were socialist, but that they self-described as socialist. Rather than be pedantic, we then refer to them as socialist states. In the same way when writing about U.S. conservatives we would explain that they self-describe as conservatives, explain why some/most sources reject the description, then call them conservatives in the article. TFD (talk) 01:16, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
A fair answer, economical and clear; works for me! Thanks. - Neonorange (talk) 01:31, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
A masterful use of non-arguments when faced with logic, Neonorange. I am not arguing that my view should be the one used or having a political discussion here but rather than it would be best to not attempt to use the "Karl Marx" article to give an opinion about whether the USSR was actually socialist or not. Additionally I am also argumenting that this also would be the best option according to Wikipedia policy. Understand? Zozs (talk) 19:37, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
It would not be according to Wikipedia policy. It would be privileging your own idiosyncratic viewpoint in violation of NPOV.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:44, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
That's your opinion without any arguments. I can claim that the current version is doing the same thing. You should stop checking my edit history and trying to sabotage everything I do when you have no knowledge about the topic at hand, buddy. Zozs (talk) 21:23, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
No, my statement above is exactly that - an argument. As is that of Neonorange. You're just dismissing everything that anyone - and that's quite a handful of people - says to you by saying "that's just your opinion". That's not the case. You have a particular POV. And no reliable sources to support it. The text in the article is supported by sources. Hence, your view does not represent sources and including it just because you want us to would be a violation of NPOV. At the same time you claim that you "have knowledge of the topic" but others don't. Just because you say so. That's not how it works.
And I'm not your buddy, pal.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:36, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Why should the Karl Marx article deal with whether the USSR was socialist or not, and what sources are being used in order to do so, товарищ? Zozs (talk) 21:48, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Because it was the largest and most notable state which referred to itself, and which was referred to by others as socialist, and which was based on (modified) Marxist philosophy. Which is sort of stating the obvious seeing as how CCCP has the word "socialist" in it. As for sources, again, this is so trivial and obvious that it's hard to consider your question in good faith [16].
And drop the obnoxious forms of address please.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:03, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
So since the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea) has the word "Democratic" on it, it should be referred to as a "democratic state"? Nice logic, buddy. I'm not convinced by your so-called arguments. As admitted by other articles on Wikipedia it's hotly debated whether the USSR was actually "socialist" or not. And Marxism-Leninism (the ideology of the USSR) is not Marxism but rather something completely different. Of course since it has the word "Marxism" on it it must have correctly followed Marxism, right? Ridiculous. I stand by my arguments, which have only been replied to with non-logic and non-sense. This isn't about my personal beliefs, this is about Karl Marx's article shouldn't be used to push a personal view (or shared by however many sources, which are however in contradiction of other sources) that the USSR achieved "Socialism". Zozs (talk) 16:31, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Socialistic is an adjective to many things, some of them with nothing to do with neither Marx or URSS. Ruddah (talk) 16:44, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Socialism (according to all reliable sources) is a clearly defined concept which states that the management and ownership of the means of production should be in the hands of its workers or society. Something which obviously didn't exist in the Soviet Union. But this isn't about our personal views here. It's debated whether the USSR was "socialist" or not between reliable sources, so it shouldn't be called a "socialist state". Zozs (talk) 17:16, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Lead

Zozs, with the greatest respect, I suggest that it is not helpful to fill the lead of this article full of unnecessary praise of Marx. It is not in accord with WP:NPOV to make edits like this when the lead does not mention that many economists regard Marx's views as totally discredited. I am quite sure that Marx " is rated as one of the most highly valued economists" by some scholars, just as I'm sure there are certain other scholars who do not value Marx. It's a gross violation of WP:NPOV to try to turn the lead into a piece of pro-Marx puffery and to exclude all criticism of Marx. Plenty of criticism of Marx can be found from scholars and academics, eg [17]. ImprovingWiki (talk) 00:50, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

What's not neutral about it? "He is rated as one of the most highly valued economists by scholars" is a fact sourced by a survey of scholars published in a peer-reviewed journal, not an opinion. Which source says that he is not highly valued? At most, it can be re-worded. Would you say that the analogous (and also reliably sourced) "Lincoln has been consistently ranked both by scholars and the public as one of the greatest U.S. presidents." in Abraham Lincoln's article is wrong? Which source says that many economists regard Marx's views as totally discredited? If it can be sourced, then we should include that. I never tried to "exclude criticism of Marx". An opinion article from one person (associated with "Libertarianism") criticising certain views of Marx which does not talk about widespread opinion is no such source. Adam Smith has also been highly criticized in many of his views, and yet this is no reason to exclude the sentence "Smith is cited as the 'father of modern economics' and is still among the most influential thinkers in the field of economics today" in his article, which funnily enough uses the same source as I am using here! Zozs (talk) 00:58, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
It's quite easy to find sources, acceptable under Wikipedia policy, that contradict each other. Not surprisingly, that's especially true where controversial subjects are involved. A properly-written article would balance these sources, instead of presenting only one side of the issue, which seems to be what you are intent on doing. Suffice it to say that sources could be found that would say that Marx is considered discredited. Pleading ignorance of that does not help your case. Including favorable material about Marx while excluding other, critical views obviously isn't neutral, and is indeed very inappropriate. ImprovingWiki (talk) 01:13, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
I have yet to see a single such source. I have not excluded such a single view. If such a view is sourced, then it can be included. In fact, we could include both and they could contrast each other. If such a source is not presented then I'm adding the sentence back, subject to re-wording. Zozs (talk) 01:14, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Haven't you really? Is that because you are not looking for such sources and don't actually want to find them? "Many liberal economists believe that the Marxist labor theory of value has been discredited" says Labor theory of value, and it does have a source. ImprovingWiki (talk) 01:17, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Marx's labour theory of value being discredited by liberal economists (which implies a particular ideology of these economists, associated with free-market thought) does not mean that Marxism is discredited, and even if it was: as I said, many of Smith's ideas are discredited, yet he is still (rightly) regarded as one of the most important and valued economists. Marx is regarded as one of the most valued economists whether some of his ideas are discredited (again, debatable) or not. Zozs (talk) 01:24, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
The source actually says that he rated 5th among pre-20th century economists, with 15.7% of economists mentioning him as a favorite. Adam Smith was the only economist mentioned by more than 50% of respondents. Incidentally, the labor theory of value was part of Ricardo's classical economics (rated no. 2) but he got it from Smith. It was a view shared by economists until late in the 19th century when challenged by Menger (no. 12) and Jevons (no. 17). I do not know think the survey provides any useful information. Economists today do not read their 19th century predecessors except out of historical curiosity. Marx's major contribution to economics was creating concepts, such as "capitalism", that later writers would use. TFD (talk) 01:42, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
So being ranked by scholars as the 5th out of all economists who were born before 1901 is not being "rated as one of the most highly valued economists"? Zozs (talk) 01:50, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Zozs, you seem to have forgotten the purpose of this discussion. We are not trying to discuss whether Marxism is discredited or not. I have exactly zero interest in debating that subject with you. The point of the discussion was to try to consider how to write a neutral article. You asserted that it was neutral to add statements such as "Marx is rated as one of the most highly valued economists" to the lead of this article, when the lead contains no criticism of Marx. You based that on the claim that there are no sources that indicate that Marx's economic theories are considered discredited. I pointed out that such sources can be found. It's simply sophistry to assert that Marx's economic theories being considered discredited by some economists doesn't challenge the statement that Marx is regarded as one of the most-valued economists. ImprovingWiki (talk) 02:02, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

You found a source that says that Marx's labour theory of value is discredited by some economists and are using it to assert that he is not one of the "most highly valued economists" - this is original research. There's no reliable source which challenges that Marx is one of the most important and most highly valued economists. Zozs (talk) 02:03, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
No. I made no challenge to the claim that Marx is "one of the most highly valued economists." I simply pointed out that it violates WP:NPOV to add such praise of Marx to the lead while excluding all criticism. The statement you are trying to add to the lead is possibly technically true; it is also highly misleading, given the absence of criticism. ImprovingWiki (talk) 02:08, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
So we can add something like "Marx is one of the most highly valued economists, although he is considered [...] by [...]." As long as it is reliably sourced and based on sourced evaluations of widespread opinion. Zozs (talk) 02:13, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Can this be used instead to strengthen the Legacy section, which currently has some unsourced and very controversial statements (the swipe against Analytical Marxism) and the contention that relative autonomy is a dilution of Marx's views. The lead should summarise what is in the body of the article. Itsmejudith (talk) 06:34, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

There is no problem involved in adding material showing that Marx is regarded positively by some economists, social scientists, etc, so long as it is balanced by other material showing that there are other and more critical views of Marx. ImprovingWiki (talk) 02:35, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Karl Marx' name is "Karl Marx" and not Karl Heinrich Marx

please correct the name ---> see german wikipedia https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Marx#cite_note-1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.157.238.29 (talk) 17:38, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

 Done and translated footnote. Zozs (talk) 21:42, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Reminder: this page is about Marx not Marxism

Just a reminder. I noticed some good faith editors were not keeping this in mind Wikidgood (talk) 01:25, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

@Wikidgood: Good point; I am adding a notice box to the top of the page to say exactly that. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:18, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Marx's Ideas Killed over 100 million people, and Wikipedia's Liberal Bias

karl marx religion

why karl marx show in the section category of germans jews english jews and atheist jews.he converted to christianity when he was 6 he should be showen under the categroy christianity converted from judaism. -— Preceding unsigned comment added by .29.235.194 (talk • contribs) 18:21, 23 November

The current issue is not whether atheism is a religion - in my view it is clearly not a religion - but whether the words "Religion: None (Atheist)", as opposed to "Religion: None", imply that atheism is a religion. In my opinion they do not. Adding the word (Atheist) simply provides additional neutral information to readers as to the particular stance he adopted. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:17, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Criticism of Karl Marx

Walter Williams' scholarly opinion and direct quotes from Marx should not be covered up, don't you agree?Jimjilin (talk) 20:41, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Facile blanket statements sourced to a trivial article on a partisan website do not belong in an article of this significance and quality. There is a mass of scholarly work on Marx available, including extensive discussions of his 'antisemitic' and 'racist' statements which actually place them in context. If you feel that the article should cover this topic, do the research, find appropriate sources that actually discuss the matter rather than cherry-picking, and then come back with a concrete proposal for text that consists of more than name-calling. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:47, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Aren't you the one name-calling? You can call Williams' article trivial but that doesn't make the direct quotes go away. Is racism of trivial importance? You seem to be saying these ugly racist statements would be okay in "context"! This Wikipedia article is of such high "quality" that it fails to criticize Marx in any way. Maybe the article should discuss Marx and his hostility toward democracy and individual liberty or maybe the many dictators inspired by Marx.Jimjilin (talk) 21:29, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Maybe you should get off your soapbox and find appropriate sources - which is to say ones that actually discuss the subject in depth. Of course by 21st century standards Marx's statements may be considered offensive. They are hardly atypical of his time however, and any credible commentary is going to start with that premise - and then actually discuss how Marx's views on such subjects accorded with those of his time and how they fitted into his broader outlook. Our article, if it is to cover the topic, needs to do the same. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:52, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Maybe you should stop trivializing racism. By "discuss the subject in depth" I guess you mean pile up a lot of words that obscure the plain facts. You seem to be saying that because Marx wrote in the 1800s his racism should be excused and ignored! Are you really making such an absurd suggestion?Jimjilin (talk) 05:41, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Magazine articles from scholars like Williams are accepted throughout Wikipedia. Your objection is ridiculous. Anyway, I have another source: Weyl, Nathaniel, Karl Marx, racist (1979)Jimjilin (talk) 05:41, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

You do realise that Nathaniel Weyl was himself a supporter of segregation, and of the white minority regimes in southern Africa? AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:22, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Andy - Frontpagemag.com hardly has the weight for inclusion. Incidentally, the book was not called the Manifesto of the Communist Party, there was no Communist Party in 1848. You would need a source that portrayed Marx in the context of the times, and compared his views with other 19th century figures such as Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Lincoln, Robert E. Lee, Disraeli, Carlyle and Dickens. (He actually mentions Carlyle and Dickens although your edit did not.) Is there anything exceptional about his views in this regard? TFD (talk) 08:14, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Nathaniel Weyl also voted for Bill Clinton, that doesn't change the fact that Marx was a racist.Jimjilin (talk) 13:52, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

As The Four Deuces points out Carlyle and Dickens are mentioned in the article. Engels is also mentioned. So other 19th century figures are mentioned. Jimjilin (talk) 13:52, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I'll include: According to scholars Walter Williams and Nathaniel Weyl, Marx held racist views. [2][3]

I think I've answered the objections.Jimjilin (talk) 13:52, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

You will have to find better sources than these, and then to better make the case. The first source is an opinion blog on a site that also includes articles like "how to cure your approval addiction." The posting includes no citations and no sustained discussion of the matter. The second citation is incomplete. Furthermore, the case needs to be made, not just opined. It is not enough to say that some random dude wrote something on the internet accusing Marx of racism. This does not add to the page, it does not add to knowledge, nor our understanding of Marx. If you are adamant about this aspect of Marx, I encourage you to put your effort into doing more research on the matter. Archivingcontext (talk) 15:01, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
This cherry-picking from dubious sources may satisfy you, but not anyone else. It is clear that your edits have been opposed by at least four other editors, while not one has supported you. Yet you continue to add this disputed content. Please stop this disruptive editing, and collaborate with others in order to improve the article. RolandR (talk) 16:43, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Archivingcontext, the Williams article is not a blog. It is an article that directly quotes Marx written by an academic. Why do you say the second citation is incomplete?Jimjilin (talk) 16:50, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

RolandR, by "cherry-picking from dubious sources" do you mean quoting Marx's actual words? If you think I am cherry-picking please share quotes from Marx wherein he apologizes for his hateful bigotry.Jimjilin (talk) 17:06, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I wonder if I could sell an article about how Marxist tools at Wikipedia employ feeble excuses to cover up Marx's racism and love of tyranny.Jimjilin (talk) 17:06, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Could someone please tell me why my quote from Bakunin is being censored. Is any criticism of Marx permitted in this article? One would think that a man whose devotion to dishonesty and hatred of freedom inspired so many mass-murdering dictators would receive something less than groveling praise. Jimjilin (talk) 13:43, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

The quote does not fit. It comes out of nowhere and does not add anything to the article. It appears as a random quote by an anarchist. At issue here is not the criticism of Marx, but rather that it is not very well supported or articulated. There is substantial scholarship criticizing Marx, which has been drawn upon for this article. If you think that there is more to say, I encourage you to do so, but with better arguments and better resources. Archivingcontext (talk) 04:35, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Archivingcontext, Bakunin is an extremely important thinker and his opinion of Marx has great historical significance. Surely there must be someplace for this quote in an article that rambles at length about such world-shaking topics as Marx's 1841 trip to Bonn. Can the quote be placed in the section on Marxism? And by the way I enjoy the pretense that your objection is based on concern for quality rather than suppression of any criticism of Marx.Jimjilin (talk) 15:54, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Can you provide a source for your assertion that "Bakunin is an extremely important thinker and his opinion of Marx has great historical significance"? Who says so? I'm sure that some anarchists would like to argue this, but they are hardly the most significant faction in contemporary political thought. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:45, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
P.S. A little research (i.e. reading our article) would also reveal that Bakunin was an antisemite: "this whole Jewish world which constitutes a single exploiting sect, a sort of bloodsucker people, a collective parasite, voracious, organized in itself, not only across the frontiers of states but even across all the differences of political opinion—this world is presently, at least in great part, at the disposal of Marx on the one hand and of the Rothschilds on the other". If we are to include Bakunin's criticism of Marx, should we include this quotation? And if not, why not? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:55, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't even need to plow through all this to realize that Andy, in this instance, is providing a much - needed series of insightful observations which upset the facile trend in point. And often I find his objections to be overzealous. But for starters whenever I see a formulation along these lines: "ARTICLETOPIC AND -----" I suspect an agenda. Wikidgood (talk) 22:44, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Wehl's agenda was to show that the Communists (and liberals) did not have the best interests of the Negroes, that they were using them to destabilize the U.S. by telling them they were equal to white folks. TFD (talk) 05:06, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Andy the Grump, why does the article quote Eric Hobsbawm and Che Guevara praising Marx? Why not Bakunin or Giuseppe Mazzini criticizing Marx? Here's Mazzini describing Marx: “a destructive spirit whose heart was filled with hatred rather than love of mankind . . . extraordinarily sly, shifty and taciturn. Marx is very jealous of his authority as leader of the Party; against his political rivals and opponents he is vindictive and implacable; he does not rest until he has beaten them down; his overriding characteristic is boundless ambition and thirst for power. Despite the communist egalitarianism which he preaches he is the absolute ruler of his party; admittedly he does everything himself but he is also the only one to give orders and he tolerates no opposition". Could it possibly be that you want to exclude Bakunin or Mazzini only because they fail to praise Marx?? And by the way if you want to include Bakunin's Rothschilds quote as well that's fine.Jimjilin (talk) 11:53, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm so glad you brought up anti-Semitism. Here's Marx: What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money.…. Money is the jealous god of Israel, in face of which no other god may exist. Money degrades all the gods of man – and turns them into commodities…. The bill of exchange is the real god of the Jew. His god is only an illusory bill of exchange…. The chimerical nationality of the Jew is the nationality of the merchant, of the man of money in general.

I'll guess that you feel this quote is not of sufficient "quality" to be included in the article. It's after all only accurate and typical of Marx's attitude.Jimjilin (talk) 11:53, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Four Deuces, your mind-reading abilities aside, do you have any reason to believe the quotes are inaccurate?Jimjilin (talk) 11:53, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

From Wikipedia: Bakunin's enormous prestige as an activist made him one of the most famous ideologues in Europe, and he gained substantial influence among radicals throughout Russia and Europe.

quote: [Bakunin was] an important and influential political theorist http://www.akpress.org/bakuninphilosophyoffreedom.html

quote: [Bakunin was the] activist-founder of world anarchism https://libcom.org/library/bakunin-anarchy-selected-works-activist-founder-world-anarchism

If there are no other objections I'll add the quote from Bakunin. The existing article is in violation of Wikipedia rules. The article is a love note to Marx and censors the many voices that have criticized Marx.Jimjilin (talk) 02:04, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

There is no consensus here whatsoever to include the Bakunin quotation, and the fact that obscure anarchist websites consider him "an important and influential political theorist" is no justification whatsoever for inclusion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:11, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Jimjilin, the issue is not whether the quotes are correct, but what weight they hold in reliable sources. When I google the Bukanin's quote, I find only 0 sources use it, all of them U.S. right-wing non-reliable sources. (The only other hit is the text of Bukanin.s letter on the Marxists Internet Archive.)[18] IOW absolutely no notice has been taken of this criticism in rs, and therefore policy says we should also ignore it. TFD (talk) 02:43, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

The Marx-Bakunin conflict is significant.

quote: THE TEMPESTUOUS relation between Marx and Bakunin is a well known legacy of the history of western socialism. source: http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/bio/robertson-ann.htm

http://marxwords.blogspot.com/

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/bio/index.htm

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/subject/anarchism/index.htm

http://www.academia.edu/2928100/_Marx_Bakunin_and_Historical_Materialism_

http://www.socialist.net/marx-versus-bakunin-part-one.htm

Play about the subject: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/26/theater/26conn.html?%20Karl&pagewanted=all&_r=0Jimjilin (talk) 12:04, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump, absurd! The Bakunin-Marx conflict is discussed all over the internet.

Is this site unreliable and obscure: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/367265/Karl-Marx/35434/Role-in-the-First-InternationalJimjilin (talk) 12:04, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

The EB source discusses the differences between Bakunin and Marx - it doesn't cherry-pick a quote from Bakunin. If our article needs to expand on the Marx-Bakunin debate, fine, we can do so - but in a manner that actually tells the readers what the debate was about, and what the positions of the two were, rather than simply as an excuse to include out-of-context rhetoric. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:55, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump, you seem to feel the quote I included is not typical of Bakunin's attitude towards Marx and taken out of context. Why? I linked to Bakunin's article where the reader can see the quote in context.Jimjilin (talk) 13:50, 22 December 2014 (TC)

References

  1. ^ "Marx after Communism". The Economist. December 19th, 2002. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Check date values in: |date= (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link)
  2. ^ http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams062106.asp
  3. ^ Weyl, Nathaniel Karl Marx, Racist Arlington House (1979) p. 21
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Karl_Marx/Archive_11&oldid=1136866916"