Talk:Karl Marx/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

(untitled)

Hello fallow seekers after the truth. I was reading this article obviously and was compelled by something possibly Christ who knows to make some comments.

First comment of note that could possibly be deemed worthwhile is that the famous quote "Religion is the opium of the masses" which is the reductionists and populists/populizers most famous piece of grist to the mill has a context. As I was reading the passage it just occurred to me in a sort of "on the road to Damascus flash" that in all my educated (maybe then not all that educated after all) experience on this planet I or at least up to this moment hadn't been consciously aware that the quote actually has/had a definite context. Isn't it frighteningly spooky to always discover how a context and the real use and abuse of context really changes the whole state of affairs. Thus with this type of thinking in mind I would like to make a suggestion to the article and its evolution and expansion here.

Context has a pretext-those paragraphs which come before the quote and an afttext (after + text) or suftext (from the line of linguistic thinking of prefix suffix). Please bear with me its late and I can't think of the direct "mot just" terminology at the moment-perhaps someone could help me out.

What I am asking and suggest would be a good idea would be to supply to this article's use of the quote would be to supply it an afttext or suftext to give it that bit more womb for thought. I also think it would be in line with what i assume to be the articles mission statement education/dissemination/information/ant/ing about the life, ideas, works etc which is all really related, of Karl Marx.

Secondly and this is a post-modern, meta-historico-philosophical point that it occurs to me( not really knowing everything or pretending very badly and quite transparently to) that this tone or slant of this essay seems to me to be of the Eric Fromm very recently hypothesis 1990s definitely post 1989/1991 historical revisionism-trying to make Communism seem more friendly, less insane, relevant in the light of its abysmal failure and just generally trying very hard to make it sound good. Now don't get me wrong, I am not necessarily criticising this, its neither bad nor good, just opinion, I guess what i would like is an honest appraisal and admission that this is the case or a contradiction with rational discourse educating me to a contrary opinion. Go forth and writeiply.

question for Marx scholars

(question asked on Wikipedia:Reference desk by 212.9.13.102 (02:07, 20 Mar 2004))

would appreciate help to track down a comment Marx made in Capital where he said there comes a point beyond which the further politizisation of money becomes redundant. could really use this for an essay, but need to be able to reference it. can you pin-point it in Capital?

_____

I wonder if any Marx scholars can confirm or refute an urban myth for me. While working in the Library & Information unit of Dundee City Council in Scotland, a colleague suggested to me that Marx had intended to travel by rail from London to Aberdeen on December 28th 1879, until illness prevented him from making the journey. If this is true, it follows that he was spared the tragic death which befell those who did take that train, when the Tay Bridge at Dundee collapsed into the Firth. It sounds highly apocryphal, but the Marx scholars I have spoken to tell me that his diaries for the period neither confirm or deny the story... Adam Bisset 14th October 2004

Marx and Anti-Semitism

Anything on Marx and Anti-Semitism should also make reference to the arguments made in Hal Draper: Marx and the Economic-Jew Stereotype (1977)

As I read it, the article argues against labeling Marx an anti-Semite. I think the key question is, has any serious historian been able to sustain the charge of anti-Semitism? If not, I don't know that it is even worth discussing in the article. If you disagree, AH, and want to include a precis of Draper and McLellan's points, I certainly won't object, Slrubenstein
I had added something earlier, but it was removed. I was going to add this at a later date when I had some time but I have been distracted. To see more on charges of Marx's anti-semitsm read Marx's "The Jewish Quesiton". http://csf.colorado.edu/psn/marx/Archive/1844-JQ/ TDC 01:52, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I took it out, and explained why -- what you added were quotes out of context, with a misleading interpretation -- not at all what I say above, which is an invitation to include a resme of scholarly review on the matter. Your link simply goes to Marx's essays on the Jewish question -- which I have studied. It is a deconstruction of the Western discourse on "emancipation" and it is not anti-Semitic. Slrubenstein


Well, some might argue otherwise. I would also counter that the quotes were not out of contex considering the tone of the article, plus he had also written about the Jewery in several other pieces. Marx also had some shitty things to say about the Slavs. TDC 02:10, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Marx was a Jew... john 02:10, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Oh my God, I had absolutely no idea that Marx was a jew, with that Irish soundin name en all!! Well then, I suppose there is no way he could be anti-semetic then could he. TDC 02:41, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Well, the burden of proof should be higher to "prove" that a Jew is an anti-semite, shouldn't it? And "Marx" is certainly not an especially jewish name - it is a German name. Wilhelm Marx was a Catholic politician in Weimar Germany, for instance. john 02:43, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hmmm......

What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money.

But after all, he is Jewish and after all, there is no way that a Jew could be anti-semetic ......... Norman Finkelstein , Noam Chomsky, Uni AveryTDC 02:50, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)


Hmmmm....... am I on to a trend here? Are all anti-semeitc Jews also Marxists?

Hmmmm....... interesting ............ very interesting TDC 02:52, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)


Again, you're taking stuff out of context. Marx was certainly opposed to the Jewish religion because he was opposed to all religion. But beyond this, I think this is a ridiculous argument. As to Finkelstein and Chomsky, I think it's arguable that they are anti-semites, but, again, one should have pretty solid backing to make such a claim. I'm fairly certain we havan't reached that level with Marx. (BTW, my Irish-sounding name does hide the fact that I'm Jewish), john 02:53, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Like when Marx called Ferdinand Lassalle a "Juden Itzig [Jew-Nigger], in a personal letter he wrote to Engles. No anti-semitism here. Marxist have been trying to explain that little diddy for years. After all, if I called someon a Jew Nigger, leftists would be falling over each other to creatively interprite my remarks to let me off the hook. TDC 03:01, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps he meant it disparagingly in a general sense without intending a specifically anti-Semetic connotation, in a way analogous to how modern gangsta rappers will describe their enemies as "no-good niggers" or some such. Does this mean that black gangsta rappers are themselves all a bunch of anti-black racists because they call people 'nigger' in a bad way? Hardly. It's important not to read too much into things. Kwertii 09:04, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Kwerti, as I have said to others -- just ignore TDC. You can't have an intelligent discussion with him. He has never responded in a serious way to anyone's comments here or on other pages. I tell him he takes quotes out of context, and he says "no I don't" and procedes to provide quotes with no context. He simply doesn't know what context is and doesn't care. He says one can interpret the quote as anti-semitic, AH provided an article explaining why it isn't, and then TDC suggests the article supports his point. He doesn't even know how to read historical analysis. Don't bother feeding trolls. Slrubenstein

What AH did was provide me an article which was nothing more than a blubbering apology for Marx. And while I may not know how to properly read and comprehend revisionist historical analysis, I have no problem reading and comprehending.

How am I taking Marx’s words out of context. The standard argument exonerating Marx’s “The Jewish Question” is that Marx is calling for the end of the Jewish class.

No, that is not the standard argument.

This, as the argument goes, is in line with Marx’s principal of class elimination and emancipation in general. This argument holds about as much water as a fishing net. Had Marx simply stated that Jews must “emancipated” be for the same reason that Christians or Lutherans (or whatever), the charges of anti-Semitism would not be all that serious.

Had Marx made such an argument he simply would have been agreeing with Bauer; but he is critiquing Bauer's assumptions about freedom and emancipation.

But Marx makes the same allegations against Jews that all anti-semites do.

No, he is invoking the allegations anti-Semites make, in order to critique them.
Are we reading the same thing? Seriously? TDC 20:20, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

His continual emphasis on the atypical, hook nosed, money grubbing, huckstering Jew is the type of stereotype that is the bedrock found in all anti-Semitism though. Can anyone here honestly say that Marx is not painting Jews with the same money grubbing, gold fiending brush that Tom Metzger does? If you accept that Marx was correct about the need for Jewish “emancipation”

No, Marx is not arguing for Jewish emancipation. Not is he arguing that Jews should not be emancipated. Either view misses the point of the argument.

then was Marx also correct when describing what the wordy religion and worldly god of the Jews was?

What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money

Marx never wrote anything attacking other races or peoples comparable to his attacks on the Jews, except the Slavs perhaps.

If the world's Marxists would turn around and plunge their heads into the legacy of what they've wrought in trying to create a better world, they would instantly drown in an ocean of blood.TDC 18:56, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I will ask you once again: Was Marx correct when describing what the wordy religion and worldly god of the Jews was?

    What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money

Dont refer me to some washed up brain dead commie zombie from Berkley [Drapper], just answer the question. TDC 20:20, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

When Marx uses the word "Jew," he is not using it literally and is not refering to actual Jews, living or dead, nor is he referring to Judaism meaning the beliefs and practices of actual Jews. You misunderstand the text. Yes, we are reading the same document -- it is just that you do not know how to read. Slrubenstein
How silly of me! When Marx said Jew he must have meant what ……. dog, apricot, sissors, purple monkey dishwasher?
So Marx must be applying the term Jew to all mid 18th century purple monkey dishwashers and berating them with themes and charges oddly reminiscent in both tone and content to those applied to "Jew" (those actually of judeo-semetic ancestry as opposed to their doppelgangers in the purple monkey dishwasher community) for the past 1500 years.

Since in civil society the real nature of the Jew has been universally realized and secularized, civil society could not convince the Jew of the unreality of his religious nature, which is indeed only the ideal aspect of practical need. Consequently, not only in the Pentateuch and the Talmud, but in present-day society we find the nature of the modern Jew, and not as an abstract nature but as one that is in the highest degree empirical, not merely as a narrowness of the Jew, but as the Jewish narrowness of society.

And I’ll be God damned if those purple monkey dishwashers don’t read the Pentateuch and the Talmud just like those Jews of judeo-semetic ancestry. With all the similarities between the two groups, it amazes me that Marx could differentiate between the two.
Money is the jealous god of Israel
And I am the one misunderstanding the text?
Are you a professional contortionist, because I have never seen someone try and twist something like that since the last time I went to the circus. I went to the circus. TDC 22:16, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
"And I am the one misunderstanding the text?"

Yes. First of all The Jewish Question was an early work by Marx written before he had developed the theory of historical materialism, if you like it was written before Marx became "a Marxist". Many of the formulations in it are crude, and backward and influenced by the context of the time. However, you have to read the work in the context of Bruno Bauer's work which it is a reply to. Bauer argues against the emancipation of the Jews. Marx is arguing in favour so he is actually polemicising against anti-Semitism.

Moreover, as Hal Draper argues in Marx and the economic Jew stereotype

There is a bulky output of literature alleging that Marx’s essay On the Jewish Question is anti-Semitic because it equates Jewry with the spirit of money-making, the merchant-huckster, preoccupation with self-interest and egoism-that is, with the commercialism of the new bourgeois order. The charge has been furthered in various ways, including forgery: one honest critic renamed the essay A World Without Jews as if this were Marx’s title. [1] Few discussions of the essay explain clearly its political purpose and content in connection with the Jewish emancipation question, or even accurately present the views of its target, Bauer. Mainly, the allegation is supported by reading the attitudes of the second half of the twentieth century back into the language of the 1840s. More than that, it is supported only if the whole course of German and European anti-Jewish sentiment is whitewashed, so as to make Marx’s essay stand out as a black spot. This note will take up only the 1843 essay and its background.
The general method was memorably illustrated in C.B. Kelland’s 1936 novel Mr. Deeds Goes to Town, which some may know as a Gary Cooper film. In an attempt to have a hearing declare Mr. Deeds of unsound mind, two little old ladies are brought in from his home town to testify. It’s well known, one explains, that he is pixillated – balmy in the head. The honest woman’s evidence seems damning. But the case blows up later when she is asked one more question: “Who else in your town is pixillated?” She answers: “Why, everybody!”
As soon as the question is raised, it is not difficult or even controversial to show that virtually the entire population of Germany (and the rest of Europe, too) was pixillated-that is, habitually used and accepted the words Jew and Jewry in the manner of Marx’s essay whether they were favorable to the Jews’ cause or not, whether they were anti-Semitic or not, whether they were Jews or not. In this they were only following the very old, if now discredited, practice of using national and ethnic names as epithets, usually derogatory, for people showing a trait supposedly characteristic of the nation or ethnic group. This practice, which began to be suppressed in self-consciously polite society only a few decades ago, was as common in English as in any other language, and some of it still hangs on. Consider a few: wild Indian (active child), apache (Paris criminal), Hottentot (as in Hottentot morality), street arab, gypsy, bohemian, Cossack, blackamoor, Turk; or, as an adjective: Dutch courage, Mexican general, French leave. Another of this group, for centuries, has been Jew.

(...)

Marx’s essay represents a very attenuated form of the general pattern, for most commonly Jew was a synonym for usurer, whereas by this time mere money-making was eminently respectable. [2] Bauer’s writing assumed that Jew meant usurer – quite in passing, for he was not interested in the economic Jew but in the “Sabbath Jew”. [3] The same economic stereotype of the Jew can be found in Arnold Ruge [4], who remained a liberal and never became a communist, as well as in Max Stirner [5], whose book The Ego and Its Own heralded anarchism. These names already cover the spectrum of the Young Hegelian milieu, whose philosophic mentor Feuerbach provided the immediate example for this language about the role of Jewry. [6]
A special case, near if not in the Young Hegelian tendency, was Moses Hess: conscientiously Jewish himself, Hess had been brought up in an orthodox household and later became the progenitor of Zionism. It is well known that the language of Marx’s Part II of On the Jewish Question followed the view of the Jews’ role given in an essay On the Money System just written by none other than Hess, and just read by Marx. [7]
Hess’s thesis was that present-day society was a “huckster world”, a “social animal-world”, in which people become fully developed “egoists”, beasts of prey and bloodsuckers. “The Jews”, wrote the father of Zionism, “who in the natural history of the social animal-world had the world-historic mission of developing the beast of prey out of humanity have now finally completed their mission’s work.” It was in the “Judeo-Christian huckster world” that “the mystery of the blood of Christ, like the mystery of the ancient Jewish blood-worship, finally appears quite unmasked as the mystery of the beast of prey.” There is more verbiage, going back to the “blood-cult” of ancient Judaism as the prototype of modern society, and on to a condemnation of priests as the “hyenas of the social animal-world” who are as bad as the other animal-people by virtue of their “common quality as beasts of prey, as bloodsuckers, as Jews, as financial wolves”.
Earlier in 1843 Hess had published an important article on The Philosophy of Action, which only incidentally remarked that “The Christian God is an imitation of the Jewish Moloch-Jehovah, to whom the first-born were sacrificed to ‘propitiate’ him, and whom the juste-milieu age of Jewry bought off with money ...” [9] Hess intended no special anti-Jewish animus in any of this stuff, compared to which Marx’s approach is complimentary and drily economic. Note that Judaism is criticized as part of the Judeo-Christian complex, and not in order to praise Christianity – this being the same pattern as Voltaire’s; although Hess saw no contradiction between his own continued Jewish faith and loyalties and his opinion, expounded in his writings, that Christianity was the more advanced, modern and “pure” religion – all in the Feuerbachian groove. [10]


So if you're going to argue Marx was anti-Semitic you'll have to argue that Moses Hess was anti-Semitic as well - guess that would mean Zionism too is anti-Semitic since Hess' book "Rome and Jerusalem; The Last National Question" was the first modern work (1862) to advocate Zionism, predated Herzl's Judenstaat by several decades and definitely influenced Herzl.

Incidentally, since you're so interested in demonstrating the Marxist and socialist origins of modern ideologies perhaps you'd like to add something to the Zionism article on its socialist and even Marxist origins (after all,Hess and Marx were close associates and Marx definitely had an influence on Hess) or do you only like to argue that ideas you disagree with have a socialist influence? ;) Formeruser-83

Well that is one hell of a shitty argument.

First of all The Jewish Question was an early work by Marx written before he had developed the theory of historical materialism, if you like it was written before Marx became "a Marxist".

Meaningless, unless you are implying that since it was written when marx was young and therefore is not representative of Marxism, it still does not mitigae the anit semitism charges.TDC 05:22, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Many of the formulations in it are crude, and backward and influenced by the context of the time.

Once agian, meaningless. Crude is blunderbuss when measured up against my remington 1100. The only thing crude is the anti-semitism.TDC 05:22, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

However, you have to read the work in the context of Bruno Bauer's work which it is a reply to.

Bauer argues against the emancipation of the Jews. Marx is arguing in favour so he is actually polemicising against anti-Semitism.

Marx is arguing for conditional emancipation of Jews. He still paints the Jews as hook nosed devils, but offers them salvation through the rejection of capitalism and thier Jewishness. He also sees Jewish emancipation as the lynchpin of all emanciation, because the Jew is the root of all capitalism.
 From the outset, the Christian was the theorizing Jew, the Jew is, 
 therefore, the practical Christian, and the practical Christian has become  a  Jew again.  

 The emancipation of the Jew is the emancipation of society from Judaism.

REQUEST: TDC has yet to back up any of his interpretations of the text with current scholarship. This discussion is making no contribution to the page. I courteously request the participants to continue debating on their own talk pages. Thanks, Slrubenstein

What are you looking for here? What current scholarship could ever be used to both back up what I am writing and be considered an acceptable source by you?

Joshua Muravchik has written to some extent on this subject, I have read him with interest for several years now.

What are you looking for here a cut and paste job? TDC 14:54, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

FOR THE LAST TIME: WIKIPEDIA=ENCYCLOPEDIA. Haven't you ever read an encyclopedia? Do you have any clue as to what an encyclopedia is, and how an encyclopedia article is written? "What current scholarship could ever be used ...?" Well, if there is none, DON'T WRITE ABOUT IT. What am I looking for -- "a cut and paste job?" DO you mean like what youtypically do, drop quotes in with no context? No, no, no, I and everyone else have patiently explained to you that you do not paste material in without context. This is NOT a place for personal essays or primary research. Provide an account of a public or scholarly debate, with sources -- or DROP IT. Learn what Wikipedia is, and what it is not. Go to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not Slrubenstein

I think it would be useful for people to look at Francis Wheen's widely acclaimed biography of Marx that came out two or three years ago (Wheen is not a Marxist BTW) not only in regards to the questions of Marx' statements about Jews but also for other questions about his life. Formeruser-83

How does it compare to McLellan's biography? Different approach? New research? Slrubenstein

Wheen's book touches little if at all on Marx's beliefs, wether on politics, economics, or his intense hatred on the "huckstering Jew". Its a fluff piece on what a loving father and complicated man he was.TDC 19:36, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

As I recall McLellan's (and other) biographies tend to be political biographies. Wheen discusses politics but he focusses more on Marx the man going through peronal letters and documents and the such.

TDC, if you read *anything* by 19th century and even early 20th century Zionists you'll see that they too hate the "huckstering Jew".

BFD. If that is true, and I am not even going to comment on it, perhaps this tidbit o'information belongs in the Zionism article.TDC 22:12, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Much of the argument for Zionism was solving the "Jewish Question" and ending the perceived status of Jews as a non-productive merchant class by putting them in their own country where they would occupy all classes. This is much of the point of A.D. Gordon and Berl Katznelson when they talk about the "redemption of the soil" ie turning Jews into farmers and workers so that they'll be "normal" like other nations and a complete rejection of the "backwardness" of the "shtetl Jew" and "merchant Jew" (Gordon argued that the Jews were "sick" and needed manual labour to cure them - if you didn't know Gordon was Jewish and a Zionist it would not be hard to conclude that he was anti-Semitic).

Perhaps they were simply playing upon a stereotype of the era to reinforce a case for a homeland. An ends justifies the means approach. Convince that the only solution to the Jewish problem is to give them a nation. Not unlike a 16 year old arguing to his parents that they would not have to drive him everywhere if he had his own car. But, I do not know much on 18th century Zionist speakers to speak conclusively on the subject. TDC 22:12, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

That's also why most Zionists (with the exception of Ber Borochov were intensely anti-Yiddish. They saw it as jargon, an example of all that was bad and backwards about European Jewry. If you apply the same superficial, anachronistic methold of analysis you're using of Marx to Zionist thinkers you'd have to conclude that they too were all anti-Semites.

Look, there's no question that in many ways Marx was a man of his times and had a lot of the prejudices and viewpoints that were virtually ubiquitous in his period. By our standards I'm sure you could say he was sexist (along with everyone else in the 19th century) and homophobic and yes he probably had some degree of ethnic prejudice but to take it out of context and treat Marx as if he was living in the 21st century intsead of the 19th would create a distorted picture. Formeruser-83

Once again, after making a case, weak though it may be, you revert back to defending Marx's anti semitism. This time you say that Marx is not anti-Semitic because he cannot be judged by the standards of the 21'st century, even though his work reeks of bigotry by any objective standard. Before it was that he was just a young man with a not yet well defined political thought process and so therefore we can admonish his bigotry as an act of youthful indiscretion. Still other times you [or SL I can recall] have contended that when Marx said Jew he did not mean an individial of judeo-semetic ancestry but .. I don’t know .... purple monkey dishwasher, or something to that effect. The only remotely credible case (and I stress remotely credible) you have mad is that it emancipation and not pure unadulterated anti-semitism.
Even other socialist's of the era saw that anti-semitism was creeping into the political movement. Marx was not the first anti-semitic socialist theorist and he was most certainly not the last. August Bebel penned the nineteenth-century phrase that "anti-Semitism as the socialism of fools". Anti-Semites of that time, and today I would argue, share the same gripes as the socialists; the anti-Semites simply chose too narrow a target. The socialists happily accepted the spirit of anti-Semitism, provided the target was widened to the entire capitalist class. Historian Paul Johnson has ironically mentioned that socialism has served as the anti-Semitism of the intellectuals.
A wise man once said that arguing with an engineer is like wrestling a greased pig, pretty soon you realize that the pig likes it. Keep on trukin though, you might wear me out and I will drop this, but I doubt it. TDC 22:12, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
As for the Juden Itzig comment, Marx was not only Jewish but quite dark skinned for a German. So much so that his nickname was "The Moor" so his comment about LaSalle is not unlike one African American calling another African American "a nigger". Formeruser-83
"Perhaps they were simply playing upon a stereotype of the era to reinforce a case for a homeland. An ends justifies the means approach. Convince that the only solution to the Jewish problem is to give them a nation. Not unlike a 16 year old arguing to his parents that they would not have to drive him everywhere if he had his own car. But, I do not know much on 18th century Zionist speakers to speak conclusively on the subject. TDC 22:12, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)"

No, these are aguments made internally to other Jews to try to convince them to become Zionists. The fact is people live in their times and it's hard, impossible even, for even the most original thinkers to completely break from the thinking and beliefs of their times. That's why one needs to understand context. Formeruser-83

"August Bebel penned the nineteenth-century phrase that "anti-Semitism as the socialism of fools"."

You misunderstand Bebel. He wasn't arguing that socialism is anti-Semitic,

I know he was not arguing that socialism is anti-semetic, and neither am I. TDC 04:28, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

he was arguing that anti-Semites try to appeal to the masses by arguing that the evils of capitalism are not the product of capitalists but of The Jews and that the way of solving the problem is to get rid of the Jews. IE he was saying that anti-Semitism is foisted by the right onto the masses as a substitution for socialism and a way of demoblising workers and distracting them from the real enemy and putting forth a scapegoat instead.

Actually, what he saw was socialists accepted and adoptng anti-Semitism because it was easier to introducing anti-capitalist doctrine. They, the anit semetic socialists, believed that if the public could be convinced to hate Jewish capitalists, the public would eventually come to hate non-Jewish capitalists as well.

And actually he anticipated Nazism quite well for the Nazis tried to win workers away from Marxism by substituting class war with war against the Jews. Formeruser-83

Auschwitz meant that six million Jews were killed, and thrown on the waste-heap of Europe, for what they were considered: money-Jews. Finance capital and the banks, the hard core of the system of imperialism and capitalism, had turned the hatred of men against money and exploitation, and against the Jews. . . . Antisemitism is really a hatred of capitalism.

—Ulrike Meinhof, left-wing German terrorist of the 1970 (A buddy of yours Slrubenstein?)

Don't bother. Of course TDC misunderstands Bebel -- just as he misunderstands Marx, and misunderstands me (or rather, deliberately misconstrues me -- heaven knows what he means by purple monkeys. He will misunderstand you, too. As I said before, he simply doesn't know how to read. Your comments are intelligent and interesting, but they aren't necessary for the article, which is the purpose of this page. Much as I enjoy reading your words, if you really want to continue humoring TDC, please write on his or her talk page -- otherwise s/he will continue taking up space until this page is archived, with absolutely no effect on the article ... Slrubenstein

I can derive stokes for a 3D non newtonain flow field, but cannot understand the deep thoughts of Karl fucking Marx?

What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money.

or try this one on for size:

What is the worldly religion of the Slrubenstein? Marxism. What is his worldly God? Marx

TDC 04:28, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Ooh, well, if you know science, I suppose those of us who know about history and political science should defer to your ignorant, ridiculous interpretations of things we know about. I imagine you wouldn't like it if I tried to impose my ignorance on articles about newtonian flow fields, or whatever. This kind of thing pisses me off. "Well, I'm good at understanding complicated mathematical stuff, so all that silly social sciences and humanities must be a piece of cake. If I disagree with people who actually spend time studying the stuff, it must be because they're soft-minded artsy morons, while I'm an intelligent, sharp-minded engineer." Try again, asshole buddy. john 04:39, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

You all seem to act like Marx and dialectics is so complicated to understand. You make it seem like Marx is so fucking deep that a superficial (or what you deem to be superficial) analysis cannot be used to examine anything he wrote. You will argue that when Marx states: What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money. that is means something totally different.

War is, Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength, I think Orwell had you in mind when he wrote that. Or did I take that out of context as well?TDC 04:58, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

BTW, you are a bunch of soft-minded artsy morons, thats why you choose professions, like sociology, that have no demand or real value in society. TDC 04:58, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Ah, true colors expressed. Thanks for playing. john 04:59, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Weeks ago, TDC came out of nowhere on Talk:Sandista uttering the same rant: "What productive activity could a sociologist actually engage in? I mean, seriously?" It's funny how people attack something about which they know hardly anything. I bet he'd like Charles Murray, though. 172 01:28, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
"War is, Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength, I think Orwell had you in mind when he wrote that. Or did I take that out of context as well?"

Well, like a lot of people on the right, you seem blissfully ignorant of the fact that Orwell was a socialist.:)AndyL 06:06, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC

A socialist and an ardent anti-communist. I am sure you are well aware that Orwell handed the British Foreign Office a list of people he suspected bieng communists and sympathetic to the Soviets?TDC 16:35, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Not anti-communist but anti-Stalinist. He was a sympathiser of Trotsky and a member of the POUM in the Spanish Civil War. AndyL 18:56, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I apologize for coming to this discussion so late (I actually picked it up off Google, not the Wiki) but I'm surprised that in all this no one seems to have challenged whether Marx was a Jew. His father converted to Christianity two yaers before Karl was born, essentially because of oppression of Jews in business; his mother delayed her conversion to avoid offending her living father, who was a rabbi, but she was baptized when Karl was 7. His father observed the outward tenets of his new relgiion but was otherwise a free-thinker, rather than a closet Jew, as during the Inquisition. Karl was never identifiable as a praticing Jew. So, the question is, if we are using Karl's Judaism as an indication of whether or not he was anti-Semitic, I have to ask on what basis was he a Jew? Others who convert, or are born into a religion where their parents were originally of another religion are considered to be a member of their later religion. Or are we making an argument that Jewish is a Race, whose mark is indelible? I think of Madeline Albright, raised a Catholic, who apparently did not know about her Jewish background, yet in some people's eyes this made her a Jew. Is there any textual reference to demonstrate that Marx considered himself a Jew? Cecropia 03:55, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

G. Mevison, an editor of the newspaper Rheinische Zeitung, identified Marx as Jewish. Many of MNarx's critics identified him as a Jew. When Marx was in Cologne in 1843 he responded to an appeal by the Jewish community to help them with a parliamentary petition. Marx clearly did not identify at all with the Jewish religion. But the point is that being Jewish is more complicated than religious affiliation. Clearly many considered Marx a member of the "Jewish race." Moreover, biographers have argued (pretty reasonably) that Marx's views of society reflect the position of his family in Prussian society -- a positiont that (as much because of, rather than despite, the conversion of marx's father) says a lot about what it meant to be Jewish in Prussia at the time. Slrubenstein

I might add that of course being a Jew is an ethnicity as well as a religion. This was the whole premise of Zionism, after all. This is not to say that being jewish is "a Race, whose mark is indelible." But being Jewish is surely as much an ethnicity as any other ethnicity. john 21:34, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

  • The extent of ignorance coupled with intentional distortions (not to mention rudeness) in the discussion directly above is truly prodigious. Wow! I am truly humbled by the patience exhibited by the majority of participants here towards such thinly vieled trollism. But, as an historian (and which civilization ever had a need for these?), I guess there is little value to my thoughts here, I should have majored in sociological quantum chromodynamics. Oh well. El_C
It's a deep challenge to Wikipedia, how to handle political monkey-wrenching like the totally predictable rightwing assault on any mention of matters communist. The only thing I want to point out right now is -- while understanding there's been a lot of hard work and excruciating effort made by many dedicated people to create viably objective entries -- that, until the *sub-text* message: "Marx was wrong, of course" (typical of bourgeois works; too typical of Wikipedia) is dropped from Wikipedia's articles, claims of objectivity will be false.
I think Marx deserves better than this article as it stands at this date. (I wonder what Ronald Reagan's page looks like? NOT.)
Pazouzou 20:52, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Deletion

I've removed the following because it seems irrelevent and self-promotional

"A small number of people in the free software movement contend that free software represents a new mode of production that has the potential to supersede the capitalist mode of production. (see Project Oekonux)." AndyL 16:21, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Good point about the self promotion. The relevence is that free software is not scarce, has loads of use value, next to no exchange value and it's production as a whole represents an incalculable amount of labour time -- it's hard to think of many other things for which this is true... This document on Free Software and Market Relations is interesting on the subject of marxism and free software...

Free software is no doubt one of many important differences between today's economy and the economy twenty or a hundred years ago. In any event, it certainly does not mark a new mode of production in Marxian terms, and is not at all relevant to an article on Marx. Slrubenstein

I corrected the sloppy errors in TDC's addition, and cut the non-relevant material, and added the dominant POV for balance. However, I am still skeptical that TDC's account of Cowan and Perry's argument is accurate. TDC is such an inept reader I suspect he misunderstood them. I would like to have the actual citations of their articles in which they develop these arguments, please. Otherwise I will delete the reference entirely. In the meantime, since TDC at least provided sources, I am leaving the anti-semitism charge in. Please don't delete it just yet, let's see the citations and see if they are really making the claims TDC is attributing to them, first. Slrubenstein

Where do you want the portions of the work for one. The "dominant" POV for the charges are made by marxists like Draper. It is also not just one writing of Marx that his anti-semitism comes out. TDC 00:20, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hey jackass, for someone who isn't a "soft-minded artsy moron," and for someone who didn't "choose a [profession], like sociology, that [has] no demand or real value in society," you seem waste a lot of time by bothering us. 172 02:56, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I am sory, am I bothering you. I should stop that right away I suppose.TDC 16:56, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

What you should stop, TDC, is deleting useful content. NPOV does not mean that we present only your point of view, it means we present different points of view accurately. My account of the dominant reading of Marx may be flawed, and I do hope that educated people will revise it/clarify it as need be. You have made it clear that you have not studied this material rigorously, and do not have the academic competence, and are not qualified to clarify it. So you certainly shouldn't delete it wholesale. Here's a hint at Wikipedia: do not delete useful and relevant content.

Now, I kept your charge of anti-semitism, ludicrous though I believe it to be. And I asked you for scholarly citations to support what you wrote. I am still waiting. Slrubenstein

What do you want? Page numbers from books? TDC 15:17, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well, that would be easier for you so I would understand if that is all you want to do. If you have time, I'd appreciate it if you could give the quotes -- not from Marx but from the three scholars you mention as accusing Marx of being an anti-semite. (I don't mean we need to put them in the article itself, but I would like to know more what they say and why). I realize I am asking you to do a lot so if you don't want to how about just the names of the books and articles (and the jourinal in which they appear) they wrote that you are referrring to, and if you can page numbers. Thanks, Slrubenstein

Well, they are not so much quotes. Muravchik's reasons, for example, come from 15 or so pages out of a book of his. It would be difficult to condense his thoughts down to a one paragraph quote. TDC 18:30, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Could you give me the book title and let me know what pages so I can see if my library has it? Ditto for the other two; thanks. Slrubenstein

Mediawiki Link

When someone has a chance once the page is unprotected please add this mediawikilink to this article: {msg:Influential_western_philosophers}} Thanks. B 18:25, Apr 13, 2004 (UTC)

Buried at Highgate Cemetary, London

Someone who can edit this, please add link in appropriate location:

Buried at Highgate Cemetery, London

Labor Theory of Value

I have deleted the absurd suggestion that criticism of Marx's labor theory of value has somehow "overlooked" his distinction between value and price. Of course he did his best to make such a distinction, then struggled with what is known in the literature as the "conversion" problem -- i.e. what do the two concepts have to do with each other? If value has nothing to do with price at all, it is a superfluous and non-empirical notion. If it does relate to price, one ought to be able to show how. Critics such as the Austrian school's leaders maintained (I think, decisively, although of course I wouldn't make such a claim in the article proper) that he failed to show how and that, given the labor theory as a premise, he couldn't show how.

At any rate, anyone who wishes to re-insert the claim that some critics somewhere have "overlooked" the alleged distinction should document that claim.

To say that critics disregard Marx's distinction between value and price is not a violation of NPOV, it is simply providing a POV other than that of Marx's critics. In fact, every criticism I have read of Marx's notion of value does this. They point out that price is not determined by the amount of labor invested in production, but Marx made the same point. Most economists today use value and price interchangably, but Marx did not. Slrubenstein

You haven't named any prominent critic of Marx's notion of value who overlooked this point. Bohm-Bawerk's great work on the history of interest-rate theories, just for example, makes a very clear statement of Marxist theory on this issue, and criticizes it for failing to show (indeed, for being chronically incapable of showing) the relationship between value and price as it understands those terms. That is different from ignoring the distinction. --Christofurio 19:30, Aug 8, 2004 (UTC)

Updating Bibliography

It currently only has six undated (and volume-less) entries which do not follow a chronological order and fail to mention instances of co-authorship with Engels, nor his posthumous contribution to Marx's works. Here is the original list:

  • The German Ideology
  • The Communist Manifesto
  • Capital
  • Grundrisse
  • The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Napoleon

I am revising the list for a total of 23 works, with dates provided in brackets, and in square brackets, noting whenever it was in collaboration with or entailed posthumous efforts by Engels. My list (which is -not- exhaustive) is as follows:

  • Critique of Hegel?s Philosophy of Right (1843)
  • On the Jewish Question (1843)
  • Notes on James Mill (1844)
  • Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts (1844)
  • Theses on Feuerbach (1845)
  • The German Ideology [with Engels] (1845-46)
  • The Poverty of Philosophy (1846-47)
  • Wage-Labour and Capital (1847)
  • The Communist Manifesto [with Engels] (1847-48)
  • The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte (1852)
  • Grundrisse (1857-58)
  • A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy (1859)
  • Theories of Surplus Value, 3 volumes (1862)
  • Wages, Price and Profit (1865)
  • Capital vol. 1 (1867)
  • The Civil War in France (1871)
  • Critique of the Gotha Programme (1875)
  • Ethnological Notebooks (1879-80)
  • Notes on Wagner (1883)
  • Capital, vol.2 [posthumously, by Engels] (1893)
  • Capital, vol.3 [posthumously, by Engels] (1894)

El_C

Thanks, that was much needed. I added the section hastily because there wasn't even one previously, but I forgot to update it later. -- Simonides 18:38, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

My pleasure, Simonides. I may revisit it later when I get a chance. El_C

Good article, poor "discussion" Abe Moses wnyone?. WblakesxWblakesx

psychology and kibbutzim

I removed this from the article:

The other side of the psychology of greed may be the psychology of communal life. What are the effects of life without private property? In 1969 the psychologist Bruno Bettelheim, in a study of life on an Israeli kibbutz, wrote that children brought up in that communal environment experience great difficulty in making emotional commitments thereafter, such as falling in love or forming a lasting friendship.
"Nowhere more than in the kibbutz did I realize the degree to which private property, in the deep layers of the mind, relates to private emotions. If one is absent, the other tends to be absent as well" he wrote.

It is interesting, but too tangential for this article (first, it is not directly a criticism of Marx; second the interpretation of the data which I thought was collected by Melford Spiro and not Bettelheim but maybe Spiro did s follow-up? has been questioned. This doens't mean Bettelheim was wrong -- and even if he were, this view is interesting. I am just saying the point needs too much framing and belongs somewhere else. I suggest an entire article on the psychology of communal life -- or at least, make this a large and detailed subsection in the article on Social psychology with a link to Communitarianism. As for its relevance to Marx -- I would have a one sentence summary in the article on Communism since this case really pertains more to communism in general, than Karl Marx in particular. Slrubenstein

Spiro has priority, "Children of the Kibbutz," (1958), Bettelheim's discussion was by way of follow-up and confirmation in 1969. I'd like to put this in the Bettelheim article, but that article seems so biased that it needs a complete re-write, not just another tidbit added. And that will take some time. By the way, I've taken your advice and moved the material on BB's claim to the Communism article.

This leaves us with the question of balance, or POV. If any person knowledgeable about the literature wants to work with me on that, in the context of the Communism article, I'd be happy to have his/her assistance. --Christofurio 14:37, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)

I'd be happy to look at the Communismn article as well as the Bettelheim one, but it sounds like you know more than I do in this matter -- I encourage you to start making the changes you think are appropriate in those articles, at least as far as including this material on Spiro, Bettelheim, and communal child-rearing, and then see who else can pitch in. Slrubenstein

Flaws of economic theory

My paragraph about the flaws of Marx's economic theory were removed. I understand that it counts as POV, but if there are facts and statistics and whatnot backing it up, then why can't it be included? Should it be rephrased less harshly, or with some sort of proof? Brutannica 03:44, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Parts of Marx's economic theory have since proven wrong. The theory that workers' profits would gradually decline ? that the working class would slowly grow poorer ? his belief that the middle class would fade away, mostly into the proletariat, and his principle of mechanization diminishing capitalist profits have all proven mistaken.

  • If you are only going to look at the >1 Billion people in the developed world, then that will not amount to proof. Account for the socio-economic conditions brought by industrialization to billions in the underdeveloped world, then these issues could be reviewed on a more holistic (and scientific basis). During Marx's time, nations such as China and India had virtually no industry at all nor what at the time was considered (by Marx) a working class — that's 2/3 of the world population right there. One must be judicious in attempting to avoid Westnocentrism, and be cautios to avoid rigidly juxtaposing the historical realities during Marx's time and our own. Finally, you will certainly need to qualify, at much greater detail and well-defined context (and, crucially, citing pertinent passages) with respect to mechanization diminishing capitalist profits/earnings/surplus/etc. Until the above considerations are propperly addressed, and submitted to discussion, I am in favour of it remaining deleted. El_C
So do you want
  • milder language ("in the general opinion," "in the industrialised sectors of the world")
  • quotes from Marxist works
  • or statistics contradicting the points brought up?
I also realise that the "proven"s in the passage should be changed to "proved"s. Hmm.
P.S.: I think China + India = 1/3 of the world's population, not 2/3. Brutannica 00:35, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

1. As mentioned, I do not accept the separation of the working classes of the developed world from the underdeveloped one as being a correct approach — you are committing the exact same dogmatic juxtaposition I alluded to earlier; if you subscribe to this angle, that would not ammount to proof, in my opinion. So milder language will not help the fundamental problems behind such an analysis (for reasons that I am willing to elaborate upon if needed, I am familliar enough with the scholarly debates on that front, I think, to comment further; but I want tp see if someone else can pick up what I am hinting at.

2. Certainly passages by him, at least here in the discussion, so we can evaluate how the contents/context of which are interperted as per the claims made in the article. But which item are you refering to precisely?

3. Statistics could be useful, if the empirical data is relatively sound, and crucially, the context (see point 1).

4. Indeed, proved or been proven. But that's just as an aside, I am sure you will agree that grammar is really last on our priority list here.

5. That is correct, 1/3, that (2) was a typo. El_C

This all seems to be kind of original research. If well known people have criticized Marx's work on various grounds, cite them. But don't just say "Marx has been proven wrong." This is certainly not what we do in other articles on historical figures from the world of social science. See, for instance, Max Weber, Thomas Malthus, and so forth...That is to say, you guys are debating whether Marx was right or not. What should be being debated is what should be in an encyclopedia article on Marx. john k 05:43, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • I agree with everything that you say, except that, speaking for myself, I have no such intent. Nothing I have said here (or rather, hinted on) is primary research; in this case, it is largely derived from Dependency Theory and it is part of a scholarly debate that has been taking place for many decades now. If at any point there is a need for me to provide pertinent references, I am more than willing (and able) to oblige. Thus far, no such need has arisen. El_C

I agree with ElC. I once had a similar argument with Ed Poor, a couple of years ago.The solution was to include the criticism, and then say something like, "Most marxists, however, argue that Marx was referring to a global system" or something like that. In fact, I think a statement like that is already in the article, at the bottom. It is not an original point based on El C's original research -- as s/he says it has been made by dependency theoriest but also World System's theorists and has clear antecedants in Marx and Engel's writings on colonialism and globalization. Slrubenstein

  • El C: we should always cite references (see Wikipedia:Cite sources). It makes for better and more factual articles, as well as pointing the readers to sources for their own studies. If you have sources, cite them (though I'd avoid using words like "proven" - "have come to contrary conclusions" or something similar is less likely to start a war and, in the end, more accurate). Give it its own paragraph or its own section, rather than a short couple sentences, and establish where it comes from and exactly what it says and in reference to what. -Seth Mahoney 22:52, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)

Doesn't the article already cite the Communist Manifesto? That's the earliest work by Marx that I know of that makes this point ... Slrubenstein

  • Sorry, I should have indented differently. I was actually talking to El C, about his criticism. -Seth Mahoney

That's okay -- I just meant that El C's claim that "I do not accept the separation of the working classes of the developed world from the underdeveloped one as being a correct approach" is in the Manifesto, which is mentioned earlier in the article (though not spelled out). Slrubenstein

Gotcha. -Seth Mahoney 23:30, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)

El C: we should always cite references (see Wikipedia:Cite sources). It makes for better and more factual articles, as well as pointing the readers to sources for their own studies. If you have sources, cite them (though I'd avoid using words like "proven"

  • Ironically, my only contribution to this article has been citing sources, per se. (expanding the bibliography from 6 to 23 works), that is all I have ever written in this article. Go to my user page and survery some of the articles I have written, you will find that I cite sources to a far greater extent than your average WP editor. **Read more closely** I did not write the Flaws in Eoconomic Theory excerpt, nor was I the one who removed it. All I did was to express support to it having been removed. Lastly, Slrubenstein is correct, it is, of course, in the Manifesto (I would hope that any one wishing to contribute to the Karl Marx article, -at the very least- should have a cursory grasp of the Manifesto — just as anyone writing about Weber should possess an elementary familiarity with the Protestant Ethic & Spirit of Capitalism, etc.). El_C
You're totally right - I should have read more closely and directed the comment elsewhere. Kudos for your use of citation. -Seth Mahoney 06:28, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

!!! Yikes. It seems I'm getting drowned in all this. My actual intention in contributing to the article is to bring up issues or topics that should be discussed, not actually to fine-tune and revise them myself! Basically, I do not have a cursory understanding of the Manifesto, or Capital (although wouldn't that be the book discussing economic theory?), and meant for someone else to contribute the passages or statistics. If I were to do it, it would take a few years just for me to be brought up to speed. I apologize to anyone that's offended by this. Brutannica 07:49, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yikes indeed. If you you are not familliar with the subject, how do you know that a -proven- flaw(s) in Marx's economic theory has been all those things that you claim as such ? (!!!) ? In the nicest possible terms, if you're going to add material into a WP article, you need to know what you are talking about, demonstrate that you do by subscribing to WP standards. Whether you have done primary reserach, whether you wish to do primary reserach, whether (as you claim) you wish for someone else to do primary reserach for you — a WP article is -not- the venue for any of these. Again, sorry for chastising you, but you really should have known all this, you joined a month before I did. El_C [As an aside, workers don't earn profits, workers subsist on wages].
That evens the score. In my defence, I did derive the material from a book, not just my own presumptions, and I believe it's a legitimate source - for the most part. Unless it's expected for contributors to be experts on the subjects they contribute to (which I doubt, considering the number of anonymous edits that are absorbed into articles), I don't think I committed a serious offence, except maybe lack of specifics. Brutannica 06:16, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
If you don't feel you have a complete grasp of the topic, maybe citing some sources and bringing up the issues on the article's talk page is the way to go. No harm done, though. -Seth Mahoney 06:28, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

What score? Try not to take all of this so personally. Believe it or not, I am not only looking out for the best interests of WP, but also for your own (and while I don't scramble to sugarcoat my words, I still try to be tactful), hope you can take my word (for what it's worth) on that. Now, not all contributions need to be submitted by experts, the degree of expertise that might be deemed necessary (as per WP standards) inexorably varies from one (type of) contribution to the next. As well, many experts post anonymously, I fail to see how that serves as a frame of reference on that front. Finally, no one claimed it was an offence, not to mention a 'serious' offence; all that was said (all that I said, at least) had to do with it not being up to par with WP standards. That's all. At any rate, indeed no harm done. Seth's suggestion is certainly one that I wholeheartedly approve of. El_C

I was joking, I was joking, I didn't really take it personally. You swupsked on the China/India population, I swupsked on the labour terminology. So that makes it even. Get it?
So then... does anyone have suggestions for improving the passage to make it "up to par with WP standards?" For one thing, I was never sure what was contended: if Marx actually thought these things, or if his principles actually proved erroneous. Brutannica 20:49, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

My apologies, I misread your tone and did not catch that, though I should have. El_C

Well, it's hard to 'read' a tone without a voice behind it. But the question about how the passage was controversial remains unanswered... Brutannica 04:01, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hard but 'far from' impossible. Anyway, what was contended was that the very broad claims you made had little basis (as you yourself admitted) in terms of your own grasp of the various scholarly debates behind these, not to mention proof. El_C

I know, but WHAT SPECIFICALLY?? Which claims? The claims about the principles of the theory, or the claims that these principles have failed? I'm not sure what is controversial, and what needs proof. I would have thought "mechanization will diminish capitalists' profits" and "the middle class will soon disappear" would be questionable assertions, but I'm wondering if you're wondering if those have been proven wrong. Basically, I'm trying to figure out what exactly needs to be provided: statistics and whatnot supporting the view that Marx was in error, or excerpts from Capital (etc.) showing Marx's beliefs...
Sorry for the long delay, by the way. Brutannica 05:09, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

All of these, yes. Specifically, every single one of these items. You have yet to cite your sources (specifically, where Marx states what; yes, with excerpts — from any pertinent work by him), and you have yet to provide the specific examples on how to measure validity or lack thereof (statistics, sure, but in historical context). A more substantive exposition is needed, I do not see this discussion moving forward, beyond the circular, until this is provided, sorry. El_C

I still find that a part on the flaws of Marx's economic theory should be added. Indeed, almost all serious economists dismiss Marx's work nowadays (though not all of it) - and since Marx's work was partly on economic theory this shoulc be clearly stated with some examples. By the way, he's not the only economist whose theories have been revised. Ricardo based his theory on the same "labour creates value" base, which has been proven to be untrue (indeed markets - i.e. supply and demand - determine prices, no matter how much labour has been added to a product). Luis rib 19:35, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC) Luis Rib 4 Oct 2004

First, Marx recognized that markets determine price. "Price" and "value" do not always mean the same thing, even today. Second, many academics today are critical of neo-classical economics -- we can go in circles on this. Better to say that neo-classical economists have chosen to focus on certain questions and phenomena while disregarding others. One thing that distinguishes Marx and those who draw on his work today is their attention to those questions and phenomena ignored by most neo-classical economists. Slrubenstein
I must confess I'm not an expert on this- that's why I didn't edit anything on the main page. What you say is actually pretty interesting - maybe someone could add a paragraph (or another page) contrasting neo-classic economics and marxism, supplemented by today's academic perception on Marx's economic theories. Since Marx considered himself primarily an economist, I think this would also give justice to him. Luis rib 16:13, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I removed some editorializing on the USSR and PRC -- it is inappropriate and unnecessaryh in an article on Marx.

Last 172's edit

172, why do you think the following sentence is POV: the policies and actions of various so-called communist states, which typically claimed to follow some form of Marxism, have done much to destroy Marx's reputation. ?

Read my comment above -- I was the first to cut this remark. This is an article on Marx, not the PRC or USSR or even Marxism. The significance of the legacy of the USSR is a complex topic that belongs in other articles, not here. As stated, the remark is contentious and inappropriate. To turn it into a balanced neutral statement would take so much space it would unbalance the article. Slrubenstein

It is relevant to say how Marx's ideas are perceived today, and why. Not much depth is needed to communicate this information. The present version in fact rather understates matters in service of this. VeryVerily 22:05, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Why don't you throw in "mARx wAz T3h eVil" while you're at it? Slrubenstein is right. If we're going to discuss the USSR and the PRC, that would require an entire dedicated section - not a single weasely POV sentence. Keep in mind that their connection (or lack thereof) to Marx is highly disputed, and the way in which "Marx's ideas are perceived today" differs widely from person to person. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 22:19, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Indeed, it is a sentence that hardly accords the topic the depth needed, and the question as to Marx's reputation is highly suspect: conversely, it could be said that Marx's reputation was enhanced by the -birth- of the USSR/PRoC (as countries led by 'Marxists') rather than their -end- (in the case of the PRoC, as led Marxists, for the USSR outright). It is an attempt to slip a polemical non-NPOV sentence through the backdoor and I agree with its deletion. El_C

If (generic) you disagree with myself, Mihnea Tudoreanu and Slrubenstein, I invite you to join this discussion. I urge you against further edits which add the passage in its entirety prior to, at very least, an attempt to reach consensus here. El_C

Most contemproary scholars agree that this true.--198 01:12, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I removed the Marx section because the above one deals exactly with this very-same passage. I urge you then to review the discussion above closely. As you might gather from it, the question is not whether most contemproary scholars agree, the question is how fitting it is to have such a passage in this article without any context being provided, and that the lack of context amounts to POV. It has also been mentioned that it would be problematic to provide such context without losing from the article's focus (and that these are matters better left to discuss in other relevant articles). So these are issues that I invite you to address here. Again, I urge you to cease from reinserting the passage until we can all arrive at a resolution/ compromise/ consensus on this. Thanks. Also, note that Marx's reputation was already being 'tarnished' by virtue of his ideas long before the USSR (my latest changes somewhat reflect this). Relating Marx and his reputation to the USSR, PRoC, etc., to reiterate, I believe goes beyond the scope of this article. El_C

Still cite the fact many people died in supposed Marxist governments.--198 01:33, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It is not necessary to do so -here-, we argue; there are articles about these governments where this is mentioned (and these are a mere click away). I realize that the popular tendency in Western society is to demonize Marx in this way, but here in Wikipedia we strive for NPOV, and it has more than one facet. El_C

I'm striving for NPOV, but you can't just leave out important factors that relate to Marx.--198 03:56, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

compromise passage

There is a natural tendency among those attracted to Karl Marx, an understandable tendency, to distance themselves from many of the attrocities done by others in his name. It is pretty clear that Marx himself would have opposed many aspects of the different movements that chose to hail back to marx and consider themselves forms of marxism. I propose that the numbers that are in controversy find a place in marxism, communism or some other appropriate place. In their place here, lets try to report what Marx's actual responsibility should be. I model this proposed compromise, on a comment I made in talk:communism, that I hope is serundipitiously apropo:

"Marx used devisive categorizations and characterizations of the bourgeoisie. He framed things as us versus them, exploiter versus exploited and accused them of being thieves (of the value of proletarian labor), etc. After such generalization, demonization and dehumanization, he bears some responsibility for what later happened. He created a class "consciousness", that grew every bit as virulent, inhumane and mindless as nationalism. See marxism, communism, ..."

I don't know if this will serve the purpose of all sides, feel free to make suggestions. If this is not enough, perhaps any specific references to his advocation of violence or revolution could be added, if this does not capture that element. --Silverback 10:07, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[H]e bears some responsibility for what later happened.

According to to the Point-of-View of certain editors, I presume...(?) It most certainly serves the purpose of one side, acutely so. I would much, much rather have the original over this compromise, which both editorializes and projects its own POV far more virulently than the original did. Sorry. As for suggestions, I propose that we try to work with the original passage as a basis. I cannot elaborate further at this point as I am writing in haste, sorry for that also. El_C

A lot of the debate was over the 100 million casualty figure. This eliminates that. One challenge for those trying to rehabilitate Marx's reputation, by presenting him as a benign figure, is a rational explanation of why so many virulent movements think they were inspired by him. Despite all the Marx's positive comments about the contributions of capitalism, it can't be denied that his unidimensional view of history used devisive judgemental language, he was distinctly POV. Did posterity misunderstand him, focus too much on his early carreer and ignore his later conclusions or fail to find them persuasive? I think the language I proposed can be made less POV, for instance categorizations are inherantly devisive, so that word is redundant. "responsibility" has a sense of moral judgement, which may offend, although I was intending responsible in the causal sense, not in the culpability sense.--Silverback 15:39, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, I am still writing in haste. Let me very briefly address some of your points:

  • Starting with an aside, I am not familliar with the discussion which the alleged 100 million casualty figure pertain to, so I cannot at this point comment except to say that it seems grossly (grossly) exaggurated. I do not believe the number represent up-to-date historical data. By any standards of measurements that I am familliar with, with respect to a sound historiographical consensus, it strikes me as not being even remotely close.
  • The question of responsibility is, for our purposes, essentially a moral one, whether one approaches it through a sort of teleological conseqentialism (in temrs of causality) or mere deontology, does not change this basic premise. Do we go on assigning responsibility to Jesus for the crusades, etc.? What about Buddha? So I disagree with Marx not being accorded the same.
  • As for being devisive: Liberalism was also devisive versus Feudalism, and the latter versus Ancient political systems. That is one point which Marx placed a great deal of emphasis on and it something that, I believe, your position neglect to account for. Marx was POV, yes, and so was George Washington and Jesus, etc., the list goes on to include most notable historical figures.

I wish I had more time to expend on this beyond five minutes, there are a lot of responses that I can almost predict you will retort with and which I should, therefore, mention a priori, but alas, time is scrace for me at the moment. El_C

If Jesus had stated that there has been a long struggle against unbelievers, and that struggle should continue because they are exploiters and thieves and eventually the believers will win out, then I think we would put some responsibility on him for the crusades.--User:Silverback
Jesus said that Christians should convert non-Christians. The crusaders took that to mean "convert them by the sword". But since Jesus never said anything about forced conversion, and since he was obviously opposed to all violence, holding him responsible for the crusades is insane. Similarly, since Marx never said anything about killing any people other than soldiers, and especially not after the revolution (as all Stalinist regimes did), it would be insane to hold him responsible for those killings. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 10:38, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)