| Revision as of 17:00, 11 November 2010 editJustus Maximus (talk | contribs)729 edits →Marx and armed uprising in Belgium← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 17:53, 11 January 2025 edit undoPatrick Welsh (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, IP block exemptions, Rollbackers5,580 edits Undid revision 1268811661 by 2600:382:12E0:7454:292C:C65F:88F1:52F4 (talk) close date, not request dateTag: Undo |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Talk header|search=no}} |
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
|
|
{{notice|{{large|'''This page is about Marx, not ].'''}}}} |
|
{{talk header}} |
|
|
{{circles}} |
|
{{Controversial}} |
|
{{calm talk|#FFCCCC}} |
|
{{Round in circles}} |
|
{{controversial (history)}} |
|
{{Article history |
|
{{pbneutral}} |
|
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|collapsed=yes|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Politics|class=C|importance=high}} |
|
|
{{philosophy|continental=yes|modern=yes|philosopher=yes|class=C|importance=high|political=yes}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Sociology|class=C|importance=Top}} |
|
|
{{WPBiography|living=no|class=C|listas=Marx, Karl|core=yes|priority=Top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Germany|class=C|importance=Top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Former countries|class=C|Prussia=yes}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Socialism|class=C|importance=Top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Economics|class=C|importance=High}} |
|
|
{{WPLondon|class=C|importance=Mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Atheism|class=C|importance=High}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Business & Economics|class=C|importance=High}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Human rights|importance=mid|class=C}} |
|
|
{{WP1.0|v0.5=pass|class=C|importance=high|category=Socsci|VA=yes|WPCD=yes}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{ArticleHistory |
|
|
|action1=PR |
|
|action1=PR |
|
|action1date=January 31, 2005 |
|
|action1date=January 31, 2005 |
| Line 37: |
Line 20: |
|
|action3oldid=73691735 |
|
|action3oldid=73691735 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action4=GAN |
|
|currentstatus=FFAC}} |
|
|
|
|action4date=30 March 2011 |
|
{{autoarchivingnotice|bot=MiszaBot|age=50|small=no|dounreplied=yes}} |
|
|
|
|action4link=Talk:Karl Marx/GA1 |
|
|
|action4result=failed |
|
|
|action4oldid=423312598 |
|
|
|
|
|
|action5=GAN |
|
|
|action5date=2 May 2011 |
|
|
|action5link=Talk:Karl Marx/GA2 |
|
|
|action5result=listed |
|
|
|action5oldid=427095364 |
|
|
|
|
|
|currentstatus=GA |
|
|
|topic=World history |
|
|
|otd1date=2019-03-14|otd1oldid=887614006 |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=GA|collapsed=yes|vital=yes|living=no|listas=Marx, Karl|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Biography|politician-work-group=yes|politician-priority=top|s&a-work-group=yes|s&a-priority=top|core=yes}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=High}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Philosophy|continental=yes|modern=yes|philosopher=yes|importance=high|political=yes}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Sociology|importance=Top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Germany|importance=Top|Prussia=yes}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Socialism|importance=Top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Economics|importance=High}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject London|importance=Mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Atheism|importance=High}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Business|importance=High}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Human rights|importance=High}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Religion|importance=Top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Journalism|importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Alternative views|importance=Top}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{British-English}} |
|
|
{{Annual readership}} |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|archiveheader = {{Talkarchivenav}} |
|
|archiveheader={{Talkarchivenav}} |
|
|maxarchivesize = 100K |
|
|maxarchivesize=125K |
|
|counter = 7 |
|
|counter=13 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 3 |
|
|minthreadsleft=4 |
|
|algo = old(50d) |
|
|algo=old(50d) |
|
|archive = Talk:Karl Marx/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|archive=Talk:Karl Marx/Archive %(counter)d |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== House in Trier, Germany, where Marx spent his childhood and youth == |
|
== Criticism == |
|
|
|
|
|
Can't we work the criticism of Marx into the article? I have always favoured that as opposed to a criticism section, some of the better articles fit criticism into the whole. ] (]) 23:10, 29 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I saw this at an article and its very appropriate here: |
|
|
|
|
|
Q6: Why isn't there a criticisms/controversies section? |
|
|
A6: Because a section dedicated to criticisms and controversies is no more appropriate than a section dedicated solely to praise and is an indication of a poorly written article. Criticisms/controversies/praises should be worked into the existing prose of the article, per the Criticism essay. |
|
|
|
|
|
That is how we should work at this article, based on this principle. ] (]) 23:16, 29 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Actually the criticism section seems to be composed mostly of criticism of ], not of Marx himself. I think writing it into the text is a great idea. ] 23:25, 29 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::You are right on that. Any criticisms not to do with Marx himself should be removed (or if useful and appropriate, moved into the Marxism article) and the rest should be incorporated into the text as is standard and desirable. If some more support comes in, I'll start on this task soon. Thanks for your fast reply. ] (]) 23:28, 29 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::And also, as has been mentioned before in this talk, I think we should remove some of the references to Marxism as an ideology outside of its own section (Marx's Thought) especially when its implications are outside of his control, such as what happened in the Soviet Union. What do we think? ] (]) 09:39, 3 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: What do you mean criticisms of Marx himself. Are you saying that only personal criticisms of Marx should be included in this article or that criticism of people after Marx shouldn't be included? --] (]) 20:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::I am saying that criticisms of Marx' ideas do not really belong in a biography, but in an article about those ideas such as our article on ]. Now, forexample the anti-semite issue is more about his person than about his system of thought and does belong here - criticism of marxism as an ideology including how it has been implemented does not belong in the biography I think.] 20:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Quite right, any criticisms of Marxism belong in the article on Marxism. I am not sure that many of our biography articles have "criticisms" sections. ] | ] 20:37, 3 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::: I '''agree''' with both ValenShepard and Maunus above. This article should deal with personal criticism, theoretical criticism should go in the ] or ''(more appropriately)'' ] article. ] ] (]) 20:38, 3 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::Alright then, we seem to be in agreement. I'll start work on this in the next few days. If you disagree with any of my cuts (as I think it will be a few thousand characters) please let me know. ] (]) 00:07, 4 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::: Did you remove all the anti-semitism information or incorporate it into the article? --] (]) 18:20, 4 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Its at the end of the philosophy section, but I gave it a rewrite. I studied it a bit, here and from the Marxist archive and it turns out the work is much more complex than first appeared. Have a look and tell me what you think. ] (]) 18:31, 4 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::: I would avoid the editorializing: "albeit clumsily written." --] (]) 18:36, 4 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::::That is a very close paraphrase of the actual defense made of the essay in that source I gave. You can remove it if you want, I didnt want to write something that seemed overly positive towards the essay, because some virulent individuals think its a hotbed of hateful antisemitism, even if thats not really true. I didnt want to insult their sensibilities.. : D ] (]) 18:38, 4 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:: You might be able to google book the following: |
|
|
::: David McLellan, ''Karl Marx: His Life and Thought'' (New York:Harper & Row, 1973), p. 4 |
|
|
::: Gertrude Himmelfarb, "The Real Marx," in ''Commentary'' (April 1985), pp. 37-43 and "Letter" (August 1985). |
|
|
:::These books talk more about his statements on Judaism. Quote from Todd Bucholz, ''New Ideas from Dead Economists'': "Scholars may debate whether he was really anti-Semitic. But undoubtedly Karl Marx uttered numerous venomous insults." Some more sources might be more illuminating when it comes to the complex character of Marx. --] (]) 18:43, 4 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Venemous insults? Oh dear. Sounds weak. Check out the page ] and you will see much better quotations and sources discussing the essay. Most academics seem to agree, that at worst, he was representing views common of the time, and at best that he was actually defending Judaism. Mostly, he was using euthemism to insult and mess around his rival. If you actually read the thing, its on Marxist archive, you'll see its a much deeper statement about liberal values, though its quite boring. (I think its probably his least important publication) And in fact, his conclusion is that Jews should be able to maintain their identity and religion while transitioning to the city state as opposed to the monarchy. Doesn't sound too bad to me. But I am just telling you to get some background on the issue. ] (]) 18:58, 4 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::"The young Karl Marx: German philosophy, modern politics, and human flourishing By David Leopold" backs up what you say. You have to admit that his language is rather abusive and combative, probably because that was his style. --] (]) 19:25, 4 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::::From my understanding of it he was using inflammatory language as a euthemism to actually mock his rival who the essay was a rebuttal to, who was much more virulent than Marx. Overall, I don't think this essay of Marx's is that important. It is his only real work on the issue, and it was a liberal defence of Jewish culture. I think the current paragraph, with the link to the page should readers want more info, is enough. This is the writer of Das Kapital after all! Those works of his, the groundbreaking ones, not curiosities from his early career deserve their prominence. This essay of his has been used to crticise him with the anti-semitic brush in almost every anti-communist source, I don't think we need to stoop to this level here, especially when we start to understand its context. ] (]) 19:31, 4 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Well we must stoop to the level of reporting the criticisms. So perhaps Marx doesn't deserve ALL the blame. As far as "euphemisms" (I think you're looking for another word) go, Marx was a pretty fiery intellectual. I don't criticize him for that. --] (]) 00:12, 5 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I was joking. But the intellectual McLellan noted that Marx's use of the word "Judentum" was actually a kind of slang for commerce or trading, maybe quite a low brow slang, but still. I find that argument convincing. The idea McLellan puts forward is that Marx was making a joke at the expense of his rival, by turning his own anti-semitism against him in a kind of ironic way. But it doesn't actually matter, I guess I am talking about it so much because its so fascinating. So Schwindtd, what do you propose should be changed about the current paragraph on Marx's essay in this article? ] (]) 11:20, 5 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Perhaps the use of that slang could be included. I don't really know that much about Marx's personal life. I also have not read any of Marx's works (and I don't think I ever will). It'd probably be better if you handled the section. You seem to know more.--] (]) 15:02, 5 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Maybe its enough that people can go find out more about the essay on its page? The article is actually quite a fair one, the analyses given (including all the ones I have mentioned) are listed there. ] (]) 16:56, 5 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::Replying to a comment made up top, McLellan's book does not discus Marx's views on Jews and Judaism in detail on page 4 but much later in the book. I wholeheartedly agree with ValenShephard's comments and hope he is editing accordingly. ] | ] 12:15, 7 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::"<i>From my understanding of it he was using inflammatory language as a euthemism to actually mock his rival</i>" |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::That is a kind of assumption that is understandably often made. However, sources like the <i>Encyclopaedia Judaica</i> point out that Marx expressed antagonism to Jews on a number of other occasions such as his <i>Thesis on Feuerbach</i>, in his articles for the <i>New York Tribune</i>, and in <i>Capital</i>. It follows that the issue is rather more complex and needs further investigation. I can see no logical reason why legitimate critique of Marx and/or his ideas and actions should be excluded from an article on Marx or Marxism. Since his comments about Jews reflect his personal views rather than those espoused by Marxists in general, I would suggest they properly belong to the Marx rather than to the Marxism article. ] (]) 16:01, 10 November 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::Whereas anti-Semitic language in “On the Jewish Question” may arguably have been a parody on contemporary anti-Semitism, it is doubtful whether the same can be asserted in those instances where Marx uses that kind of language to attack Jewish persons he obviously disliked. As noted by Francis Wheen in his biography of Marx, |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::“In his later correspondence with Engels, he sprayed anti-Semitic insults at his enemies with savage glee: the German socialist Ferdinand Lasalle, a frequent victim, was described variously as the Yid, Wily Ephraim, Izzy and the Jewish Nigger. ‘It is now quite plain to me – as the shape of his head and the way his hair grows also testify – that he is descended from the negroes who accompanied Moses’ flight from Egypt, unless his mother or paternal grandmother interbred with a nigger,’ Marx wrote in 1862, discussing the ever-fascinating subject of Lassalle’s ancestry. ‘No, this blend of Jewishness and Germanness, on the other hand, and basic negroid stock, on the other, must inevitably give rise to a peculiar product. The fellow’s importunity is also niggerlike” (p. 55). |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::The question as to whether as suggested by the <i>Encyclopaedia Judaica</i> this was a case of “self-hatred” cannot be answered without a closer psychological study that is probably outside the scope of Misplaced Pages articles. However, the question as to why he chose to use anti-Semitic language cannot be avoided. Unless contradicted by a detailed psychological profile, a simpler explanation may be that as an assimilated Jew, Marx had absorbed some of the anti-Semitic attitudes prevalent in his time. At any rate, if mention must be made of his anti-Semitic remarks (and I believe this to be the case given that they figure in biographies), it seems improper to focus exclusively on “On the Jewish Question”. ] (]) 12:29, 11 November 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::Anti-semitic and racialist views can be found with all mainstream writers until the Second World War, and some of the terminology used then, which is now considered offensive, were the mainstream words used. Ironically after long calling communism a Jewish movement (see: ], they now call it anti-semitic. The book quoted btw is by a journalist, ], not an academic, and therefore there is no way of knowing how widespread his views are. Wheen is a signatory of the ] which criticized the Left for not supporting the War in Iraq. Incidentally your reference to the ] is extremely offensive. ] (]) 15:56, 11 November 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::::I think you would be well advised to read some history and, above all, read my actual statements. I'm not referring to the "Jewish Question" at all but to Marx's ]. IMO your patent ignorance ought to disqualify you from the discussion. ] (]) 16:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::Sorry, I missed your quotes. ] (]) 16:52, 11 November 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Lead == |
|
|
|
|
|
I was wondering why there were some pretty text heavy quotes in the lead. Couldn't those be moved to the individual subsections instead of clogging up the lead? --] (]) 01:24, 3 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:I agree, and I've tried to clean the lead up a little bit. Or, at least, I've tried to make it ''look'' a little cleaner. Still, the "We see then..." block quote is pretty gigantic even for an article body, let alone the lead. The lead seems to flow just fine without the quote. The quote ''does'', however, seem well-selected, and IMO should indeed be moved down somewhere. And that might be all it takes to put the lead at, say, 8.5 on a 1-to-10 perfection scale. In order for it to achieve at least a 9, it might want to complement the fact that "few parts of the world remained significantly untouched by Marxian ideas in the course of the twentieth century" with a reminder that little of ''anything'' avoided Marx's influence. In other words, as Terrell Carver puts it (on p. 1 of ''Marx's Social Theory''), "The impact of Karl Marx on our intellectual life has been profound. In the arts and sciences his work has influenced almost every discipline from aesthetics to theology, including anthropology, geography, history, jurisprudence, linguistics, literary criticism, almost all branches of philosophy, political science and psychology." If the lead needs a quotation, I believe, it needn't look any further than that. ] (]) 16:37, 18 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::I think all three quotes should be taken out of the intro and moved down to the article itself. The intro should be about explaining the importance of Marx himself, not for explaining his ideas to the reader. ] (]) 18:58, 26 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Copyright problem removed == |
|
|
|
|
|
One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). The material was copied from: http://books.google.com.au/books?id=ZZuDP8hGg5IC&pg=PT12&lpg=PT12&dq=This+work,+that+was+published+posthumously+under+the+editorship+of&source=bl&ots=P-SbZ9J9fW&sig=sw5tv4Tug4DhFLu73NumXNlnGDc&hl=en&ei=uamdTN6KFpHevQPyna2xDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CCwQ6AEwBQ. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, ''unless'' it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see ] if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or ] if you are.) For ], we cannot accept ] text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of ''information'', but not as a source of ''sentences'' or ''phrases''. Accordingly, the material ''may'' be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original ''or'' ] from that source. Please see our ] for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Misplaced Pages takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators '''will''' be ] from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. <!-- Template:Cclean --> ] 07:54, 25 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:While the Communist Manifesto is public domain, the material comes from the forward a recent edition (which is likely copyrighted). ] 07:55, 25 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:I don't think this is a copivio. The book linked to includes material which is the same as, or very close to, this entire article. However, the book includes text which existed in this article , well before most of the text that the book and article share existed in this article. I don't see how that could happen if the text was copied from the book to the article, but it easily could happen if the book is a copy of an earlier version of this article. The listed publisher, , produces , a number of which contain text similar to Misplaced Pages articles (e.g. ). ] (]) 08:54, 25 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::The person who added the text ] and major contributions of extensive copyright violators can be removed per ]. It's safest to remove. ] 09:39, 25 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::It looks like eBookEden swiped the text from this article. They are the ones who are violating licensing law by not attributing the text to Misplaced Pages. Of course, if there's an editor with a history of copyvio, we should look at his edits, but I think it's clear that its eBookEden thats violating intellectual property rights. Removing a couple sentences to be on the safe side is OK with me, but large parts of the article shouldn't be purged because ebookeden used them.--] (]) 19:41, 25 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Agreed. I don't intend on killing the entire article, just the bit that Robertsch55 added. ] 02:31, 26 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Excuse me, but this is ridiculous, and thoughtless vandalism too. Ebookeden and Google are those who violate Robertsch55's, my, and other user's GNU license by not attribtuting the article to the revision history of this article from Misplaced Pages. Robertsch55 had added the sentence back on . I'm not sure if the content is correct or very important but I have restored it because the reason to delete it is obviously not valid, Greetings --] (]) 13:01, 9 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Marx' thought == |
|
|
|
|
|
The whole section on Marx' thought needs to be rewritten, mainly in a chronological manner: first the philosophical work of the young Marx, then historical materialism, then critique of political economy. The current version is a diffuse medley of this phases. E.g., you can explain the concept of commoditiy fetishism only in the framework of value form analyses, not as a description of "spiritual loss", nor as an example of "what Engels called ']' ", nor as a result of "alienation of human work". The modern view on Engels is, that he did not understand Marx' value form analyses at all, --] (]) 11:13, 7 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:"The modern view?" Are all scholars in agreement? Whose view? I am all for clarifying the page and improving the organization. |
|
|
|
|
|
:But substantive work on "Marxism" or "marxian thought" really belongs in the marxism article; on this page we should as you suggest just document the development of marx's ideas in their historical and biographical context, when possible discerning his views distinct from Engels (but the collected works have a huge correspondence between marx and Enggels in which Marx seems to agree with a great deal of what Engles says) and other marxists. But this is precisely what is attempted in the "career" section - not just biography but anintellectual biography. |
|
|
|
|
|
:However, you might wish to check the page history. I remember when a user (not I) added what is now the "influences" section - you may call it a mishmash, but it was that user's attempt to take a much bigger mish-mash and put some order to it. His point - that some of Marx's ideas came from engaging german idealist philosophers and their German critics, other ideas came from engaging French physiocrats, and other ideas came from engaging brittish political economists, made some sense at the time and still makes some sense and perhaps someone can take this section, which as usual has degraded over the years, and restore it to a clear discussion of these distinct engagements in Marx's thoughts. ] | ] 12:12, 7 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Only referring to your initial three questions for now. For a presentation in English language availiable in fulltext on books.google, we can take the book by Michael Eldred: ''Critique of competitive freedom and the bourgeois-democratic state'' from 1984, where Eldred writes in the preface (p. xliv-xlv): |
|
|
|
|
|
:"Form-analysis, in marking itself off from developmental theory, takes as its starting-point ithe striking autonomy of the argumentation in ''Capital'' when understood as a systematic argumentation aiming at the conceputalisation of epochal categories. The debate between systematic theory and developmental theory finds a firm ground for contestation in the interpretation of the Marxian capital-analysis. There, the decisive point is a clarification of the distinction between a logical-dialectical and a logical-historical mode of presentation. The theorist who has occupied himself most internsively with this question is ]. He has shed light upon the methodological problems of Marx's textes in relation to the perplexing phenomenon of the various versions (published by Marx himself) of the Marxian value theory. According to Backhaus, of the four versions of the Marxian formanalysis of commodities and money, the first, wich appeard in the ''Critique'' of 1859, presents the value theory most consistently as a dialectival, 'logical' argumentation. The logical analysis is clearly separated from the historical, which latter comprises only the last two pages of the analysis of commodities and money in the first chapter of the Critique. |
|
|
|
|
|
::<small>In this pseudo-historical appendix to the first version of the Marxian value theory however one must see the germ of its later 'historicisation' and 'vulgarisation' by Marx himself, abobe all however by the later Engels and the Marxist interpreters. (Backhaus 1981, p. 156f)</small> |
|
|
|
|
|
:This statement by Backhaus is the result of a painstaking study of Marxian and Engelsian texts as well as of letters written by both. Backhaus shows that even Engels did not consistently represent a logical-historical interpretation, but rather oscillated from an historical-logical position in the 1859 review of the ''Critique'', to a logical position in the ''Konspekt'' and ''Anti-Dühring'' to a final logical-historical position in the foreword and appendix to the third volume of ''Capital'' if 1894-95. The Engelsian theory of simple commodity production developed in this appendix can be viewed as a consistent conclusion to the tendency towards historicisation already present in the value theory as presented by Marx in the second edition of ''Capital''. Backhaus also shows that Marx's silence on Engels' 1859 review, which confusedly outlines a logical-historical mode of presentation, can plausibly be interpreted as a nunsureness and unclarity on Marx's part as to the distinguishing characteristics of his 'materialist' manner of presentation as opposed to an Hegelian 'idealist' presentation." |
|
|
|
|
|
It should be noted at this point, that while Backhaus' critique of Engels' interpretations has been accepted by a large fraction of scholars of Marx' critique of political economy, Backhaus' interpretation of Marx himself, and of the development of Marx' different presentations of form analysis as a degression from more to less consistency has also been disputed (one reason for this dispute may be that Backhaus is making guesses on Marx silence), greetings --] (]) 10:08, 8 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Well, then, I would suggest this is a significant view that should be included (and perhaps dealt with in more detail in the marxism article) but one man's analysis, even if accepted by many scholars, is not the same thing as "the modern view." It is often very important to attribute views precisely and accurately, and then to be careful to distinguish between practical unanimity (the universe began with the big bang) to various degrees of agreement - mainstream, majority, minority, fringe. |
|
|
|
|
|
:Certainly, this article should focus on Marx's ideas, and not Engels'. I think this is the critical point. ] | ] 16:45, 8 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Request for paragraph review == |
|
|
|
|
|
I've just added a new passage to the article, and I'm wondering if other editors wouldn't mind taking a careful look at it. The passage is located in ]; it begins with "Unlike insects and arachnids..." and concludes with "...revises Hegelian 'work' into material labour." I consider myself articulate enough in Marxian philosophy to write such a paragraph, but not articulate enough to know that what I write won't turn out to be a steamy, stinking heap of ]. If my addition contains mistakes or needs improvements, please feel free to fix the mistakes, make the improvements, offer me feedback as to how I can fix/improve the text, and/or (if there's just no hope) remove the thing in its entirety. Thank you in advance, ] (]) 18:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:This is how the section used to read: |
|
|
::Marxian thought rests on the fundamental assumption that it is human nature to transform nature, and he calls this process of transformation "labour" and the capacity to transform nature "labour power." For Marx, this is a natural capacity for physical activity, but it is intimately tied to the active role of human consciousness: |
|
|
|
|
|
::“ A spider conducts operations that resemble those of a weaver, and a bee puts to shame many an architect in the construction of her cells. But what distinguishes the worst architect from the best of bees is this, that the architect raises his structure in imagination before he erects it in reality. ” — (''Capital'', Vol. I, Chap. 7, Pt. 1) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Marx did not believe that all people worked the same way, or that how one works is entirely personal and individual. Instead, he argued that work is a social activity and that the conditions and forms under and through which people work are socially determined and change over time. |
|
|
:I think that the above is much clearer and more accessible than the current version. I wonder if one step towards improvement is restoring some of this earlier language. Nevertheless, I see what you are getting at. Marx's notion of labor is very much tied to his understanding of alienation and consciousness both of which come from Hegel. So your addition makes sense. I have two alternate proposals: a simple fix would be to place your discussion of Hegel earlier i.e. before the quote from ''Capital''. The bigger fix is to have a section on Marx's philosophy with a more elaborate treatment of ''influences'' on Marx's philosophy ... the article used to have such a section, broken down into Hegel and German idealists; Proudhoun and French Physiocrats; and Smith/Ricardo and British Political-Economists. This section still exists, but in an emaciated and poorly-written form. The material you added could go in that section, as part of a larger rewrite of that section. This would address ]'s criticisms, above, as well, i think. |
|
|
|
|
|
:In short, i think what you are trying to add is important and aside from revising the wording for clarity I am asking whether putting this in another place might help. ] | ] 10:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Dr. == |
|
|
|
|
|
So, I read in this article and heard from a third party that Karl Marx had (has?) a doctrine degree. Does the article not say "Dr. Karl Marx" at the begining? Just curious. ] (]) 06:42, 27 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:so, like, what is a "doctrine" degree? Have you even read the article? We discuss marx's education in the section called ... well, I will let you try to figure this one out. ] | ] 10:26, 27 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::As an aside, in addition to holding a university degree in philosophy, he was also known as "The Red Terror Doctor". The latter (unofficial) title had more to do with his views than with his academic qualifications. ] (]) 12:36, 10 November 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Marx and armed uprising in Belgium == |
|
|
|
|
|
Hi everyone. I note that the WP article on ] (section "Return to Prussia") states "Engels stayed in Prussia and took part in an armed uprising in South Germany." As evident from the sources, Marx himself was involved in similar activities in Belgium, February 1848, when he bought weapons for insurgent workers, and for which he was expelled from that country by royal order (Jenny Marx, “Short Sketch of an Eventful Life” in <i>Reminiscences of Marx and Engels</i>, Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House, p. 223; cf. Francis Wheen, <i>Karl Marx</i>, 1999, pp. 126-7). I think including a line or two to that effect would provide interesting and relevant information. ] (]) 13:54, 9 November 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I would propose the following phrasing: "In February 1848, Marx used the sum of 6,000 gold francs inherited from his father to finance the purchase of arms for revolutionary workers." ] (]) 12:53, 10 November 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Alright. As there is no response, I assume there is no objection, in fact I can see no reason why there should be any. I will include the above accordingly, then. ] (]) 11:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Lets get some other opinions first shall we, especially as to the relevance of the material --] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 12:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::To my knowledge there have been no objections. Of course the material is relevant. It shows he supported armed insurrection in Belgium and explains why he was expelled. The material should be included until someone produces evidence that there is something wrong with it. ] (]) 12:36, 11 November 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::You are proposing loads of changes over so many pages, all with the same POV. About the only way of monitoring you is to wait for an edit to be made. Its an excessive quote in my view, in the meantime you should respect ] --] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 12:51, 11 November 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Can we have the text please from the sources you are quoting to support the edit. If they do then I am happy with a shorted form of the material. However given your history I am not taking the sources on trust without sight of the text. --] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 13:42, 11 November 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::You've failed to give any acceptable reason why the quote is "excessive". Given your history of vehement opposition to inclusion of any sources linking Marx to anything inconvenient to his followers, you can't really be trusted. I'm giving the text anyway: |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::<b>"In mid-February his mother had belatedly sent him the huge sum of 6,000 gold francs as his share of old Heinrich Marx's legacy, and most of this windfall was immediately put to subversive use ... There is in fact ample evidence - not least from Jenny Marx herself. 'The German workers decided to arm themselves,' she admitted. 'Daggers, revolvers, etc. were procured. Karl willingly provided money, for he had just come into an inheritance. In all this the government saw conspiracy and criminal plans. Marx receives money and buys weapons, he must therefore be got rid of'"</b> - Jenny Marx, “Short Sketch of an Eventful Life”, quoted in Francis Wheen, <i>Karl Marx</i>, p. 127. |
|
|
|
|
|
::::The above throws light on the actual events and will improve the article. I now request its immediate inclusion in the article and a stop to this obstructive behavior. ] (]) 14:07, 11 November 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
], the father of Karl Marx, bought the small mansard roof building in ]´s Simeonstrasse in 1819 <ref>{{cite book |last1=Longuet |first1=Robert-Jean |title=Karl Marx mein Urgroßvater |date=1977 |location=Berlin |page=16}}</ref> when Karl was only one year old. The later socialist grew up here with his parents and five siblings and moved out aged 17 after his graduation from secondary school (Gymnasium). Yet as a grown up man, he returned to Trier several times to visit his relatives. |
|
:::::I do not see any POV being pushed here, and we have a source. If anyone questions the objectivity of the source I suggest that the attribution be provided in the main text of the article (i.e "According to Jenny Marx, ....."). But the material is ''clearly'' relevant to this article, and sourced. I see no grounds for keeping it out of the article. ] | ] 14:17, 11 November 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
Compared to today, little has changed in the historical city center of Trier: The main characteristics of the old town around the market place have been preserved and looked more or less the same back in the days when Karl Marx lived there <ref>{{cite book |last1=Neffe |first1=Jürgen |title=Marx der Unvollendete |date=2017 |publisher=Bertelsmann |isbn=ISBN-13 978-3570102732 |page=41}}</ref>. In particular the neighbourhood of the house to the Trier's most famous landmark, the Roman city gate ], is still impressive. In most parts unchanged to this day, it is likely that Karl Marx took the very same route to school every day that tourists can walk today <ref>{{cite book |last1=Monz |first1=Heinz |date=1964 |location=Trier |page=164}}</ref>. |
|
|
The house in Simeonstraße had a lasting impact on Karl Marx, especially since he had been educated here in home schooling until the age of 12 <ref>{{cite book |last1=Baumeister |first1=Jens |title=Wie der Wein Karl Marx zum Kommunisten machte: Ein Kommunist als Streiter für die Moselwinzer |date=2017 |location=Trier |isbn=ISBN 978-3000564710 |page=32}}</ref>. |
|
|
As an adult, Karl Marx returned to live with his family in this house during his visits several times. For example in 1841 after his doctoral studies in Berlin, Marx travelled back to Trier. The main reason for his return home was to be close to his long-term fiancée ]. Also in the following year, 1842, Karl Marx spent some months in the house in Simeonstraße 8 (then Simeongasse 1040) in order to take care of family matters <ref>{{cite book |last1=Longuet |first1=Robert-Jean |title=Karl Marx mein Urgroßvater |date=1977 |location=Berlin |page=52}}</ref>. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Location of the house |
|
::::::Thank you for your support. I am usually accused of "anti-Marxism" every time I provide sources inconvenient to certain political quarters. My interest, of course, is purely historical and is totally unconnected with politics. You may also wish to comment on my post on Marx's apparently anti-Semitic language, above. ] (]) 15:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
The former home of Karl Marx in Simeonstraße 8 (then Simeongasse 1040) looks rather unremarkable at the beginning of Trier's shopping promenade close to the famous Porta Nigra. Only a few minutes walk leads visitors to the bronze statue of Karl Marx by ] – a present from the People's Republic of China to Trier. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{reflist-talk}} |
|
:::::::This is based on a story by Marx's wife, presumably told decades after the event. It is not sourced to Marx, the revolutionaries he presumbly supported or the Belgian authorities. The book used as a source notes elsewhere the contradiction between the Communist manifesto supporting the 'abolition of all right of inheritance' and Marx accepting an inheritance. It does not say he gave it to the revolution. Unsupported and trivial. ] (]) 15:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 19 March 2024 == |
|
:::::::::Well, we can argue over whether this source meets our ] rules. But I certainly do not see it as anti-Marx or anti-Marxist in any way. I do however think that the quote revelas that Jenny's point is not about his spending money on arms (what sane and moral person ''wouldn't'', back then?) but rather his being a target of state persecution. ] | ] 15:48, 11 November 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit semi-protected|Karl Marx|answered=yes}} |
|
::::::::::Judging from edits like , I'd say it's a safe bet that Justus Maximus is not Marx's biggest fan. However, considering in isolation the ''particular'' line in question here, I'd say it actually benefits the article by bridging the idea immediately preceding it (that protests and rebellions took place in Europe) to the idea immediately following it (that Marx was arrested in Belgium and expelled from the country); it explains ''why'', in regards to protests and rebellions, the Belgian authorities would arrest and exile Marx. One qualification, though: The source material does not actually say that Marx used "the sum of 6,000 gold francs ... to finance the purchase of arms for revolutionary workers." What it says is that A) Marx ''received'' an inheritance of 6,000 gold francs; and B) Marx "provided money" (in some unstated amount) to the revolutionary workers (who "decided to arm themselves"). He was able to provide money, in general, ''because'' of his inheritance; he did not necessarily provide the ''entirety'' of the inheritance. Anyway, despite Justus Maximus's apparently anti-Marxist sentiments, his proposed addition would (IMHO) actually cast a ''positive'' light on Marx, because it would reveal an extraordinarily sincere philosopher and social theorist--one who "put his money where his mouth was", even though (overall) the impoverished Marx had far more things to say than he had money to give. (And, on that note, here's some food for thought: An reviewer of the source quoted above points out that Marx's influence has been compared to that of Jesus. And it ''was'' Jesus, after all, who pointed out that, relative to their respective assets, poor donors actually give more than rich ones. Both Jesus and Marx were viewed as radicals and were subjected to persecution, and...I'm just going to stop, because I could have ''way'' too much ] with this. ;-)) ] (]) 15:55, 11 November 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
Moses Mordecai Levi, otherwise known as Karl Heinrich Marx (May 5, 1818-March 14, 1883) was a German-Jewish philosopher, economist, historian, revolutionary, and journalist from Trier, Germany. ] (]) 12:06, 19 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:] '''Not done:''' please provide ] that support the change you want to be made.<!-- Template:ESp --> <br />— ]<sup></nowiki>]]</nowiki>]]</sup> ⋮ 13:43, 19 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:I am not finding any reliable sources on this. The only ones I found were articles using his Jewish identity to attack him. Here is one very biased article that mentions Moses mordecai Levi https://www.news24.com/news24/karl-marx-and-his-hateful-dream-of-atheism-20120913 |
|
|
:There is also a random reddit thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/karlmarx/comments/riufhh/was_karl_marx_his_birth_name/ |
|
|
:The only potentially legitimate source I found is where it says his paternal grandfather's name was Mordechai Levi |
|
|
:All the other sources are baseless conspiracy theories connecting him to the Rothschilds. |
|
|
:Please present reliable sources before starting a topic on talk pages. ] (]) 21:06, 27 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Critiques of Marx as a person. == |
|
:::::::::::Wheen actually provides Jenny Marx's statement precisely in the <i>context of evidence</i> for Marx's involvement. As he points out, "The tone of injured innocence is hardly justified by her confession: if the authorities could connect her husband with the arsenal of 'daggers, revolvers, etc.' he would be in the soup right up to his bushy eyebrows". The obvious implication being that Jenny's confession would have sufficed as evidence in a court of law. If so, it should also suffice for the purposes of a Misplaced Pages article. ] (]) 16:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Little to nothing about the personal character or contradictions of Marx as a human being. Seems one sided. Not looking for character assassination but a more balanced view. ] (]) 21:48, 14 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
::::::::::::It does cast Marx in a good light, although I think JM was trying to use the story as a springboard for his views about Marxism and terrorism. But I do not see that this type of anecdote can be used unless it is supported by reliable sources. Also ]'s book is probably a poor source - he is a journalist, not an historian. ] (]) 16:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Any suggestions on what to add? Please elaborate a bit more ] (]) 21:09, 27 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
::::::::::::::I've read about those incidents and I certainly think they are relevant in order to shed light on the relation between Marx' phisolophy and his attitude towards politically based action. ] 16:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Did Marx's parents convert to escape persecution, as many Jews did, or did they sincerely practice Christianity? == |
|
:::::::::::::::TFD, you aren't a historian yourself as amply documented by your inability to distinguish between the "Jewish Question" and Marx's ], above. Unlike you, Wheen can tell the difference. He may be a journalist, but he provides sources for all his material. His book has enjoyed wide critical acclaim, including in Marxist circles. As it stands, the article says "Europe experienced a series of protests, rebellions, and often violent upheavals ... The Belgian authorities arrested and expelled Marx from Belgium." Clearly, my edit provides the missing data elucidating the events. ] (]) 16:17, 11 November 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Asking here because this is not mentioned at all in the article and I'm wondering if it's applicable ] (]) 12:12, 31 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
(out) Instead of "provid the missing data elucidating the events", you might want to consult reliable sources, such as this article in a book published by ]: "The Brussels police unfairly arrested Germans like Marx on suspicion of carrying arms and then expelled them from Belgium, against the optimistic expections of the Democratic Association. This was surely pure fiction without evidence. In his article 'The Antwerp Death Sentences' of 3 September 1848, Engels claimed that democrats should never rise in arms...." ] (]) 16:41, 11 November 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Marx's family were not very religious Jews. After they converted, they were not very religious Christians either. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 12:15, 31 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
:Having publicly demonstrated your ignorance of historical facts, above, you are now deploying your old "my-source-is-more-reliable-than-your-source" trick. It doesn't fool anyone. If you bothered to read some history, including Wheen, you will notice that the "no-evidence" claim is totally unfounded and has been refuted. What Engels says about the Democrats is totally irrelevant and off-topic. ] (]) 17:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:Heinrich Michael in Karl Marx and the Birth of Modern Society goes in detail why Heinrich Marx converted in chapter Karl's Marx Parents. Basically Heinrich converted so he could keep he's job as a lawyer. ] (]) 18:54, 15 November 2024 (UTC) |
Location of the house
The former home of Karl Marx in Simeonstraße 8 (then Simeongasse 1040) looks rather unremarkable at the beginning of Trier's shopping promenade close to the famous Porta Nigra. Only a few minutes walk leads visitors to the bronze statue of Karl Marx by Wu Weishan – a present from the People's Republic of China to Trier.
Moses Mordecai Levi, otherwise known as Karl Heinrich Marx (May 5, 1818-March 14, 1883) was a German-Jewish philosopher, economist, historian, revolutionary, and journalist from Trier, Germany. Prism Steno Book (talk) 12:06, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Little to nothing about the personal character or contradictions of Marx as a human being. Seems one sided. Not looking for character assassination but a more balanced view. Redonefifty (talk) 21:48, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
level-3 vital article is rated GA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
.svg)
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.