Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Prussia, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics
This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Atheism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of atheism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AtheismWikipedia:WikiProject AtheismTemplate:WikiProject AtheismAtheism
Add Atheism info box to all atheism related talk pages (use {{WikiProject Atheism}} or see info box)
Ensure atheism-related articles are members of Atheism by checking whether ] has been added to atheism-related articles – and, where it hasn't, adding it.
Try to expand stubs. Ideas and theories about life, however, are prone to generating neologisms, so some stubs may be suitable for deletion (see deletion process).
State atheism needs a reassessment of its Importance level, as it has little to do with atheism and is instead an article about anti-theist/anti-religious actions of governments.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
User:Redthoreau has just restored two completely superfluous quotations praising Marx, one from Che Guevara and the other from Robert C. Tucker. I can appreciate the reasons why someone might want to restore the quotation from Tucker (although I wouldn't restore it myself, as I think there are better ways of saying that Marx was a significant figure). I can't see any proper reason for restoring the one from Guevara. It's just Guevara saying how wonderful Marx and Marxism are, and it's no more relevant or appropriate than a quotation from Ayn Rand or Ludwig von Mises (or any number of other right-wing figures) about what a terrible person Marx was or how destructive Marxism is. The purpose of this article is to provide a neutral account of Marx, not to make him look as good as possible. Redthoreau, please see WP:NPOV. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 00:46, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
I actually think the Tucker quote is no less POV than the Che quote. Tucker spent his entire life studying Communism, the Soviet system, etc. Even if he disagreed with every single thing that Marx wrote, his perception of Marx's influence is likely to be distorted. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 01:29, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
As I said, it's a quote that I wouldn't prefer to use myself - though I can see why others might. Hopefully the implications for NPOV of filling the article full of block quotations praising Marx are reasonably clear; it comes across as simply a way of promoting Marxism, just as filling the articles full of quotations attacking Marx would be a way of attacking Marxism. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 03:59, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
On a different issue, I have problems with this edit. I can't see any good reason for changing "Marxist" to "Marxian". The change should be undone, as it introduces more obscure and less readily comprehensible terminology. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 03:59, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Polisher, quoting a Marxist revolutionary who carried out revolution based on their interpretation of Marx is of course a relevant person to cite in a section on Marx’s political influence with Marxism. Ayn Rand is irrelevant here, but had she proclaimed herself a "Smith(ian) revolutionary" (from Adam Smith) and become a well known and influential figure in Smith(ism), then perhaps her take on Mr. Smith would be relevant to his article. As for the Tucker quote, again this is the view of a notable individual who studied Marxism. Just as the critical views of Marx are relevant in the criticism section, a positive view of Marx is relevant to a section on his legacy. As for your running litany of objections that read more like WP:IDONTLIKEIT, I would remind you of WP:OWN. Redthoreau-- (talk) 18:25, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, that's an excuse for POV pushing, and a pretty cheesy one. The section entitled "Marxism" is about Marxism. It's grotesque to suggest that it should reflect only Marxist views. Under WP:NPOV, anti-Marxist views, from Ayn Rand or anyone else, are no less relevant than pro-Marxist views. Placing a giant quotation from Guevara at the start of the section gives it undue emphasis and is simply a way of using the article to promote Marxism - it's pro-Marxist POV pushing, just as placing a giant quotation from Ayn Rand about horrible Marxism is would be anti-Marxist POV-pushing. I am sceptical that the Guevara quotation should be included at all, but if you think it should be, please find a way of including it so that it doesn't seem to dominate the entire section. Same remarks apply to Tucker. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 20:18, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Also, the fact that there is a section entitled "Criticism" in this article shouldn't be used as an excuse to turn the "Legacy" section into nothing but a collection of comments praising Marx or talking about how important he is. "Legacy" does not mean the same thing as "Praise". A person can have a negative or a mixed legacy as well as a positive one. In principle, I would be in favour of amalgamating the "Legacy" and the "Criticism" section into one; there seems little justification for having two separate sections, when criticism of Marx is certainly relevant to his legacy and vice versa. You might conceivably have a point if the "Criticism" section were only about criticism of Marx, but it isn't. A sentence such as "in the wake of the economic crisis of 2008 some thinkers like Terry Eagleton, David Harvey, and David McNally have given renewed impetus to the debate on whether Marx was right that capitalism inherently tends towards crisis" is not a "criticism" of Marx, even though it appears in the "Criticism" section. On the contrary, it's a statement suggesting that Marx has an enduring importance - and its presence in the "Criticism" section simply shows how pointless having a section devoted to "Criticism" is. If criticisms of Marx in the "Criticism" section are going to be followed by comments suggesting that Marx might have been right all along, then calling the section "Criticism" is simply wrong, and the logic of having a separate section isn't apparent. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:37, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
I've just removed the following content, which was added by Redthoreau: "As a result, Robert C. Tucker has hypothesized that 'knowledge of the writings of Marx and Engels is virtually indispensable to an educated person in our time', while postulating that 'not to be well grounded in the writings of Marx and Engels is to be insufficiently attuned to modern thought.'" There are at least two problems with it. Firstly, it is poorly written: it seems very strange to say that someone "hypothesized" that knowledge of a writer's work is "virtually indispensable to an educated person in our time" or that he "postulated" that it's bad to not be well grounded in the writings of one or another author. I appreciate that the point of using terms like "hypothesized" and "postulated" is to preserve NPOV, but it just seems like very strange and awkward writing. Secondly, that's the second time that Tucker's views are mentioned in that paragraph, and the source used is the same as for the previous mention. It makes no sense at all to cite Tucker twice in that way. He should be cited once, with all relevant material kept together. I would ask Redthoreau to please work out the problems of this material on talk before readding anything. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 04:15, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
What you've done is an improvement over the way you added the material before. I am, however, unsure that it serves any useful or encyclopedic purpose to quote someone as saying that "knowledge of Marx's and Engels' writings are 'virtually indispensable to an educated person in our time.'" WP:UNDUE is a relevant policy here. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 08:04, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
The "encyclopedic purpose" I believe lies in the fact that it lets the reader know that according to some academics (particularly those with a favorable opinion of Marxism like the distinguished Tucker) being well versed in what Marx said is a necessary prerequisite to being an "scholarly individual." I don’t particularly hold this view (which I know is irrelevant) but I have encountered it (which is know is also irrelevant). However, I believe it is a prevalent view in academia (especially in many of the Humanities) and well within the confines of WP:UNDUE to let the reader know that this perspective exists. Do you question per Undue whether this view in fact is representative enough for inclusion, because I believe it could be sourced numerous times if need be? Redthoreau-- (talk) 10:45, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
I doubt very strongly that it is helpful to readers to quote someone saying that knowledge of Marx's writings is essential to being properly educated or scholarly. One could probably say that, not only about Marx's writings, but about the writings of every noteworthy figure in the history of western philosophy, but what would be the point? If a particular writer was clearly very influential, then it ought to be obvious that it's a good idea to know something about his writings. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 20:28, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Why was the picture changed?
Seriously, the brownish, full-body shot of Marx on a chair is much better than the one being used now. Why was it changed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.59.155.78 (talk) 19:30, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Marx was a philosopher, but he wrote in the tradition of holding philosophy and science to be one and the same. This is evident in his thesis on Democritean and Epicurean philosophy, his rejection of idealist philosophy, and naturalist and empericist bases for all of his concepts, especially that of Man. There is also an implicit naturalist moral theory throughout all his work, particularly in his earlier writings, which many conveniently pay less attention to. This is in stark contrast to the economic and sociological theories found in social science, which pride themselves as being free of morality and based upon statistics, mathematical calculations, and behavioural psychology. As such, he was not a sociologist or social scientist as people claim. He could instead be classified as a natural philosopher and empiricist in the tradition of Aristotle, rather than an idealist in the Platonic tradition (like the Hegelians and Kantians). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.72.44.213 (talk) 22:42, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Well here in UK college level sociology you study Weber, Durkheim and Marx's views as the three main views, looking at each topic (crime, education, family etc) in context of those and other views, so yes Marx and the result of his influence is important to understanding sociology, the study of society. Now if you dont mind I want to go back to sitting on my ass all day.
Trivially, the introductory chapter of Capitalism and Modern Social Theory by Anthony Giddens (an established authority in sociology and the former head of the LSE) positions Marx (along with Durkheim and Weber) as one of the founders of the modern social sciences. This is also a basic tidbit you're likely to run into in any introductory theoretical text on anthropology, sociology, or social theory. If I can remember the actual context of where Marx was cited I'll quote Giddens, but maybe someone could help me out on where it should or shouldn't go. Kate (talk) 21:39, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
description of class struggle in lead
Some changes have been going on recently in regards to the description of class struggle in the lead.
The version as of yesterday read, "...class struggle: a conflict between an ownership class which controls production and a lower class which produces the labour for such goods."
User:JTBXchanged this to "... class struggle: an ownership class controls production and profits from the labour of a lower class which produces such goods."
This is, in my opinion, not the best wording, -- we no longer have the "between" which indicates a struggle, and "produces such goods" is rendered unintelligible and referentless with "the labour for" excised. I changed it to "... class struggle: in capitalism, this struggle is between the capitalist class, which owns the means of production, and the workers, who have only their labour power to sell." I feel that this is more precise, more clearly worded, and actually more in line with Marx's conception of class struggle.
Since the sentence is about class struggle in general ("all societies"), I feel it necessary to specify that the struggle between the owners of the means of production and (wage) laborers is the form this struggle takes under capitalism.
"Controls production" is too vague (controls what aspect of production?); I think we need to specify ownership of the means of production.
The point of the Marxist analysis of the lower class is that their only asset is their labor power. Many social analysis acknowledge a rift between powerful and powerless classes, but the point of Marxist analysis hinges on the distinction between those with and those without access to the means of production. I do think that my proposed version describes class struggle concisely and more or less precisely; if others disagree, I would still be in favor of the older version (No. 1 above), as it's clearer than the one that replaced it. Sindinero (talk) 13:57, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
As an afterthought and a point of etiquette, non-trivial changes to the wording in the lead should probably never be classified as minor edits... Sindinero (talk) 22:02, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
You misunderstood completely and carelessly. Read the lead sentence that you wrote, then read the sentence right after. Marx's analysis is describe by (generic) two classes one ownership, one labour based throughout history (feudalism and so on), then the next sentence it states "heavily critical of current form of society, capitalism," making it confusing to read as capitalism is introduced twice. Marx's analysis of dialetic is historical, all societies feudalism>capitalism etc progress through the class struggle, the next part is a definition after the semi-colon of class struggle generically. Then we have a sentence after describing Marx's capitalism specifically. The way you have written it introduced capitalism twice one sentence after the other. The version I put it to was used for a long time before you changed it and makes better sense. JTBX (talk) 16:34, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Labour, class struggle and false consciousness
I thought this section was informative but doesn't emphasize that alienation, class struggle, and especially labour and labour-power all stem from what can be taken as a first premise, that the concepts all stem from private ownership of the means of production. The description of this is included in "Economy, History, and Society" but appears secondary to these ideas, whereas I think most would agree that Marx's defining innovation was to show precisely that/why private ownership of the means of production in industrial society is so problematic. Without this first premise, if it can be construed as such, concepts of alienation, etc. appear almost non-sensicle or isolated as part of his overall philosophy. It's worth noting, however, the concept of human-nature appears a primary premise before anything is said of the means of production (his view of human nature involving work appears universal across all societies), though Marx's aim is to show how human-nature is transformed in a new society with private ownership of the means of production. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.72.44.213 (talk) 18:16, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
I am very worried about the recent edits to the article (mainly by WellsSouth (talk·contribs)). A lot of unteferenced content has been added, looking just at the first half (up to and including The Panic of 1857: The First World-Wide Recession section), I count numerous sentences, and two entire unreferenced paras. I tagged them all, and I am deeply worried that the article is no longer GA due to insufficient referencing. On a side note, many new headings use improper capitalization (regular nouns and adjectives should not be capitalized). Lastly, a number of paragraphs added seem simply irrelevant. In the mentioned The Panic of 1857: The First World-Wide Recession two out of three paras simply deal with the recession, and do not mention Marx or his thought at all. This article is not a place to discuss world's history during Marx's lifetime. I am afraid that if this is not going to be fixed, we should revert the article to a previous version, before the swaths of unreferenced content were added (per WP:V). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me16:48, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
I last looked at this yesterday evening sometime, there was one edit that seemed unobjectionable. It seems to have exploded since then, and I can't really find sources for much of this information. I think it should go. Kate (talk) 19:05, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm going to revert. I consider this edit to be fairly typical: it involves the citation of a primary source in a paragraph whose importance is not clear and which contains original research/analysis. Here is a typical example of a slightly different kind, which likewise seems to involve original research and extrapolation and the reference given is quite unclear; you'll find more of the same in the editor's other contributions. That referencing, by the way, is not up to par with GA standards. I've reverted to a version from mid-April, which is 30k lighter. Thank you all. Drmies (talk) 15:11, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Good catch, I didn't notice that many of the refs added where to primary sources (so, OR). To prevent Wells good faithed work from being wasted, I'd suggest moving all of the content he added here, perhaps somebody could salvage some of it with better references? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me18:12, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
.svg)
