Talk:Analytical Marxism

Initial comments
This is a very good article Hanshans23


 * I agree. Kudos to 128.250.213.10, whoever (s)he is! Sir Paul 05:10, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I was wondering if maybe a section should be added to this article discussing the relationships between the Analytical Marxist school and other schools that have had similar views, for instance the Pozan School in Poland, which during the 1960s and 1970s sought to formulate a rigorously scientific Marxism, which drew upon analytical philosophy and the philosophy of science. See: http://www.fmag.unict.it/~polphil/PolPhil/Poznan/PoznanEngl.html.

Actually, very little of the literature that I have seen on Analytical Marxism features such discussions, so I think that perhaps the addition of such a section would really make this article stand out. 5 February 2006.

Jim F.

Suggestions
For future reference and improvement, the following were my suggestions on how to get this article featured. Take it for what it's worth. How I wish I could support this article; the topic is important and little known. However, I must oppose the article in its current state. I have the following suggestions, which, if implemented, would change my vote:
 * Many more citations are needed: in the "Justice and Power" subsection of the "Criticisms" section; most definitely in the "Denouement" section; and in the "Beginnings" section.
 * Please give more background in the "Beginnings" section. An overview of early analytic philosophy's methods and methodological presuppositions would be very helpful in this regard. More attention should be given to Popper, especially The Open Society and Its Enemies.
 * If the group called itself "Non-Bullshit Marxism," then what did they consider "Bullshit Marxism" to be? (I assume the answer is something like: Marxism as it morphed into Poststructuralism.)
 * When you deal with the way in which analytical Marxists dealt with, defended, or modified Marx's theories, you must explain what those theories were to Marx and to Marxists before the analytical Marxists. This is a problem throughout.
 * Phrases like "Hegelian obscurantism" are clear to people with a philosophical background, but they'll be opaque to everybody else. You've got to clarify these. This, again, is a problem throughout.
 * Many of these sections simply need to be greatly expanded&mdash;e.g., the "Justice" section; you've really got to spend more time explaining G.A. Cohen's theories as well as the general intellectual background in which the analytical Marxists worked. This is why you've got to explain what Rawls argued for (as well as Nozick, who, according to Cohen's own works, greatly influenced him).
 * Please make the "Method" subsection in the "Criticisms" section clearer. I just don't quite understand it, as it is. And remember to add citations as you expand.

I don't want to leave you with the impression that I dislike this article. I don't! I hope these suggestions will help you improve the article and get it featured. Best, Hydriotaphia 12:59, 30 November 2005 (UTC) I hope this helps, in some small way. Regards, Hydriotaphia 17:47, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Rosa Lichtenstein's anti-Dialectics
On the Internet, Rosa Lichtenstein on her anti-dialecticswebsite, has been pursuing a project that is akin to that pursued by the Analytical Marxists. Thus far, she has been concentrating on developing a critique of not only dialectical materialism but also of dialectical thought in general, including what she likes to call, High-Church Dialectics, which is the sort of dialectics that is associated with Western Marxists like Lukacs, Adorno, Sartre, and Bertell Ollman. She draws heavily upon the work of Wittgenstein and of Frege. She eventually plans to address historical materialism, presumably picking up where the Analytical Marxists have left off.

JimFarm 12:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

-

Rosa wrote:

In many respects Jim is correct, but I distance myself from the Analytic Marxists in that they were not analytic enough, and not fit to be called 'Marxist' (except perhaps for Wright, Sober, Carling and the early Cohen).

And I concentrate on classical dialectical materialism since this impacts directly on active revolutionaries, most of whom still accept this odd theory.

Academic Marxism is a political desert/backwater, and thus not worth wasting much time on.

http://www.anti-dialectics.org

Rosa Lichtenstein 13/11/06

Jpegs of book covers
The Jpegs of the book covers are very bobbly. Because of the bold formats of some of these covers, I believe that .png images would be both smaller and clearer. If anyone has the original bitmap (.bmp) files could they save them as .png in, say, paint and upload them? Jatreloar 15:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Karl Marx's Theory of History (Cohen).gif
Image:Karl Marx's Theory of History (Cohen).gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 16:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Making Sense of Marx (Elster).jpg
Image:Making Sense of Marx (Elster).jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 03:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Denouement
In the Denouement section of the article we are told that:

''As a project, analytical Marxism had largely disappeared by the end of the 1990s. Most of its practitioners agreed that the Marxism that in the beginning they had set out to interrogate and, to an extent, defend, was not theoretically or politically defensible. They concluded that as a theory for the explanation of human action, Marxism was a failure on both theoretical and practical grounds.''

The leading lights of analytical marxism now focus their energies in other areas – such as moral and political philosophy (Cohen, van Parijs), and democratic theory employing economic models (Roemer, Elster)

That is by and large true, especially of the original members of Cohen's No Bullshit group. However, it's not true of Erik Olin Wright, who still labels himself a Marxist, and it's not true for some other people who while they were not members of Cohen's No Bullshit group, either regard themselves (or are labeled by others) as Analytical Marxists. For example, Kai Nielsen and Rodney Peffer.

JimFarm 13:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Analytical Marxism (Roberts).jpg
Image:Analytical Marxism (Roberts).jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 02:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Good article reassessment
This article may not be up to Good Article status. I'm concerned it doesn't meet criteria 2a and 2b. Sections such as "Justice and Power" and "Denoument" have no in-line citations. Also, all of the article's in-line citations (grand total of ten) cite no page numbers. For example, statements such as "Most of its practitioners agreed that the Marxism that in the beginning they had set out to interrogate and, to an extent, defend, was not theoretically or politically defensible" need reliable sourcing; as it stands, portions of the article read like original research.

If you can, please work to bring this article up to GA criteria. Cheers, Majoreditor (talk) 02:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Automatic addition of "class=GA"
A bot has added class=GA to the WikiProject banners on this page, as it's listed as a good article. If you see a mistake, please revert, and leave a note on the bot's talk page. Thanks, BOT Giggabot (talk) 04:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

bullshit marxism
Marxism does not depend upon a theory of justice or morality. An argument resting purely on notions of justice, ethics, and morality gives sway to utopian and unscientific (unrevolutionary) ends. Marx never made a value judgment (i.e. an assessment comparing what is (appearance/existence) with what should, thought, or ought to be). Marx was objective in that he did not argue because workers produce all of the surplus-value, they should own or get paid the full amount accumulated from the selling of the commodity imbued with surplus value. This is evident, for example, in the chapter on the 'Working Day' in volume I of Capital where Marx states: "between TWO EQUAL RIGHTS, force decides." Here he is referring to the "rights" of not only workers to, for example, preserve their labour-power, band together in order to overthrow the factory system, or to try to collect all of the surplus-value they produce, but also the RIGHT OF CAPITALISTS (according to the laws, regulations, and rules of capitalism) to exploit workers and appropriate the surplus-value that they produce solely for themselves (in order to purchase goods/services for themselves, to re-invest in their means of production, and ultimately to reproduce the relations of production). Treat this not as an attempt to convince the editors of this article to include this information (because of course, I have not provided any secondary sources) but merely an observation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.58.132.156 (talk) 19:32, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

criticism of justice
Please include a the following in the section on justice and power. The relativity of notions of ethics and justice should also be addressed in this section. Robert Wolff writes: "Marx considers the appropriation of the means of production perfectly just, by bourgeois [say, Lockean] conceptions of justice. But does he think it is REALLY just?  The answer -- rather surprising to readers who expect Marx to be a utopian reformer -- is that there is no such thing as Real JUSTICE.  Morality is a by-product of the structure of the social relations of production in an era.  Feudal justice simply IS justice in a feudal society, albeit it is an anachronism in a capitalist society.  So long as the slave owner in a slave society pays the contracted price for his slaves, he has a legitimate claim to own them IN A SLAVE SOCIETY.  Marx never, never says that socialism OUGHT to replace capitalism.  He says that socialism WILL replace capitalism, as a consequence of the working out of the "laws of motion" of capitalist society and economy" in 'The Thought of Karl Marx' 2012 p.64  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.68.252 (talk) 22:47, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I added Marxism sidebar
I just added the sidebar, it seemed like such an obvious edit that I thought "is there a reason it wasn't here already". Was there a reason it wasn't there before, am I messing something up? Mangokeylime (talk) 01:14, 29 April 2016 (UTC)