Talk:Criticism of Marxism

What's wrong with this article?
This article is c-class, I want to bump it up. Name some problems with it, and I'll see if I can help fix any of them. Go!  K . Bog  04:36, 25 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Kbog, I think the section counter-criticism is way to short. For sure supporters of Marxism have answers to criticism. Lappspira (talk) 05:35, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Most of that sort of thing ought to be integrated throughout the article, per WP:criticism. Only very generic counter-criticism belongs in its own section.
 * I haven't come across much counter-criticism that has the same level of scholarly notability as the big famous arguments being discussed here, but I'll see what I can find.  K . Bog  06:02, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Most people would expect a reference to the failure of the Soviet Union.Every critic of Marxism I have ever heard mentions this. The criticism would be that it has been tried on a national level and failed.  It does not work.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.228.2.48 (talk) 08:27, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You have 3 times as much counter criticism, and the counter criticism laughably enough, invoke the very tenants of liberal idation meant to be refuted by this rather absolutist ideology. Every accusation of leaning to close to absolution is refuted by the assertions of subjectivity, despite original arguments inferring absolute sentiments.  K   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.13.254.103 (talk) 17:53, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Image
There was no discussion or consensus to add in the first place and just because it wasn't reverted it doesn't mean it makes sense to have it. This page seems to concern general (classical) Marxist (not Marxist–Leninist) criticisms as a theory, not practice; there's already Criticism of communist party rule for that. Furthermore, not everyone actually agree that Marxism–Leninism is Marxist or even Leninist but rather an ideology ideated by Stalin to justify his own policies and which most Communist leaders followed. To me, it just seems to be a "scare" image which ignores all Marxist criticisms of these states not only as soon as the Bolsheviks took power but even before they did that; and placing Marxism–Leninism as the one true Marxism and that Marxism–Leninism is necessarily Marxism in practice. There's no need to add that image; one can freely criticise Marxism for "suppression of individual rights" even in theory (the anarchists did that first), without resorting to a reductio ad Stalinum.--95.245.199.21 (talk) 22:39, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * For the extraordinary claim that Marxism–Leninism is not true Marxism, you will really need to put reliable sources on the table. Note that the burden to back this claim is on you, not on everyone else. --MarioGom (talk) 22:44, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It was just an hyperbole. Either way, I thought this page was about classical Marxism criticisms and Criticism of communist party rule about Marxism–Leninism in practice. That image is used to conflate Marxism–Leninism with Marxism as a whole; all I'm asking is not to conflate communism and Marxism as a whole with Marxism–Leninism, which is just one variant of both. Are there also any more notable counter-criticisms or responses to add in the article?--95.245.199.21 (talk) 23:06, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes. In this case, the Suppression of individual rights is hardly due weight, and it is poorly sourced by the way. I agree it belongs primarily to Criticism of communist party rule. --MarioGom (talk) 23:30, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Then what do you believe should be done about it and the image too? What's even the scope of the article? Does it refer only to criticisms of Marxism pilosophically (as theory) such as described in classical or orthodox Marxism pages, or politically (in practice) such as in Marxism–Leninism? Because if it's a general criticism of Marxism as a whole, then there should also be left communist and libertarian Marxist criticism of Marxism–Leninism and viceversa. I propose this to be criticism of classical Marxism (as in theory, philosophically) and Criticism of communist party rule to be criticism as practiced by Marxism–Leninism (as in practice, politically).--95.245.199.21 (talk) 00:11, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 27 December 2019

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: moved. (non-admin closure) qedk (t 桜 c) 15:35, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Criticisms of Marxism → Criticism of Marxism – Per Criticism of Google, Criticism of Facebook, Criticism of Wikipedia, etc.; and also Criticism of communist party rule, Criticism of libertarianism, Criticism of socialism etc. Unless there's something I missed for why this should be the exception.--Davide King (talk) 07:29, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree, makes perfect sense. Cloud200 (talk) 10:42, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. The word criticism is more frequently used an uncountable. --Less Unless (talk) 11:50, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. Hyperbolick (talk) 19:43, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * List of "Criticism(s) of..." titles. We have 11 in the plural (including this one), and about 50 in the singular. If there's consensus around consistently using the singular form, the other 10 pages should probably also be moved. Colin M (talk) 02:08, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I would support that, if there's indeed consensus around consistently using the singular form.--Davide King (talk) 06:50, 29 December 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

IP edit
Ok,

but it does not mean you should rephrase in a way that facts would not be facts.(KIENGIR (talk) 16:04, 25 January 2021 (UTC))

"Anti-Marxism" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Anti-Marxism and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 14 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. MB 14:25, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Missing formatting for Reflections on a Ravaged Century
Hello, in chapter Social, the mention of Conquest's book is missing (A) italics, as in "the book Reflections on a Ravaged Century by the British historian;" if I managed to make a misunderstanding, then it's (B) quotes, as in "the book "Reflections on a Ravaged Century" by the British historian," that's missing.


 * (A) "According to the book Reflections on a Ravaged Century by the British historian Robert Conquest, Marx was unable to put the Asian society in the development stages of slave, feudal, capitalist, socialist, and as a result, Asian society where much of the world's population lived for thousand of years was "out of the balance"."


 * (B) "According to the book "Reflections on a Ravaged Century" by the British historian Robert Conquest, Marx was unable to put the Asian society in the development stages of slave, feudal, capitalist, socialist, and as a result, Asian society where much of the world's population lived for thousand of years was "out of the balance"."

Danny, JumboSizedFish (talk) 00:59, 26 December 2023 (UTC)


 * ✅ If there was a mistake, let me know here!