Talk:Karl Marx/Archive 12

Criticism section?
Perhaps a section at the end of the article entitled criticism or critique would address the concerns raised and serve as a means to highlight constructive criticism of Marx. The challenge, however, would be to make it a meaningful addition to the article that put those voices in dialog with Marx and his ideas and not make it just a laundry list of Marx bashing quotes. Archivingcontext (talk) 15:10, 16 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Criticism sections are generally a sign of poor style. Remember too this article is about Marx, not his writings.  Criticism should be incorporated into the article.  It would be unwieldy, especially since Marx presented differing views in his writings.  TFD (talk) 15:36, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Archivingcontext. TFD, if you think "Criticism should be incorporated into the article." where can we start?Jimjilin (talk) 11:27, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


 * You could start with this for some serious crit of Marx:
 * http://www.amazon.com/Red-Prussian-Life-Legend-Karl/dp/0948859008/ref=pd_sim_sbs_b_1?ie=UTF8&refRID=0R81KTJTPQWQZ4VDH2BZ
 * Gravuritas (talk) 23:17, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Here are some possible quotes for the criticism section:

The Italian revolutionary Giuseppe Mazzini called Marx “a destructive spirit whose heart was filled with hatred rather than love of mankind. . . extraordinarily sly, shifty and taciturn. Marx is very jealous of his authority as leader of the Party; against his political rivals and opponents he is vindictive and implacable; he does not rest until he has beaten them down; his overriding characteristic is boundless ambition and thirst for power. Despite the communist egalitarianism which he preaches he is the absolute ruler of his party; admittedly he does everything himself but he is also the only one to give orders and he tolerates no opposition".

In 1872 Marx's rival Mikhail Bakunin wrote that Marxism: "can excite the imagination of the workers, who are as eager for justice as they are for freedom; and who foolishly imagine that the one can exist without the other; as if, in order to conquer and consolidate justice and equality, one could depend on the efforts of others, particularly on governments, regardless of how they may be elected or controlled, to speak and act for the people!" Bakunin went on to predict: "For the proletariat this will, in reality, be nothing but a barracks: a regime, where regimented workingmen and women will sleep, wake, work, and live to the beat of a drum; where the shrewd and educated will be granted government privileges; and where the mercenary-minded, attracted by the immensity of the international speculations of the state bank, will find a vast field for lucrative, underhanded dealings."

Here's Camus on Marxists: http://www.ppu.org.uk/e_publications/camus3.html

Bertrand Russell and George Orwell had some interesting things to say about Marx too.

Here's Thomas Piketty on Marx: "Marx totally neglected the possibility of durable technological progress and steadily increasing productivity, which is a force that can to some extent serve as a counterweight to the process of accumulation and concentration of private capital. He no doubt lacked the statistical data needed to refine his predictions.  He probably suffered as well from having decided on his conclusions in 1848, before embarking on the research needed to justify them."

Marx "devoted little thought to the question of how a society in which private capital had been totally abolished would be organized politically and economically - a complex issue if there ever was one, as shown by the tragic totalitarian experiments undertaken in states where private capital was abolished."

Both quotes from Piketty's Capital p. 10.

More on Piketty and Marx: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/20/business/international/taking-on-adam-smith-and-karl-marx.html?_r=0

We should also stop covering up Marx's racism. W. H. Chaloner & W. O. Henderson wrote about Marx's anti-Semitism.

As is, this article is heavily biased and in violation of Wikipedia rules. All criticism of Marx has been censored. I know Marxists (like R. Roland) are not going to accept any criticism of Marx, but how about the rest of us? Jimjilin (talk) 14:56, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Gravuritas, can you provide a quote?Jimjilin (talk) 15:15, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to add:

Criticism

Marx has also been accused of harboring racist views.

Any objections?Jimjilin (talk) 21:35, 29 December 2014 (UTC) In 1872 Marx's rival Mikhail Bakunin wrote that Marxism: "can excite the imagination of the workers, who are as eager for justice as they are for freedom; and who foolishly imagine that the one can exist without the other; as if, in order to conquer and consolidate justice and equality, one could depend on the efforts of others, particularly on governments, regardless of how they may be elected or controlled, to speak and act for the people!" Bakunin went on to predict: "For the proletariat this will, in reality, be nothing but a barracks: a regime, where regimented workingmen and women will sleep, wake, work, and live to the beat of a drum; where the shrewd and educated will be granted government privileges; and where the mercenary-minded, attracted by the immensity of the international speculations of the state bank, will find a vast field for lucrative, underhanded dealings."

Thomas Piketty wrote: "Marx totally neglected the possibility of durable technological progress and steadily increasing productivity, which is a force that can to some extent serve as a counterweight to the process of accumulation and concentration of private capital. He no doubt lacked the statistical data needed to refine his predictions.  He probably suffered as well from having decided on his conclusions in 1848, before embarking on the research needed to justify them." Pickety added that Marx "devoted little thought to the question of how a society in which private capital had been totally abolished would be organized politically and economically - a complex issue if there ever was one, as shown by the tragic totalitarian experiments undertaken in states where private capital was abolished."
 * As I said, criticism sections are bad style, particularly in biographies. We don't have criticism sections of Adolf Hitler who "has also been accused of harboring racist views."  TFD (talk) 21:45, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Maybe we could put this material in the legacy section? Or any section? Why has this article been scrubbed clean of any criticism of Marx?Jimjilin (talk) 22:13, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Many political/economic thinkers have a Criticism or Critique section. The John Dewey article has one. The John Maynard Keynes article has one. The John Kenneth Galbraith article has one. The Adam Smith article has one. The Rousseau article has one.Jimjilin (talk) 22:13, 29 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I strongly oppose a criticism section for pre-established reasons which I may go into later, and because the primary supporter of creating such a section in this thread aims to just add quotes about how much random people hate Marx and think he is racist. If racism is actually an issue, then there are far better ways to handle such mentions than the detracting "criticism" section. Dustin  ( talk ) 21:49, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Bakunin and Piketty are significant figures who have criticized Marx. Why do you think criticism = hate? I've already discussed Bakunin. Why do you feel Piketty is not a significant figure? From Piketty's Wikipedia page: In 2006 Piketty became the first head of the Paris School of Economics, which he helped set up.[9] He left after a few months to serve as an economic advisor to Socialist Party candidate Ségolène Royal during the French presidential campaign.[10][11] He has won a lot of awards and his recent book has been widely discussed.Jimjilin (talk) 22:13, 29 December 2014 (UTC) Where, Dustin, can we mention Marx's racism?Jimjilin (talk) 22:13, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * If you provide reliable sources with mentions of such, you would normally include such information in various places in the body of the article. If it is significant enough to warrant a section, that can be decided through consensus, but by no means do I consider a criticism section to be warranted. Such sections detract from the main article content. Dustin  ( talk ) 22:18, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Dustin, do you consider Bakunin and Piketty insignificant figures? Why are their views less significant than the views of Paul Ricœur or Karl Löwith (both considered in the article)? Do you have any problem with my sources: W. O. Henderson and W. H. Chaloner or Walter Williams?

Is there any criticism of Marx in the article? Other political/economic thinkers can be criticized, why not Marx? After all he has inspired quite a few mass-murdering dictators.Jimjilin (talk) 03:16, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes of course, Adam Smith inspires all the hunger after him too... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uspzor (talk • contribs) 06:18, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Jimjilin, if you are referring to Marxist–Leninist dictators (and dictators with related ideologies), while they may have been inspired by Marx, you cannot blame that on Marx or Marxism. Dustin  ( talk ) 06:38, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

If a dictator is inspired by Marx's intolerance, dishonesty, love of violence, muddled thinking, and hatred of democracy then Marx does deserve blame.Jimjilin (talk) 19:15, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * What absolute drivel. --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 23:10, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Dustbin, can you answer my questions?Jimjilin (talk) 19:15, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Can you provide an example of a reliable tertiary source that presents Marx's biography the way you think we should? Your suggested article sounds more like something one would find on a fringe website than in a reliable source.  TFD (talk) 19:37, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Considering that you called me "Dustbin" and are expressing an extremely obvious personal dislike for Marx and not an actual desire to add information to help readers, you should be disregarded. Behaving that way is not likely to get the people you speak to to listen. Dustin  ( talk ) 19:39, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry Dustin, just a joke. lol Don't be upset.Jimjilin (talk) 21:34, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Some questions: Are Bakunin and Piketty insignificant figures? Why are their views less significant than the views of Paul Ricœur or Karl Löwith (both considered in the article)? Does anyone have a problem with my sources: W. O. Henderson and W. H. Chaloner or Walter Williams? If no specific objections I'll add the material I mentioned above.Jimjilin (talk) 21:34, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Do not add without consensus. Incidentally, your point about the opinions of Ricœur and Löwith is valid, so they should go.  However, what Löwith said is close to the consensus view - that Marx was the best known of the "[Left Hegelians]]".  TFD (talk) 21:44, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Since no one has claimed that Bakunin and Piketty are insignificant figures, and no one has a problem with my sources: W. O. Henderson and W. H. Chaloner or Walter Williams, I'll add the material mentioned above.Jimjilin (talk) 20:45, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * From the discussion above, it is clear that at least five editors disagree with the addition of this material, and not one has supported you. Please do not make such changes against consensus. RolandR (talk) 00:25, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


 * It is worth pointing out that the use of the Piketty quotation is questionable to say the least - in the paragraph following the one quoted, he goes on to write:


 * ''Despite these limitations, Marx’s analysis remains relevant in several respects. First, he began with an important question (concerning the unprecedented concentration of wealth during the Industrial Revolution) and tried to answer it with the means at his disposal: economists today would do well to take inspiration from his example. Even more important, the principle of infinite accumulation that Marx proposed contains a key insight, as valid for the study of the twenty-first century as it was for the nineteenth and in some respects more worrisome than Ricardo’s principle of scarcity. If the rates of population and productivity growth are relatively low, then accumulated wealth naturally takes on considerable importance, especially if it grows to extreme proportions and becomes socially destabilizing. In other words, low growth cannot adequately counterbalance the Marxist principle of infinite accumulation: the resulting equilibrium is not as apocalyptic as the one predicted by Marx but is nevertheless quite disturbing. Accumulation ends at a finite level, but that level may be high enough to be destabilizing. In particular, the very high level of private wealth that has been attained since the 1980s and 1990s in the wealthy countries of Europe and in Japan, measured in years of national income, directly reflects the Marxian logic.


 * If Piketty's views on Marx are relevant to the article, they deserve to be accurately represented in full, rather than used as an excuse for cherry-picked negativity. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:04, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Agree. And I do not see that Marx's failure to provide a blueprint for a socialist society is a criticism.  TFD (talk) 04:22, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Great, so I'll add some more material from Piketty.Jimjilin (talk) 06:16, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I also found this quote from Bertrand Russell: My objections to Marx are of two sorts: one, that he was muddle-headed; and the other, that his thinking was almost entirely inspired by hatred. Any objections?Jimjilin (talk) 06:16, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

More from Russell: There goes with this limitation to terrestrial affairs a readiness to believe in progress as a universal law. This readiness characterized the nineteenth century, and existed in Marx as much as in his contemporaries. It is only because of the belief in the inevitability of progress that Marx thought it possible to dispense with ethical considerations. If Socialism was coming, it must be an improvement. He would have readily admitted that it would not seem to be an improvement to landowners or capitalists, but that only showed that they were out of harmony with the dialectic movement of the time. Marx professed himself an atheist, but retained a cosmic optimism which only theism could justify. Broadly speaking, all the elements in Marx's philosophy which are derived from Hegel are unscientific, in the sense that there is no reason whatever to suppose them true. Jimjilin (talk) 06:27, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Do you have any sources that explain the weight these views have received in reliable sources? Have you added the views of Keynes and Russell to other articles and if not why pick on this one?  TFD (talk) 07:04, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Far from adding, Jimjilin has been arguing for the removal of Russell's views from another article, on the grounds that they are "patently false". RolandR (talk) 10:37, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Jimjilin, can you explain why Russell's opinions should be included here but not on the article about Jesus? 16:17, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Russell is quoted throughout Wikipedia. I hope we can agree that Russell is an influential philosopher. Roland R, Can't someone agree with one of Russell's many opinions and disagree with another?! lol In the other article I did not want to exclude Russell, I wanted balance - I thought Wikipedia readers should be allowed to hear both sides. In this article I am again seeking balance - we should not cover up criticism of Marx. Marx is a controversial thinker and his followers have killed far more than even the Nazis. In fact many observers have noted similarities between Marxists and fascists and the two ideologies were allied for a time.Jimjilin (talk) 15:48, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

If there are no further objections I'll add the above mentioned material - with the addition of parts of the Piketty quotation brought up by Roland R.Jimjilin (talk) 15:48, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * There is no consensus here for any of your proposed additions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I have responded to the many many (often absurd) objections. What's your objection now?Jimjilin (talk) 15:55, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Basically the same as before. Your continued arguing is unproductive.  TFD (talk) 16:01, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yup. Encyclopaedias are not constructed by cherry-picking primary-source quotations for supposed 'balance'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:05, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

And yet the article contains numerous cherry-picked primary-source quotations! Do you think we should get rid of all of them? If not, your objection appears to be just another desperate attempt to censor all criticism of Marx. (Which I am sure is not the case!!!)


 * I don't understand the necessity for the addition of a criticism section. The user Jimjilin seems obsessed with including a section that includes cherry-picked quotations.  Look: Criticism of Marxism.  There is an entire article already dedicated to the topic.  The fact is Marx is an influential thinker, the sheer amount of volume dedicated to understanding and/or critically examining his work is too vast to give WP:Undue weight to cherry picked quotes that a single wiki editor feels summarizes a century long conversation adequately.  -Xcuref1endx (talk) 01:28, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * May I suggest we add a section titled "Criticism" that would consist of a few relatively bland sentences to the effect that Marx and his theories have been the subject of voluminous criticism. We could put a "See Main Article Criticism of Marxism" note at the top of the section. If the few (no more than 3 or 4) sentences in the section are sufficiently general I don't think we would even need to bother with a source. This would pretty much fall under BLUE. This would acknowledge the existence of criticism in a manner that doesn't get unwieldy while providing a link to the main article for those looking for a detailed discussion of anti-Marxist thought. That should settle things nicely. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:49, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Why should we have a criticism section of Marx when we do not have one for Adolf Hitler or Charles Manson? If you are big on criticism sections, add them there and then come back.  Or do you disagree that they should have criticism sections?  TFD (talk) 07:19, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The Hitler and Charles Manson example is a horrible one, neither one of those examples are noted for their intellectual contributions. However, I still maintain it just doesn't make sense to have one for Marx.  Like all major thinkers, their contributions are vast and the interpretations of their contributions are endless.  This includes many different modes of criticism.  It would be completely arbitrary and unhelpful to include a criticism section, especially if there already exists an article that deals with that subject.  -Xcuref1endx (talk) 19:20, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll attempt to be more specific as to why I feel the inclusion of 3 or 4 banal sentences acknowledging that there is criticism of Marx is unnecessary (and even misleading). That idea might work if we were dealing with a much more minor figure, where a binary pro/against is easily found in the reliable secondary sources.  This is not that case. There are many branches of Marxism that have their own specific critical opinion of Marx, there are a number of fields in academia that have their own specialized or specific criticisms of Marx (economics, philosophy, feminist, cultural studies, sociology, etc.) there are liberal criticisms, there are conservative criticisms, there are socialist criticisms, there are anarchist criticisms, there are political criticisms.  There are specific criticisms of specific ideas he has had that these sections might differ on, criticisms on his philosophy, methodology, economics, politics, etc.  It would simply be impossible to create that section specialized for this article that wouldn't inevitably give WP:undue weight to any position.  Further, it seems apparent that Jimjilin wants a criticism section to offset what he reads in this article to be a hagiography.  There seems to be consensus though that the article reads neutral. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 22:13, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Don't feed the troll? :X --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 23:10, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Journalist and Historian
The first paragraph omits mentioning that Marx was also a journalist and a historian. Given the fact that much of his time was taken up by writing as a European correspondent for the New York Tribune and the he wrote the '18th Brumaire', a milestone in historiography, I think these should be included. Thoughts? (KLA (talk) 19:41, 17 January 2015 (UTC))


 * I don't think that writing about the past makes a person automatically a historian. He's more of a sociologist or a social cientist. Uspzor (talk) 20:00, 17 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The 18th Brumaire is not just writing about the past. It is an explicitly historical essay and, as such, the seminal work of historical materialist historiography. All subsequent Marxist influenced historical works take up and expand of the method of the Brumaire. In this way it is distinct from, say, Capital which includes historical references but is probably (on the whole) not a historical work. My argument is that someone who has, firstly, written historical works, second, has founded a whole school of historiography, a school which would come to be one of the dominant schools of the 20th century, and, third, whose works are studied as examples of that school in university history departments from his death till the present, should be classed, among other things, as a historian. (KLA (talk) 20:30, 17 January 2015 (UTC))


 * I don't wish to underrepresent the importance of Marx to the historical study, I know it was and is until today enormous. I just wish to point out that being highly influential in a determinate camp of study doesn't made necessarily someone part of it. As Hegel, I think the term philosopher of history is a more appropriate term. Uspzor (talk) 21:05, 17 January 2015 (UTC)


 * You are not adding anything to your argument here which is still essentially "writing about the past makes a person automatically a historian". As I replied earlier, however, Marx did not just write about the past. He did not just theorise history, he wrote history. As I mentioned the '18th Brumaire' is an explicitly historical work--and a seminal one at that. It is studied as a historical work in universities. Furthermore, I think contrasting to Marx to Hegel in this regard is very helpful exactly because Hegel never wrote an explicitly historical work. He, instead, only theorised about history. So, Hegel is truly only a philosopher of history. Marx, on the other hand, is not only a philosopher of history, but, is also a historiographer, and a historian, since he both created a method for writing history and wrote history himself. Therefore, I have to again express my puzzlement as to why he is not classed as a historian in the article introduction. KLA (talk) 01:17, 19 January 2015 (UTC)


 * It should certainly mention his profession as a journalist. I think I side with KLA about Marx being a historian, but slightly on the fence. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 02:58, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Right! I added the journalist bit, and unless there are any further objections, I will add the historian bit tomorrow. KLA (talk) 20:03, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I think that the term "historian" should only be used when that is how people are normally described. TFD (talk) 03:50, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I am not sure what you mean. Historians think and describe him, among other things of course, as a historian. I think that should be enough. KLA (talk) 17:58, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No, they do not. And his greatest influence on historians has not been his writings on historical events, but his view of history as class struggle.  I would also mention that he has had considerable influence on all the humanities and social sciences, but we do not call him an economist, sociologist, psychologist, art and literature expert, etc.  The most common academic description is "philosopher."  TFD (talk) 03:17, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I have to disagree completely. Marx was absolutely an economist, a sociologist, and a historian. One could even argue that he wasn't really a philosopher since he explicitly rejected that characterisation himself later in his life. But I'm not going to argue that. I will just reiterate what I noted earlier, namely, that something does not need to be your primary focus for you to be classed under it. Yes, his historical method is more influential that his actual historical writings. But, that does not charge that fact that Marx wrote historical works. I disagree with your claim, and insist that he is considered to be historian by historians, and people who are familiar with his work more generally. To provide just a few sources, he is acknowledged as a historian by e.g. History Today, a very respected history periodical. Also, Encyclopedia Britannica classes him as a historian (but also as an economist, and sociologist). To be honest, I think it is you who is going against prevailing opinion here. So, please, back up your claim that historians do not consider Marx to be one of them. Also, please, provide sources for the claim that he was not an economist and a sociologist. Since, if that is the case, we should take these off the first paragraph. KLA (talk) 07:27, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Anyone can write historical works and that doesn't made them historians. Actually, journalists do this a lot nowadays but they aren't called historians because of this. Sorry, but just you here agree with this classification. Uspzor (talk) 08:12, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It is obvious that we disagree. I still think that you are going against the prevailing opinion among historians and Marxist scholars, and if most people here in Wikipedia are against that, I think each of us should present sources either way. As a matter of course, and to establish the general academic and informed sentiment for this issue, I have already provided two sources above, one being Britannica, a world standard in terms of encyclopedias, and the other being a very respectable and authoritative historical magazine. Now, here's an interview with Marcello Musto, important Marxist scholar and editor of the Marx-Engels-Gesamtausgabe, the largest and most comprehensive repository of Marxian writings:
 * "[Q:] The tradition of Italian Marxism stresses, following Gramsci, Marx’s importance above all as a historian, as the creator of a historical materialism. Which are, to your mind, the main new insights of Marx as a historian?
 * [A:] Marx was a great historian. During his life, in some of the historical pamphlets he wrote or as a journalist for the Neue Rheinische Zeitung and the New York Tribune, he described many of the most important political events of his century: the revolutions of 1848, the outcomes of the British empire in India, the Crimean War, the diplomatic relations among European countries, the financial crisis of 1857, the civil war in the United States of America, the Paris Commune, etc. And he did it by writing some of the most brilliant pages of political polemic of the 19th century, like, for instance, The 18th Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte, Lord Palmerston, or The Civil War in France. Some of his historical texts really deserve greater attention than they have had so far. I am thinking, in particular, of the articles he wrote for the New York Tribune, at the time the most widely read newspaper in the United States."
 * Notice what is explicitly stated in the question. That Marx's importance in Italy Marxism is primarily as a historian and a historical theorist, not as a philosopher. I think, therefore, that when Uspzor said "[a]nyone can write historical works and that doesn't made them historians" they severely underestimated the importance of Marx's historical works, especially, but not exclusively, the "18th Brumaire" and the historical parts of Capital, as historical works in their own right. So, Marx did not just "write historical works", he, rather, wrote important and celebrated historical works, and this is why he is classed as a historian by the sources I provided. I could cite quite a lot more but, I think, this selection shows where prevailing opinion is. If you think it does not, please argue why, with sources if possible. KLA (talk) 01:23, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

OK. Please let me know if there are any more objections to this. Also, if you do have an objection, please make your argument clear. If not I'll add the "historian" bit on Monday. Cheers. KLA (talk) 17:51, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This does not settle the issue, but I reject part of your argument and your quote. To support a claim that Marx was a historian, it is not sufficient to show that Marxists and Marxist scholars describe him as a historian- by definition, they are not taking a NPOV.  Similarly, it is not helpful to describe "Marx's importance in Italy Marxism...".  The Britannica quote is more helpful.
 * Gravuritas (talk) 11:31, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I do not agree that being a Marx scholar makes someone a-priori not of a NPOV. In fact, I’d argue just the opposite: that as experts in the field, their opinion should be taken in consideration in proportion to their credibility. This credibility is substantiated in the number of published works in peer-reviewed journals, in books, etc. Musto is such an expert, and his opinion should be taken as such. His bona fides are very impressive indeed, as they are listed at the bottom of his Wikipedia page. I mean who are you going to ask something about Marx, if not an expert on Marx? And that is what Musto is.
 * I'm sorry to say this, but you've slithered- I hope accidentally. Your previous post referred to Marxist scholars, which in common English usage means believers in Marxism, and it is those from whom I'd decline to accept that they have a NPOV.  You now refer to a Marx scholar, which merely means someone who's studied Marx.  That's not the same thing at all- but in any case, I'd suggest it's historians, not Marx scholars (let alone Marxist scholars), who can judge who is & who isn't a historian.  Your Britannica source is support for this, agreed.
 * Gravuritas (talk) 20:43, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You are right, I did mean Marx scholar in this context. Although I disagree with the sentiment that being a Marxist (i.e. a believer in Marxism) or a Marxist scholar (i.e. a thinker or academic influenced by Marxism) somehow automatically precludes one from a NPOV vis-a-vis our question in hand or Karl Marx in general. One might very well be a Marxist and/or a Marxist scholar and still have NPOV vis-a-vis Marx, if he is an expert and satisfies the conditions mentioned above. Otherwise being a Aristotelian would be prohibitive from having an authoritative opinion on Aristotle, a Thomist on Thomas Aquinas, and a Christian on Jesus Christ, at least as far as Wikipedia is concerned. KLA (talk) 23:26, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Regarding Italian Marxism, I think that showing that such a big branch of Marxist thought--and such an authoritative and influential figure as Gramsci--considers Marx to be, primarily, a historian, would add to what I am trying to do: to flesh out the prevailing opinion on this. Even though, to be honest, I think that the Britannica quote should be enough by itself. KLA (talk) 19:01, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * KLA, so you have any evidence to support your opinion? TFD (talk) 21:52, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * TFD, please see my reply to Uspzor, above. Cheers. KLA (talk) 01:23, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * So the EB article describes him as a "revolutionary, sociologist, historian, and economist." To that list we could add political scientist, journalist, philosopher, and many other things.  The issue is not whether these descriptions are true, but how commonly they are used in descriptions of him.  TFD (talk) 02:14, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think just adding philosopher (which I assume is uncontroversial) and journalist to the EB list would do the trick. Again, I think you and others here underestimate how commonly he is described as a historian and how important his historical works are. Also, the man was something of a polymath, and dealt in multiple disciplines with equal success--so I think an article on him should reflect that. Finally, I am not in some crazy crusade to undeservedly classify him as a historian, rather, I am convinced, from my knowledge of the sources, and whatever I gather from the general academic opinion, that it does warrant a mention in the first paragraph. Now if you think it is superfluous, given the sources I have provided, again, please explain why. KLA (talk) 04:03, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, since there are 18 million references to Karl Marx on Google books alone, going through them all to see which ones describe him as an historian is going to be a long and tedious process. I am certain we are more likely to see the description used for Caryle and Gibbon, as far as the 19th century goes.  TFD (talk) 04:29, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Marx's Ideas Killed over 100 million people, and Wikipedia's Liberal Bias
It is understood that this page does not concern Marxism specifically, but it should definitely mention the fact that Marx's ideas, when implemented in the USSR, China and other places, killed over 100 million people. This page doesn't shy away from talking about the tenets of Marxism, why not its devastation and effects? Adolf Hitler's page certainly include the number of people he killed as well as Mao tse-Tung's and Josef Stalin's. To read this page, it would seem like an insignificant fact, or one that doesn't exist at all. The USSR and China specifically adhered to Marxism-Leninism by name, and certainly carried out at the very least the spirit of his ideas. To not mention this is to let Marx off the hook and to contribute to wikipedia's liberal bias. It is the blatant censoring of a scientific fact. I am sure that this comment I am making here will also soon be gone, all in the name of freedom of speech I'm sure. Liberals seem to believe in freedom of speech only when it suits their beliefs. I am sure that it will be censored away due to the idea that this page doesn't concern actual Marxism, or the idea that this isn't a "talk page" for the subject, but let's face it, wikipedia is suppressing free speech and the free exchange of ideas through liberal censorship. The fact that Marx's ideas killed more than 100 million people is beyond dispute. Here is an academic link with a .edu address to a survey conducted at the University of Hawaii.

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.16.127.130 (talk • contribs) 13:16, November 20, 2014


 * The articles on other historical thinkers does not make this type of claim either, for example Jesus or John Locke. Your link btw does not say that Marx's ideas killed anyone and in fact it is not a survey conducted at the University of Hawaii, but the calculations of a professor, Rudolph Rummel, whose estimates are generally considered to exaggerated.  TFD (talk) 04:50, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * While I am more favorably inclined towards Rummel's estimate, Wikipedia is not a good place for anyone who claims that something is "beyond dispute". Go read up on WP:NPOV, please. Anyway, the suggestion is about as ridiculous as suggesting that we list the estimates of victims of Crusades on the page for Jesus Christ, or the number of victims of religious wars on the page about God... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:12, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Some mention should be made of the horrendous death toll inflicted by Marxists!Jimjilin (talk) 20:43, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

The talk section is not an area for an individual to share their political opinions, it is not a forum. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 19:23, 12 January 2015 (UTC)


 * It needs questioning if the way the political repression developed in the century following Marx's death was anticipated by Marx. Unlike Hitler, Stalin and Mao he died before any country was ruled according to his ideas.  As to Russia, Lenin and to lesser extent Stalin added to the interpretation of Marxist teachings. A letter writer to the British Times in the 1970s at time there was much correspondence on the relationship between Marx and Adam Smith, I think summed up the position when they wrote that "The prescriptions of Marx the dietician" had been enacted by "Lenin the force-feeder".Cloptonson (talk) 13:15, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

New Section - Namesake Honours
I have started a new section, after Legacy, on Namesake Honours, kicking off with the East German Order of Karl Marx and the renaming of Chemnitz as Karl-Marx-Stadt. I wonder if there are any places that remain named after Karl Marx, following the downfall of most Communist states?Cloptonson (talk) 09:50, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Namesake honours is not good British English. Could American editors comment on whether it is OK in US English? 14:28, 1 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I can accept a change of title, if you let me know about it. On some wiki biographies such facts are often listed under the section heading Legacy or Namesakes or Honours (when not referring to titles, prizes or decorations awarded to the individual) - but the Legacy section in this page seems too entirely devoted to his influence on politics and economics to tag this onto, and I thought of the heading adopted to demonstrate there were other things named after him apart from Marxism itself.Cloptonson (talk) 16:32, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Before this section gets too long, let's talk about it for a moment. There's lots and lots of places named after Marx, and listing all of them doesn't really aid the reader's understanding of Marx himself. And the format of the section as it is currently developing&mdash; with a separate paragraph for each place&mdash; is not appropriate. Instead, I urge you to look at similar treatment like a summary of places named after Martin Luther King, Jr. Could you succinctly summarize the naming rather than attempt to document each instance? Regards, Orange Suede Sofa  (talk) 19:37, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that the added section, although in good faith, does not help the reader to understand Marx, and have removed it. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:21, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed - neither necessary to understand Marx, nor in my opinion of much encyclopaedic merit without sources actually commenting in depth on the practice. Our article on Queen Victoria for example has nothing to say on the many pubs named after her, and frankly I suspect our readers would be most surprised if it did. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:36, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I was about to come back with the suggestion of Memorial Namings - an idea picked up from the wiki biography of Horst Wessel (another German, whose views were politically antithetical and became hailed as a Nazi 'martyr'). The examples I used about Karl Marx were not unprecedented (place names, institutions, an award) - look for example at that section in the page on Archbishop William Temple (incidentally a socialist leaning man who had a pro-Communist Dean to his cathedral) - but Temple never had a mountain or a city named for him putting him literally on the map. Pubs would not have been in mind for such a section. Places named after Marx, I do concur, say perhaps more about the people naming them as the man they were named for.Cloptonson (talk) 20:35, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Lack of objectivity in choice of words
In the last sentence of the first paragraph in the section named "Early life" there is a problem with the objectivity of the author's classification of Lutheranism. This religious denomination is named as a "sect". This choice of word carries with it several negative connotations and puts into question the level of objectivity with which the whole section was written. To classify any major religious denomination as such, whether it be Sunni Islam or Reformed Judaism, invokes in the reader a clear stand-point from the author of an anti-religious bias. I therefore suggest that the words "sect" be changed to simply "religion", in order to avoid this aforementioned bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Odysseus90 (talk • contribs) 23:35, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * While if you're that concerned about sect, changing it wouldn't be that big a deal, although I'd suggest to denomination as Lutheranism falls under the religious banner of Christianity quite neatly. I also have to say this is the farthest I've ever seen somebody go to suggest that there was anti-religious bias involved, since when is sect a dirty word?--Ollyoxenfree (talk) 03:31, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * @ ; good catch, though I'd assume good faith and put down the wording to unfamiliarity with connotations of 'sect'. I've rewritten the sentence. — Neonorange (talk) 06:39, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Request for Comments
There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infobox on this and other similar pages.

The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person.

Please help us determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:47, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Lead
The lead says "was a German philosopher, economist, sociologist, journalist, and revolutionary socialist." While Marx had an interest in these topics, it was enough to be described as such? Aozyk (talk) 07:47, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree, Marx is notable for one are of his work, not for all those things, together. Spumuq (talq) 08:02, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The phrase seems accurate
 * philosopher:
 * economist:
 * sociologist:
 * revolutionary socialist:
 * journalist (day job):
 * — Neonorange (talk) 00:47, 9 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Not sure if he is notable for his daily job (journalist). Others, I think, are certainly valid. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:58, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Marx qualifies a journalist also
 * eleven years writing for the New York Tribune, 1852—1963.
 * editor Rheinische Zeitung, Neue Rheinische Zeitung, ...
 * see "The Grub Street Years", Christopher Hitchens for The Guardian (particularly "Of the toil he had to perform to make ends meet...)
 * — Neonorange (talk) 20:23, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * There's no doubt that he was a journalist, but per MOS:BIO the lead should only include professions for which the subject is notable. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa  (talk) 20:43, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If he only been a correspondent for the New York Tribune, that alone might not establish notability. But his being the publisher of the two left-wing journals certainly does.  If he had died after the first one closed, he would still be notable, just not as notable.  Furthermore, we normally mention a person's gainful occupation or profession, even if they are not notable in the field, since it is important for understanding the person, regardless of the reason for their notability.  BIOS does not say we should not.  TFD (talk) 20:54, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Great article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.143.14.157 (talk) 08:35, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Marx Nationality
«German/Stateless» is not a nationality. Bald is not a hair color. Spumuq (talq) 15:24, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe there is an attempt to express that he was a subject of the German Empire who renounced his citizenship. The lede states, "Born in Germany, he later became stateless and spent much of his life in London in the United Kingdom." Since he this is not BLP, we should cover his lifetime. IDK about bald, he seems to have a lot of hair. It's not like he's Matt Frewer. Ogress smash! 16:12, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing that is trying to apply this RFC, where "bald is not a hair color" is given as an argument against having "none" as a religion. I don't think the arguments there directly apply here; besides the fact that nationality is not religion, it's simply not accurate to state that Marx's nationality was only German if it actually wasn't his entire life. Maybe adjusting the wording to say "German until statelessness" (or something less awkward) would make everyone happy. Regards,  Orange Suede Sofa  (talk) 16:48, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Zur Judenfrage?
I have come to notice that this article spends very little time discussing a possible anti-semitic undertone in some of Marx' work - here I am primarily referring to the (often heated) scholarly dispute regarding Marx seeing Jews as the embodiement of capitalisms evils (Flannery, 2004; 168)* (Perry & Schweitzer, 2005; 154)**.

I realise that this discussion might have been reappropriated to the article "On the jewish Question", but even so, I find it odd that a (to my humble understanding) exemplary Wikipedia-article on Marx would not incorporate a scholarly discussion that I believe is important in many aspects of the academic understanding of Marx.

Also, should the antisemitic stuff have been flushed out at some point and send to the "On the jewish Question"-desk, I can't find any such notions in the archives. (UffeBrandt)

''*https://books.google.dk/books/about/The_Anguish_of_the_Jews.html?id=J40gNC7cxfYC&redir_esc=y * http://www.amazon.com/Anti-Semitism-Myth-Hate-Antiquity-Present/dp/1403968934''

— Preceding unsigned comment added by UffeBrandt (talk • contribs) 13:39, 6 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The relevant policy is WP:WEIGHT, the article should reflect various aspects of Marx's life in accordance to the weight they are assigned by his mainstream biographers. I would point out too that Marx's views on the Jewish religion were typical of his time, as your second source points out.  TFD (talk) 18:48, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Why isn't this ever said?
I was wondering why I've never seen or heard that Marx called the workers in capitalism "slaves?" I found it here: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/wage-labour/ch01.htm Pepper9798 (talk) 02:03, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note Pepper9798 has been indef blocked as a sockpuppet of Sundiiiaaa . --TFD (talk) 00:54, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

And here "Wage Labour and Capitol" next to last paragraph: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/wage-labour/ch09.htm Pepper9798 (talk) 04:45, 1 November 2015 (UTC)


 * You would need a secondary source to support it. The revolutionaries in the U.S. war of independence said they were slaves, but it was not literal.  TFD (talk) 07:51, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Is the dictionary considered a secondary source? -- "Slave: a person entirely under the domination of some influence or person; a slave to a drug. A drudge: a housekeeping slave. Machinery. a mechanism under control of and repeating the actions of a similar mechanism. Compare "master": a person with the ability or power to use, control, or dispose of something: …an owner of a slave, animal, etc. Pepper9798 (talk) 19:48, 1 November 2015 (UTC)


 * He wrote that in that link, right? Look at the dictionary definition. "drudgery; severe toil." Upton Sinclair said workers were slaves in "The Jungle". Pepper9798 (talk) 02:47, 10 November 2015 (UTC)


 * There is probably an academic article about the use of word "slave" by Marx, either written or to-be-written. Once we can cite it, it may be possible to discuss it; otherwise it is somewhat trivia-ish "In several instances, Marx compared workers in capitalism to slaves". This would really need at least a paragraph-length discussion, and also keep in mind this may not be the best place for it - we have dozens of articles about various concepts and theories Marx coined. Here, we summarize the key ones, and I don't think his worker-slave comparison is significant enough to merit a mention here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:28, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I see. It just seems like it's huge that he said that, & no one seems to say it, like it's being hidden purposely. Since Marx is "the most important person in history," & since the slavery article says, in "Abolitionism": "In Article 4 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states: No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their FORMS" that it should be somewhere, often. I'll leave it to others to say, possibly, each time they write the word "proletariat" the first time in any article, is to add in parentheses "(whom he called slaves)" would be good. Thank you. Pepper9798 (talk) 18:50, 22 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I suggest you follow the links posted to your talk page before commenting on article talk pages. In particular I recommend WP:SYN and WP:WEIGHT.  No we can't take Marx's comments and a dictionary and decide what he meant.  Furthermore we cannot provide any greater weight to his comments than they normally receive in reliable sources.  TFD (talk) 22:28, 22 November 2015 (UTC)


 * TFD: you said "The revolutionaries in the U.S. war of independence said they were slaves, but it was not literal." Isn't saying "but it was not literal" your opinion because you don't think employees are slaves? Pepper9798 (talk) 22:51, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No, it is a factual statement and is supported in reliable sources. When you call slave owners slaves you are trivializing the concept of slavery.  Or do you think the founding fathers and their slaves enjoyed the same level of freedom?  TFD (talk) 03:12, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Karl Marx. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160131055134/http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts10072009.html to http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts10072009.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 11:04, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Wholesale graphical changes
Any editor contemplating multiple graphical changes to a good article of major importance should consider discussion on the article talk page first. Especially, changing the Infobox image from a well recognized to a more obscure image. Burying multiple image changes in a flurry of text edits is not a good practice—it can lead to embarrassing errors for Wikipedia: in this case, placing 1964 in the caption of a photograph of Marx and his daughter, Jenny. — Neonorange (talk) 21:42, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Lead
I recently made an addition to the lead that was reverted by Xcuref1endx here with the comment, "POV pushing in lede". My edit was not POV-pushing. Critics of Marx have indeed argued that he was responsible for millions of deaths, because of the actions of the brutal dictatorships that ruled Marxist nations. That is a fact, duly noted in the article. Mentioning such a fact in the lead is not POV-pushing - it is providing helpful information for Wikipedia's readers. If anything counts as POV-pushing, it is writing a lead to an article about a controversial figure that includes only material that portrays him in a positive light. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:29, 20 April 2016 (UTC)


 * It is POV-Pushing. I agree with you that it would ALSO be POV-pushing if the article reads like a hagiography, but it does not.  A single sentence using WP:WEASEL words in the lede to mention that some people say he is responsible for the murder of millions is POV pushing.  The lead should just cover the main/major points of the article.  That is not one of the main points of the article. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 05:35, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * If it is an established fact that critics of Marx say that he was responsible for millions of deaths, mentioning that fact is not POV-pushing: it is mentioning a fact. You accuse me of using weasel words, but you do not explain why. What I added was perfectly reasonable, and proportionate to the importance of the topic. Furthermore, I did not say that the article as a whole reads like an attempt to portray Marx in the most favourable and flattering light possible, rather I said that the lead of the article reads that way - and it does. It is a major problem, which I think reasonable editors should be trying to remedy. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:39, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Additionally, there is already mention of Marx being a controversial figure in the lede in the final paragraph: "Marx has been described as one of the most influential figures in human history, and his work has been both lauded and criticised." -Xcuref1endx (talk) 05:41, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * A single brief mention of the fact that people have criticized Marx does not alter the fact that the lead portrays Marx almost entirely in a positive and flattering light. The lead as currently written is not neutral by any means. Per WP:LEAD, "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." That Marx's critics have accused him of being responsible for millions of deaths certainly is one of the most important points about him. It seems disingenuous to suggest that it is not a prominent controversy associated with Marx. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:44, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * "The millions of the deaths" is not one of the most important points of the article, it takes up very little space in the legacy portion of the article. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 05:48, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You do not understand WP:LEAD correctly, it appears. Perhaps you should read it again? It states that the lead should summarize the most important points of the topic, the topic being in this case Karl Marx. Is the fact that Marx is held by his critics to be responsible for millions of deaths one of the most important points about him? Yes, it is. My edit was reasonable, and you had no good grounds to revert it. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:43, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * No, I do understand it, and this is why its POV pushing. That statement is not one of the most important points of him, hence why it only has brief mention in the body of the article. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 04:06, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * What rubbish. Obviously the alleged responsibility of Marx for the atrocities committed by Marxist regimes is a major issue, hence, it should be mentioned in the lead. The lead summarizes the most important parts of the article's topic, and your unsupported assertion that this is not one of them carries no weight. The article states that, "The brutal dictatorships associated with some Marxist nations have led political opponents to blame Marx for millions of deaths, but the fidelity of these varied revolutionaries, leaders and parties to Marx's work is highly contested, and rejected by many Marxists." If many Marxists reject the idea that Marx is responsible for millions of deaths, then of course there is a major controversy the lead needs to mention. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:14, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Unsupported assertion? The basis of your argument for its inclusion is that its inclusion is "obvious".  You keep saying that the lead summarizes the most important parts of the article, and then ignoring that what you want included is NOT an important part of the article. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 04:16, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Um, no, I don't keep saying that the lead summarizes the most important parts of the article. I've said that the lead is meant to provide an overview of the most important parts of the article's topic, which is what WP:LEAD actually states: "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." You've just proven my point that you don't understand the guideline. The article actually makes it perfectly clear that Marx being allegedly responsible for millions of deaths is a prominent controversy; that many Marxists have had to address the issue shows as much. Your denial of this is unsupported. The controversy is not less prominent simply because the amount of space the article devotes to it is relatively limited. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:25, 22 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Editor-FreeKnowledgeCreator deleted my last response.  -Xcuref1endx (talk) 04:26, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * By mistake. Here it is. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:27, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Most important parts of the article. The fact that the article has one brief mention of what you want included strongly suggests that it is not an important part of the article.  I have repeated this.  You seem to ignore that, and just assume by default that because there is a mention of it in the article, it warrants inclusion.  No matter how brief the mention.   -Xcuref1endx (talk) 04:23, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Only way forward from here is a RFC. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 04:29, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I have quoted WP:LEAD, and explained the basis for including this. The lead is meant to provide an overview of the most important parts of the article's topic, including summarizing prominent controversies. Given that many Marxists have had to address the claim that Marx is responsible for millions of deaths, obviously it is a prominent controversy. You have no basis to claim otherwise. The precise amount of space the article devotes to the controversy is not the issue; you are wrong to claim that it is, per WP:LEAD. As I said, you apparently don't understand the guideline. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:30, 22 April 2016 (UTC)


 * 3O Request I am responding to the third opinion request posted with regard to this dispute. My opinion carries no official weight; I am simply another editor here. The relevant policies/guidelines here are WP:LEDE and WP:DUE. The guideline about the lead is very straightforward; the lead should summarize all key points in the article. As currently written, the mention of this particular criticism of Marx is not given enough coverage in the body for it to be included; indeed, the edit adding it to the lead seems to essentially be reproducing the entire sentence from the body, which is inappropriate. The question of whether the body is duly weighted is a more complicated one. The real question is what weight sources about Marx give this particular criticism, not that it exists at all; in a topic as well-known as this one, there are any number of criticisms that exist. This is the question that both of you need to answer, by examining scholarly material about Marx. If the conclusion is that more detail on this criticism is required in the body, then that should be added, and mentioning it in the lead would be appropriate. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:37, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I simply do not agree with you. Per WP:LEAD, "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. The notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources." The accusation that Marx is responsible for millions of deaths certainly seems to be a prominent controversy; I am not sure why anyone would claim otherwise. On the other hand, you have a point that the lead should not simply reproduce a sentence from the main body of the article. How about something like, "Critics have blamed Marx for millions of deaths, but Marxists dispute this"? I could accept a different wording, but I think it should be something along those lines. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:55, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I am not interested in getting embroiled in a lengthy dispute here. Fixing the lead without first fixing the body certainly comes across very poorly. The fact of the matter is that somebody has disputed the the necessity of giving more weight to that accusation; therefore, you need to demonstrate that this accusation is a significant one in scholarly work on Marx, because your own assertion that it is significant counts for very little. Xcuref1endx, you're not trying to add material here, but it would not hurt for you to show evidence that the current version is, in fact, duly weighted. If neither of you is willing to do this, then we are once more at impasse; and I would suggest pursuing alternative dispute resolution methods, such as a request at WP:DRN, or opening an WP:RFC. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:38, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * That's fine, Vanamonde93, I am not interested in getting embroiled in a lengthy dispute either. I do not especially care what you think of my editing. It should be obvious that if many Marxists have had to dispute the charge that Marx is responsible for millions of deaths, the controversy is significant. Your assertion that it is not significant is unsupported. Since I have no interest in edit warring over the mater, there is of course no need for a request for comment, nor at this stage is there a need for any further form of dispute resolution. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:29, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Socialist states vs communist states characterization
Neonorange, could you please give more explanation for this edit? If the change I made was counter to consensus, I'd like to see some evidence of that, thanks. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:57, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The caption before your insertion Map of countries that declared themselves to be socialist states under the Marxist–Leninist or Maoist definition —- between 1979 and 1983. This period marked the greatest territorial extent of Socialist states. is correct. I've underlined the key phrase. This wording, as I restored it, has the advantage of being factually correct and WP:NPOV. You can find the most recent discussion in the tp archives from the last year or so, if I remember correctly. It's probably come up multiple times since this article first appeared in Wikipedia in 2001. The easiest ways to search are by a key word or phrase in the tp archives or a binary search through the article history for content changes. The have been, as you might guess, edit wars and heated discussions here in the past fifteen years; the only way forward is as it always is in Wikipedia—work for a neutral point of view.
 * (I changed the section title to be more useful. — Neonorange (talk) 03:22, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * This: The text did not say these states were socialist, but that they self-described as socialist. Rather than be pedantic, we then refer to them as socialist states. In the same way when writing about U.S. conservatives we would explain that they self-describe as conservatives, explain why some/most sources reject the description, then call them conservatives in the article. TFD (talk) 9:16 pm, 6 June 2014, Friday (1 year, 10 months, 26 days ago) (UTC−4) is the key statement that ended an edit war—a slightly different location, and, in this case, an editor was insisting that the Soviet Union was capitalist. — Neonorange (talk) 03:35, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * In case there is some confusion about this, what happened was not that I decided to change "socialist" to "communist" in the belief that the latter was the correct wording, but that an IP editor changed "communist", which was the existing text, to "socialist" without any explanation, and I reverted the change, which is what I usually do when I come across such unexplained changes of meaning. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:38, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * In case there is some confusion about this, what happened was not that I decided to change "socialist" to "communist" in the belief that the latter was the correct wording, but that an IP editor changed "communist", which was the existing text, to "socialist" without any explanation, and I reverted the change, which is what I usually do when I come across such unexplained changes of meaning. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:38, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Is this appropriate?
Right in the first paragraph I found this gem: "Marx's work in economics laid the basis for much of the current understanding of labour and its relation to capital, and subsequent economic thought"

Really?? That is extremely biased. Marx was responsible for disastrously planned economies that brought famine and death for everyone, especially the workers. Should that be removed, or at least, nuanced? Not a creative person (talk) 00:31, 2 February 2016 (UTC)


 * From the beginning of the article it comes across as biased for Marxism, and I know I'm not alone in feeling this.(50.53.126.144 (talk) 02:28, 5 March 2016 (UTC))
 * The statement is backed by several reliable sources. One of these is a leader of the Liberal Democrats, writing in a Conservative newspaper; hardly a source likely to be biased in favour of Marxism. RolandR (talk) 12:49, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Ask a sociologist, because it's true.--Ollyoxenfree (talk) 17:36, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Real Name
Chaim Hirschel Mordechai, why is this not inserted after his penname? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.39.173.163 (talk) 22:55, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * "Karl Marx" was his real name. The article on Heinrich Marx explains when and how "Mordechai" became "Marx". Haploidavey (talk) 23:14, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Karl Marx's mother, Henrietta Pressburg
Where is the proof that she had Dutch ancestry? Other sources say her parents were of Hungarian descent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8388:540:6B80:9C5A:B505:96C6:EEB2 (talk) 19:06, 30 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Which other sources are those? Please specify them. Haploidavey (talk) 19:58, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Changes Reverted
My changes to the article were recently reverted (see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Karl_Marx&oldid=prev&diff=733164062). I was told to reach consensus for such small changes on the talk page, so I am writing to see if all others agree that changing the word "profound" to "large", adding "in part", changing "reduce it to" to "only consider", "interesting and perplexing" to nuanced", and changing the tense of a sentence, whether that is worthy of a revert or if they are okay and purposeful changes. DoomLexus (talk) 21:17, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Why do you want these changes to be made? They should only be made if that language is more representative of the sources, not because of any personal opinions you may have of Marx's work. –  FenixFeather  (talk)(Contribs) 21:48, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * (ec)Please explain the changes you wish to make; don't simply assume that they are obviously acceptable. RolandR (talk) 21:50, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I want these changes made because they get rid of the connotative meanings of the words (interesting and complex have a pro-marxist connotation, as does the word profound). The "in part" edit I'm fine with not adding, it was just a further clarification. For transparency, because you mentioned my personal opinion, I am a Marxist, but the encyclopedia should not use words like "profound" when describing the impact, it should do so impartially, even if I do agree that it is profound. DoomLexus (talk) 22:28, 5 August 2016 (UTC) -- Accidently left out word 'not' DoomLexus (talk) 22:29, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I can see why you would think the language is less than impartial. I would still double check the language in the sources. You mentioned that discussions on this language had occurred before? –  FenixFeather  (talk)(Contribs) 23:10, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * As far as I have looked and have access to the sources, my changes follow the literature base. In particular, 'profound' has no basis, the word is never used to describe Marx's ideas, except on one particular person. DoomLexus (talk) 23:50, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I think "in part" is unnecessary but the rest of the changes seem fine to me. "Profound" doesn't seem that bad, but "most interesting and perplexing" does feel a little weird. – FenixFeather  (talk)(Contribs) 22:09, 8 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I went ahead and removed the "interesting and perplexing" phrase, since it seemed like pure editorializing. If somebody wants to re-add it, I think they owe a greater elaboration. It may be true, but it needs to be further expounded. Proxyma (talk) 05:52, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Countries/brutal dicatorships
An editor altered the sentence, "The brutal dictatorships associated with some Marxist nations have led political opponents to blame Marx for millions of deaths, but the fidelity of these varied revolutionaries, leaders and parties to Marx's work is highly contested, and rejected by many Marxists" by replacing "brutal dictatorships" with "countries". Neither the change, nor the reason given for it, made any sense whatever. A brutal dictatorship can be responsible for millions of deaths, but a country, but itself, cannot. Furthermore, replacing "brutal dictatorships" with "countries" has the effect of implying that "revolutionaries, leaders and parties" are "countries", which is of course incorrect. So the change effectively reduces the sentence to nonsense, and should not be repeated. Personal opinion is not a relevant issue, by the way, as the material was properly cited. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:04, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

The page is hacked
As of today, I see that this page is hacked so that eveyr single links in the content links to a Youtube video, can anyone help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BS1919 (talk • contribs) 05:08, 15 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, thank you for pointing that out. I have addressed the issue. Oddly enough, all that was necessary to solve it was reverting to a previous version of the article. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:56, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * What do you mean? I can't find any recent edits adding or removing YouTube links. Dustin  ( talk ) 06:04, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The editor was correct. I checked the page and, for some reason, every link led to a YouTube video. It's a strange form of vandalism and I have no idea how it was done - I'm not knowledgeable about programming. The problem is gone now, however. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:06, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The only reason for which your edits could have made such a difference would be that making revisions causes the page to refresh. It must have been a template issue of some sort. That's the only thing I can think of. Dustin  ( talk ) 06:10, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Template vandalism Symbol confirmed.svg Confirmed. Dustin  ( talk ) 06:16, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Required post for a class
The only thing that I would add to this article is potentially at the beginning where it is talking about how he has been influential in... perhaps there needs to be some sort of citation of examples where he has been a direct influence in things otherwise I would say it could be considered an assumption or bias. Beckacolebank (talk) 18:21, 2 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello, Beckacolebank. Marx's influences on others seem adequately covered by the section Karl Marx, which appears to be adequately cited. Further cited content is available at Marxism, which is linked below this article's "Legacy" header. Introductory paragraphs in Wikipedia articles generally follow the main article's cited content. So in most (not all) cases, introductions need not carry their own citations. But perhaps you're referring to something other than the lead? Haploidavey (talk) 21:20, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Marx's name at birth
Marx's name at birth was Mordechai. I can't see a reason why it isn't stated openly - shouldn't he be proud of his ancestry? According to wiki article about his father Herschel Mordechai changed his name to Heinrich Marx in 1825 (Heinrich_Marx ; Societal Dynamics: Frederick Betz "Understanding Social Knowledge and Wisdom", p. 13, when Karl was 7. So if we write name at birth for other persons we should do that with him as well. 92.28.19.226 (talk) 10:28, 4 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Should he? Should we? As to his birth certificate, there's this. Make of it what you will. Haploidavey (talk) 11:35, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * This nonsense is raised repeatedly, and is just as frequently rejected.
 * In the first place, the source you cite does not say what you claim, and gives no date for Heinrich Marx's change of name.
 * Further, his father's full name was Heinrich Mordechai Marx, son of Mordechai Levy Marx. Mordechai was never the surname, but a patronymic; similarly Marx himself was Karl Heinrich Marx, in honour of his father. The error appears to derive from a superficial reading of a genealogical site, which gives the surname first.
 * Karl Marx never had another name, and it is - at best - original research to assert that he had one, and to try to establish what it might have been. This is entirely unsourced speculation.
 * Although one should always assume good faith and not speculate on the motives of other editors, I must confess to a slight concern at the tone of the remark "shouldn't he be proud of his ancestry?" The repeated attempts to edit this article (and the one on Leon Trotsky) in order to emphasise their (undenied) Jewish family origins has a tinge of obsessive antisemitic prejudice, and I urge editors to refrain from this, and to rely on verifiable facts rather than extrapolation, synthesis and original research. RolandR (talk) 11:45, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * As you say, this "issue" is raised with dreary regularity here, and I share your concern about possible less-than-scholarly motives. A permanent note here might be helpful. Haploidavey (talk) 11:55, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

German vs German-Jewish
Is it better to describe Marx as German or German-Jewish?

Chewings72 recently reverted my edit of describing Marx as German (see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Karl_Marx&diff=748271750&oldid=748230585).

I've edited again and described Marx as German-Jewish.--John Bird (talk) 11:41, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Which is even less appropriate, so I too have reverted you. RolandR (talk) 11:45, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Can you explain why?--John Bird (talk) 11:54, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * This has been discussed no end of times. Please familiarise yourself with the talk page archives before trying to make contentious edits. RolandR (talk) 12:31, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Marx was prusian nor german — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nov (talk • contribs) 18:15, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Prussians were/are Germans.--Maurice Smith (talk) 20:25, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

And speaking of "Prusian"...
In the info box, it says of his nationality: "Nationality	Prusian/stateless". If this is, indeed, an English-language page, should that not be "Nationality	Prussian/stateless", with two "s"s? And if so, could somebody else please fix this? Thanks. 2601:C6:4100:D3:7485:AE:CB11:DD42 (talk) 19:26, 10 December 2016 (UTC)


 * That's a very recent change. Rather than correct the spelling, I'm going to revert for now, because the article body claims him as German. I've no expertise in the topic, and would rather wait until someone with access to best quality sources (and has this page on their watchlist) happens along. It would seem - from the infobox - that the kingdom of Prussia was part of the German Confederation - so "German" may well be correct. Haploidavey (talk) 00:35, 11 December 2016 (UTC).

The article on the German Confederation has a list of its 34 founding members, as designated by treaty in 1815. The Kingdom of Prussia is among them. Dimadick (talk) 13:16, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Germans existed before the Unification of Germany in 1871. Prussians were/are Germans. Nevertheless, Marx was ethnically Jewish.--Maurice Smith (talk) 20:30, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

If Prussian is in the article it should be spelled with two esses. I do not have any information about Marx' citizenship. Elinruby (talk) 07:50, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Arendt and Habermas
The following edit was introduced into the Legacy section with reference to contributions of Arendt and Habermas to Marx studies. Another editor took exception and asked for quotation to be added. After it was added, the same editor indicated that some basic phrases in poitical economy were not known to him. The dialogue is below and the material appears to be useful to add to the article which currently inaccurately identifies only two sources of critique. JohnWickTwo (talk) 17:38, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Both Hannah Arendt and Jurgen Habermas have extensive Marxist credentials. When I found that Wikipedia already has articles about two of their books dealing with these issues, then I did not include quotations from those books in the Marx article since interested readers could look at the articles for their books which I linked. It seemed that an article on Marx should not need extensive quotations from these books which might distract the reader of the Marx article, although both Arendt and Habermas discuss Marx by name extensively. Is there a way to return some of this mention of Arendt and Habermas to the Marx article? JohnWickTwo (talk) 15:39, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I, actually, still think we need to be more specific. I don't think it's distracting in the form of refs (explanatory and otherwise). Also, establishing their KM credentials (in modern historiography) is also worthwhile: proving they are a third main current. What they each say can be further clarified, too. El_C 15:52, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Here is a quote from Habermas which is to the point from 1981, Habermas, Kleine Politische Schrifen I-IV, pp. 500f., which states: "'The point on which I differ from traditional Marxist analysis is that, today, when we use the means of the critique of political economy, we can no longer make clear predictions: for that, one would still have to assume the autonomy of a self-reproducing economic system. I do not believe in such an autonomy. Precisely for this reason, the laws governing the economic system are no longer identical to the ones Marx analyzed. Of course, this does not mean that it would be wrong to analyze the mechanism which drives the economic system; but in order for the orthodox version of such an analysis to be valid, the influence of the political system would have to be ignored.'" This is a little long but perhaps you could figure out a way to shorten it for including it in the Marx article. Critique of totalitarianism as asserted in Marx has been a major topic in 20th century Marx legacy assessment and should be included in the article. JohnWickTwo (talk) 16:10, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure, perhaps excerpt parts of it. But clarify what he means by "autonomy of a self-reproducing economic system," first. As for totalitarianism: what do you mean by "as asserted in Marx?" For this article, I think it needs, specifically, to connect to KM. Otherwise, there may be more suitable articles. El_C 16:26, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * But an issue I took with your version related to your "limits of totalitarian perspectives" (ascribed to whom?) which I find somewhat unclear. Point is, there could be more than two or three main responses to KM and his body of work—and, no mention of the East in that discussion, just the West. El_C 16:48, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, going with your version with no new additions and I'll shorten the blockquote somewhat for inclusion there. JohnWickTwo (talk) 16:58, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * What I suggest is that you take your proposal to the article talk page first for the purpose of gaining consensus for it. El_C 17:07, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Blockquote was shortened as you requested and "autonomy of a self-reproducing economic system" is fairly basic wording in Marxist commentary as used by Habermas here. The edit appears to be worth adding to the article. JohnWickTwo (talk) 17:38, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

A more overarching question is whether these two constitute a 3rd main perspective, or whether they can be seen to be encompassed by one of the two already mentioned. El_C 17:47, 16 February 2017 (UTC) Again, regarding "limits of totalitarian perspectives": meaning what? Ascribed to whom? Thanks. El_C 17:52, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Arendt presents this in her book The Origins of Totalitarianism, it is worth reading and looking at it. JohnWickTwo (talk) 18:11, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That I gather. The onus, however, is on you to explain what it means and to whom it is ascribed, in what context, and so on. El_C 18:14, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * My reference was to look at the link to the Wikipedia article on Arendt's book and its section titled "Mechanics of Totalitarian Movements". That should clarify it. JohnWickTwo (talk) 18:20, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I, and our readership/editors, are looking for an explanation, not a link to elsewhere, sorry. How is it linked to KM? Does stand as its own third main current? El_C 18:25, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It is not clear here if you are objecting to this edit because you do not like the edit or if you are not familiar with the words which Habermas uses in his quote about Marxism, "autonomy of a self-reproducing economic system" and the other phrase "limits of totalitarian perspectives". Not understanding what basic phrases in orthodox Marxist discussion are is not usually a reason to revert an edit. If you would like to request that a new page be written for either of these two key terms in orthodox Marxism then I can help you in writing them. Not understanding the content of the Habermas quote which you single out is not a reason to exclude a fully researched and sound edit as I have written it here to enhance the article and to recognize two central thinkers of 20th century Marxist critique not currently appearing in the article. Another reference page you can look at is Totalitarianism and The Origins of Totalitarianism, especially the section titled "Mechanics of Totalitarian Movements". If you do not like my referenced edit or if you do not understand the contents of the Habermas quotation which I included then let me know and I can try to help you write a page for these orthodox Marxist terms. However, your not understanding the terms used in a fully referenced edit is usually not a reason to exclude it from this article. JohnWickTwo (talk) 15:43, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 March 2017
I thought to add a link to the online copy of Marx' Ethnological Notebooks, which is available at https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1881/ethnographical-notebooks/notebooks.pdf If someone could add this? 2001:984:59CF:1:C1D2:D0E2:65AC:90BD (talk) 16:58, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅. GABgab 14:03, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

London, England?
Can't we just assume that if there's no country name it's obviously England? There are many place names from America (Boston, Washington etc), but I never seem to see Boston, United States. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.219.36.12 (talk) 07:42, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * As it happens, Boston in Massachusetts is named after the original town of that name in Lincolnshire, England. So are we supposed to refer to the original as Boston, Lincs? RolandR (talk) 09:15, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Misinformation from Nicolaievsky & Maenchen-Helfen which is a huge source of criticism
There is a fair bit of misinformation and the references are Nicolaievsky, Boris; Maenchen-Helfen, Otto (1976) [1936]. Karl Marx: Man and Fighter. trans. Gwenda David and Eric Mosbacher. Harmondsworth and New York: Pelican. ISBN 978-1-4067-2703-6.

That book is a smear, and not academically well regarded. However, its posting on wiki has caused it to be widely quoted everywhere. Moreover, the book is misquoted, though it appears as 31 citations in the article.

Even basic information from this contrarian book -which itself provides no citations for the bulk of its criticisms- is misquoted in the article. such as:

• The whole notion of the Atheistic Archives only appears in this book and nowhere else, in any book other than those that cite the above mentioned

• They did not gallop through the city on a donkey, they wrote a cart and it was not March.

Much of the book is available on Google Books (https://books.google.com/books?id=ZlehCAAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Nicolaievsky+%26+Maenchen-Helfen&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiMobqIsJLTAhVJi1QKHbfVDlsQ6AEIGjAA#v=onepage&q=Donkeys&f=false) and the citations can be cleaned up.

Let's say there are 31 citations in this article from this book, and it is written to discredit Marx. Boris Nicolaievsky's book has no reviews, was never well received or widely accepted and provides ZERO footnotes for many of its outlandish claims. It is also the source of branding Marx as an atheist, where throughout his writings Marx is against religion, not god, i.e., more agnostic than atheistic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt Bianco (talk • contribs) 13:15, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 April 2017
I would suggest making this addition, as it sheds new light on Marx's thought:

After the sentence: "Where Hegel saw the "spirit" as driving history, Marx saw this as an unnecessary mystification, obscuring the reality of humanity and its physical actions shaping the world." add: "Although many authors hold that Marx distanced himself from Hegel, conceiving the world in a purely materialistic conception, others have suggested that Marx never ceased to be Hegel's scholar and that his conception was somewhat more complicated, consisting of a fusion of both idealism and materialism. "

Thanks and best regards,

Zundajr Zundajr (talk) 20:43, 5 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: First of all, thanks for your efforts to improve the article. There are three points I'd like to address. First it would be best if you'd cite page number(s) and also include in your request a brief, relevant passage from the text you're citing. Second, does the Fusaro source support all of your proposed addition, including the parts about "many authors" and "others" (plural)? Finally, I believe that inserting the proposed sentence verbatim where you suggest would make the next sentence confusing, and I wonder if you'd address that point if you reopen this request. (You can reopen it by changing the "answered" parameter in the template from yes back to no.) Rivertorch   FIRE WATER   18:05, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Marx's nationality and religion
What's the point of calling Marx "Prussian-born"? A strange point made by user J1982 that before 1971 there was no Germany. There were many small states that together made up Germany. Culturally and politically, Marx was German. This change denies the generally accepted attribution of Marx as "German", arguably out of the desire to deny the concept of nationality altogether. Wikipedia shouldn't be a playground for ideologues.

I am also surprised about the previous debate about "German" or "German-Jewish". Marx was himself baptized as a Protestant, as was his father. What notion of "Jewishness" is applied here? A racial notion, where one is a Jew even if one converted to another religion? I am wondering why it is necessary to mention the religion in the introductory sentence at all -- is it a general standard at Wikipedia to mention the religion in the introductory sentence? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.147.235.45 (talk) 15:44, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * We do mention one's nationality in the lead, through with Marx it is a bit iffy. Still, I would actually think calling him German shouldn't be too controversial. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 15:49, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Karl Marx's grand father
His name is not, as the article erroneously says "Meier Halevi Marx", but Marx Levy Mordechai — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8388:500:D200:71E4:75DE:11A9:E465 (talk) 21:48, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Source please. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 15:50, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Karl Marx. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150318044953/http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1134/is_7_108/ai_55698600/pg_1 to http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1134/is_7_108/ai_55698600/pg_1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:04, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Karl Marx. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120214101824/http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj11n3/cj11n3-6.pdf to http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj11n3/cj11n3-6.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:34, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Revisionist dribbling in "legacy" section
The last section of legacy section is highly problematic. It uses scare quotes to suggest a POV that Marxist-Leninism is somehow not really Marxist, when in fact that is the primary political legacy of Karl Marx and the term Marxist. Aside from leftcoms who are a tiny minority of historical Marxists (not the "many") or bourgeois British-American-French academics who have appropriated Marxist theory to apply it to things like feminism and homosexuality instead of class, Marxist-Leninists are the many. This section needs clarifying to who exactly is contesting it and who these mysterious "many Marxists" are.

"Politically, Marx's legacy is more complex. Throughout the twentieth century, revolutions in dozens of countries labelled themselves 'Marxist', most notably the Russian Revolution, which led to the founding of the USSR.[252] Major world leaders including Vladimir Lenin,[252] Mao Zedong,[253] Fidel Castro,[254] Salvador Allende,[255] Josip Broz Tito,[256] and Kwame Nkrumah [257] all cited Marx as an influence, and his ideas informed political parties worldwide beyond those where 'Marxist revolutions' took place.[258] The countries associated with some Marxist nations have led political opponents to blame Marx for millions of deaths,[259] but the fidelity of these varied revolutionaries, leaders and parties to Marx's work is highly contested, and rejected by many Marxists."

Claíomh Solais (talk) 00:21, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Paid informer??
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B3AuVph6KXdENUNHQVh5RF95VVU  at page 28-29. Not sure how this fits in. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 04:08, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * There is no way that we are going to accept Richard Wurmbrand as a reliable source. RolandR (talk) 11:30, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Karl Marx. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150108194200/https://viewpointmag.com/2013/10/21/between-marx-marxism-and-marxisms-ways-of-reading-marxs-theory/ to https://viewpointmag.com/2013/10/21/between-marx-marxism-and-marxisms-ways-of-reading-marxs-theory/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:08, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Removal of content from Categories listings
The categories listed below have been removed from the Categories listing by Cliftonian who is evidlently unfamiliar with WP guidelines on the removal WP:REMOVAL of content which advises: “When removing content from a page, it is important to be sure there is consensus to do so.”

As far as WP category listings are concerned the distinction introduced by Cliftonian “of Jewish descent, but not Jewish” is entirely spurious. That the operative criteria for inclusion in the removed listings is Jewish ancestry is evident from the listings therein of Derrida, Adorno, Marcuse, etc. To challenge this WP wide consensus the issue would need to be addressed on the appropriate Project Page.

The content below should accordingly be restored to the Categories section of the article unless a further case for their removal gains support:

Ashkenazi Jews, German people of Jewish descent, Jewish atheists, Jewish philosophers, Jewish socialists, Jewish sociologists. Almanacer (talk) 11:02, 14 February 2017 (UTC)


 * On what basis? Would we include him in 'Dutch philosophers', 'Dutch sociologists', 'Dutch socialists' etc as well, on the basis that his maternal grandfather was Dutch? He and his family were baptised Lutherans, but I note we don't bother with those sorts of categories. What is it, then, that makes the Jewish aspect so indelible here? Are we really the kind of organisation that designates people as 'Jews' based on ancestry—regardless of how 'Jewish' they actually are—and makes lists of them on that basis? Derrida, Adorno and Marcuse are three different cases here, all again different from this one—you cannot deal with them all exactly the same as the circumstances are different. Please explain what you think these categories add here. Note that the category "German people of Dutch-Jewish descent" remains, making "German people of Jewish descent" redundant in any case. Cheers —  Cliftonian   (talk)  11:07, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * To answer your question - WP is indeed the kind of organization that creates lists based on Jewish ancestry for the very good reason that it adds to the value and utility of the encyclopedia. If you object to this WP-wide consensus you need to raise the issue on the appropriate project page, not here. Clearly Marx qualifies for inclusion in these lists - the most recent scholarly biography by Steadman Jones begins with a section  entitled "Revolution, Empire and the Jews of the Rhineland".  Whether he belongs in other lists depends on comparable reliable sources none of which to my knowledge justify his inclusion in Dutch listings. Almanacer (talk) 20:42, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Against inclusion Before I begin I think WP:Removal does not relate to categories, categories do not count as "content". So to begin: first of all per WP:Category - "Categorizations should generally be uncontroversial" - this is not the case here. Secondly there is no treatment of an identification of Karl Marx as jewish in the current article, only ancestry, from what I understand categories are meant to relate strongly to the content of the article. I tried to look at the Categories for discussion search "jewish" and there's an awful lot of discussion actually - but a concern does seem to exist regarding identifying as jews people who did not self-identify as jews.--User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 15:47, 1 March 2017 (UTC)


 * There are substantive sources in the literature on Marx which highlight the formative influence of his Jewish heritage. For example: Terry Eaglelton in Why Marx Was Right (Yale UP 2011) notes: Marx was “in line with his Judaic legacy … a strenuously moral thinker” (p. 158) and that “Some of the great themes of Judaism … inform his work in a suitably secularised way” (p. 157). Jerrold Seigel, in  Marx's Fate (Princeton, 1978 pp. 112-19) has an extended treatment of the topic, exploring “the inner ties between Judaism, materialism and communism.”  In the absence of further contributions and a clear consensus it seems an RfC is in order.  Almanacer (talk) 17:18, 30 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I have added content accordingly. Almanacer (talk) 10:15, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I have restored the relevant categories. The article is now consistent with other articles eg Derrida, Adorno, Marcuse, etc. Almanacer (talk) 14:48, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The sources you have added do not state that Marx was a Jew, and do not justify the addition of these categories. You are now editibg against a clear consensus. RolandR (talk) 00:40, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * As you don't seem to understand that in the English language the adjective "Jewish" found throughout these texts corresponds to the noun "Jew", here is a quote from the Wheen biography (Fourth Estate 2000, page 8) "Marx was a bourgeois Jew from a predominantly Catholic city ...". If you continue to contend Marx was not a Jew then you need to come up with a reliable source that contradicts Wheen and, further, explain why WP should not be consistent with Professor Dan Cohn-Sherbok's Fifty Key Jewish Thinkers (Routledge 2007 pp. 146-49) which includes Marx along with Derrida, Arendt, Benjamin etc. Just to remind you the consensus that counts in WP is that to be found in reliable sources not among editor's unattributed POVs. Almanacer (talk) 19:34, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * In the absence any further objections I propose to restore the removed content. Please note that reference to any presumed consensus prior to this exchange or to the change in the article content reflecting the sources cited above is irrelevant. POV pushing Marx "not a Jew" unsupported by any reliable sources and removing content - in this case longstanding content - fully supported by reliable sources (see above) constitutes disruptive editing.Almanacer (talk) 11:39, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely not! Consensus above is clearly against this edit: three editors oppose it, and only you support it. A further editor removed the category when you added it. Nothing has happened since the earlier discussion to alter this four-to-one consensus, and not a single editor has supported your proposal. Your insistence on this contested edit is becoming disruptive, and I urge you to forget this and find something more constructive to do here. RolandR (talk) 13:12, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The opinions of editors, (eg Marx "not a Jew"), which are unsupported by reliable sources and who refuse to engage with discussion of such sources, yourself included, are not relevant to consensus formation on WP articles. Longstanding content which has been unchallenged in well watched WP articles can reasonably be assumed to have the backing of a legitimate consensus. There can be no more constructive activity here or on any other page than preventing the reputation of WP being undermined as a trusted source by the kind of POV pushing you are engaged in. Almanacer (talk) 19:58, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Don't put words into my mouth. Nobody has said "Marx was not a Jew"; but multiple editors have agreed that the addition of the proposed categories is inappropriate, and not one single editor has agreed with you. It is unacceptable to argue that the position of all editors who do not agree with you is "not relevant"; the fact is that consensus is solidly against you, and you are in a minority of one. Whatever may have happened in other articles is of no concern here; we are simply discussing whether these categories are relevant to this article. Until you can persuade sufficient other editors that your view is correct, you are not at liberty to change the article, however much you convince yourself that you are right. RolandR (talk) 20:57, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

See here for "not Jewish". To which you have aligned yourself with your equally preposterous "sources you have added do not state that Marx was a Jew" statement.

If you want to claim a consensus you need to identify editors who have engaged in discussion of reliable sources such as the one’s I have cited above and reached a view on that basis. Editors who do not respond to having their arguments addressed (not dismissed as you claim) – including where additions to the article have been put in place as a consequence – can not be assumed to be of the same opinion expressed prior to these counter arguments and changes. Since the article was changed to include explicit reference to Marx’s Judaic heritage no consensus has formed in favour of removing the content.

Marx is listed here - if you have objections to this raise them on the appropriate project page and meanwhile stop disrupting the linkages as they currently exist and which have been a longstanding component of the article. Almanacer (talk) 16:24, 16 August 2017 (UTC)


 * It is quite clear: four editors (Cliftonian, Dwarf Kirlston, Claíomh Solais and myself) oppose adding this category; not one editor has agreed with your proposal. You may not make this edit unless you are able to convince other editors that it is justified; so far you have convinced only yourself. I repeat, nobody has said "Marx was not a Jew" - that is an invention of yours. We have argued that, in the absence of reliable sources stating "Marx was a Jew", adding this category would be impermissible original research or synthesis. RolandR (talk) 22:54, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * What is it exactly that you do not understand in this quote (citation above - do pay more attention) from Wheen "Marx was a bourgeois Jew from a predominantly Catholic city ..." ? And please note consensus is not determined by a headcount of editors no longer contributing to the exchange. Almanacer (talk) 18:41, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Marx was culturally German and a son of the Enlightenment; Hegel has nothing to do with Judaism. Marx had Jewish ancestry, but rejected and even attacked the reactionary Jewish culture/religion (see: On the Jewish Question). Derrida and Benjamin were both raised as Jews and have considerable links to the religion, their situation is different to Marx. Adorno was half ethnically Italian. There is no one size fits all solution to this. As the article stands now, "of Jewish descent" is accurate enough. Claíomh Solais (talk) 00:44, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * As stated above, WP content should reflect the most reliable sources (such as those cited above) available on the topic rather than the POV or research of its editors. Almanacer (talk) 16:28, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * See summary below (Jewish atheist section) on which basis I see no reason not to restore the removed content. Almanacer (talk) 20:11, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

"Prussian-born"?
Shouldn't it not just be "German"? Plenty of people were born in Prussia and their articles just say "German", why is Marx any exception? Even Friedrich Engels's article just says "German".--Henry P. Smith (talk) 15:38, 20 September 2017 (UTC) Blocked as a sock of English Patriot Man. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:48, 27 September 2017 (UTC)