Talk:Karl Marx/Archive 13

Proposed new section: Marx's Jewish roots
As adumbrated earlier, I propose to insert a new section. After Family, but before Health. As folllows:

Relevance, if any, of his Jewish roots: Isaiah Berlin’s assessment
Marx “was directly descended from two long generations of rabbis”. However his father, having lost his Jewish faith, converted to Christianity to escape religious discrimination in employment; he also had Karl baptised. Karl rejected Christianity by the time he was a university student. He mentioned his Jewish origins only once in his writings.

Nevertheless Karl Marx most of his life “was subject to anti-Semitic gibes from fellow socialists and radicals”. In his own writings his attitude to Jews was “uncompromisingly hostile”. According to Isaiah Berlin “what is striking is the ferocity of his language, which resembles that of many later anti-Semitic tracts … chauvinistic and Fascist …”, to the point of using vituperations which are no longer employed in civilised discourse.

In his essay ' 'Benjamin Disraeli, Karl Marx and the Search for Identity' ', Sir Isaiah Berlin explored those sentiments and concluded that, even though Marx was not a Jew either by faith or community — if anything was an anti-Semite — his Jewish roots were highly relevant to his life and thought.

Like his contemporary Benjamin Disraeli, Marx came from a background — non-observant, newly emancipated Jewry — some members of which, being a disadvantaged minority everywhere, longed to identify with the majority; to acquire a new persona; “to escape from the weakness and humiliation of a depressed or wounded social group by identifying oneself with some other group or movement”. Of those groups certain individuals, if brilliant and passionate by nature, were filled with a desire to dominate their society. Disraeli did so by taking up the cause of the English aristocracy, becoming prime minister of Great Britain at the height of its powers. Far from playing down his Jewish origins, if anything he exaggerated them, seeing himself as a fellow-aristocrat, “a member of an élite, an ancient race”. Thus he found his group loyalty.

In Berlin’s estimation, Marx, although taking the opposite path, did something analogous, in his case by taking up the cause of the proletariat. “He was a fighter, and wished to destroy those whom he conceived as obstacles to human progress”. He grew up in a highly chauvinistic environment from which he absorbed a hatred of Jews. But his analysis underestimated nationalism as an independent force. Summarising the gist of his argument thus, Berlin wrote:"As Disraeli, faced with a similar predicament, identified himself with the British landed aristocracy and gentry, and worked his magic on the squires and great landowners until they all but accepted his metamorphosis, so Marx, too, donned a uniform that liberated him from his own oppressive garments and … identified himself with a social force, the great international class of the disinherited workers … the class which his writings would arm for inevitable victory”***

It is difficult not to think that the voice is that of a proud and defiant pariah, not so much of the friend of the proletariat as of a member of a long humiliated race… a man who is shaking his fist at the establishment … in the manner of an ancient Hebrew prophet."

Source:

Comments or suggestions appreciated. Ttocserp 18:27, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't have special objections about possibly adding such a section, but it probably should not be based exclusively on Sir Isaiah Berlin's views; his views could be compared to other philosophers' view on the subject. But for the secondary matter of the categories that can be used in this article, there is nothing here to my view that adds to the conclusion that Karl Marx was a "German of Jewish descent" and nothing else. Isaiah Berlin makes an important point that is being completely forgotten in this discussion; namely, that Marx was an atheist and that he definitively rejected all and any religion, including the Lutheran one in which he and his parents had been baptized, and certainly the Jewish religion of their ancestors. I return to one assertion I have already made: I don't know of any evidence that Marx himself ever even acknowledged his own Jewish ancestry or ethnic origin, certainly not in writing. To the contrary, he certainly did not ever identify himself as a Jew, or as being even related to them, and he rejected and condemned Judaism in very strong terms. But since those ethnic origins are all fairly documented by many reliable sources, including Berlin's essay, we don't need his acknowledgement for accepting the category. But as regards the inclusion of any other Wikipedia "Jewish" category in this page, that would be completely unwarranted in my view/vote once again. The very few arguing otherwise here are guided in my opinion by a different, utterly biased political agenda that should be flatly rejected by the majority consensus. warshy (¥¥) 22:41, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Addendum The fact that many of Marx's opponents, detractors, and simple Marx- and Marxism-haters throughout history, and to this very day, have tried to diminish his intellectual stature by calling him a "Jew" and by trying to actually "make" him a "Jew" out of whole cloth, does not in fact make him a Jew, other than his generally accepted Jewish descent or ethnic origin. He was not even ever circumcised for that matter. The current attempt to officially tag him here on Wikipedia as a "Jewish anything and everything" is just a continuation of these same hateful polemical attacks on him and on Jews in general, in my view. warshy (¥¥) 00:29, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * More claims without sources: Marx wasn't circumcised? Where do you get this from? The fact is many supporters, some of them Jewish, (as quoted above) called Marx a Jew, so it is not anti-Semitic to say that.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:10, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Why, can you produce any record for his circumcision? I can't, and you can't either. You know why: because he simply wasn't Jewish himself in any way, shape, or form, and he was obviously never circumcised because of that basic reason. Now, Marx had many oppponents and detractors within the socialist movement itself, such as the one you cited above, and these opponents and detractors also liked to try and diminish his intellectual stature within the movement by "making him" a "Jew" (by race, not less), as you can clearly see in the passage you quoted. I am leaving this issue at this for now, since the majority consensus above should close this issue here soon. But it will be revived still other times later, as hatred of Marx and Marxism as a "Jewish" ideology is something that is pretty much ingrained in the age old hatred of Jews in the Christian west. warshy (¥¥) 18:00, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * So this has generated into a discussion about Karl Marx's penis?--Jack Upland (talk) 09:44, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I did not ask a question. I made an assertion, and it is correct. You asked the question, and I responded. Case closed. warshy (¥¥) 13:42, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

RfC

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the categories Ashkenazi Jews, German people of Jewish descent, Jewish atheists, Jewish philosophers, Jewish socialists, Jewish sociologists be added to this article? RolandR (talk) 11:08, 6 October 2017 (UTC) Clarification The dispute is over restoring long established content to the article, not adding anything new. The content was removed from the article here prior to any Talk Page discussion or consensus. Almanacer (talk) 19:37, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No. Although of Jewish descent, Marx himself was born to parents who had converted to Christianity, and received no Jewish upbringing or education. He was never part of any Jewish community or organisation, and he never identified as a Jew. It is misleading to apply these categories to the article, since the fact that his ancestors were Jewish played no part in Marx's life, his writings or his activity. RolandR (talk) 11:21, 6 October 2017 (UTC)


 * No, Marx did not identify as Jewish and, as RolandR states above, was never raised as Jewish or in a Jewish household. Mramoeba (talk) 23:11, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment German people of Jewish descent would seem appropriate, the others not at all. AusLondonder (talk) 09:44, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No Only "German people of Jewish descent," but none of the others. I am not sure he even ever recognized the Jewish descent of his parents (or his own, for that matter), but he certainly did not consider either them or himself as Jewish in any way, shape, or form. Otherwise, in his short essay on the "Jewish Question" he did not display any positive views about Jews; the views expressed there about Jews and Judaism in general were overall thoroughly negative, completely rejective in fact. warshy (¥¥) 21:37, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No, per above; also happy with "of Jewish descent" but not the rest. —  Cliftonian   (talk)  17:35, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No, per arguments already made. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:51, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * What is the evidence that Marx did not identify as Jewish? Both his grandfathers were Rabbis, his father only converted to Christianity for career reasons, and his long term friend, Engels, was also of Jewish origin. His negative comments about Jews have to be taken in the context that he came from a Jewish background and that he was readily identified as Jewish at the time.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:07, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The claim that Engels was of Jewish origin has absolutely no basis in fact, and has only been put forward by antisemitic or anti-communist conspiracy theorists. What is the evidence that Marx was "readily identified as Jewish at the time"? RolandR (talk) 11:32, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Correct, thank you. As I said already, what I do not have is any evidence that Marx acknowledged in writing any time his Jewish origins we are ascertaining here. He definitely did not identify himself as a Jew, as anybody who reads his essay on the "Jewish Question" will readily see. Otherwise, in general the claim that he was "Jewish" is also only put forward by anti-semites or anti-communist polemicists. warshy (¥¥) 13:56, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It is kind of a double-edged sword with which to attack Jews, or damned-if-you-do and damned-if-you-don't. Marx attacked, condemned and damned the Jews for having "mammon" as their "god"; and the anti-semites and anti-communist polemicists then of course damn Marx for being "Jewish." It is a CATCH 22, and there is no way out of it.warshy (¥¥) 14:04, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It is actually pretty simple: In the Communist world the Jews invented Capitalism; In the Capitalist world the Jews invented Communism. That is, on top of controlling the media, the world economy, and Hollywood, and of having a conspiracy to dominate the world. By the way, they also killed Christ long before all this. warshy (¥¥) 14:11, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected about Engels. But it's simply wrong to say that only anti-Semites and anti-communists call Marx Jewish: see Isaac Deutscher. In response to the query above about him being readily identifiable as Jewish - because of his name.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:19, 11 October 2017 (UTC)


 * "Because of his name" is your own guess about what you think people at the time might have thought. It is definitely not evidence that he was "readily identified as Jewish at the time". RolandR (talk) 10:41, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Deutscher's analysis above is as good as any in its description of Marx's Jewish descent. But in the end that is all he is saying, which is what everyone here is also saying: Marx was of Jewish descent, not Jewish himself per se. warshy (¥¥) 13:49, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * And note that Deutscher's analysis was in an essay entitled "The Non-Jewish Jew"; he was stating explicitly that Marx was not "Jewish". RolandR (talk) 14:23, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Dennis K. Fischman in Political Discourse in Exile: Karl Marx and the Jewish Question states that 'others recognized Marx as a Jew' (p 17). His nickname 'Moor' was a reference to his Jewish origins (pp 17-18). His daughter Eleanor later learnt Yiddish and identified herself as a 'Jewess' (p 18). Otto Ruhle, writing in 1928, said: 'Marx felt that as a Jew he had been given a bad start in life, one which would seriously handicap his prospects of advancement. No doubt the conversion of the family to Protestantism had done something to make up for this, but his racial origin could not be washed away by the waters of baptism. No one could ever forget that Marx had been born a Jew, for not only was his facial type markedly Hebraic, but his whole aspect shouted a Semitic origin. Baptized or unbaptized, Marx remained a Jew, recognizable as such at the first glance, and burdened therefore with all the odium attaching to his race.'--Jack Upland (talk) 08:53, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I doubt we’ll get very much further trying to get RolandR to take reliable sources seriously. My previous attempts to do so (see the section above) were met with blinkered denial (“these sources do not state that Marx was a Jew”) that they state what they clearly state – that Marx was Jewish - presumably on the assumption that editors won’t be bothered to check them out and find that, for instance, the Steadman Jones biography specifically refers to Marx in terms of “his Jewishness” and in relation to “other radical Jewish writers” (pp. 166-67).
 * Likewise his claim that “the fact that his ancestors were Jewish played no part in Marx's life, his writings or his activity” is flatly contradicted by a range of reliable sources which have already been cited and, since two of these are cited in the article, he contradicts the article itself (see the section on Influences). These sources include texts by Eagleton, Berman and Seigel all of which argue for the formative influence of Marx’s Judaic legacy on his work.
 * The issue at stake here is whether WP policy guidelines are observed or editing is undertaken on the basis of unsupported POVs. With regard to categories the policy requires identifying “the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having.”  It is clear that the categories in dispute meet these criteria and should therefore be restored to the article. This would make it consistent with other articles on Jewish thinkers such as Derrida, Marcuse, etc. Almanacer (talk) 19:32, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Ruhle may have been of Jewish descent himself, although his page does not say so yet. But after this bit of psychological analysis or Marx's psyche (for what it is worth), he also writes: "Very striking is the unusual acerbity with which, when he is discussing the Jewish problem, Marx attacks “the empirical essence of Judaism.” He writes: “What is the mundane basis of Judaism? Practical needs; self-interest. What is the mundane cult of the Jews? Huckstering. What is the Jews’ mundane god? Money.” Marx denounces the Jews as prototypes of the commercial spirit and of a monetary economy; he makes Judaism the symbol of bloodsucking capitalism. The reader cannot escape the feeling that he is ostentatiously showing his opposition to Judaism, is demonstratively severing himself from his own race, and by emphasizing his anti-capitalist tendencies is declaring himself before all the world not to be a Jew." Note also that we are clearly getting back here to Judaism as a "race" again. Are we going to continue here along this path of revival of the racial category for Jews? I would suggest we don't, and leave this issue as the first proposer and all other commenters here have done so far. warshy (¥¥) 18:47, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * See WP:ETHNICRACECAT for the distinction between ethnic groups and race. Almanacer (talk) 19:32, 12 October 2017 (UTC)


 * No Only the German people of Jewish descent would be appropriate. Apologies if this is in the discussion area not the survey area. L3X1  (distænt write)  20:31, 12 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment: it would seem to make more sense to eliminate categories such as Jewish socialist than to remove Marx from these categories. Category:Jewish socialists includes many people who were no brought up as religious Jews.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:52, 13 October 2017 (UTC)


 * No His monograph On the Jewish Question"'' makes it clear that he does not self-identify as a Jew. LK (talk) 07:17, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The only source that the 'No' camp have cited is an essay Marx wrote when he was 24. Do you have another source? Do you have a secondary source?--Jack Upland (talk) 07:19, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * He never consider himself to be Jewish, and you seem to be saying that its not self-identified. I would say in this case it is. I am not sure why we would need to prove a negative. Mramoeba (talk) 17:12, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * That's not actually true; I have cited Isaac Deutscher's essay The Non-Jewish Jew. But in any case, as Mramoeba points out, the onus is not on us to cite a source to establish that the categories are inappropriate; it is on those who wish to add it to provide a convincing case that they are. So far, you have signally failed to do so. RolandR (talk) 17:37, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm interested in the claim that he never self-identified as Jewish. This has been confidently asserted by many people, but you have signally failed to provide a secondary source that says that. The onus is on everyone to back up their assertions.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:59, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * That is completely back-to-front. In the absence of any reliable source, evidence or claim it is not our responsibility to disprove this assertion; on the contrary, it is your responsibility to cite even one source which shows, or purports to show, that Marx did identify as Jewish. Until you do so, there is little more to discuss here. RolandR (talk) 07:49, 21 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment Do we now assign nationalities to persons according to how the persons identify themselves? We probably confuse questions about personal, sexual identity with questions about objective identity, such as what is the physical condition, the nationality, the ethnic origin, etc, of the person, questions which all have objective answers, irrespective of what one states or claims. The only question about Marx, therefore, should be: What is the ethnic origin of Karl Marx according to reliable sources. Shouldn't it? -The Gnome (talk) 08:30, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree. It is a strange conversation. As Isaac Deutscher's essay indicates, there are many 'Jews' (including perhaps Deutscher himself) who aren't 'Jewish' (because they don't adhere to Judaism or immerse themselves in Jewish culture). There are a plethora of sources (including Deutscher) who say Marx was a Jew. There is no source which says that Marx said 'I am not a Jew' (though he apparently said 'I am not a Marxist'). We have had numerous self-confident assertions that Marx did not self-identify as a Jew, without a secondary source to back it up, and I think it is highly naive to say that because Marx made negative and rather witty comments about Jews means he didn't identify as a Jew. There are many Jews that have made slurs against and jokes about Jews. That is not evidence that they are not Jewish. The claim that Marx was not a Jew seems to be dogmatic and tendentious. Its supporters have completely failed to produce secondary sources to back up their idiosyncratic claims.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:39, 21 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Categories are not very important; less still for certain human beings who defy categorisation. Categories are only relevant for information-retrieval purposes.


 * So: Is it in any way relevant that Marx was "descended from two long generations of rabbis"? That he was "subject to anti-Semitic jibes from fellow socialists ... during he greater part of his life"?  That "his attitude to Jews is uncompromisingly hostile"?  That "what is striking is the ferocity of his language, which resembles that of many later anti-Semitic tracts"?  In other words, do all these things have any bearing on Marx's life, work and thought?
 * One person who thought so was Isaiah Berlin, from whom all of the above quotes come. In his brilliant essay Benjamin Disraeli, Karl Marx and the Search for Identity he explains why.  I am preparing a short addition to the Marx article that summarises this essay.  I hope to have it up later today.  I hope it may be of some help in resolving this controversy.  Ttocserp 13:15, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * We can argue for self-determination of a person's sexual identity but not for much else, and especially not in the factual matters of a person's life, such as place of birth, ethnicity, etc. A living person whose biography is in Wikipedia has every right to claim he or she was born in Mars two thousand years ago but in the Wikipedia article we would include place and date of birth as per the evidence provided by reliable sources. The subject of this article, Karl Marx, is a person of the greatest possible notability and importance; it is unthinkable that we'd consider the subject's ethnicity as unworthy of mention. -The Gnome (talk) 09:21, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Well put.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:42, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The RFC above is about what WP categories should be included in this page. As the vast majority of commenters above have said/voted, the one that suits the page and that also covers the subject's so-called ethnic origins is "German of Jewish descent." This should close the case; as for you your two comments above, they are not to the point, and they are in fact misleading in their implication that the page as is today does not cover the subject's so-called ethnic origins. warshy (¥¥) 12:33, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You are correct, warshy. There was an unwarranted confusion on my part, mea culpa. Of course, there was no intention to mislead here, and I believe my remarks are valid - but not for this RfC! Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 22:32, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

The Gnome is being unduly apologetic and his remarks are both valid and relevant to this RfC. It’s evident warshy has yet to read the article carefully – it references Marx’s ethnic origins in the Influences section - or consult any of the reliable secondary sources cited so far (across a number of relevant threads)  precisely NONE of which support the claim made by the initiator of this RfC that “the fact that his ancestors were Jewish played no part in Marx's life, his writings or his activity.”

In contrast ALL the following (Marxists included) refer to Marx’s as Jewish and to his Jewish roots having a significant formative influence on his life and work – the first two are cited in support of this contention in the article itself (exact citations are given in the article and the previous archived threads):


 * Terry Eaglelton ''Why Marx Was Right
 * Jerrold Seigel  Marx's Fate''
 * The Marx biographies by Steadman Jones and Wheen
 * Marshall Berman All that is Solid Melts into Air
 * Dennis K. Fischman Political Discourse in Exile: Karl Marx and the Jewish Question
 * Isaac Deutscher “Message of the Non-Jewish Jew”
 * Isaiah Berlin "Benjamin Disraeli, Karl Marx and the Search for Identity".
 * Dan Cohn-Sherbok Fifty Key Jewish Thinkers

warshy might also usefully take note that : “Talk pages are not a place for editors to argue their personal point of view about a controversial issue. They are a place to discuss how the points of view of reliable sources should be included in the article….” Almanacer (talk) 13:54, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * This RFC is about WP Categories and what Categories can be used in this biographical article. I challenge you to point out ONE reliable source that straight out, without qualifications "refer to Marx as Jewish," just like that. If you can provide pages and quotes we may be able to discuss the inclusion of additional reliable sources in the article. As for this RFC, there is nothing else that can or should be added, except what all commenters here have already said, excluding you and Jack Upland. warshy (¥¥) 15:11, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You can't expect to be taken seriously as a judge of reliable sources until you come up with one yourself for the claim, contradicted by all the RS cited above, that "the fact that his ancestors were Jewish played no part in Marx's life, his writings or his activity” the absence of which entirely negates any support it might receive.  Almanacer (talk) 21:15, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I did not ever write something like that, and I completely disagree with such a statement, whoever produced it and wherever it may have been posted. Such a statement, in my view, would be very wrong. But in any case, it has nothing substantial having to do with this RFC about WP Categories that can be used in this biographical article. In that regard, I believe we are more than settled here, and waiting for an Admin to close this RFC in due course. warshy (¥¥) 23:12, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Glad to hear you disagree with the statement, sorry to have made that assumption, but it is clear that the statement has everything to do with the dispute about categories because it is the rationale presented by Ronald R for the removal of the categories from the article and the rejection of their reintroduction. It is his claim in initiating this RfC that the categories are “misleading” because “the fact that his ancestors were Jewish played no part in Marx's life, his writings or his activity”.  As well as apparently not noticing he is contradicting the content of the article, he omits to provide  any reliable secondary sources to ratify his claim and since, as has been pointed out, WP guidelines require deliberations on this page to reference such sources no admin can possibly endorse editing the article according to a personal POV that belongs in the outer reaches of the blogsphere. RfCs aren’t determined by headcounts but by consideration of the validity of  the arguments presented and the RS they are backed up by.  Almanacer (talk) 21:04, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Whatever part they may have played they by no means alter the basic and fundamental fact that Karl Marx himself was NOT JEWISH IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM WHATSOEVER. This has been determined here time and time again, and no, RFCs are decided by the VOTES. An Admin should be closing this RFC in due time with no problem at all. warshy (¥¥) 00:03, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The question of ethinicity is not decided by a person's comportment in life, nor by his stated preferences. Someone could, for example, deny that he's French (or act in a manner that goes against the criteria of "Frenchness", whatever those might be) but if that person was born in France, and is a French citizen, the fact that this is a French person goes into the biography. If the person officially changes nationality, that is mentioned too. Once again, ethnicity is most definitely NOT a matter of placing personal choice above facts. The ethnicity issue is not at all similar to personal choices about sexual identity or preferences. -The Gnome (talk) 12:18, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree with you at all. What you say again, however, does not address the RFC that is being discussed here about suitable WP Categories for this bio article. The second section of the article, "Life," has all the details needed regarding Karl Marx's ethnic origins. There is nothing missing there, and it is pretty complete. Any good faith editor with reliable sources can also add details or sources if deemed needed. warshy (¥¥) 16:38, 17 November 2017 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Jewish atheists
There is a a category in Wikipedia called "Jewish atheists" - should Karl Marx be added to this list?Vorbee (talk) 15:42, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Would be relevant and appropriate. Almanacer (talk) 17:33, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * No, this would not be appropriate. As discussed extensively above, Marx was of Jewish origin, but had no Jewish upbringing. He should not be described as a Jewish anything, since this is misleading and would have been rejected by Marx himself. RolandR (talk) 21:18, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * As stated above, WP content should be determined by the most reliable sources a range of which are cited above to support the inclusion of relevant categories. Eg the Marxist Marshall Berman’s view that Marx belongs to line of thinkers who “build on a dense, complex and psychically rich Jewish culture of narration” or the inclusion of Marx in non-Marxist’s Professor Dan Cohn-Sherbok's Fifty Key Jewish Thinkers . The opinions of individual editors which are not ratified by reference to reliable sources are by definition original research and hence have no validity. You have yet to provide a single reliable source to support your POV. Almanacer (talk) 11:09, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * And you have yet to persuade a single editor to agree with your proposed edit. RolandR (talk) 17:06, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * What I’m doing is defending the validity of content supplied by numerous other editors and supported by reliable sources which you have removed from the article purely on the basis of your POV. Almanacer (talk) 15:04, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. "Jewish" here refers to ethnicity, not culture or faith. I agree with . But both sides right now are getting a little incivil and I ask that we cool it down.&thinsp;&mdash; Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)&thinsp; 03:37, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Here is a summary of the exchanges to date (see also above section) and unless further substantive objections are raised I see no reason not to restore the removed content:

1. The category Jewish atheists was removed from the article here, along with other categories relevant to Marx's Judaic origins, with the objection that Marx was “not Jewish”. When challenged the removal was supported by Roland R  with the claim that  reliable sources I cited “do not state that Marx was a Jew”. Both these claims have been shown to be demonstrably false with chapter and verse citations from reliable sources. There has been no further challenge to the validity of these sources in supporting the content which has been a long-standing and hitherto unchallenged part of the article.

2. The article has been changed here since the content was originally removed, in response to the previous discussion, to include specific reference to Marx’s Judaic legacy.

3. Contributors to the discussion have stated their own opinions about Marx and Judaism have been reminded that Talk Pages are for the discussion of what can be found in reliable sources on the topic; none have been cited to ratify the removal of the content. Editors who have questioned the utility or suitability of the categories have been invited to raise their concerns on the appropriate project page. Almanacer (talk) 20:08, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The consensus in the discussions above is quite clearly against adding this category. And Wikipedia operates on the basis of consensus, not "truth". By persistently raising the same arguments for your minority view, you are acting disruptively. Please stop this, and accept that your proposal has not gained support. RolandR (talk) 09:41, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Support. Already included at List of Jewish atheists and agnostics and plenty of sources ( https://www.google.com/search?q="karl+marx"+"jewish+atheist" ) identify him as such. It would be unhelpful to readers to not include him in the category. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 10:47, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The dispute is not about “adding this category” but restoring categories removed with the spurious objection that Marx was “not Jewish”. Subsequently Roland R again removed the categories, apparently claiming some kind of privileged access to Marx’s mind - no reliable sources are cited - arguing “He should not be described as a Jewish anything” despite the reference in the article to his Jewish ancestry and the influence his Judaic origins had on his work. His claims that there is a consensus in support of this absurd POV is equally spurious. The removed categories have now been restored to the article. Almanacer (talk) 16:54, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * There is still no consensus for adding this disputed category, so I have again removed it. And please do not make straw arguments; I have never said that "Marx was not Jewish", nor do I claim "privilkeged access to Marx's mind". I am simply aserting Wikipedia policy that a challenged edit must gain consensus before it can be added to an article. RolandR (talk) 10:08, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It looks to be 4 editors in favor to 1 opposed (I'm assuming Vorbee is in favor), so I would say that there is a consensus now and Almanacer was right to add the categories back. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 10:14, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I see four editors against (Cliftonian, Dwarf Kirlston, Claíomh Solais and myself), and only two in favour. So no, there is no consensus and I am restoring the article to the agreed state. RolandR (talk) 11:01, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * This topic is sure to come up again next year at the bicentenary of Marx’s birth when I confidently predict the "Marx not Jewish” brigade will be consigned to the the deserved obscurity of some outer planet of the blogshphere and the reputation of WP as a trusted source correspondingly enhanced. Almanacer (talk) 14:09, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

The RFC on this issue was just closed with the complete rejection of such a category as "Jewish atheists" for Karl Marx's main biographical page on WP. That is because there is no doubt that Marx himself was NOT JEWISH in any way, shape, or form wharsoever. How his Jewish ancestry might have influence his thought and philosophy is another very serious matter for serious thinkers and philosophers for ever after him. But on the matter of him being "Jewish" himself in any way, shape, or form, it is a stain in his "character" that "race" considerations will not let those that see the world through this narrow and biased prism forget ever. And WP, being what it is, a serious encyclopedia, will not even consider it again, as it just did. In the day it even considers it again, it is not a serious and credible encyclopedia that is based solely on the best reliable sources available, and I would certainly not be here anymore if that ever happened. But the closing of the RFC below a day ago only proves again that that will never happen as long as WP is still WP. warshy <sup style="font-variant: small-caps; color: #129dbc!important;">(¥¥) 22:48, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

"[T]he three-volume Das Kapital"
It's somewhat misleading to call Das Kapital a three-volume work because a fourth volume was prepared by Marx and posthumously published by Kautsky. 77.126.11.183 (talk) 06:46, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts
Marx is given the honorific "FRSA" but he is not in Fellows of the Royal Society of Arts. Nor is this in McLellan's biography, although it halts at his death. Is there a basis for this? Wikiain (talk) 23:32, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry? He is mentioned on that page, and he is listed in List of Fellows of the Royal Society of Arts. He is listed as a member on the Society's website and documents about his membership can be found if you search its archive.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:04, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry! I could have sworn I saw a different Marx in that list. I couldn't access that information on the Society's website:  it seemed one needs to be an FRSA oneself.  If you have found a public-access page, could you kindly add it to this article?  Wikiain (talk) 06:06, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I can access the website at the link above.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:20, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I can access the the website as you say, but the link in it to "Find a Fellow" is for Fellows only. That is what I meant.  Wikiain (talk) 13:49, 15 April 2018 (UTC).
 * The official | Join the RSA page states explicitly that "Past Fellows have included Benjamin Franklin, Karl Marx, Marie Curie & Charles Dickens". RolandR (talk) 08:58, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks RolandR, but from that link I get only "SORRY, BUT WE COULDN'T FIND THE PAGE YOU REQUESTED'. However, this is in a purple box down that page, which I hadn't noticed.  Nonetheless, I'm inclined to say that WP needs a reference as to how the appointment was made.  Just to designate him FRSA indicates that it was made during his lifetime, which does not seem accurate.  Wikiain (talk) 13:42, 15 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Sorry, this is the correct link. Surely, if the RSA states that Marx was a fellow of the society, that is sufficient evidence for us to include this fact in the article. There does not seem to be any way to posthumously become a member, which is what you seem to be implying. RolandR (talk) 14:01, 15 April 2018 (UTC)


 * And further searching reveals that the Society's archives include an 1862 letter from Marx accepting membership. RolandR (talk) 14:07, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Wunderbar! I've added it in a ref for the FRSA honorific. Wikiain (talk) 02:29, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

received good reviews
But only one of them is linked.Xx236 (talk) 10:38, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Berman
https://www.politico.eu/article/karl-marx-kapital-crimes-trier-controversy/ Xx236 (talk) 07:01, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * And? Who cares what the Vacuum Institute says? There was some inane controversy about public sculpture in a small German city called Tryhard. One of the world's most successful (post)-capitalist economies donated a statue of a British Jewish radical, Charles H. Marks. Some people on another continent blew off some steam. What's the big deal???--Jack Upland (talk) 08:26, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 August 2018
98.165.226.23 (talk) 00:12, 17 August 2018 (UTC) Karl Marx America


 * Non-explanatory.-- SkyGazer 512 <span style="background: linear-gradient(aqua, #d580ff);">Oh no, what did I do this time? 02:44, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Jean-Claude Juncker
Jean-Claude Juncker should not be mentioned as influenced by Marx, the sources used for this do not support that at all. 

Those sources merely mention general statements by Juncker on Marx's thoughts and his legacy. As the article is written now it is a wrongful statement about a living person.

br Cöskyd (talk) 18:25, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The refs are about Juncker dedicating a statue to Marx. That would imply at least a little influence. Simonm223 (talk) 18:33, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Addition to 'Commentaries on Marx'
The request is to add the following publication to the section 'Commentaries on Marx'

Furner, J. (2018) Marx on Capitalism: The Interaction-Recognition-Antinomy Thesis. Leiden: Brill. ISBN 978-90-04-32331-5

Justification for the request: the book is a scholarly survey of Marx's writings as a whole that - unlike most books on Marx in English - re-translates all the quotations, criticizes the standard published translations, and thereby questions previous interpretations of Marx's thought, such as those offered in the books already mentioned in the section 'Commentaries on Marx' of this entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpfurner (talk • contribs) 10:26, 18 November 2018 (UTC)


 * ❌. Based on your username, I'm assuming you're the author (or closely related to the author) of the book.  As such, this seems like a means of promoting your own work.  –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 16:47, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Too many references
Hello, I don't think we need so many references in the article. There are the sources below, everyone can read them. Thanks. Kapeter77 (talk) 19:32, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * This is the first time I've seen this complaint, anywhere, on Wikipedia. I think you'll find that Marx is a divisive figure in world history and the refs are there because any statement without a ref that is considered controversial is likely to be deleted. I would strongly advise you not to delete refs from the body of the article without discussion and consensus first. Simonm223 (talk) 20:00, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I wholly agree with Simonm223. Wikiain (talk) 20:53, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Those statements are quite neutral, no need to put one at the end of all sentences, at least thats my opinion... Kapeter77 (talk) 22:28, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Grave
Do we really need to document vandalism of the grave?--Jack Upland (talk) 07:52, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Removed, since there doesn't seem to be any irreparable damage. Wikiain (talk) 20:58, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I agree, if there was irreparable damage that might be worth including.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:06, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Who is Blumenberg
The article quotes three times a biographer called Blumenberg with the number of page. Blumenberg, 98. Blumenberg, 100. Blumenberg, 99–100. Blumenberg, 98; Siegel, 494. But there is no indication which book this has been taken from. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:16B8:5C74:2900:DDDE:D973:6837:BB32 (talk) 16:21, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is. It is listed in the bibliography, together with all of the other works cited: Blumenberg, Werner (2000). Karl Marx: An Illustrated Biography. trans. Douglas Scott. London; New York: Verso. ISBN 978-1-85984-254-6. RolandR (talk) 17:13, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

The Heinrich manoevre
"Note 1" says "Karl Heinrich Marx" is "based on an error". What is this error? There is no Wikipedia policy that people's names must be just as recorded on their birth certificates. The question is what names they are known by. If it is true that Karl adopted the middle name Heinrich after his father Heinrich died in 1838, and that he wrote poetry as "K.H. Marx", that is notable. It is also notable that Engels, his long-time friend and collaborator, called him "Karl Heinrich Marx" in an article written after his death. Having said that, |his academic record from 1836, before his father died, also gives Heinrich as his middle name! Based on "Note 1" and his academic record, it seems that many people, including Marx himself, treated Heinrich as his middle name. I see no reason to call this an "error". His birth certificate is not in a form that we would expect these days. I think we should accept that "Heinrich" was a middle name that was widely used. For example, the entry in The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography written by Marxist historian Eric Hobsbawm, calls him "Karl Heinrich".--Jack Upland (talk) 08:54, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * In addition, his academic record from Berlin University also gives Heinrich as his middle name.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:17, 22 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Hans Magnus Enzensberger wrote a poem titled "Karl Heinrich Marx". RolandR (talk) 11:43, 22 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Meanwhile there is an edit war about whether the birth certificate gives Heinrich as his middle name. It clearly doesn't. It says that his parents "wished to give the name Carl to this their child". I don't think this necessarily precludes the fact that he was given the middle name Heinrich at that point, but clearly he used it at a later point. In any case, "Note 1" makes no sense (or even less sense) if it says Heinrich was given as his middle name on the birth certificate. I propose we remove "Note 1" and give his name as Karl Heinrich Marx.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:37, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note is confusing and looks like a long-term mistake regarding the birth certificate name. No edit war here, I’ll revert myself. Removing notes is always a good idea. Raquel Baranow (talk) 01:58, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The note has been there since 2014, but there is an abundance of primary and secondary sources which say Heinrich was his middle name. Unless there is an explanation, I'll make the move. It particularly rankles that Wikipedia is saying this is an "error" and that we should disregard sources.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:59, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Would be good to include a sentence (or two) in the text (or in a footnote/ reference like in the German WP article) explaining his given, birth certificate name with that reference. Raquel Baranow (talk) 19:42, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Influence of Lycurgus of Sparta
Did Plutarch write about Karl Marx? Did Marx want to force the proletariat to redistribute land? The current citation implies so. In my opinion this name should be removed from the list. Dorromikhal (talk) 13:02, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Removed. This needs a secondary source.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:28, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

comment on preferred pronouns
The comment on Marx's preferred pronouns violates Wikipedia's commitment to neutrality. It is informed by a loaded and controversial political ideology. It is also anachronistic, foisting a contemporary heated and controversial debate on a figure on the past. It is therefore revisionist and this is inappropriate for an encyclopaedia of knowledge. These kind of surreptitious additions to Wikipedia articles will be the failure of this marvellous enterprise and they need to be deleted wherever they occur. Neutrality must go beyond foisting the polarisations of the present on the past. Cascorr (talk) 21:41, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about?--Jack Upland (talk) 19:29, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * A silly piece of vandalism. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 00:28, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

== On the preposterous statement that Marx was Jewish ==

The statement that "Marx was ethnically Jewish" is wrong and comes from a reactionary mindset of which Marx itself would be appalled. Were I to remove the entry some other partisan would come and put it back again. This is part of a disturbing tendency throughout the whole Wikipedia. So a discussion to either address the subject on the article o implement a policy to avoid its appearance once and for all seems necessary.

1. Ethnicity:

a. Karl Marx spoke German, and was of German (Prussian) citizenship.

b. Karl Marx was irreligious and his parents were Christian (by conversion).

—thus: he was neither Jew not Jewish.

2. Racism:

a. The word "ethnicity" has become a substitute of "race" in racist societies, i.e., societies that apply policies of classification of citizens according to pseudo-scientific criteria of race (white, black) masked as "ethnicities" (see US and UK census).

b. In the article the word "ethnicity" is meant to be "race" since it fails to meet the criteria of point no.1. Both racially (which bares not scientific value) and genetically it's been largely disproved that there is a "Jewish race" or any sort of distinctive shared ancestry between Jews. Maybe it's a surprise for many, but it is a religion. Whatever people believes himself to be, or believes other to be, is part of its own imagination and if there is no scientific evidence (and in this case evidence pointing to the contrary) it should be omitted except when discussing the particular falacy.

—thus: since ethnicity is self-attributed, unless someone finds a piece of parchment where Marx wrote "I am a Jew" the statement is blatantly false, an invention, and a falacy.

3. Fanatism:

a. The fact that a particular cult believes in gods, Abraham, Noah, and that a determined group of people descends from a particular son of the latter is part of their own mythos and should not be admitted as fact in a rational discussion.

b. The resurgent of "Jewish identity" is a rather recent phenomenon, while at the time of Marx the distinction between religion and ancestry was apparently more clear. This appears also in the article on Bakunin, falsely accusing him of "blatant antisemitism". Bakunin attacks Judaism, as any other religion, as it should be as anarchist! Antisemitism would be an attack on the persons (Jews) by merits of their ancestry, which Bakunin did not do. He is not culprit of the delusional beliefs of those who are unable to understand the distinction.

—thus: the fact that a cult believes Marx to be of their brethren is not factual and should not be valid criteria to be admitted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.165.35.170 (talk) 02:29, 5 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Both his grandfathers were rabbis, but he wasn't ethnically Jewish??? OK...--Jack Upland (talk) 09:13, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, are you ethnically Christian? T 85.166.161.28 (talk) 02:29, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, didn't think so. Issue settled, then. T 85.166.161.28 (talk) 10:20, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Engels article contradicts Marx
"On his way to Manchester, Engels visited the office of the Rheinische Zeitung in Cologne and met Karl Marx for the first time. They were not impressed with each other." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Engels#Manchester_and_Salford

"On 28 August 1844, Marx met the German socialist Friedrich Engels at the Café de la Régence, beginning a lifelong friendship." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Marx#Paris:_1843%E2%80%931845 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mskoan (talk • contribs) 04:14, 4 June 2020 (UTC)


 * "The editor of the Rheinische Zeitung was Karl Marx, but Engels would not meet Marx until late November 1842." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Engels#Early_years Also maybe a source can help on this line: "After their second meeting in 1844, Karl Marx read and was profoundly impressed by the book.". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Condition_of_the_Working_Class_in_England

Mskoan (talk) 23:34, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Wrong Grammar
replace "socialist revolutionary" to "revolutionary socialist". 82.17.221.173 (talk) 19:05, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Criticism that Marx was racist and antisemitic
There is no mention in the article about the criticism that Marx was racist and antisemitic (cf. e.g. https://pure.uva.nl/ws/files/44504342/Marx_and_Engels_s_theory_of_history_making_sense_of_the_race_factor.pdf ). You can find a section on that e.g. in the German Wikipedia page on Marx. This seems to me like censorship by no-so-unbiased volunteers keeping a close eye on edits of this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Killerandy (talk • contribs) 12:14, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Freemasonry
Reliable sources stating Marx was a Freemason: Therefore, there are a website connected to the subjject of the article (marxist.org) and two indipendent sources, the latter of which is based on a textual study of the Marx's works.Philosopher81sp (talk) 22:21, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * gazetawarszawska.net: "Marx came from a long line of Jewish rabbis. He lived in Dean Street, London in squalor. He used to visit the Red Lion Pub at Great Windmill Street...During the Napoleonic War of the Sixth Coalition, [Marx's father] Hirschel Mordechai became a Freemason in 1813, joining their Loge L'Ètoile anséatique (The Hanseatic Star) in Osnabrück";
 * marxists.org: "On Tuesday the workers’ delegates held a meeting that was also attended by representatives of other trades, at which it was unanimously decided not to accept employment from any master who might demand a promise not to participate in the “society.” Simultaneously, a meeting was held by the “associated” masters in the Freemason’s Tavern, to which no newspaper reporters were admitted."
 * analysis of the freemasons in the light of "the complete works ..., also available on JSTOR: "Studies of the Freemasons, even though rare and scattered, have been carried out by Chinese scholars for a long time, but they have never become the focus of academic debates until recent years. There are dozens of discussions concerning the Freemasons in The Complete Works of Marx and Engels, a legacy too precious to be overlooked." (public abstract)
 * None of this is evidence Marx was a Freemason.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:47, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed with Jack Upland. But also, in addition, none of these are academic level reliable sources. These are all actually political, non-reliable web sites. warshy <sup style="font-variant: small-caps; color: #129dbc!important;">(¥¥) 23:12, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * probably, they were in the Google directory some months ago and now they have been disappeared for a somesort of filter. As the third paper states "Studies of the Freemasons, even though rare and scattered,...", the same mistake happens in the accademic research so that nobody has published -or divulgated- nothing about that matter. If we don't have nothing better, then we keep the discussion saved as now it is. Thanks for your reply.Philosopher81sp (talk) 12:29, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Wife Jenny’s Background
This description of Marx’s wife, “Jenny von Westphalen, an educated baroness of the Prussian ruling class”, does not match her own Wikipedia article or historical fact.

Her father was a civil servant, as was her grandfather. They were elevated in name to petty nobility for service. They were not members of “the Prussian ruling class”, an aristocratic, military, landowning class. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.54.58.146 (talk) 00:42, 26 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, she was an Edle, certainly not a baroness, and I don't think she was in the ruling class. I will amend the text.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:29, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Jewish atheists category
Should Karl Marx be added to the category "Jewish atheists"? After all, the section in this article on his childhood says he was ethnically but not religiously Jewish. Vorbee (talk) 20:50, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

"Real name"
Once again, an editor has tried to insert the false claim that Marx's "real" name was Moses Mordecai Levi. This assertion has been repeatedly made, and just as repeatedly shot down; see, for instance, this discussion - and there have been many more. There is a translation of his birth certificate here. I find it hard to accept the good faith of editors who insist on such a false claim. Please stick to verifiable facts, rather than dog-whistle nudges and winks. RolandR (talk) 16:48, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The fact that Karl Marx was of Jewish descent is one of the cornerstones of contemporary anti-Semitism. It will always pop up one way or another, when Jews are discussed. There is no way of avoiding that, unfortunately. Just a comment. Thanks, warshy <sup style="font-variant: small-caps; color: #129dbc!important;">(¥¥) 17:38, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The strange thing is that Marx's Jewish heritage is not something that anyone denies, but to right-wing anti-Semites, it seems to be necessary that he had an ur-Jewish name before being baptized.In this case I think the editor is being led astray by a non-reliable website (eeever.com) that cited that "fact". Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:07, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

References to "Das Kapital"
I understand that Das Kapital is of course a very famous book in the English-speaking world, and famous under that name. However I would like to know what the Wikipedia policies are for translating the titles of books. In my opinion the name of the book should be systematically changed to Capital throughout the article, just as we write Theories of Surplus-Value as opposed to Theorien über den Mehrwert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:E30:7870:7561:4476:D1CB:9C90 (talk) 13:30, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Typo
Under Paris section, "Rue Vanneau" should be "Rue Vaneau". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:346:C281:79F0:1017:84B8:EC37:309F (talk) 06:42, 7 February 2021 (UTC) Thank you for noticing! The typo has been correctedSayerbay (talk) 16:18, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 February 2021
Fix type: change"Dialetics" to "Dialectics" under the "Notable Ideas" section. BortSampson92 (talk) 20:51, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 21:10, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Spinoza's influence
Sorry for my stubborn reverts,. I went through the history here and the issue has been discussed once, back in 2006/7: Talk:Karl_Marx/Archive_4 However, that debate seems unconclusive. The sense that I get from all this is that while certainly Marx was well aware of Spinoza, there isn't scholarly consensus on the extent and significance of the influence. I think it would be nice to supply an argument/reference or two to show that at least some respected scholars consider it significant. Otherwise the uninformed reader has no reason to trust that the name-drop is justified; this is the position I took when I started my reckless edits.-- MA SHAUN IX 21:56, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for finding and putting the link here to the previous discussion. I would say that if all the links that were proposed in that discussion were still available and effective today, the debate would seem to favor a clear awareness by Marx of Spinoza's philosophy, and an acceptance by Marx of the main political propositions about democracy made by Spinoza on the Theologico-Political Treatise. Unfortunately, the majority of the links are now obsolete. However, it is clear from that discussion that one of the students of Marx's philosophy who has made the influence most explicit was the French socialist scholar Maximilien Rubel. I will be looking for a specific ref among the various studies (around 80 titles) published by Rubel. Thank you, warshy <sup style="font-variant: small-caps; color: #129dbc!important;">(¥¥) 22:49, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Let me put this issue to bed here. I have three very good reliable sources that specifically refer to Spinoza as an influence and inspiration, especially for the so-called "Young Marx." The first is Eugene Kamenka (ed.), The Portable Karl Marx, Penguin Books, New York, 1983, who on page 76, at the opening of the chapter on Marx's "Early Writings" states: His ethical inspiration comes from Aristotle, Spinoza, and Rousseau;

Maximilien Rubel, in his 1982 essay on ""The ethical work of Karl Marx" stated: Marx, who was a disciple of Epicurus, Spinoza and Leibniz as well as of the French and English materialists, succeeded in constructing ... a set of scientific and critical theses whose aim is to disclose “the economic law of motion of modern society” (Preface to Capital), and as a series of ethical norms and postulates derived from empirical observation of the self-emancipatory efforts and struggles of the modern slaves, the victims not of capitalists but of capital. The object of scientific analysis is the “reign of necessity”; the object of ethical vision is the “reign of liberty” (Capital. Book III, chapter 48 of the edition established by Engels)."

But even better, Rubel again, in his 1962 French essay on "Marx's concept of democracy", found here, wrote: For our subject, it is worth briefly examining some of these readings: they will put us on the trail of the intellectual process which led Marx from democracy to anarcho-communism. In one of his study notebooks, which dates from his stay in Berlin, we find no less than 160 extracts from Spinoza's Theologico-Political Treatise. The passages noted relate to miracles, to faith and to philosophy, reason and theology, freedom of education, the foundations of the republic, prophecy, etc. All this, without the slightest personal comment and yet, on the cover of the notebook, we can read: "Spinoza: Theologico-political treaty, by Karl Marx, Berlin 1841".

I.e., regardless of how current scholarship defines the direct, specific influence of Spinoza's philosophy on the "Mature Marx," it is very clear beyond any doubt that the Young Marx did indeed read the Theologico-Political Treatise very carefully. Thank you, warshy <sup style="font-variant: small-caps; color: #129dbc!important;">(¥¥) 20:11, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Marx's influence on Postmodern philosophy
Anyone who has reas Postmodern, and Poststructuralist philosophy will see the significant impact Marx has had on them. Please put into thought editing the article to put this fact forwards. Societyx123 (talk) 06:09, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Give us a hand then. BeŻet (talk) 13:01, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I think Hegel is the guy you're looking for really. See e.g Derrida. Cheers 2A00:801:734:AED5:4AB:663C:E86E:A9AC (talk) 09:42, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 July 2021
If the sentence where Karl Marx’s ideas have been criticized needs a reference to exist, then I think that the previous reference to lauded also needs a reference. 75.132.231.191 (talk) 03:43, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Quite possibly. However, you must be more specific than that; "This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it." Haploidavey (talk) 03:53, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 July 2021
I want to put emphasis on a single word. The word in question is "enable". In the sentence : "Marx's critical theories about society, economics, and politics, collectively understood as Marxism, hold that human societies develop through class conflict. In the capitalist mode of production, this manifests itself in the conflict between the ruling classes (known as the bourgeoisie) that control the means of production and the working classes (known as the proletariat) that enable these means by selling their labour-power in return for wages." Marx criticism of labour and political economy as such is also in my humble opinion under-emphasized, and could be included with more detail. I could also try to make some changes to improve this.

Kind regards// Sozialwissenschaften Sozialwissenschaften (talk) 12:23, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:57, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 July 2021
Please change all the 'leftist' names to left-wing, as it is derogatory term used by the right-wing. Thank you. OttoRiedler (talk) 09:28, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅, and thank you very much!  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 15:46, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

His work in economics laid the basis for much of the current understanding of labour and its relation to capital and subsequent economic thought?
This excerpt seems to overestimate the influence of Marx in economic thought. Although he had an extraordinary influence in fields such as sociology and anthropology, his economic ideas seem to be almost always considered outdated. The most left-wing economic theories considered mainstream in academia today are based on Keynesianism, but even they don't seem to have had any Marx influence at all. Keynes would refer to Das Kapital as "an obsolete textbook which I know to be not only scientifically erroneous but without interest or application for the modern world" Another important Keynesian economist Paul Samuelson described Marx as a "minor post-Ricardian". In addition, I searched for something that could support it in the sources used in the sentence and I didn't found anything, which makes me think that this might be in violation of WP:SYNTH and other rules.

In the second source, the author states "The greatest economists, Smith or Marx or Keynes, have changed the course of history", this is obviously true because Marx created a theory that would be adopted by many countries such as the Soviet Union leading to the Cold War and many political movements in western countries that made the general population rethink the fairness of relation of workers and employers, but the conclusion of it this is not that: "His work in economics laid the basis for much of the current understanding of labour and its relation to capital and subsequent economic thought."

In the first source, the editor didn't add the page, I found the book but I didn't found anything similar to that phrase. In the third one, the editor also didn't add the page and the book has 305 pages. I have no time to search on it, but I doubt that it says something like this. As another editor stated in the past, this phrase should be rephrased as "Marx's work in economics laid the basis for some current theories of labor and its relation to capital". Stating that his work is the basis for the 'current understanding' implies strongly that ALL modern theories rely upon his work.--Lucasdmca (talk) 23:55, 18 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree — that is false.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:51, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

First of all, Marx isn't an economist in the sense we're used to today. Marx was a critic of the political econonomy as such Just read the undertitle to capital! Or see. Marx did never aim to create some economic theory which would be used within the capitalist mode of production. Cheers 2A00:801:734:AED5:4AB:663C:E86E:A9AC (talk) 09:48, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

libertarian soycope lol Comradeka (talk) 00:05, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Please mention who describes him as one of the most influential figures
Marx has been described as one of the most influential figures in human history - by BBC News - and his work has been both lauded and criticised.

Who describes him as one of the most influential figures ? Certainly not everyone, therefore please mention the source describing him so. At its present form this sentence/claim is vague. MasterClass8x (talk) 08:57, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * His work inspired governments that at one point dominated half the globe. You'd be hard-pressed to find people who describe him as an uninfluential figure - Hanshans23 (talk) 09:11, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Intro needs to deal more on his influence on global socialism
As the intro of the article is now it would appear that Marx and marxism was above all some sort of academic intellectual tendency only while in reality it moved moved millions to political action and whole states including the most populous country right now-China.--Eduen (talk) 04:29, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Parentage of Freddy Demuth
The claim that Freddy Demuth was not Marx's biological son is dismissed on the grounds that there is not much documentary evidence to support the claim, but that source is thirty years old. Either a more recent source should be cited, or more neutral language should be used. Gronteam (talk) 12:55, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think it dismisses the claim: it just states a different view. I don't think the age of the source is a problem.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:54, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

About karl Marx
Karl Heinrich Marx (German: [maʁks]; 5 May 1818 – 14 March 1883)[13] was a German philosopher, critic of political economy, economist, historian, sociologist, political theorist, journalist and socialist revolutionary. Born in Trier, Germany, Marx studied law and philosophy at the universities of Bonn and Berlin. He married German theatre critic and political activist Jenny von Westphalen in 1843. Due to his political publications, Marx became stateless and lived in exile with his wife and children in London for decades, where he continued to develop his thought in collaboration with German thinker Friedrich Engels and publish his writings, researching in the British Museum Reading Room. His best-known titles are the 1848 pamphlet The Communist Manifesto and the three-volume Das Kapital (1867–1883). Marx's political and philosophical thought had enormous influence on subsequent intellectual, economic and political history. His name has been used as an adjective, a noun, and a school of social theory. 105.178.37.117 (talk) 20:41, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 December 2021
Simpu07 (talk) 07:22, 14 December 2021 (UTC) Death Date is 14 March 1920
 * That's not what the sources say. BeŻet (talk) 10:27, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Juan Ginés de Sepúlveda
I'm going through Marx's letters and there's not a single reference in them to Juan Ginés de Sepúlveda - which is surprising for a scholar who supposedly influenced him considering the comprehensive nature of Marx's letters. Beyond that the cited reference appears to be a POD version of a doctoral thesis - which is somewhat iffy as a WP:RS - I'd suggest that, at the very least, the inclusion of Sepúlveda on this list is WP:UNDUE unless higher quality sources could be provided however rather than edit warring I thought I'd come here first and start a conversation regarding it. Simonm223 (talk) 13:31, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree, a POD of a doctoral thesis is very iffy as WP:RS. Eruditess (talk) 22:49, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I would agree also, except that I don't see Sepúlveda in the list of influences in the Infobox. Am I missing something here? Thanks, warshy <sup style="font-variant: small-caps; color: #129dbc;">(¥¥) 23:13, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 February 2022
"Critics has called this economic determinism" should be "Critics have called this economic determinism" 37.223.21.115 (talk) 13:05, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:19, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Marx-Ghalib correspondence
Abida Ripley's finding of Marx-Ghalib letter exchange could be added. Both are 19th centuries giant intellectuals and this exchange talks about their views of 1857's mutiny in India. 115.99.156.126 (talk) 00:08, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * This seems to consist of two letters. I don't think this is substantial enough to include here.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:55, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Link needed?
Hi, is it just me or is it a little weird that the article doesn't have a link to "Communism"? There is a wiki article on that, afaik. The term occurs 10 times or so in the text, but none of them are links. T46.212.185.190 (talk) 18:49, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, seriously, the infobox at the end of the article has space for not one, but two Monty Python sketches, but none for Communism? No link even under See Also? I suggest the first occurrence of the term in the "1843 ..." section, where it occurs in the first paragraph. (Or ... am I missing something?) T 46.212.185.190 (talk) 03:18, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Unlock!
Editors of Wikipedia unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.85.207.98 (talk) 22:36, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Marx and Racism
Recently there have been several articles citing Marx (perhaps out of context) demonstrating racism. It would be a service to Wikipedia readers if a section of this article could be created to briefly describe these quotes and also to describe the issues with enough clarity that members of the public could see for themselves what the issues are. Thanks!119.252.119.106 (talk) 03:36, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Feel free to create such sections citing reliable sources! HernánCortés1518 (talk) 12:55, 3 June 2022 (UTC)


 * ...reliable ones being those that actually cite Marx in context, with due acknowledgement of the historical and cultural context he lived and worked in. Cherry-picking quotes for effect is good clickbait, but a poor way to write an encyclopaedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:16, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, I do feel some sympathy for Contributor 119, as I think the post raises a question principle: mythbusting. Put as a question: Is it the job of an article to comment on and debunk misinformation? If so, to what extent or degree?
 * I had a look around at various content and style guides, but in vain, as only "Fringe Theories" seemed - indirectly - relevant, without mentioning "mythbusting" by name, however. This could be due to my lack of search skills.
 * Whatever the case, a good number of Wiki articles are devoted to dispelling misinformation, e.g. the "denial" articles (Climate change, Holocaust etc.). To me, at least, it seems legit to debunk.
 * As I read the OP, The They is not calling for a section on "Marx and racism", but a section of "debunking the myth that Marx was racist". As an example, here is a link to an article of this very year:
 * https://jacobin.com/2022/05/marx-race-antisemitism-history-andrew-sullivan-enlightenment . No idea if the Jacobin is a RS or not, but again, it's just an example that the myth, and the debunk, is out there.
 * A justification for a debunk would IMO be twofold: Such a myth, circulating out there, is a legitimate area of interest as a social phenomenon, and it is also a recurring theme here at this article TP, such that a comment on it within the article might, in the best of worlds, save editors some typing.
 * The argument against would be lack of notability, that the phenomenon is not widespread enough to merit mention. How that is measured is beyond me, so I'll abstain from having an opinion on it.
 * Ceterum censeo that the article should link to "Communism" _ =o) T 46.212.185.190 (talk) 01:03, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Here is a reputable source discussing the issue : https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13569317.2019.1548094

Quoting from the article : "This article argues that Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels’s theory of history contained racist components. In Marx and Engels’s understanding, racial disparities emerged under the influence of shared natural and social conditions hardening into heredity and of the mixing of blood. They racialized skin-colour groups, ethnicities, nations and social classes, while endowing them with innate superior and inferior character traits." — Preceding unsigned comment added by B.joly (talk • contribs) 05:29, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 August 2022
I request that the fact the Karl Marx and Engles were both racist should be added. I have provided a link to the personal letters between Marx and Engles where you can clearly see they use of racist words. Here is a quote from Marx "The Jewish nigger Lassalle who, I’m glad to say, is leaving at the end of this week, has happily lost another 5,000 talers in an ill-judged speculation."

https://marxists.architexturez.net/archive/marx/works/1862/letters/62_07_30a.htm 2A02:C7E:14AB:5F00:DD3B:CA41:BFF:2E95 (talk) 18:48, 25 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes, like more or less all of his contemporaries, Marx used racist language - shocking by the standards of our time. He lived in a place and time when this was the norm. That is indisputable. What Wikipedia needs though is discussion of this in secondary reliable sources, placing it in context, rather than primary-sourced quotations. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:00, 25 August 2022 (UTC)


 * By the way, Marx had a Jewish background and was nicknamed "Moor".--Jack Upland (talk) 19:32, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

"Influenced" parameter
Isn't the "influenced" parameter in the Infobox an oversimplification? Not all the people he influenced identify themselves as Marxists. Perhaps a description like in Aristotle is more accurate 7szz (talk) 06:21, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Sismondi
Why is Sismondi lumped in with the English political economists as an influence? Jack Upland (talk) 04:56, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

volume II publication date
volume II was first published in 1885. At the moment, this article indicates 1893 as the date of publication. This was in fact the date of publication of volume II's second edition. 2001:8A0:6EC3:3700:7CC4:E958:B55E:67CF (talk) 11:27, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Death
The last sentence in the death section is incoherent and does not make sense. I would fix it myself but without the source I don't know what the real meaning is supposed to be. Firestar47 (talk) 16:46, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Changing nationality from German to German-born
Here's a suggestion to change Marx's nationality from "German" to "German-born", as he was stateless for most of his life. More specifically, change the first line from "was a German philosopher" to "was a German-born philosopher". This is in accordance with Albert Einstein's introduction "was a German-born theoretical physicist". Windywendi (talk) 04:00, 15 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Support, seems straightforward and concordant with MOS:NATIONALITY. –Vipz (talk) 08:13, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support further I would propose "German born Jewish", I actually came here to the talk page to question that, Karl did not consider himself German, merely born in Germany, his Jewish identity was foremost to him culturally (and in his early years religiously (familially at least)) where as where his parents were living when he popped out was irrelevant to him. I know it's probably not intentional anti-Semitism but it's kind of ... unfortunately forgetful to intentionally leave out the core of his ethnic identity as a person. 2001:8003:37B8:D900:24D5:557C:7DF6:530A (talk) 21:13, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * That is nonsense. Karl Marx had no "Jewish identity", certainly not as a central part of his identity. And his parents converted to Christianity before he was born; he had absolutely no Jewish religious upbringing. Nor is it antisemitic to point this out. RolandR (talk) 00:06, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Please remove FRSA postnominal
The FRSA postnominal should be removed from the lede and infobox. Marx could not have had this postnominal in his lifetime as the organisation only got the Royal title in 1908. (Royal_Society_of_Arts). Moreover, FRSA is not an honour but represents a membership that is open to a wide range of people by paying a subscription. Related discussion here. Historylikeyou (talk) 13:31, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree. Also, he is not known for being a member of the society, and it gives a false impression of who he was (e.g., that he was a Royalist).--Jack Upland (talk) 15:24, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Removed.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:15, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

I undid this removal of the FRSA postnominal. Consensus was not achieved at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Biography--SouthernNights (talk) 12:33, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The MOS policy does not mandate inclusion of the FRSA postnomial, so it could be removed if there is consensus among editors on this page to do so. I will not remove it myself as the change has already been reverted. Historylikeyou (talk) 08:01, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * FRSA postnominal has no place being in the lede of the article. Concur with what @Historylikeyou has stated, it should be removed. : 3 F4U (they/it) 14:14, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, Marx must have thought it was worth having, or he wouldn't have applied. That's the important point; the other objections are formal.  (1) 'Royal Society of Arts didn't exist in his time'.  The society existed and so did the honour; it's just a formal change of name, like RSPCA or RNLI, or KC for QC.  (2) 'Postnominals have no place in the lede': not WP policy.  From MOS:POSTNOM:


 * ""When the subject of an article has received honours or appointments issued either by the subject's state of citizenship or residence, or by a widely recognized organization that reliable sources regularly associate with the subject, post-nominal letters may be included in the lead section." And it gives the example"


 * ""Stephen William Hawking CH CBE FRS FRSA (8 January 1942 – 14 March 2018) was an English theoretical physicist, cosmologist, and author who, at the time of his death, was director of research at ...""

There are hundreds of others. FRSA is easy to misunderstand: it's not like a university degree; they don't give it out grudgingly, but you do have to convince them you share their values. Marx did.Ttocserp 22:51, 6 April 2023 (UTC)


 * That doesn't mean that it should be in the lede of the article? Is there any secondary coverage of Marx's FRSA post-nom that shows that it is particularly noteworthy? : 3 F4U (they/it) 20:57, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Juncker
Why is Jean-Claude Juncker labelled as being influenced by Marx. The fact that he opened a statue and defended him "historically" does not mean he is a marxist. he is merely defending the fact Marx has nothing to do with countries from after his death. That isn't political it's a neutral historical perspective. Danisnotunhappy (talk) 11:28, 17 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Agreed, it seems strange to label Juncker a Marxist, defending Marx is one thing, being a Marxist or influenced by Marxism is another (which does not seem to be said in the source = interpretation) Neo Trixma (talk) 13:27, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree: I've removed the claim of him being influenced by Marx, but kept the statue comments. GnocchiFan (talk) 00:48, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Postage stamp refs
A new editor, Kaushwiki, added a section in July about commemorative stamps. The user then posted bare urls directly into the Refs section of the article. I have removed these and placed them here, so that they can eventually be properly included.

It appears from their talk page that this editor has made similar edits to many other articles in their brief career here, and retired from Wikipedia after their behaviour was raised at ANI.

279. colnect.com/en/stamps/stamp/178779-Karl_Marx_1818-1883_philosopher-Karl_Marx-Hungary. Catalog codes: Michel HU 1305C, Stamp Number HU 1042, Yvert et Tellier HU 1079A. 280. colnect.com/en/stamps/stamp/176915-Karl_Marx_1818-1893_politician-Personalities-Hungary. Catalog codes: Michel HU 2068A, Stamp Number HU 1583, Yvert et Tellier HU 1680, AFA number HU 2024. 281. colnect.com/en/stamps/list/country/8663-India/item_name/karl+Marx. Catalog codes: Mi:IN 950, Sn:IN 1017, Yt:IN 761, Sg:IN 1084. 282. colnect.com/en/stamps/list/country/2650-Russia/year/2018/item_name/karl+Marx. Catalog codes: Col:RU 2018-18 and Col:RU 2018-18KB (Mini-sheet). 283. colnect.com/en/stamps/list/country/8150-Vietnam/year/1983/item_name/karl+Marx. Catalog codes: Mi:VN 1367, Sn:VN 1317, Yt:VN 462 and Catalog codes: Mi:VN 1368, Yt:VN 463. 284. colnect.com/en/stamps/list/country/2652-Soviet_Union_USSR/year/1933/item_name/karl+Marx. Catalog codes: Mi:SU 424X-26X, Sn:SU 480-82, Yt:SU 473-75, Sg:SU 603-05, AFA:SU 431-33. RolandR (talk) 22:12, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Weight of his beliefs
The balance given in the "Philosophy and social thought" section is good, but there's so much unnecessary fluff in "International relations". Quotes, and paragraph-long quotes at that, are rarely necessary and nearly the entire section consists of just quotes. The whole section appears to be completely disjointed and unnecessarily long and should be radically shortened. It also doesn't provide the weight secondary sources give to Marx's critiques and analyses. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 00:30, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 December 2023
Singhvansh (talk) 14:22, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Liu1126 (talk) 16:09, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Ruling class was Aristocracy
Bourgeois as per Marx himself were the Middle Class or people who had risen out of the Proletariat to management and supervisory roles during the Industrial Revolution. Bourgeois being described as Ruling class without any Relevant attribution is misleading 117.200.101.217 (talk) 07:36, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Aristocracy was the ruling class under feudalism. Under emerging capitalism the ruling class was the bourgeoisie.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:27, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * What is the source of this assertion? Under Capitalism, the Ruling class is either democratic or aristrocratic or a combination of both like we see in UK. The ruling class would be extended Political officers like Ministers and Bureaucrats as well. On the other hand, bourgeoisie in the context of Marx era seems to refer to newly rich people who rose through education, hard work and skill development and disrupted the established hierarchy to gain status equal to that of Marx who himself came from a rich family and grew up in a 10 bedroom house in Austria. Disdain for bourgeoisie seems to be more targeted a nouveau riche who were seen with disdain by Old money families of Europe like that of Marx himself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.241.162.40 (talk • contribs) 05:39, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Would The Communist Manifesto be an okay source for what Marx thought?
 * You may have different or evolved analyses, but I assume this suffices to establish what Marx thought as regards your question. Remsense  诉  06:26, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, Marx came from a privileged background, but not a wealthy one. His dad was a lawyer—a working professional, but certainly not old money. (In Trier, a city owned by the Prussians in the Rhine valley, for what it's worth, not Austria. I'm not aware of Marx stepping foot east of the Neckar once in his entire life, actually.) Remsense  诉  06:32, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * You may have different or evolved analyses, but I assume this suffices to establish what Marx thought as regards your question. Remsense  诉  06:26, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, Marx came from a privileged background, but not a wealthy one. His dad was a lawyer—a working professional, but certainly not old money. (In Trier, a city owned by the Prussians in the Rhine valley, for what it's worth, not Austria. I'm not aware of Marx stepping foot east of the Neckar once in his entire life, actually.) Remsense  诉  06:32, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, Marx came from a privileged background, but not a wealthy one. His dad was a lawyer—a working professional, but certainly not old money. (In Trier, a city owned by the Prussians in the Rhine valley, for what it's worth, not Austria. I'm not aware of Marx stepping foot east of the Neckar once in his entire life, actually.) Remsense  诉  06:32, 21 February 2024 (UTC)


 * My request is simple. Provide a source that says bourgeoisie is ruling class as cited in the page or expunge this misleading line. Nowhere in the paragraph from Communist Manifesto does it say bourgeoisie is ruling class? Aristrocracy continues till date in China and Russia in the form of CCP Members who have imposed Dictatorship of the Communist Party on the Proletariat, including Billionaires who are forced to comply to the will of the Communist Aristrocracy or they will have to suffer consequences. Eg- A man from the Proletariat like Jack Ma built a Multi billion empire and Communist dictatorship took punitive actions against him https://www.hindustantimes.com/business/china-imposes-nearly-1-billion-fine-on-jack-mas-ant-group-report-101688876840172.html#:~:text=China%20imposes%20nearly%20%241%20billion,Ant%20Group%3A%20Report%20%2D%20Hindustan%20Times — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.241.162.40 (talk • contribs) 10:30, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * (Please remember to sign your posts so people know who they are talking to and can easily reply.)
 * I have provided direct quotes, and even highlighted them for you. This page is about what Marx himself thought and wrote about, not anything anyone did in the 20th century after decades of history following his death and the evolution of his ideas by others. Remsense  诉  11:30, 21 February 2024 (UTC)