Talk:Karl Marx/Archive 3

Patriarchal Monotheism and the Hegelian Dialectic

 * Jesus was one figure within the older history of patriarchal monotheism. I think it is fair to say that such a view of the world is likely to give rise to forced conversions to the cause of the "one true God" and to such events as the Crusades, or to people who fly airplanes into skyscrapers. Likewise, if the one true God wears a Hegelian garb. --Christofurio 14:31, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)


 * First you over-generalize ("one figure within the older history of patriarchal monotheism"), then you kindly give me your baseless opinion ("I think it is fair to say that such a view of the world is likely to..."). The second statement needs no further refutation than the fact that it is not fair to say anything without a good reason. The first statement is equivalent to saying "Marx was one figure within the older history of philosophical materialism", or even "Marx was one figure within the older history of the human species". You could then say that human beings, being meat-eaters, are likely to be somewhat prone to kill, and that Marxism, being a political current with human beings as adherents, is likely to share that general human trend. This is an argument against humanity in general, not an argument against Marx or Marxism. See my point? -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 14:53, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * No, I don't see your point. I don't even concede that meat-eaters are more likely to start wars than vegetarians. Nor have I made any argument against humanity in general. Heck, I didn't even make any argument against Marxism (or Christianity, or monotheism). My point, which is impeccably NPOV, concerns non-accidental linkages which you appear unwilling to acknowledge. That doesn't make them disappear.

That's quite a stertch. Marx never stated anyone should be treated inhumanely. There are theorists for different ideologies who did, and therein lies the distinction. But I don't wish to enter into these sort of polemics [when] &mdash; I think we should return to working on the original passage since, as I already said, I find it far less contentious than your comrpomise. Sorry, I do not see it as being one. El_C


 * El_C makes a very important point. The fact is, Europeans had been debating about class inequality and class warfare long before Marx -- certainly, the Jacobins in the French Revolution provide a clearer example of class warriors inflicting actual harm, than Marx.  Thus, Marx's mentions of class warfare are not original to Marx but really reflect the general milieu in which he wrote.  What Marx adds is a Hegelian analysis of class conflict, and a revision of Hegel that takes class conflict seriously.  Really, have Silverback and 168 and others who are now contributing to the article actually done historical research on this topic?  No one disputes that Stalin is responsible for many deaths -- but this is something that belongs in an article on Stalin.  Slrubenstein

I've done a good deal of research in this field, if I may say so with all due humility, and I think there is a germ of validity in what Silverback is suggesting, although his wording is a bit off. Jesus is the right name to invoke here, because he said "by their fruits ye shall know them," which is the principle at issue. But ... NPOV-ly, allow me to try my hand at this.

"The adoption of Marxist slogans by certain mass murderers has been something other than an unfortunate accident -- it has likely been facilitated by certain features of Marx's original statements. Insofar as Marx was, and always remained, a Hegelian, he retained the Hegelian notion that certain historical forces are on the right side of history, and that opposition to those progressive forces is objectively and scientifically regressive. This is a point of view that can well lead to ruthlessness toward those who represent a now-disgarded thesis or antithesis, in the forward dialectical march. The losers of a political struggle don't pass into a tolerated opposition status, when they are regarded as having been by history itself to a dustbin. Trotsky employed the "dustbin" image, and in time was himself consigned thereto." --Christofurio 21:12, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes, surprisingly enough, Marxists believe that their opponents are wrong. But don't all people do the same? Don't you, as a capitalist, believe that communists are objectively wrong? Don't you believe that you are objectively and scientifically correct, and that your opponents are objectively and scientifically incorrect?
 * ALL politicians believe their opponents to be wrong; the idea that this causes mass murder is absurd. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 10:30, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * If true, this is a generic defect in politics. It isn't true of investing in markets, for example. If I buy Smith, Inc. stock at $5 a share, do I believe that the party selling me the stock is making the wrong decision, because I know the stock is about to rise in price and he/she/it doesn't? No. There is no such implication. I simply believe this stock adds value to MY portfolio at that price -- and make no judgment about other portfolios. See the difference?
 * --Christofurio 14:22, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes, but you don't seem to know the difference between subjective and objective truths. Tell me, it is bad to believe that your opponents are wrong? If that is what you're arguing, then this isn't a "defect of politics", it's a defect of being a human!


 * You're the one who honed in on "politics." You said "all politicians believe their opponents are wrong." I simply followed your lead.  Now what are you saying -- that your earlier statement was an undergeneralization?

When one human being holds an opinion, by definition, he or she cannot also hold the opposite opinion at the same time. If you think a picture is beautiful, you must necessarely believe that anyone who says the picture is ugly must be wrong.


 * Not at all. First, I'm not sure what you are defining when you say that opinions must be held exclusively "by definition." Are you defining "opinion" or "truth" or what? But, insofar as I understand you at all, the beautiful picture thing is a really lousy example. When I say that vanilla ice cream tastes great, I do not necessarily believe that anyone who dislikes it is wrong. The same, IMHO, with beautiful pictures. But that gets away from the portfolio situation, anyway, which is much more interesting for this point. When I say that it makes sense for me to buy a stock at $5., I am not saying anything subjective -- I am making an objective judgment about the risk and return and time horizons of my portfolio. My judgment is not subjective, but it is relative to a context, and another person (like the fellow who sold me that stock) could just as rationally and truly have reached an opposite conclusion in a different context. Why is that "double think???" Why is it even remotely controversial? If Marxists don't understand it, then we can conclude that they really are more conflict prone than people who do understand it.


 * And doesn't it strike you as odd that from one sentence to another you progress from "he and she cannot" believe the contrary to an assertion about "anyone" else? Surely, if I believe impressionist paintings are beautiful as a group, I don't at this moment believe them ugly. But it doesn't follow at all that I believe "anyone who says the picture is ugly must be wrong" -- with or without scare quotes. It is not wrong to differ. But thank you for making the point so well by exhibiting your own inclination to blur that distinction. That inclination has Hegelian roots. --Christofurio 14:08, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)

Unless you're advocating doublethink on a planetary scale, you cannot get around the fact that you cannot believe A is B and at the same time not disagree with a person who says A is C. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 14:53, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Why is that a "fact" that I need the "get around"? The picture is beautiful in some living rooms but I don't want that thing in my living room -- either because it isn't to me taste or because my decor is different and it would clash in this context. Everything depends upon what A, B, and C mean, and the context in which they are viewed. Lots of As are both Bs and Cs, so the person who says A is B and the one who says A is C are, indeed, both right. The notion that one of them must be wrong does have some connection with the notion that one of them must "dictate" to the other. --Christofurio 18:04, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)


 * I am coming around to the view that, this issue does not need to be fought here, but in Marxism. Marx should be criticized for what he did and stated, and there is enough evidence to question that he would approve of what "marxists" have done. However, I reject Mihnea Tudoreanu's argument of moral equivilency.  There is a difference between thinking your -ism is right, and thinking you have a right to impose your -ism upon another.  One is violent, coercive and exclusive, with the other conflict is voluntary, it can co-exist.--Silverback 11:56, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * There is indeed a major difference between thinking your -ism is right, and thinking you have a right to impose your -ism upon another. But Marx did not think he had a right to impose his -ism upon another. He merely argued that his -ism was right and the others were wrong - something we all believe about our respective -ism. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 12:29, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * He didn't "merely believe" that his -ism was right. He believed, so to speak, in a jealous God, the dialectic, which crushes its enemies underfoot. The self-conscious members of that class are accordingly entitled, by the nature of the world, to be dictators. Marx's word. To be a dictator is to dictate. Hence also the phrase "dustbin of history" from the lips of his disciple, Trotsky. To believe that the liquidation of "class enemies" is an accidental result of such teachings is to believe that the Crusades were only accidentally related to the exclusive aspects of monotheistic religion. It is self-serving POV bosh to refuse to make the obvious connections. --Christofurio 14:28, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)


 * Obvious to you, maybe. But then again, you also seem to believe that the crusades were Jesus' fault, so there's no surprise here.


 * That is a rather cartoonish re-write of what I wrote, but since it is coming from someone who thought me a Christian reactionary monarchist not long ago, I think it may represent progress. If my POV were in fact what you once declared it was, would I have written as I have about patriarchal monotheism? Hmmmm. --Christofurio 18:04, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC) But never mind. My point isn't blaming anybody for anything. I don't blame Jesus for the Crusades, or Moses for Zionist abuses, or Mohammed for the guys in those fatal airplanes, or even Marx for Trotsky and Stalin. I do believe, though, that there are non-accidental connections here that must, unless your POV is to get the best of us, be traced. In a polytheistic world, you can worship at the temple of Venus and I can worship at that of Mercury and we aren't in competition at all, much less in a rivalry. It is only on monotheistic (or for that matter atheistic) assumptions that the question of which God, if any, is the real God, even arises. That causes problems greater than any likely to be caused by our different appraisals of the picture you're talking about, even if we agree that it must be either beautiful or ugly univocally. And, again, why the heck do you think we should agree to that??? Is it objectively true that beauty is an objective predicate?

Now, if you'll remember, Marx argued for a classless society. One with no masters and servants - therefore, one with no "dictators" or anything even remotely similar. The phrase "dictatorship of the proletariat" was created as an antonym for the phrase "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie", and, according to Marx, it simply means a kind of system where the proletariat rules. And what is "the proletariat"? Well, again according to Marx, it is the vast majority of the people. So the "dictatorship of the proletariat" is a system where the vast majority of the people rule. Can you think of any other words to describe such a system? Oh yes, here's one: democracy. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 14:39, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Marx thought we would eventually get to a classless society. Before getting there, though, some people would have to dictate to others, and only a portion of the progressive class is self-conscious, etc. Dictators dictate. That is what they do. That is why the world's first democracy put to death the world's first moral philosopher.


 * As I recently stated elsewhere, Marx was simply honest about the situation that you more or less correctly described. Marxists do speak of socialist government as the dictatorship of the proletariat. Capitalists never speak of their form of government as the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, although that's precisely what it is. Attempting to turn Marx's honesty against him in a polemical gambit will get you nowhere. Shorne 03:31, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Thank you for "more-or-less" acknowledging the correctness of my descriptions. You'll be happy to know that I respect Marx's honesty about this, and the honesty of his disciple Trotsky who spoke of relegating the Mensheviks to the "dustbin of history." Of course, such wheels turn and those who relegate their opponents to the dustbin are relegated there in turn, as Trotsky famously was. Insofar as I have sympathies in such matters, it is with the kulaks who are victimized by the whole process. But my point in the above-suggested addition of this article wasn't one that was for or against kulaks, Marx, or any brand of Marxists. I simply sought to draw some factual connections. I accept the fact that it isn't going to happen and I'll move the paragraph to the Marxism article, to see how it fares there. --Christofurio 14:30, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)


 * Shorne, perhaps your dictatorship of the bourgeoisie comment was tongue in cheek, but it did make me wonder whether lawyers were proletariat or bourgeoisie. Or do the technical definitions of the terms no longer have relevance where labor for hier are wealthy and make the laws and the some owners of the means of production can be barely getting by.--Silverback 12:03, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I cannot parse your last sentence. In Marx's view, lawyers are in the petty bourgeoisie. Some of them are rich enough to be bourgeois themselves. Lenin discusses the relevance of Marx's analysis to First World countries. See, for example, |Imperialism: The highest stage of capitalism. Shorne 17:50, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)`


 * Most first world people today are far richer than Marx could have imagined. The color TV, VCR, and leisure time assure that.  I don't see how the categories or the dialectic apply in today's service economy, where most of the middle class don't produce "products", so there is no sense in which they can own the product of their labor and where most of the services are delivered to other members of the middle class.--Silverback 07:18, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Precisely because the middle class in the First World is not involved in production but consumes the products of others (the Third World), it is non-proletarian. Lenin spoke of imperialism as having created an "aristocracy of labour"&mdash;a class of workers in the imperialist countries (the US, Canada, Western Europe, Japan, Israel, a few others) that is allied with the imperialist bourgeoisie because it gets a share in the exploitation of others. Even Marx and Engels, writing in the nineteenth century, described England as largely bourgeoisified.
 * You very aptly point out that most people in the First World merely deliver services to each other. Where do they get their food and their clothes, not to mention their colour TV sets and VCRs, if most of them are involved in an exchange of services? Those things come largely from the Third World. (And even domestic production in a country like the US is heavily dependent upon Latin American migrant workers and Chinese garment workers who are illegally employed for a small fraction of the minimum wage.) All that leisure time is enjoyed at the expense of the Third World proletariat. Shorne 15:58, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Having just stumbled upon this discussion, I say that Mihnea Tudoreanu wins in a breeze. Unlike the people with whom she has been arguing here, she wants the article Karl Marx to be about Karl Marx and recognises that opinions about his philosophy and ideology do not belong here. Shorne 16:35, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I, for one, have stated no opinions whatsoever. I'm trying to work out an agreed upon way of stating an obvious and valid connection between the ideas that make Marx important enough to deserve an article and some of the actions taken in the name of those ideas that most Marxists are human enough to renounce. --Christofurio 18:04, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)


 * At a minimum, you should notice from this discussion that your "obvious and valid connection" is a matter of opinion. The words "most Marxists are human enough to renounce" nicely illustrate that point. Wikipedia is not the place for POV, so it is inappropriate to insert your POV remarks into the article. In any case, this is the wrong article for a discussion of Marxism. Try Marxism. Shorne 03:31, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * So if I insert the same 'graf into the Marxism article you believe that the folks deleting it here will leave it in there? Hmmm.  Okay, I'll do so, just to test your theory.


 * Please learn to read. I didn't say that your paragraph of opinions belongs in Marxism; in fact, I said that it belongs nowhere in Wikipedia. Shorne 17:19, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * What you said was "This is the wrong article for...." implying that there is some right article, which you then specified with the sentence "Try Marxism". I did. The same material gets deleted there. Of course, the phrase "most Marxists are human enough to renounce...." doesn't belong anywhere other than in a Talk page, and I never proposed to put it anywhere else.

Christofurio, this is an encyclopedia, not a chatroom. Personal opinions do not belong in articles. It is a fact that many people have criticized Marx and the article says so, as it should. But do not use this as a place to air your own views of Marx or Marxism. Slrubenstein


 * I recognize that it is an encyclopedia. I believe that any decent encyclopedia article on Marx should make clear the nature of Marx's debt to Hegel, and some of the consequences that has had.


 * It is irritating when some people here respond to my efforts to do that by telling me to put it elsewhere, and then delete it from the specific elsewhere that they suggested.


 * Furthermore, it is empirical confirmation of my point when the Marxists around here tell me that it seems obvious to them that anyone who appreciates the beauty of a painting must regard as objectively and scientifically wrong anyone who thinks that painting ugly. That is precisely the attitude I meant to describe, moved in that case to the field of aesthetic judgment. Given a Hegelian foundation, it does follow that there is a certain way to view, say, an impressionistic work that is right for this moment in the unfolding of world history, and that other views would be wrong, retrograde. But that attitude is not the only possible one -- about paintings or temples or stock prices -- and the dialectical attitude lends itself to dogmatism and intolerance. --Christofurio 13:32, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)

Christofurio, I agree that the article must acknowledge Marx's debt to Hegel. But it does so! But I strongly disagree with your interpretation of this fact. First, Hegel's dialectic does not involve (or require) one side of a conflict to dominate or destroy the other side, ruthlessly. For Hegle, the synthesis is just that, a synthesis of both the thesis and antithesis. Second, the determinism implicit in this way of thinking can and often leads to quietism, rather than ruthless political activity. Since the "revolution" is inevitable, there is no need for anyone to do anything at all. The Second International was relatively passive for this reason. It is true that more recent trends in thought, specifically, postmodernism, oppopse the monism of earlier philosophies (including Hegel, Marx -- and many others besides).

This article acknowledges Hegel's influence. But this does not explain the coldness with which Marx dismissed views he did not like (one could just as well argue that Marx had a dogmatic personality that led him to a certain philosophy -- we could go in circles on this all day and get no where). And in any event, Marx himself did not ruthlessly dispose of all opposing views, he merely asserted that over time right views would come to take the place of wrong views (a belief in progress many today share, except of course postmodernists).

It sounds to me like you would be better off researching postmodernism and monism (Jay wrote a good book on totalizing forms of thought, and Lyotard's original essay on postmodernism is aposit) and see if you can contribute to the article on postmodernism or articles on "progress," "monism," or "totality." These debates are extensive but do not bear directly on Marx and go far beyond the scope of this article. Slrubenstein


 * I appreciate your thoughts and, in general, have come to have a high opinion of your work as an editor. So I won't press the point, except to say that the problem, for Hegelian traditions, arises because one faction believes that it already HAS attained the synthesis, that its opposition represents a previous stage of history, a thesis. If one says, "you are thesis, I am antithesis," that is one thing, the conclusion might be, "let is work together to create a synthesis"! But if one says, "you are thesis, I am synthesis" that is another thing entirely -- the conclusion might rather be, "what the heck are you still doing around here, I've already subsumed you!"


 * I appreciate your compliment, and am glad you will continue thinking about this. For the moment, let me just suggest that although Marx believed he could predict -- in very, very general terms -- what the "synthesis" would be, he did not claim to be it.  One of the strengths of Marx's thought, in my opinion, is his "belief" in history, by which I do not mean that he thought he could predict the future, but rather that he believed that truths emerge over time through real-life experiences and practices. He certainly opposed various contemporaries because, in the Enlightenment tradition, he believed in critique (questioning various positions critically).  In the process he certainly was sometimes dismissive of others.  But don't all of us, in the course of arguments, think we are right and others are wrong?


 * Yes, I believe, and everybody with whom I am familiar believes, in the existence of errors. "Error exists" is probably a more secure starting point in the struggle against methodical doubt than the one Descartes employed. Meanwhile, too few of us believe that we may have a plank in our own eye, while we look intently for the motes in the other fellows. But the notion of the historical dialectic, precisely because it sees rightness emerging through historic conflicts, tends to license ruthlessness by the victors -- who, after all, have proved their rightness by their victory. What you see as a "strength" looks like a weakness to me. Okay, that's the way the cookie crumbles. Still ... if you scroll up a bit you can see paragraphs in which Mihnea explains to me that it is illogical for anyone to believe "this picture is beautiful" without believing that the statement "this picture is not beautiful" must be wrong! I certainly believe of a lot of pictures that they are beautiful, without believing that the contrary assertion must be wrong. It is a matter of context, etc. But that is an example, in a relatively harmless sphere, of the ruthlessness that diamat encourages. As to what to do with this article, I've made a few changes in the "influences" section today. I'm sure I'll learn your opinion soon enough. --Christofurio 00:21, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

At least he always believed, or said he believed, that the ultimate test of right and wrong was how things really happened and happen, which seems to me to be a way of creating a check on his own beliefs outside of himself. You may feel this is a generous reading of Marx. If you have another reading, okay -- I only ask you to back your reading up with specifics from Marx's writings, and I hope you will interpret them int he context in which Marx lived (that is, not in terms of things that others did after Marx died), Slrubenstein


 * This article is about Marx though, and Marx, for example, viewed the stage of primitive communalism as the thesis, the ancient-to-capitalist stage as the antithesis, and socialist-to-Communist one as the synthesis. Like Hegel, dialectical philosophy, unlike him, with an epistemological materialist basis: dialectical materialism. El_C


 * In terms of the history of philosophy, Marxists tend to regard Descartes as thesis, Berkeley as antithesis, Hegel as synthesis. Then Hegel in turn becomes a second-order thesis, who meets his antithesis in Feuerbach, preparing for the synthesis of ... Marx. --Christofurio 14:03, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)


 * One could also say he saw the bourgeoise as the thesis, the proletariate as the antithesis, and the classless society as the synthesis. Note that the group he supported -- the proletariate -- was a group he himself thought would be superceded.  Note too that in the Communist Manifesto he has some kind words for the Bourgeois.  Slrubenstein


 * I promise to give this matter some more thought before coming back to it in either of these two articles, but to divert me to discussions of postmodernism won't work. BTW, there has been endless discussion, from which I have refrained, about the classification of Nazism as a form of socialism. I think that the usually-uncknowledged truth in that matter, too, is that the two trends are genuinely different, but they have the same grandfather. Hegel. --Christofurio 22:27, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)


 * I would hope it is the unacknowledged truth. They are not merely 'genuinely different', they are opposite and pronouncedly hostile to one another. At any rate, as I have said on several occasions in that aforementioned discussion (I did not refrain), the economic basis for fascism is a non-socialist, largely Keynesian economic model, it dosen't matter if the former bears similarities to socialism, it does also under liberal-democracies (i.e. the New Deal, etc.). Fascists are in favour of preserving national capitalism and eradicating international socialism. Marxists further argue, that fascism, isn't simply geared towards having a strong State and capitalism, but rather, a strong State to protect capitalism (from Marxists). As evidence, they cite the growing strength of the SPD+KPD at the time, not to mention that once in power, the KPD (later also the SPD) were the first to be liquidated by the Nazis. El_C

They are opposite to one another? Ah, but to a dialectician, that but bespeaks similarity! There can be no op-position without commonality of position. Anyway, I will arm myself with authority before proceeding further in this line. One of the historical scholars who does draw with great clarity the sort of connections I've been trying to draw is R.G. Collingwood, especially in his book "The Idea of History" (1946). The next time I write on these points, I'll do so as an expositor of such notables as that. --Christofurio 05:31, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC) 05:29, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sounds like a good plan. But, as mentioned bellow, I strongly urge you to submitt any proposed changes here in talk to get a feel for the consensus – especially if you suspect that people will object to these. El_C

Notice
Unless there are any objections, I will be moving the discussion above into an archive within one week (23 Nov.). El_C

198 and the "so-called" edit war
When someone writes read closely what I just wrote, please, that means a simple "revert" as an explanation for a revert will -not- do (i.e. is discourtious). I am getting tired, sir, of the effort it takes to bring your generically-titled "reverts" to the realm of discussion here &mdash; and sadly, once that feat is attained, a rather limited discussion. I urge you to listen to what other editors are saying and to explain yourself when necessary like everyone else. Read closely, please. El_C

It is totally superfleous – if they saw themsleves as Marxists, they believed in socialism and sought to reach the final phase of Communism. There are no others here, and none of them (none) saw themsleves as so-called &mdash; so this "so-called" (which inexorably implies viz. authentic) is your POV. You have not even bothered to explain yourself, you simply continue to revert back to your changes, despite myself and 172's objections, and that is to your discredit. El_C

I am not writing it as POV, why is there so much of an issue of this?--198 22:59, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I will point out to the other editors that this sophomoric attempt to play innocent and enter the discussion -for the very first time- this late in the day (and then ask a question which has been answered directly above and elsewhere) is an obstructionist, intelletually dishonest tactic, one which I take strong exception to. El_C


 * I will also point out to you that the only one I'm edit warring with you (and to some extent some user who goes by the name 172)--198 23:57, 15 Nov


 * I will point out to the other editors that both 172 and myself have made appreciable and long-lasting contributions to this articles while 198 most certainly did not. Both 172 and myself are always willing to explain our edits, while 198 believes a simple "rv" will do. Note how 198 only weeks earlier "gave-up on the article" with respects to another nonesensical idée fixe – I was involved in this edit war also, but was gone for a few days, during which other editors reverted him back eough times. El_C

The edit war, extracted
--- El_C

Is 891 a sockpuppet of 198 ?
Considering the exact edit to which 198 has committed himself to "reverting until Doomsday" (while refusing to explain his stance), and the clear resmeblance of user name, it seems likely. I urge the admins to curtail such misconduct.El_C
 * No it wasn't, however I was telling my friend John about the edit war on Karl Marx so he agreed to help me.--198 22:57, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I will point out to the other editors that this help consisted on merely re-inserting the disputed excerpt, no defence for which has yet to be provided, whatsoever. El_C
 * I don't approve of what John did.--198 23:55, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree that the intransigence of 198 calls for administrative intervention. Unfortunately, that will take several months. Please proceed immediately to make a request for mediation at Requests for mediation. I will support it if allowed to make any comments; apparently a political double standard applies. If 198 refuses to accept mediation, you may&mdash;and should&mdash;proceed straight to arbitration. Let me know if I can offer any support. Shorne 00:05, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Why are you people doing this to me? Is it because I'm conservative?--198 00:09, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * You're conservative? That isn't obvious, and I doubt could be grounds for doing this. I don't understand this edit war. Why is "so-called Marxist" important/more accurate/better than leaving it out? It's reasonable to know why you persistantly change it, right? Cool Hand Luke  03:15, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No, my time is too precious to waste on administrative proceedings against a troll. It dosen't matter that I know with absolute certainty that whomever is conducting this proceeding will side with myself, 172, slrubenstein, and Shorne over 198. Trust me everyone, you want me expending my energy doing more productive things. I have outlined the evidence though, and anyone who wishes to launch such a process in-my-name can count on my support. Sorry, I got more important things to do in WP than have anything to do with trolls beyond this. El_C

Yes, I know exactly what you mean. I've already wasted countless hours against VeryVerily and Boraczek in administrative proceedings that obviously aren't going to pay off. The whole site is biased in favour of such trolls, especially if they come from the right. Unfortunately for me, such people are absolutely impossible, and the rotten administration that favours them has lumped me in together with them as an "edit warrior". It's a bizarre form of colour blindness that prevents one from distinguishing black from white. Shorne 13:07, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hegelian Influences revisited
See the recently archived Hegelian Influences for details of the discussion (which in the end went slightly off-topic) between Christofurio and myself, a discussion which resulted in changing this –into– this.El_C

"Miscellaneous"
What is the point of the section "Miscellaneous"? To air personal opinions? It seems to be a mixed bag of junk.

Some of the material is just wrong. Mao did not split the international communist movement over the issue of whether the peasantry could lead a socialist revolution in certain countries. Although some people on the left thought at the time that Mao was wrong, he proved himself right when the revolution succeeded in seizing state power in China, and subsequently in Korea, Vietnam, and other countries. The split occurred over issues of socialist development, with the Chinese (and Albanian) side accusing the Soviet Union of revisionism and the restoration of capitalism. Shorne 12:51, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * The difference between saying "X caused a split in the M movement by believing Z and acting accordingly" and saying, "X did believe Z, and others within M thought this was wrong" is a matter of degree. Saying "X was later proved right" doesn't change the fact that there was a split. Further, it isn't clear to me what "proved right" means, since the seizure of state power wasn't supposed to be a goal in itself. Further, the later issues of development are closely related to the earlier issue of the nature of the revolution.


 * As to the section "Miscellaneous," there is such a section in several articles, especially biographical ones. I'll speak only of my own contribution to it.


 * I thought that it was odd to have a biographical entry on Karl Marx that doesn't so much as mention his famous gravesite, or the inscription there. Sort of like performing Hamlet without Polonius. Once I included that information, I also thought it would be appropriate to interrogate the brief five-word phrase in the way you see I've done. It does foreshadow a complicated legacy and its splits. --Christofurio 14:29, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)


 * No one refuses to acknowledge that China had a revolution that was led by the peasantry, not the proletariat (which was tiny then and still is in the minority). Even if a split had occurred over the question of the possibility of a revolution led by the peasantry, it could not have endured once Mao (and subsequently H&#7891; and others) had proven that such a revolution was indeed possible.


 * The section "Miscellaneous" imparts a slight POV: it seems to complain that Marx didn't answer every possible question about the course of socialist development. Marx never purported to know every detail of how communism would come about; that would have been the height of arrogance, and indeed Marx and other Marxists have denounced the notion that theory can be divorced from practice. Shorne 01:46, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * You are, of course, free to edit, and I'll be happy to see the result. I think something along these lines ought to be included, although it is certainly possible I allowed a hostile POV to seep through in my wording of it. One disagreement over fact that you and I may have involves the nature of the split. Was it just a tactical one ("can Mao win his revolution if its led by peasantry?") or was it also a definitional split ("will it really be a Marxist revolution if it is won largely inder the leadership of peasantry?"). If it was the latter, then Mao's success in seizing state power did not resolve it, although that clearly transformed the terms of it. --Christofurio 14:53, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

Shorne is correct, the split occured -after- the PRoC was founded – initially, relations with the Soviet Union were more than cordial, they were fratetnal – after the split though, the PRoC saw the Soviet Union as a greater threat than the U.S. El_C

The split was present within the Chinese Communist Party in the mid 1920s. It was resolved in favor of a peasant-oriented revolution largely because in April 1927 Chiang Kaishek ordered a massacre of communists and other militant workers in the cities. Over the next few months CCP membership dropped from 60 thousand to just ten thousand. The survivors were the ones in the countryside. --Christofurio 14:53, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)


 * I know that. The reference was to the "Sino-Soviet split," i.e. -after- the establishment of the PRoC – following which, the Soviets provided them with industrial infrastructure, credit, trainers, etc. (later withdrawn). El_C


 * The contested sentence in the article simply says this, "Mao Zedong would one day split world communism with his view that the agrarian proletariat could take the lead." It doesn't identify this generic theoretical split with the specific geopolitical Sino-Soviet split. Although I would also say that the two splits are related -- and perhaps here we disagree. I think in terms of his appeal to the communists of Albania, the fact that Mao had won a peasant-oriented revolution was important. --Christofurio 18:45, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

There is more to it, is all I'm saying (much of which will prove decisive in the Lushan Plenum, the unilateral abrogation of the armes deal – allegedly meant to include an atomic bomb – by Khrushchev, the fate of Péng Déhuái, etc.). See, for example (sorry, writing in haste), Meisner's A History of the People's Republic, pp. 244-251. El_C

External links for Stirner vs Marx
It is a general policy of wikipedia to avoid external links whenever possible. The reason is simple: there is no guarantee that an external link will live or will contain the same information. There is nothing more frustrating than to wade through dead links.
 * For some reason Mikkalai you missed quite a number of external links on this articles page. Why the oversight?--Silverback 23:39, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It is an oversigt indeed. The section said "Bibliography", and I didin't pay attention they are all external. All references from the save archive. IMO it is sufficient to leave only the root webpage. Mikkalai 23:56, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

In this particular case, if you feel that the debaete Stirner-Marx is important, please write the corresponding article and write what you feel is important, preferrably without referring to external links. We write the encyclopedia ourselves, not just collect links from everywhere. We are not link farm.
 * A separate article is not needed the relationship between the two is noted on this page and on the stirner page.Silverback

Just imagine what will the article look like if we start adding all links that discuss Marx. Try run google for "Karl Marx".Mikkalai 17:54, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Why imagine that, it is just a strawman argument. Why don't you just imagine if all of marx's works were pasted right into this article, after all they are no longer under copyright, and we have quotes so the slippery slope has started.  Go to each work of Marx and just scroll each one from beginning to end.  BTW, run google for "stirner", you will find that marx, engels and stirner are the neo-hegelians whose work is still being actively debated.--Silverback 23:39, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * We are talking about external references here. Excessive quoting is a different issue, although comparable. I have nothing against Stirner. I don't know him and probably don't want to know. I am against external links, which present the problem of maintenance. Mikkalai 23:56, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

'''Prev. discussion, at my usertalkpage'''

For the record, I want to note that I agree with the anon's deletion of those two links, even though I was the one who submitted the last one (to counter the one precededing it). But tis not important enough for me to expend lots of energy on.

Thanks for taking the time to read this. El_C


 * It wasn't anon, it was Mikkalai. On what basis do you agree with the deletion, it can't be relevancy, and certainly not "encyclopedic", the external links don't have to conform to that standard. look at the external links on racialism, neither one is encyclopedic.  You "all" argument is specious.  None of Marx's  other intellectual exchanges are of other than historical interest.  Stirners ideas are alive and in conflict with Marx's today.  We would be able to prioritize these  easily.  The external links are a good way to point to the living debates.--Silverback 09:16, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I actually see it in terms of them being of no more than historical interest to you, or conversely, encompassing your POV of what is of merely historical interest viz. what is 'alive today.' Thus, your priorities reflect this distortion. How is it 'more alive today' ? Do you really think that (and Stirner, in general) sums up these living debates? (!). I disagree. El_C


 * I had no problem with your link, it was perfectly acceptable, I just did not think I should have to fight Mikkalai's indefensible deletions alone. I did not recall who had made that addition, so thought that leaving it out would enlist their participation, since it looked like Mikkalai was going to be anti-communitarian. Note that my first response included your link, but on the off chance that, Mikkalai found yours offensive, I tested just restoring mine.  I will be happy to assist in the defense of yours, by both action and argument, if yours comes under attack. --Silverback 15:44, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I am glad to learn that, but I had a problem with your link – which is to say, I find it is not suited for this article. I will not reiterate my comments above, but let's pretend I did. El_C

Jeez - Sitrner is mentioned once in the article, but two links at the bottom of the page are about him. This makes no sense at all. If Marx' career was widely viewed in terms of a grand rivalry between him and Stirner, that would be one thing. But that is quite transparently not the case. Both links are on the page for Max Stirner. I am deleting them from this article on the grounds of insufficient salience to the topic at hand.

What might be worth persuing is an internal links section called "Contemporaries and Commentors" - those remembered in part because Marx discussed them (e.g. Feuerbach, Bruno Bauer, and yes, even Stirner) and those who are known in part because of their comments about Marx. Hate Marx or love him, he is the central figure in any narrative about him. In terms of fame and significance he towers over pretty much all the people connected to him in the mind of the modern reader. This is the reality of public perspectives on Marx - the consensus reality, if you like - and the article should reflect it.

Diderot 17:32, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, because of his influence on history, Marx towers over Stirner, but in terms of whose ideas are academically and intellectually alive today rather than merely being of historical interest, Stirner is at least an equal. Face it, nihilism, however unfortunately, has intellectually conquered all these leap-of-faith ideologies.  To the extent Marx's ideas are alive today, they are in contraposition to Stirner's and these links are good examples of that.--Silverback 17:55, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Questions section
Hello, I disagree with the retension of the "questions" section -- I believe it should at least be rephrased not to be in that form, if not excised. I understand that it is interesting, and provides a nice way to introduce other topics, but there must be some other way that doesn't have that kind of strange tone that I don't think fits in the encyclopedia. --Improv 05:56, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * The section is more like signed encylopedia articles with an author's voice. I have no problem with voice being changed, but they are not rhetorical questions and are informative and should be kept until someone is willing to rearchitect the information.  Perhaps there is even a voice that retains the questions, something like "These questions arose and resulted in divisions...",  or "Differences in how these questions unanswered by Marx, led to..."--Silverback 07:28, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Marx was not an economist
Every econmist I have met has agreed that Karl Marx was not an Econmist.--198 00:52, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Yeah. Doodlin' around, he accidentally scribed Das Kapital some morons think somehow related to Econmy. Mikkalai 01:29, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * good work I must say that Mikkala! :)--198 01:38, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I guess you've never met a Cuban economist. Ruy Lopez 07:15, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There are two questions here: what is an economist, and what was an economist in the 1830s-1850s? 198 seems to think that an economist is whoever other economists say an economist is. I actually don't think this is a terrible way of answering the question, but it does just raise the next questions which are, how did you know that the people you (198) asked are economists? (a question that shows that you are just begging the question as this leads to infinite regress) and, how do those economists decide that "x" is an economist and "y" isn't? This is not such a simple question to answer, which is why I think it is pointless to say in the article "Marx was not an economist." Slrubenstein

Still, let's try to answer it. Aside from begging the question the problem with asking economists who is an economist is that economists (or Jews or Republicans) may have different ideas of what makes someone an economist (or, etc.) So when you ask somewhat "who is an economist" you learn as much if not more about their beliefs about economics, as you do about x (or in this case, Marx). IF all economists believe the same things, and have always believed the same things, you might get away with this. But I doubt this is the case. Slrubenstein

Here is a pragmatic answer to the question: an economist is someone who gets a PhD. in economics, or who teaches in an economics department. I bet that this actually covers all the "economists" polled by 198 so I am hoping s/he will find this an acceptable definition. Slrubenstein

So here is my question: when Marx went to University in the 1830s, and when he was looking for jobs in the 1840s, were there departments of Economics in which he could have gotten a degree or a job? I don't think so. The fact is, I think the whole question of "was Marx an economist is an anachronistic'' question and basically meaningless. Slrubenstein


 * The same thing must go for Adam Smith too :) .. Would you say that a philosopher must be someone who got a PhD in economics or teaches in a department? I don't think so. Economists, like philosophers, are as such because of what they do, not what letters they have after their name. --Improv 23:02, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Marx certainly wrote about economic topics, and you can argue that he did so from the point of view of a philosopher (what his degree was in) or an historian (and he may very well have considered this to be the case). But since he wrote about economic topics, why not call him an economist? Slrubenstein

I can think of only one reason why it would be a bad idea to call Marx an economist: economists today do not read his work, or consider his ideas -- that is, he is irrelevant to economists today, so to call him an economist would be misleading. I think this is a pretty good kind of reason for not calling him an economist, we don't want to mislead anyone. BUT we get to NPOV issues. Yes, in NATO countries Marx may not be assigned in economics courses. But what about Cuba? In any event, I would go even further and say that Marx's ideas are in fact relevant to the ideas of some Western -- Nobel prize winning! -- economists such as Steiglitz, Krugman, and Sen. Now, they may not represent the majority of economists, but certainly we can all agree they are economists. I am not saying any of them are Marxists, by the way, only that Marx's ideas about the importance of class for example have been relevant to the work of these guys, maybe even more relevant than the work of Milton Friedman or even Hayak. So why not call him an economist? (note: it's a rhetorical question. My point is not that we should or should not call him an economist.  I think it is a dumb question) Slrubenstein


 * Not every scientist's theories are still studied. I would submit that economists are the same way, but neither should disqualify someone from being considered an economist or scientist. --Improv 23:02, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well Slrubenstein, most econmist i've met say the term "Political Econmist," "Ecomonic Philsophier" fit Marx better than per-se "Econmists." However I do admit I'm biased because I don't really feel Marx was an Econmist. For one thing Marx doesn't even know the basic economic law of supply and demand (and yes I've read some of his works).--198 02:07, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * "By what is the price of a commodity determined? By the competition between buyers and sellers, by the relationship of the demand to the supply, of the call to the offer."  Karl Marx Wage-labour and Capital first published in 1849 (quote is from 1933 English translation p. 21; the opening of chapter 3).  Marx understood that this applied to the labor-market (wages) as well: "The relations bewtween supply and demand of labour undergo perpetual changes, and with them the market price of labour.  If the demand overshoots the supply, wages rise; if the supply overshoots the demand, the wages sink ..." from Value, Price and Profit, an address given in 1865 (quote is from the 1933 English translation, p. 25; it is the middle of section 4 of the address).  Now, 198, please tell me why you think that Marx "doesn't even know the basic economic law of supply and demand?"  You say that you have read some of his works, but even here you reveal that you just do not understand Marx.  Anyone can edit a wikipedia article; we don't ask you to be a professor of Marxism or Marxology or whatever, we don't expect you to have a PhD. in history, philosophy, economics, or whatever.  But really, you shouldn't work on an article about something you don't understand.  Surely there are things you really do know well, and understand.  I suggest you write articles about those things. Slrubenstein 02:35, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * That's very interesting. I haven't read that work but I will check it out when I visit the Library this Friday. I read the Communist Manifesto and some of Das Kapital (it was quite a while ago). I still feel the term Poltical Econmist is still better than calling Marx an "Econmist." I understand Marx quite well, dispite that I'm not a Professor of Political Science, I'm a Professor of Marketing.--198 05:47, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Some people will agree about "political economist," others would disagree. What about something like "He studied (or wrote about) economics and political economy?" Slrubenstein
 * That seems fine. For the record, he was as much an economist as Ricardo or Mill, which is to say he was a student of "political economy", and of what is now called classical economics; Das Kapital was the most systematic analysis of capitalism of the time. Rd232 23:20, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Marx was a widely read theoretical writer on the subject of economics. That clearly makes him an economist, more so because he lived in the times before economics was even available as a university course. Zocky 05:39, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

conflict theory
I reverted the addition of a section on conflict theory. Marx never proposed conflict theory; conflict theory is the name given by sociologists who believe themselves to be applying Marxian principles to the study of certain social issues. As such, this deserves its own article, linked to sociology. Slrubenstein 20:00, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I disagree, Marx's Conflict Theory or Conflict Persective is RELVENT to the article.--198 02:21, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree that Marx's concept of class struggle etc belongs here. But it is not appropriate to copy/paste a mini-essay on Marxist conflict theory here (especially so unedited!). We have conflict theory, Social-conflict theory (which incidentally needs merging into the former), critical theory and Critical theory (Frankfurt School), and you could create a new article eg critical theory (Marxist) if you wanted to. See also WikiProject_Critical_Theory and the appropriate category . Wherever the text goes, the article can be linked to from here, but Marx's contribution as the "founder" shouldn't be discussed here in terms of the conceptualisation and terminology of a century later - that is appropriate elsewhere. Rd232 08:57, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Concur with Rd232 -- the added section is badly written and does not contribute to the article in either content or appearance. --Improv 15:40, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * The text dump by 198 was unsalvageable. This article is not a dumping ground for mini-essays on conflict theory just as the (say) Durkheim article would not be a duping ground for someone's mini-essay on functionalism. 172 18:17, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Whoah, whoah! 172 is right on target, but if 198 didn't understand my explanation for deleting this material the first time, I imagine he will not understand 172's point. So I will now try to make it crystal clear why the material does not belong here.

There are some major confusion here. The section I deleted was called "critical theory" but the content concerned "conflict theory" and now someone is talking about Marx's theory of "class struggle" These are three distinct things!  Marx definitely had much to say about the class struggle, and this is already represented in the article.

But "Critical theory" and "Conflict theory" are theories that were not developed by Marx, and do not belong in this article. I gave my reasons above, and 198 simply wrote that he disagrees. He then once again identified it as "Marx's conflict theory." '''There is no such thing: Marx never proposed or wrote about "conflict theory." Never.''' "Conflict theory" is a body of theory developed by sociologists in the 20th century, long after Marx died. It is true that in developing this theory they drew on Marx's writings, but that does not mean Marx developed these theories. Moreover, "Conflict theory" draws equally on many other sources: Georg Simmel, most notably but it traces its origins even further back to Thucydides, Machiavelli, and Hobbes. Some conflict theorists emphasize their intellectual debt to Marx and call themselves marxists (which still does not mean the Marx shared any of their ideas -- remember, Marx is already dead when these people developed their theories). Moreover, many conflict theorists (e.g. Dahrendorf and Collins) are explicitly anti-Marx -- and they are very important conflict theorists. So I repeat: there is no such thing as "Marx's conflict theory." ANY discussion of conflict theory should go in a Conflict Theory article.

Finally, "Critical Theory" (1) was not created by Marx and (2) is not at all the same thing as Marx's theory of class struggle, and not at all the same thing as Conflict Theory. Critical Theory also has its own article, but to be clear here, Critical Theory is a theory developed by Horkheimer and Adorno at the Frankfort School in 1930! Almost fifty years after Marx died! It is true again that the Critical Theorists read and quoted Marx -- but that does not mean that Marx wrote about critical theory! Moreover (as is the case with Conflict Theory) Marx is only one influence on Critical Theory -- Weber and Freud were equally important. So there is no basis for talking about "Marx's Critical Theory" --it doesn't exist.

Conflict theory (no "Marx's") and Critical theory (no "Marx's") do exist -- but they have their own articles.

The Karl Marx article should be about the life and work of Karl Marrx, not about theories developed by people fifty years after he lived. To be frank, I find it hard to believe that you have done any serious research, if you did not know these things. Slrubenstein 18:31, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Ok, I understand what your talking about....I seen the article Conflict theory.--198 05:05, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"Even" Engels' discussion didn't put the matter to rest?
This re-working of the dispute over that Gladstone quote is a botch, and highly point of view. Consider the word "even," which implies that one should naturally have expected Engels' account to put the matter to rest, but some trouble-makers have persisted in raising it anyway. A bit like saying, "Even the fact that Kissinger has vouched for Pinochet's good character has not put to rest questions...." Anyway, I'll see what can be done to put this passage back on an even keel, if not "to rest," when I get a chance. --Christofurio 14:04, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * Would you mind summing up Marx or Engels' explanation for the discrepancy? Do we know which version of Gladstone's speech is the original? Slrubenstein 22:17, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'll link you to Engels' "explanation" http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1891/brentano/ch01.htm

Its long-winded and adds new obfuscations to those of his partner. My concern was that wikipedia not simply take the Marx-Engels side, which would be the case if we use a sentence like "Even Engels' discussion didn't put the matter to rest!"!

I think it safe to say (here on the Talk page, anyway) that the consensus of historians today is quite the other way, that Marx/Engels did in fact distort Gladstone's words. See the book I cited in the article, on Marx as Politician. Or see the following.

http://www.nzbr.org.nz/documents/speeches/speeches-98/nineteenth-century-folklore-v-history.doc.htm Christofurio 00:17, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

As for going to a library and looking at the old copies of The Times in microfiche or whatever form they might be in now -- I'll leave that to you.

Party school
Is there a source on Marx spending most of his time at Bonn singing songs in beer halls? This sounds fairly suspect to me (like an odd and meaningless cheap shot), though I admit I don't know much about his biography. --Fastfission 21:09, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * It comes from McLellan's biography of Marx, I think quoting a letter but I need to check. Must we include a page reference? Slrubenstein 18:54, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * No, but if it is a letter from Marx, saying, "I spent most of my time singing beer hall songs," I think it'd be more believable to say, "Marx attended Bonn, blah blah, where he later claimed to have spent the majority of his time singing beer hall songs," or something like that. As it is, it looks like someone trying to just say that Marx was a frat boy, which on the surface of it seems suspicious to me. But if it's a self-description, that's another story. --Fastfission 23:55, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I had heard Marx spent most of his time in Beer-halls, I'll try to get a source for it ASAP.--198 05:01, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * From Karl Marx: His Life and Thought by David McLellen p.17:
 * Marx shared a room with a highly respected philosophy student from Trier (who had entered the university a year earlier), became one of the thirty members of the Trier Tavern Club and was soon one of its five presidents. The activities of the club were largely confined to drinking and Marx entered so fully into the spirit that he found himself imprisoned by the university for "disturbing the peace of the night with drunken noise" -- though only for 24 hours ....When not drinking and duelling, Marx spent most of his time writing poetry and joined a club of like-minded students ...
 * The quote is from a letter from Marx to his father found in Historisch-kritisch Gesamtausgabe, edited by Rlaznov and Adoratsky, Berlin 1927, Ii(2)194. Slrubenstein  |  Talk  15:51, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Add that than to the article.--198 01:25, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Add the long extended quote, or just the citation? Slrubenstein  |  Talk  17:44, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Cite--198 04:34, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

personality
What are the sources on Marx's personality? I deleted what appeared to be original research. But I further think that stuff on Marx's personality is so speculative (and accounts are so likely to be strongly POV), I just do not see any point to adding it to the article. Slrubenstein 19:25, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hum, but since this is an article about Marx-the-man, and not Marxism per se (even if describing 'Marxism' within the physical-temporal lifespan of Marx as he lived)it seems relevant to the article; provided that encyclopedic standards are applied to personality as such. -- Capone (sorry forgot to log-in) 3:44am PST, 27-3-05

Gymnasium
Gymnasium was 7 years. It was its own kind of secondary education, and it is ridiculous to compare it with high school as a main explanation, which is not even the same thing for various countries, and even within USA in various states.Mikkalai 17:09, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Explaining Marx's Writings
I'm finding the article to be inconsistent in the way it deals with the Marx's writings. It would be useful to know what ideas came from his major works, either in the bibliography or the main article.David R Alexander 21:40, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Way Too Many Parentheses
Can't we do better than this???

"Marx's philosophy Materialist Interpretation of History (which Engels controversially adapted as dialectical materialism) is certainly influenced by Hegel's claim that reality (and history) should be viewed dialectically, through a clash of opposing forces. Hegel believed that the direction of human history is characterized in the movement from the fragmentary toward the complete and the real (which was also a movement towards greater and greater rationality)."

Too many parenthetical comments. Headache. Ack. --Christofurio 13:19, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Marx a philosopher
To call Marx a 'philosopher" is an insult to philosophy, and also an insult to Marx himself. (annon - 61.144.54.42)
 * What an odd thing to say. Do you know that Marx has just been voted greatest philosopher of all time by a poll organised by BBC Radio 4's In our Time programme beating David Hume in to second place by a mile. :-). Whether you agree with what he said or not it seems odd not to call him a philosoher. Whats your reasoning? --JK the unwise 09:36, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Reasoning is that Marx held 'philosphy' in contempt due to the absence of praxis. In Our Time's Greatest Philosopher Results. El_C 09:58, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't think the "philosophers have interpreted ... point is to change it" stuff means that Marx rejected Philosohy full stop, rather he rejected the kind of philosohy that was hegemonic in his time (and is so now) i.e. philosophy without Praxis, arguably Analytic philosophy is far more guilty of this then continental philosophy, though most academic philosophy might well be damed by Karl. Anyhowz I suppose its down to how you define philosophy which is a philosphical question of much debate. --JK the unwise 11:52, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * It's debatable whether Marx "was a philosopher", but he certainly did philosophy (eg his PhD on two Ancient Greek philosophers, not to mention dialectics etc). But he wanted to go beyond that - "Philosophers have only interpreted the world - the point, however, is to change it." Rd232 11:45, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * As Engels put it, "[t]he general nature of dialectics to be developed as the science of interconnections, in contrast to metaphysics." *** I think Marx viewed himself more generally, as a social theorist, for ex., rather than as a "philosopher." El_C 12:14, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

With all due respect, El_C, I disagree. Marx's PhD. was in philosophy, and I happen to think credentials mean a lot (especially when some reactionaries claim that to call Marx a philosopher is an insult to philosophy). In his theses on Feurbach of course he does say that philosophers have interpreted the world, the point is to change it. This can be interpreted a number of ways. You may interpret it as a total rejection of philosophy and I admit this is a plausible interpretation but I can think of other interpretations that I think are just as plausible, or even moreso. For example Marx could be arguing that philosophers must embark on a new, hitherto ignored, activity. There is certainly no reason why philosophers cannot debate what it is they should be doing; such debated occur in every academic discipline from time to time. Another example: Freud was critiquing philosophy as it had become institutionalized in Europe. At stake in this point is, "what is philosophy?" Is it what academic departments today say it is? Or is it anything philosophers &mdash; people who have identified themselves as philosophers or who have been identified as philosophers &mdash; have done? One leads to a narrow definition, the other to a broader one. I go with the broaderone. Jurgen Habermas (another philosopher) argued ( in Knowledge and Human Interests) that one of the consequences of modernity has been to split up philosophy, so that activities that used to comprise philosophy (e.g., the study of poetry, of the natural sciences, of politics &mdash; things Aristotle all considered the work of philosophy) have been distributed into different academic disciplines, leaving "philosophy" only a narrow version of its former self. Perhaps Marx was criticizing this &mdash; the way philosophy had been distorted when it was turned into an academic discipline. Perhaps Marx was criticizing the way philosophy had been institutionalized,m not "philosophy" itself. Given the nature of Marx's other critiques, I find this a compelling interpretation. Finally, you correctly point out that Marx and Engels had rejected metaphysics. True. But to identify philosophy with metaphysics is simply to have given in to a small group of philosophers who claim the sole right to define philosophy, and to reify philosophy. I don't think this is ever a good thing to do, from either the point of view of an empirical scientist or a political activist. Derrida and Deleuze are both philosophers, and both have rejected metaphysics. I believe the Vienna school did as well. Thus, one can reject metaphysics and still be a philosopher. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 15:37, 20 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I was not refering to philosophically this or that, though, but rather to the designation of him as "a philosopher." I don't believe Marx placed much weight on academic credentials (I happen to think they do not mean a lot), and would have considered such a designation parochial and simplistic. As Rd232 said, he wanted to go beyond that, and I maintain that he did. This just for the sakes of discussion though, I don't intend on challenging the misconceptions and distortions of academia under capitalism here, in the article space, due to attitudinal setiments in the First World viz. editorial composition and the predisposition for bias in this encyclopedia. El_C 21:22, 20 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I think I understand where you are coming from. But my point (well, one of them) was that identifying Marx as a philosopher is more subversive (of capitalist-distorted academia as well as the way "philosophy" has been institutionalizedin the past two centuries) thatn saying he was not a philosopher.  As evidence, I point to the sentence that begins this section. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 21:26, 20 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Point taken, SlR; but my point is nonetheless the broader beyond. Yes, by today's terms he's an (political-) economist, philsopher, sociologist, historian, political scientist, antropologist &mdash; in so far as his influence over Western (and Eastern) academia(s) has been very significant. Even with those disciplines not yet fully formed, it's fair to say that Marx was very much an "interdisciplinarian", though focusing above all other things, on political-economy. Epistemologically, then, it is important to distinguish between his contempt for philsophy and any actual "philosophical" work he did, and his theory in its entirety. El_C 03:09, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree fully that Marx can't be pigeon-holed, which is why I have no problem with saying he was a philosopher, social theorist, and revolutionary (I think we can drop the "organizer of the International Workingmen's Association," in the first paragraph, which I think is too specific for an introduction. A long time ago I added the words "and journalist" because much of what he wrote, he wrote for newspapers.  Can we put that back in?  It is accurate and just as important as his careers in philosophy and revolutionary politics (I don't know when or who deleted it). Slrubenstein   |  Talk 14:06, 21 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Why should academics controll the word philosopher and its meaning? The common usage of the praze covers everything from mystics, logisitions, moral theorists to poets. The word, "philosopher," literally means "lover of wisdom." --> since Karly would agree that u gota know the world to change it and he wrote big fat books on stuff hes a philosoher..--JK the unwise 21:32, 20 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, by which standard are they to be defined, though? Yes, Marx's theory extended and touched on philosophy, he wrote about "philosophers" and their ideas (the fittingly-titled, The Poverty of Philosophy, etc.), that is self-evident. El_C 03:09, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Marx and human nature
I removed "Beyond his claim about the human capacity to transform nature, Marx makes no other claims about 'human nature,'" because Marx did make other claims about human nature. For example, that man is a social being by his nature.--Bkwillwm 8 July 2005 22:34 (UTC)
 * good point Slrubenstein  |  Talk 8 July 2005 23:32 (UTC)

Marx the anti-Semite
This article is, as regards Marx's view on the Jews & " the Jewish question", completely false. It is accepted, by virtually all rational people, that Marx was an anti-Semite (for instance, in a celebrated biography by French-Jewish socialist Jean Ellenstein). This contention doesn't depend on "Zur Judenfrage" only: Marx's letters to his father ("Jewish faith is abhorrent to me"); his comments on Ferdinand Lassalle ("Jewish nigger"); on his doctor (who simply tried to get his money for services) ("Jewish parasyte")...Things are clear enough, I'd say. http://www.vho.org/GB/Journals/JHR/5/1/Whisker69-76.html (never mind the crappy reference title), http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=15381 Mir Harven 21:29, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * If you go to Jstor, an online database of academic journals, and do a search for On the Jewish Question, you will find almost as many different interpretations of this work as articles citing it. Hardly anything that goes beyond merely summarizing the work is a matter of consensus. While your view is certainly within the realm of 'rational' discourse, it is not the only rational interpretation of the work. 172 | Talk 21:45, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * There is a world of difference between interpretation(s) of a written text & apologetic pseudo-argumentation one finds in the wiki article (and not only there, of course). Pro-Marx apologists have accomplished one feat more: they succeeded in completely ignoring Marx's acerbic statements on the "Jews" (from Lassalle to Marx's own uncle, from his physician to ..make a pick) contained in his correspondence with Engels. Human capacity for self-deception is, I guess- infinite.Mir Harven 22:27, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I direct such self-deception sentiments at anti-Marx polemicists, who take comments made ~150 years ago outside of any historical context. Marx, of course, was an ethnic Jew himself, and none of his works (including the pre-Communist OTJQ) exhibit any "antisemitism" (as much as some would like to juxtapose some epithets with a world view, it is in contradiction with it). The archive of this talk page contains much discussion on this, which I hesitate to recreate so as to avoid undue repetition. El_C 22:39, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Being born & raised in an ex-Communist country & having read the major part of Marx's works (in Croatian, Russian and English), as well as definite works on marxist ideology (Schumpeter's, Leszek Kolakowski's "The Main Currents",..), I'll just reiterate: the page on Marx is of very poor quality (not in just this respect). Two online texts would have to suffice. They deal with Marx's (and his collaborators's) views on these questions. The next link contains a valuable material, but is also anti-Semitic and ill-informed (Engels who "actually" wrote "Das Kapital", Hess as a collaborator in writing of the "Deutsche Ideologie", Kautsky as "Jewish", some pop-psychoanalysis etc.). But, the quotes are relevant. 

"What is the secular basis of Judaism? Practical need, self-interest. What is the worldly cult of the Jews? Haggling. What is his worldly god? Money! ... What is contained abstractly in the Jewish religion -- contempt for theory, for art, for history, for man as an end in himself... "

On Lassalle

"It is now absolutely clear to me that, as both the shape of his head and his hair texture shows -- he descends from the Negroes who joined Moses' flight from Egypt (unless his mother or grandmother on the paternal side hybridized with a Nigger). Now this combination of Germanness and Jewishness with a primary Negro substance necessarily creates a strange product. The pushiness of this fellow is also Niggerish."

Many of Marx's contributions to the Tribune were anti-Semitic in nature. Just by way of example, his feature published on 4 January 1856 read as follows:

"Take Amsterdam, for instance, a city harboring many of the worst descendants of the Jews whom Ferdinand and Isabella drove out of Spain and who, after lingering a while in Portugal, were driven out of there too and eventually found a place of retreat in Holland ..., Here and there and everywhere that a little capital courts investment, there is ever one of these little Jews ready to make a little suggestion or place a little bit of loan. The smartest highwayman in the Abruzzi is not better posted about the locale of the hard cash in a traveller's valise or pocket than these little Jews about any loose capital in the hands of a trader...

"Thus we find every tyrant backed by a Jew, as is every Pope by a Jesuit. In truth, the cravings of oppressors would be hopeless, and the practicability of war out of the question, if there were not an army of Jesuits to smother thought and a handful of Jews to ransack pockets ... The fact that 1,855 years ago Christ drove the Jewish money-changers out of the temple, and that the money changers of our age, enlisted on the side of tyranny, again happen to be Jews is perhaps no more than a historic coincidence."

On his son-in-law, Paul Lafargue

''Marx's second daughter Laura married a Paul Lafargue in 1845. Marx had done everything possible to prevent the marriage, totally on account of Lafargue's small portion of Negro blood. But when Lafargue's wealthy parents promised a groom's dowry of 100,000 francs, Marx's attitude reversed. However, when the gift did not materialize, Marx reverted to racist slurs against his daughter's husband. Marx remarked that one of his daughters was doing her bit in solving the color question by marrying "a nigger". He often referred to Lafargue as "the little Negro" or as "the Gorilla". When Laura bore a second child in 1870, Jenny Marx wrote Engels that she hoped her daughter would practice reproductive restraint and not produce "ten little nigger boys". When Lafargue decided to run in the municipal Paris elections, Engels too remarked that this was appropriate since the district contained the Paris Zoo, and "a nigger is a degree nearer to the animal kingdom than the rest of us".''

I'm finished with this. In disgust, yours sincerely Mir Harven 08:04, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Glad you are, because I've heard it before enough times, and more comprehensively. It is still out of context (historically and otherwise), it is still not reflecive of his body of work and theory which did not preach antisemitism but accepted Jews as equales. You can distort all you want, and selectivey read Marx in any language you command, it is still poor scholarship, it does not appear as if you have reviewed a representative sample of the scholarly debates on the issue.. And please spare me the disghaust: Wikipedia is not a soap box. Speaking of languages one has read Marx's works in, this is what the Hebrew Wikipedia writes about Marx in connection to this:

במאמר זה הוא שולל את הניסיון היהודי לקבל זכויות שוות במדינה הנוצרית וקורא ליהודים לפעול לשוויו מוחלט

'In this article, he rejects the Jewish experiment to be accorded equale rights in a the Christian State and calls on Jews to act towards total equality.' (קרל מרקס)

I doubt that the editors on the Hebrew wiki can be accused of being anitsemitic. Moreover, the historical irony is that many sources who are most strong in propogating this notion tend to be fascistic and antsemetic ones. So I urge a fair review of the scholarship in its entirety. El_C 08:34, 25 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Let's see.


 * 1. Marx was described as a racist & anti-Semite by all those who have investigated this aspect of his life and work, and who were not bound by ideological commitment to find excuses for their guru's behavior. From Silberer to Jean Ellenstein and all the rest (Boris Nikolaevsky, Leszek Kolakowski).


 * First, this is simply a false claim. There are in fact people who have investigated this aspect of his life and work, and do not think he was an anti-Semitic.  Second, the wording of this is disingenuous, because it suggests that anyone who claims he is not anti-Semitic is "bound by ideological commitment" and anyone else is not.  This is simply silly.  Finally, we do not vote on the "correct" interpretation.  At least, not in Judaism ;-)  "Of the making of books there is no end," and people have an infinite capacity to interpret.  That a given interpretation is the most pulpular one only means it is most popular, not that it is right.  So let us do away with this first part of the argument, which is just silly. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 15:56, 25 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I see that user Slrubenstein has made quite a few comments. I won't address each & every in detail (too much time for a trifling exchange)- so, just a few remarx.Mir Harven 23:49, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * True. The user has correctly pointed out that claims on Marx's anti-Semitism could be as ideologically motivated as are those promulgated by his defenders. But, alas-there is something like common sense that, eventually, subverts sterile relativizations Derrida-like. Try hard as they can- Marx's defenders have feet of clay (and they know it). We're not talking abstractions but plain & naked text and nasty private remarks. If these statements & writings had been presented with author's name changed/withheld- any rational person would have no difficulty in seeing the anonymous writer as exemplary anti-Semite & racist. Simply- the false prophet's aura has refracted the light of insight. So much for Marx (btw- spare the Kohelet of deconstructionist associations).Mir Harven 23:49, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Mir Haven, I am using "bold" only because this dialogue is getting complex and I want to make it easy for you to identify my responses to you; if you want, after reading them feel free to un-bold them. This is the situation: you do not understand two of our core policies, NOR and NPOV.  In general, as a contributor I urge you to read them carefully.  But with specific application to this issue and your points, it does not matter what you think of the arguments; it does not matter which ones you think are valid or compelling, and which one's you think are ideologically-driven or weak.  This is because no contributors' opinions are relevant to actual artciles, not yours, not mine.  And Kohelet (or his editor) was making a sound point, as were the Amoraim who provided minority as well as majority opinions.  You have clearly read many books about Marx (pertinant to this article) (and Marxism (more pertinant to another article).  No one will object to your (1) putting in a brief account of a published author's arguments/interpretations of Marx and his work, (2) you cite the source, (3) and put whatever basic contextualizing information you can, that you think is reasonably relevant (for example, no one will object to your adding "a sympathetic biographer of Marx" when McLellan is mentioned) &mdash; e.g. when and where the author lived, any academic degrees or positions, any political positions.  I am not questioning the validity of your sources.  I am saying that if you provide this sort of information, it will stave off anyone who questions their validity. (4) do not editorialize (e.g., saying "X makes a compelling case that Marx was anti-Semitic" or "Y's claims that Marx was anti-Smitic are utterly groundless."  I think if you follow these four rules, you will get little or possibly no resistance from anyone who has been active on this page Slrubenstein   |  Talk 15:04, 26 July 2005 (UTC)


 * 2. to refer to the Hebrew wikipedia as the authority on the issue is-nonsense. It is well known that Marx got all the excuses he didn't deserve, on all accounts (his hatred towards Russians (and all Slavs) was "negleceted"- well, it would be embarrassing to have a guru who had detested your kind.) In a word: Marx's stature as a sort of revolutionary prophet and the founder of an ideological secular creed has tended to marginalize, virtually mechanically, all his nasty habits. But- the emperor is naked, both in private (a racist) and public (a charlatan) life.


 * This point of the argument is really two utterly independent points. One is a claim that people forget the flaws of their heroes.  I personally agree with this claim.  As a general claim, it is in my opinion true.  But this claim does not inform us as to what the flaws were, so this claim does not help us decidde whether Karl was anti-Semitic or not.  This point makes a second claim: that to use Hebrew Wikipedia as an authority is nonsense.  Well, this may or may not be true.  But Mir Harven give no explanation for why Hebrew Wikipedia is not an authority.  The sentence that follows is a non-sequitor.  Nothing in the rest of thispoint justifies ,et alone proves that Hebrew Wikipedia is not an authority.  This point just expemplifies sloppy thinking. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 15:56, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The claim that Hebrew wikipedia is not an authority on Marx stays. Potential authorities (more or less) are scholars of Marx & marxism, not an online encyclopedia of any sort. If Slrubinstein seriously considers that anyone should prove that online free encyclopedia is not an autoritative source-he should have his head examined. The burden of proof doesn't rest on anyone. Not only that I don't have to prove Hebrew wiki is not an authority; no person should bother to show it is. To regard wiki (Hebrew or any other, for that matter) as a sort of authority on Marx (or Hegel, or quantum theory, or spiritual life in outer Mongolia, or ..) is simply-silly.Mir Harven 23:49, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * You continue to misread/misconstrue the point, which is not that Hebrew Wikipedia is an authority on Marx or Marxism, but that it is an (not the only to be sure) authority on what is anti-Semitic. This is the claim, your points do not address this claim.  By the way, you will rapidly lose credibility by using insulting language.  In any event, no one has made the claims that you consider "silly" Slrubenstein   |  Talk 15:04, 26 July 2005 (UTC)


 * 3. "Marx did not publicly (theoretically) denounce the Jews". Well-he did, all the apologetic notwithstanding. But, in any case: one is an anti-Semite if this is their personal and professed attitude. This need not be a part of a person's quasi-metaphysical Weltanschauung. Marx was a nasty racist and anti-Semite in all of his personal pronouncements. He did not have one, single positive word about the Jews. Even a neutral one.


 * Well, this is twisted. In 1843 Marx wrote to a fellow leftist,
 * Just now the president of the Israelites here [Cologne] has paid me a visit and asked me to help with a parliamentary petition on behalf of the Jews, and I agreed. However obnoxious I find the Israelite beliefs, Bauer's views seem to me nonetheless to abstract.
 * Now, from this we can infer three things. First, it is impossible to believe that the president of the Cologne Jewish community thought Marx was an anti-Semite &mdash; I can conceive of no logic that would lead a Jewish authority to seek the help of an anti-Semite.  I am sure that Mr. Harven will come up with something, and I bet it will be torturous and twisted.  Second, Marx rejected Jewish beliefs.  Mir Harven should know that Jews have been vehemently rejection one another's beliefs for all known Jewish history.  Jews debate and reject vehemently the beliefs of other Jews all the time.  This does not make one an anti-Semite, it makes on an ordinary Jew.  Certainly, rejecting Jewsih beliefs itself is no indicator of anti-Semitism.  Almost every Christian I know rejects my beliefs, but I don't think them to be anti-Semetic.  Athiests reject many Jewish beliefs, that doesn't make them anti-Semitic.  Indeed, one may activitly reject Jewish beliefs and still believe that Jews merit equal rights which is quite the opposite of anti-Semitism.  Indeed, third, Marx agreed to support the Jewish community in Cologne.  Hardly the act of an anti-Semite. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 15:56, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * As far as the prez of Cologne Jews community and Marx, a few remarks (mr. Slrubinstein has made a few logical fallacies (or simply weird statements)):


 * a) beliefs of the president of the Cologne Jewish community in 1843. are completely irrelevant. What could he have known about opinions expressed in Marx's unpublished works ? Hitler's "artistic" marketeer in 1910s Vienna was Jewish. This proves-what ? Probably that not all anti-Semites are so deranged to spew hatred in each & every occasion of their lives.
 * Do you really think this is a valid comparison? All you are saying is this: your opinion counts more than the opiniopn of the president of the Cologne Jewish community.  This is an absurd claim.  The letter I quote is a historical document.  What you think of it or of its content or its historical validity is as I said above irrelevant.  On the other hand, if you know of a body of published literature that has debated the meaning and historical validity of this quote, you can by all means add that to the article, as long as you comply with the four points I made above (again, just summarizing for you how our policies apply to this situation). Slrubenstein   |  Talk 15:04, 26 July 2005 (UTC)


 * b) semantics in mr. Slrubunstein's example is, to put it simply- a muddle. When Marx writes about "the Israelite beliefs", it's not a school of thought, a particular Weltanschauung or anything like this. It's Judaism as such. Judaism as a religion. Judaism as a culture. Well, if this isn't anti-Semitism, I don't know what stands for that term.
 * neither your nor my opinion counts as far as the article goes. but since you are addressing me personally, I will respond:  There are many Jews who reject the Jewish religion and who do not consider themselves, nor are considered by many, to be anti-Semetic.  Many scholars and historians of the Holocaust as well as medieval Jewish history distinguish between anti-Judaism and anti-Semitism.  The former is based on beliefs, the latter on some racial theory.  As a consequence, for someone who is anti-Judaism, if a Jew converts to Christianity, they are welcomed into the community.  For an anti-Semite, even if a Jew converts to Christianity, they can be sent to the gas-chamber.  Now, I am not saying that one is worse than the other.  Nor am I saying that all scholars make this distinction.  I am simply saying that many scholars do. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 15:04, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * c) Marx agreed to support the Jewish community in Cologne-true. But not as Jews. In Marx's worldview Jews were doomed as "Jews". Their emancipation equals annihilation of their ethnic/cultural identity. In short- Marx's anti-Semitism was not a racial one (he saved a major part of his racist slurs arsenal for other, "non-white" peoples). It was a modern variant of medieval Christian anti-Semitism. Purge a "Jew" of his "Judaism" (a combination of religion, culture & nascent parasytic capitalism) and the problem is solved. Physical extermination is not necessary. Conversion or/and annihilation of cultural identity, culminating in removal of "Jewish" usury will suffice. Judaism is the target- individual Jews are only collateral damage.
 * This is still anti-Judaism, not anti-Semitism, and Marx was by no means the only person to take this stance. Many, almost all (Rav Kook being a major exception) early Zionists shared this view. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 15:04, 26 July 2005 (UTC)


 * d) and, most important: the user did not address the key question- how so that Marx's utterances, correspondence & writings abound in Jew-hatred ? Isn't it a bit strange that Marx had found Judaism (not some marginal wacky Jewish ideas) despicable in all aspects, hadn't uttered a single positive/neutral statement on Judaism/Jews as culture & spew hatred on all things Jewish and persons even remotely associated with Judaism ? If a person's opinion on some specific subject is to be judged by complete account of their words and deeds pertaining to the subject- Marx is, undisputably, a hater of Judaism and all things/persons associated with Jewish culture & stereotypically "Jewish" traits. In my book, this is anti-Semitism. If someone disagrees, fine. I suppose the list of anti-Semites, according to Marx's fans, should be much shorter. Only homicidal maniacs need apply.Mir Harven 23:49, 25 July 2005 (UTC)


 * 4. looks like apparatchiks of a kind are on a work here. Well, then: who is the authority on Marx's worldview ? Who are these people ? As I've said: I've read Marx's bios by Jean Ellenstein and Boris Nikolaevsky, studied all three volumes of the best exposition on marxism (Kolakowski: "Main currents of marxism"), as well as other authors' writings galore (Engels, Marcuse, Lukacs, Lenin, Fromm, Bloch, Bukharin, Lafargue, ..). So, just to check the credibilities, let me ask a few questions (re those who speak on "scholarship" & think that hebrew wikipedia is a relevant source of any kind):


 * You make a categorical mistake: the issue is not Hebrew Wikipedia's understanding of Marx, it is Hebrew wikipedia's understanding of anti-Semitism, that is an issue in the HW example. Please try to think logically. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 15:56, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I won't deign to address this de haut en bas attitude. Heal your complexes elsewhere. As for Hebrew wiki-it's a reflection of dominant Jewish attitudes, and, as I've said, Marx is exonerated for his filthy remarx due to understandable psychological trap: after all, Marx was a person of Jewish extraction (a "Jew", if you wish). Second- he's undubitably one of 5-10 most important persons in history, probably the most influential thinker in past 200 years. Well- who could resist the temptation to count such a towering figure of vita activa among one's own fold (doesn't matter he's essentially a charlatan, plagiarist & a false prophet) ? Come back, Karl, everything is forgiven & forgotten, you're one of us. The archetype of a globally influential history maker-remaker is, no doubt, simply irresistible.Mir Harven 23:49, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * It does not surprise me that you won't respond to this point, apparently you are too dogmatic and arrogant to accept any disagreement whatsoever, and qwhen faced with disagreement can only generate more disingenuous criticism. ANd lest you think I am akin to you in this regard, do remember that above I encouraged you to add the views of the people you cite to the article, as lon as you comply with our policies. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 15:04, 26 July 2005 (UTC)


 * a) which are 3 "laws" of dialectics as exposed in Engels's "Ludwig Feuerbach..". Which "law" was added by Bukharin in "ABC of Communism", and how it ended in Stalin-sponsored "Brief course.."
 * I dunno. I am guessing (1) anarchy of production leads to conflict among capitalists and crises of overproduction, which ends with greater concentration of capital in the hands of a smaller number of capitalists, (2) concentration of capital in one class leads to conflict between different classes (3) a revolutionary proletariate works cooperatively after they take over the concentrated means of production, which lays the basis for a communist social order, (4) the workers' communist movement must be an international movement.  But I admit, I may be wrong.  This matters only if it is relevant to the claim that Marx was an anti-Semite.  Can Harven explain why this matters. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 15:56, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * No, it's not the case. Quantity into quality, unity of contraries & negation of negation. Bukharin added a trivia ("everything is connected"), and Stalin dumped negation of negation (so that he couldn't be "negated") and added the Heraclitean panta rei. Is this relevant to the debate of Marx's status as anti-Semite ? Not directly. So-why was it posed ? Because the exchange of words have grown beyond the subject of Marx's anti-Semitism into the province of Marx's all-around racism and further. The untenability of his speculations, for instance.Mir Harven 23:49, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I still do not get the connection to racism, but I do appreciate the history lesson and thank you for it. Would you mind telling me where in Bukharin I will find this?  Thanks, Slrubenstein   |  Talk 15:04, 26 July 2005 (UTC)


 * b) who was the first person to formulate that "philosophers have so far only interpreted the world, but..." (not Marx)
 * You got me there. I would think Nietzsche or Mill have argued something similar.  But so what?  Here is the question you must be able to answer, to pass this little quiz: how would knowing who first said "philosophers have so far ..." in any way change our interpreteation of "On the Jewish Question?" Slrubenstein   |  Talk 15:56, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Cieszkowski. See above. Highly inadequate presentation of Marx's anti-Semitism in the wiki article is just a part of generally sloppy treatment of his entire oeuvre.Mir Harven 23:49, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Again, I do not see the connection to racism. But I thank you for the history lesson.  Can you give me a precise citation?  Of course feel free to add this fact (properly sourced) to the article on Marx and Marxism. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 15:04, 26 July 2005 (UTC)


 * c) where are Marx's musings on "generic essence" of humanity to be located ? What is this "generic essence" ?
 * Do you mean Marx's discussions of man's "species being?" I think his views changed over time.  When he was still in Hegel's thrall, the "generic essence" was Hegel's view that man's "generic essense" was man's self-consciousness in the form of an abstract individualism (I think in Hegel's Philosophy of Right).  But Hegel saw in this consciousness a man's preception of himself as object, and Marx came to claim that this alienation had social origins; Marx soon claimed to see this not as an individual essence but as a social process.  Ultimately, he concluded that man's "species-being" is purposful labor.  If you are asking for my advice, I'd start with Marx's Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right and the 1844 economic and philosophical manuscripts. But so what?  Here is the question you must be able to answer, to pass this little quiz: how would knowing who first said "philosophers have so far ..." in any way change our interpreteation of "On the Jewish Question?" Slrubenstein   |  Talk 15:56, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The answer is, this time-correct. As for Philosophy of Right- thanx, I've read other Hegel's works (this charlatan is, IMO, better covered in Kojeve's interpretation than in his own Encyclopedia or Phenomenology).Mir Harven 23:49, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 'How important do you think this is to the article? If you think it is important, add it (properly sourced), Slrubenstein   |  Talk 15:04, 26 July 2005 (UTC)


 * d) what's the greatest problem with Marx's "theory" of the surplus value ? How was it shown to be just a fiction, from Bakunin to Schumpeter ?
 * Greatest problem? Well, there are a variety.  First, that surpluses can be the product of investment (e.g. new technologies) rather than an increase in the exploitation of labor; moreover, increased investment in technologies need not lead to a declining rate of profit.  And of course, if the state takes control over production, it will simply absorb the surplus value generated from un-paid for labor.  Again, what does this say about Marx's so-called anti-Semitism? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 15:56, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Correct. I posed a wrong question (the value in question is not surplus value, but labor theory of value). As for pertinence on the issue of Marx's anti-Semitism, see above.Mir Harven 23:49, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Still don't get the connection, also we have an article on the labor theory of value that provides critiques. I don't recall whether these critiques are in it, but if not, feel free to add them, properly sourcedSlrubenstein   |  Talk 15:04, 26 July 2005 (UTC)


 * f) when did Marx "recant" his postion on historiosophy and cautiously averred that his speculations were maybe applicable to the Western world only (Russia, India, China etc. excluded) ?


 * g) in which aspects Marx's position on the national question proved to be completely inadequate ? Especially bearing in mind the opening paragraph of the "Communist manifesto" (Hitler just wrote "race" instead of "class" and there you are with simplistic historiosophies) ?


 * What are you referring to? Marx's discussion of the British in Indian or on colonialism in Ireland?  It's really Stalin who wrote the most about "the nationalities question." Slrubenstein   |  Talk 15:56, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Not "nationalities", but nations. If history isn't reducible to the class struggle (nor have Spanish risen against Napoleon just because of the tea shortage-one more example of simplistic historiosophy), and if the proletarians's primary loyalty is (as WW1 has shown beyond reasonable doubt) to their respective nations- and not to the imaginary class solidarity beyond ethnic/national boundaries- Marx's historiosophy, as exposed in the Communist manifesto & The Capital, hasn't passed the reality check.Mir Harven 23:49, 25 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Many have made this critique of Marx and it has a place in this or at least the Marxism article (properly sourced). I do not think though that you mean "historiosophy," I think there is a better English word.Slrubenstein   |  Talk 15:04, 26 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Bored with ignorants, yes.Mir Harven 11:43, 25 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Bored with original research and innuendo, yes. El_C 11:57, 25 July 2005 (UTC)


 * As usual-ignorants shield themselves with insinuations. OK: where's there "original research" ? Here: http://www.wwnorton.com/catalog/spring05/006054.htm ? Yawn..Mir Harven 13:31, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Bored with ignorants, yes.Mir Harven 11:43, 25 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Yawn indeed, but no scholarly consensus. El_C 13:33, 25 July 2005 (UTC)


 * What is "scholarly consensus" with regard to this ideology & its founder ? Who are the scholars ? Name them. What criteria they have to satisfy to be accepted as scholars on marxism (or Marx)? Berlin ? Ellenstein ? MacLellan (a believer)? Kolakowski (ex-believer) ? Silberer ? Nicolaevsky ? ... Are marxists eligible at all? Do apologists qualify as researchers of the field they passionately believe in the central doctrines of ?... I think you just don't know what you're talking about. Mir Harven 13:49, 25 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I am speaking primarily of Western academia, actually. Not that I place any weight on this parochial discussion. El_C 13:52, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * "Western academia" ? Bwahhah...Sorry, but this, combined with a Haiku on parochialism is irrepressibly laughable.Mir Harven 23:49, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

...has anyone heard that Karl Marx's real name was something like "Moses Mordechai Levy"???

A brief summary: Marx the racist & anti-Semite
I'd say any issue discussed should have a brief summary. So:


 * one would have to be deaf, blind & dumb not to see that Marx's work "Zur Judenfrage" is an anti-Semitic work. It deprecates Jews as, so to speak, a human species. For Marx, Judaism is an enemy of culture, freedom & creativity: the cartoon parasytic, peddling capitalism incarnate. Marx's statements in "Zur Judenfrage", as well as his personal/private objections on the Judaica general are simply- reprehensible. If anyone had made such an array of anti-Jewish slurs, they would certainly have been labeled an anti-Semitic bigot. The reasons for such a "tender" & deferential treatment of Marx falls mainly, I'd say, into two categories: either Communist/Socialist defense of their guru's charisma or Jewish nationalism. The apologets are:


 * a) a Communist/marxist doctrinaire in desperate need of whitewashing their prophet of these, eh, little unpleasanties that obscure his aura


 * b) Jewish nationalist blinded by the light of Marx's global success & trying to recruit Marx into a national fold ("Come back, Karl, baby, everything is forgiven. Forgiven ? Nay, forgotten. Forgotten ? What ? What we were talking about ?")


 * array of pseudoarguments trying to exculpate Marx is laughable. The cumulative effect of his writings, pronouncements & casual remarks contained in his correspondence leaves no doubt: Marx was a pan-Germanic, anti-Semitic & anti-Slavic racist. For those not ideologically self-blinded, attempts to exonerate him are simply ridiculous.


 * a tiny fraction of Marx's statements on Jews & Judaism, put into the mouth of a person lacking the aura of historical importance and not hallowed by leftist ideology (in vogue for the major part of the 20th century in the world of Western leftist quasi-intelligentsia) would suffice to label a person a terminal & incurable anti-Semite.


 * I guess it's enough. Mir Harven 23:49, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

This is the "talk page" where we discuss how to improve the article. So the question is, does any of what you wrote here go into the article. The answer is no, at least not the way you wrote it. The way you wrote this is filled with editorializing remarks, and it all reads as if this is your own opinion. We might as well just delete everything you wrote, because editors' opinions (including mine and El_C) do not go into articles. IF any of the statements you make above come from published, well-established scholars, politicians, or social critics, then they can go into the article -- but only if you add them in accordance with our NPOV, NOR, and Cite sources policies. If some scholar has criticized McLellan's interpretation, write "X has argued against McLennan, claiming that ...." and make sure that you are not writing this in a way that suggests you think X is correct or incorrect. If you know of someone -- again, someone of note, a published scholar, social critic etc., but in any case someone who can make a strong argument for being an authority on Marx, who provides a different interpretation (e.g. that "Zur Judenfrage" is anti-Semetic), again, write "Y has argued that "Zur Judenfrage" is anti-Semitic for the following reasons ...." and make sure that you are not writing this in a way that suggests you think X is correct or incorrect. Then these (or some of these) views can be put in the article. If you are just spouting off you own personal point of view, you are wasting your time and ours. If your claims come from qualified sources, then by all means, add them to the article, just read over our relevant policies carefully and be sure you follow them, Slrubenstein  |  Talk 15:15, 26 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't have time enough to address all the issues, just 2-3 of them:


 * your definition of anti-Semitism is too narrow & «modern». Check dictionaries entries or anything similar. Essentially, your contention is that only «racial anti-Semitism/Judaism» qualifies as the anti-Semitism. Not so, no. Fierce loathing of Judaism as a culture, religion, way of life..whatever... is, per definitionem, anti-Semitism. Personally, I find your attitude (clear-cut difference between anti-Judaism and anti-Semitism) sympathetic, but, I'd say your semantics is unsupportable by general dictionaries. For instance- your definition, if a valid one, would radically shorten the wiki List of anti-Semites.


 * looks like wiki is on my side-Anti-Semitism Mir Harven 11:20, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

This is an ongoing discussion, and a chronic one at the anti-semitism page. I admit my view is only one, and appreciate your sympathy. If you think you have done enough research to have more to add, I encourage you to go the anti-Semitism page and make the contributions you deem appropriate (NPOV and NOR of course!) Slrubenstein  |  Talk 14:03, 27 July 2005 (UTC)


 * historiosophy is some general philosophy of history. Major authors in the field are, say, St. Augustine, Gioacchino da Fiore, Giambattista Vico, G.W.F. Hegel, Karl Marx, Oswald Spengler, Arnold Toynbee,...in Isaiah Berlin's words, «cosmic historians»


 * as for wiki editorial policy: I know how it works. Also, I know that talk page doesn't enter into the body of the article. But- I also know that contentions put into the article and argued on the talk page do have some weight. The source and quotes are necessary, but frequently not sufficient for an opinion to be accepted as a part of the article. Very frequently an opinion must be argued on the talk page. Anyway, later....Mir Harven 11:12, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, my comments with regard to policy were meant to be constructive. We could argue 'till the cows come home, and if the result is that two different points of view need to be included in the article, that is fine. I want to encourage you to put those elements of what you wrote here, those that can be properly sourced to recognized authorities, into the main body of the article (without the editorializing). Slrubenstein  |  Talk 14:03, 27 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm amazed at Slrubenstein's patience here. I'd have told Mir Harven to take a long walk off a short pier long ago, since he doesn't look like trying to actually draft something here on the Talk page that could lead to actual progress with the article, instead of potentially endless debate. (There's a constructive suggestion there somewhere.) Rd232 18:14, 27 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Gossiping about a person-whatever the reason- behind their back is, mijn vriend, a sign of a regrettable character flaws. Yes, Meredith was right. Sigh/n 08:46, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, every once in a while I need to do something that will surprise all those Wikipedians who are convinced I am an arrogant POV warrior ;-) Slrubenstein  |  Talk 18:29, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Intro: Manifesto and Das Kapital
I have reinserted the text into the intro that mentions Marx's writing the Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital. User:Blueskyboris has removed this text or similar text at least twice according the the history. His rationale was as follows "The first sentences already mentions that Marx was a philosopher, and since philosophers write books, there is no need to repeat.. you are being redundant, especially since CM and DK mentioned later." To address this, first, no, I am not being redundant. Philosophers do not always write books. See Socrates. Anyway, the text does not simply say he wrote books. It says he wrote two specific books. Yes, CM and DK are mentioned later, but, the intro section serves as a summary for who Marx was. Considering these are the two works for which he is best known, they should be mentioned in the header section.--Bkwillwm 15:17, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
 * It is a bit more complicated than that, though. Does mention of these books help the reader to identify the subject of the article? Surely that would only be the case in the unlikely event that a reader knew enough about Capital or the Manifesto of the Communist Party for the references to be meaningful but didn't already know they are by Karl Marx. We don't need to mention them as a claim-to-fame. Marx is famous as the intellectual progenitor of Marxism... he's not famous for being the author of Capital in the way that J. K. Rowling is famous for being the author of the Harry Potter series, for example. My big concern, though, is that by singling out these two works in the intro in this fashion we imply that they are representative of Marx's work as a whole or that they have been most influential. The Manifesto is fairly unrepresentative, I would say, and tends to be singled out for attention as much for its readability and brevity as for its appropriateness as an introduction to Marx's thought. Whether Capital has been all that influential is definitely a moot point. Mattley 16:20, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Whether one thinks they should be the most influential or are the most representative, as you admit, the CM is "singled out", and clearly DK has always been thought of by everyone, including Marx, as Marx's magnum opus. Whether people actually read it is besides the point, it is a very common phenomenon for the somehow most influential, or the most academically respectable and talked about books to be "books that nobody reads."  IMHO, not singling out these works is eccentric; would there have been a Marxism for him to be the intellectual progenitor of without them?John Z 19:49, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Of course there would. Marx's key ideas have been disseminated in huge variety of ways. Most people have probably come to them second-hand, particularly in the early years when major were not necessarily available in languages other than German. As it stands, the introduction claims that those two works are not only Marx's best-known but that they 'laid the foundations of Marxism'. The MCP was published very early in Marx's career and was written partly as a manifesto for a particular group, not as a fully-worked out statement of Marxism. Capital wasn't published until after Marx's death, and it is a point of historical fact that its influence on the Marxists of the Second Internationl was somewhat less than all-pervasive. Incidentally, whilst a book that nobody reads could concievably be widely talked about, logically it can't actually influence anything can it? It may be that these two books are indeed Marx's best-known, but that is not necessarily the case. Are they the best-known in all parts of the world and in all contexts? Is it not misleading to imply that these works are representative if, in fact, they are not? Things which are 'true' can still be misleading when divorced from context, after all. I repeat my question, what does this duplication of material dealt with elsewhere in the article actually add to the introduction? Mattley 20:34, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * The MCP was widely disseminated in Marx's time, and it was very influential. Das Kapital has been the subject of much study, and was published shortly after Marx's death.  Most of Marx's other works were not even published until much later (well into the 20th century) or they were published journalism that was not widely available.  Anyway, point being, I don't think anybody seriously doubts that these are Marx's best known works.  As for their relevance... the introduction is supposed to be a summary of what is important.  Usually someone's best known works are important.  Yes, these two documents get discussed later on, but that doesn't mean they should be left from the intro.  See Adam Smith, Thomas Hobbes, and John Rawls.  These other political (or economic) philosophers all have their major works mentioned in the intro sections as well.--Bkwillwm 20:47, 5 September 2005 (UTC)