Talk:Marx's theory of history

No references in capitalism section?
I noticed that there isn't a single reference cited in the section about capitalism in the article. Every other stage of development is referenced.

2601:18F:4001:890A:CCA3:9A20:A94E:EDE4 (talk) 20:46, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Refactor
This material has been taken as is from the Marxism page. JenLouise 09:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Merger
Historical materialism is already long and cumbersome. Merging it with this article would make it even harder to read. The historical materialism article needs to be edited and streamlined first. (Demigod Ron 00:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC))
 * Proposed merger. With Historical materialism. I don't see that there's a strong reason to keep two separate pages on what is essentially the same concept. Itsmejudith 15:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Propertylessness
afaik personal propriety is possible--Francomemoria (talk) 00:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Sarcasm
The old feudal kings and lords cannot accept the new social changes the capitalists want for fear of destabilizing or reducing their power base, among various other reasons that are not all tied to power or money.

---The final part after the comma sounds sarcastic and is not fitting for an encyclopedia. It should be seriously considered for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.152.151.201 (talk) 03:09, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Parecon
How ridiculous is it that every word similar to "decentralized" re-directs to Participatory Economics? The same on this page it reads: "de-centralized planning" at the 5th stage (socialism), it then re-directs to Participatory Economics! While Parecon did not even exist when Marx (or Lenin) came up with these stages of historical development! Parecon is a non-movement. "Decentralized planning" should not redirect to Parecon! I deleted it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goti123 (talk • contribs) 17:33, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Possibly seriously distorted information
AFAIK, division in the article between socialism and communism is based only on Lenin, and not on Marx, who mostly used those terms as synonyms!

It is stated in the article, that, "Marx uses the terms the "first phase" of communism and the "higher phase" of communism, but Lenin points to later remarks of Engels which suggest that what people commonly think of as socialism equates to Marx's "first phase" of communism." - this is not sourced, and AFAIK is a lie, Lenin distorted Engel's remarks because of personal interest in having USSR state capitalism portrayed as "socialism". I had discussions about this in the past and can dig for the references, however, maybe there is an editor having information at hand?

Either way, this article is "Marx's theory of history", not Lenin's, so I propose to flag statements sourced only from Lenin for review/removal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpov (talk • contribs) 12:51, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

More Distorted Information
There's a serious problem in the way this article talks about Communism in regards to Marx. Specifically, what is problematic is what Marx says in The German Ideology.

"Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality [will] have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence."

I think this quotation needs to be added, or at least this article ought give a better explanation of communism as a process rather than a stable state or specific political economic entity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TuxedoMarx (talk • contribs) 01:31, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Original research
I don't think Wikipedia allows you to quote Marx (original source) and interpret him accordingly. You must cite the secondary literature. Much of this article amounts to original research which is against wiki policy. Besides, you are quoting the 30 year old Marx who knew almost nothing about economics (the amateur economist Marx who wrote the CM was not the same political economist who wrote Grundrisse or Capital). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.79.143.139 (talk) 20:03, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I Edited the Capitalist section
I probably added some Leninist theory, please someone revise it? Thanks. 189.115.41.190 (talk) 19:17, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Intentionally misleading/obviously incorrect mathematics
The following sentence is located in the capitalism section:

"In 2016 average labor productivity in the U.S. was $70.00 an hour while the average minimum wage was around $10.00 an hour meaning that capital absorbed 6/7ths of the value produced by the average minimum wage laborer. This creates social instability."

This sentence is problematic for the following reasons: It contains no citations, like the rest of the "capitalism" section; the type of average (median/mean) is not specified; the average minimum wage is not the average overall wage, so the 6/7ths calculation cannot be correct because only a small percentage of workers are at the minimum wage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.161.113.152 (talk) 02:51, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Marked for Deletion
I've marked this page for deletion as it is almost entirely devoid of citations, and the historical materialism page is clearly superior. Having two pages for the materialist conception of history is redundant and confusing; I am speaking from experience as someone with approximately two years of studying Marxism under my belt - these two pages confused the hell out of me when I set out to learn. The concepts covered here are already covered (with citations) in mode of production. Time for this page to go where it belongs: the dustbin of history. RnRa76 (talk) 03:55, 19 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Agree. Move anything useful to Historical materialism and Redirect this article there. Editor2020 (talk) 19:39, 19 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Hello friends, please feel free to discuss at Articles for deletion/Log/2018 October 21. RnRa76 (talk) 06:49, 21 October 2018 (UTC)