Talk:Mathematical manuscripts of Karl Marx

Possible speculation
"appears to have been unaware" sounds like speculation to justify dismissiveness. why is it allowed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.240.105.36 (talk) 15:24, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Marx's "independent discoveries"
Marx's mathematical manuscripts are available at:

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/Marx_Mathematical_Manuscripts_1881.pdf

Judge for yourself the accuracy of "Engels' claim that Marx made "independent discoveries" is certainly justified."

Best, JS (talk) 14:46, 1 February 2018 (UTC)


 * This should really have been put on talk page for the article and I will copy it there, but respond here. By asking that I judge the accuracy of a statement by looking at the primary source, you are asking me violate a basic Wikipedia principle. Editors are not to make judgments, only report on judgments made by experts in the secondary literature. I could not tell if the statement you objected to was an editor's opinion or a paraphrase of a secondary source. In the first case, removal is appropriate but not in the second case. Given the ambiguity, the appropriate response would have been to add the maintenance tag to the passage and discuss the concern on the talk page. --Bill Cherowitzo  (talk) 19:21, 1 February 2018 (UTC)


 * You are correct about the proper procedure for Wiki. I have a couple of comments: 1) It is doubtful if Kennedy passes a "Reliable Source". 2) While whatever we put in Wiki has to come from RS, I don't think editors are compelled to included everything present in RSes in articles when they have doubts about accuracy. Best, JS (talk) 14:28, 2 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I think Kennedy probably(?) passes WP:RS as a math professor who specializes in the history of mathematics, but a review article or paper by a specialist summarizing Kennedy and others would probably be better. But the previous quote on this page may also have misrepresented Kennedy's views: I added more background to make it clear that "independent" does not mean Marx actually came up with anything new.


 * The work is, per a few reviews I cited, at best an amusing piece of historical trivia, but it appears that the original intuition brought up here is correct, it's pretty clear Marx was about 80 years behind the cutting edge of analysis. &#32;- car chasm (talk) 07:28, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Dialectical materialism
I don’t really think it’s right to say that Marx used “dialectal materialism”. Dialectal materialism historically refers to the official party ideology of the communist party of the Soviet Union, based on Stalins interpretation of Lenin. The phrase wasn’t even coined until in 1908 in Lenin’s book Materialism and Empirio-criticism. 2600:8800:C80:CB0:C964:6FC8:3A1F:667A (talk) 01:42, 13 April 2022 (UTC)


 * swapped it out with "historical materialism" which appears to be the correct term for Marx's own theory &#32;- car chasm (talk) 05:56, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Mathematical Manuscripts of Karl Marx by Karl Marx by New Park Publications (1983)
In 1983 said manuscripts were published under the same title as this Wikipedia page. So isn't a disambiguation page needed? Also, it would be better to publish this article as the title of a book. I will maybe change the word to capitalize it accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.183.110.20 (talk) 17:23, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

This article even cites the 1983 book like so: ''' Marx, Karl (2018). Karl Marx: Mathematical Manuscripts. Aakar Books. ISBN 978-93-5002-562-8. Retrieved 6 April 2022.'''

Why have an article on the Manuscripts when it's better to have an article on the published Book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.183.110.20 (talk) 17:29, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

I do not wish to cause any misunderstanding, and I think its better if someone else changes the capitalization of the title of this article to reflect that its about the book, not the manuscripts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.183.110.20 (talk) 17:38, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

The full text of the 1983 book - which I believe is in the public domain - is here:. But this link is not in the article. I suggest that someone add this link to this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.183.110.20 (talk) 18:00, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

The publisher was New Park Publications. This was all done in the Soviet Union; so the edited is not listed (or I could not identify him or her by merely glancing at this imprint.