"

Okay, thanks, that's clear, I will action that when I get time. It is not really that I am attacking anybody, but that I am defending myself again the attacks of User:Bobrayner against articles that I spent a lot of time on (without pay) to inform readers. The main objection I have to User:Bobrayner's editing is that he edits articles without any proper knowledge of the subject and then substitutes his own interpretation, the result being a bunch of errors. Let me give a recent example to illustrate. In the article on the Marxian concept of Surplus product, User:Bobrayner recently wiped out the sentence ""The concept plays an important role in Das Kapital"", but for no good reason. After all, Marx writes that: ""Since the production of surplus-value is the determining purpose of capitalist production, the size of a given quantity of wealth must be measured, not by the absolute quantity produced, but by the relative magnitude of the surplus product."" Cap. Vol. 1, Penguin, pp. 338-339. This is absolutely central to Marx's argument. The concept is discussed in more detail across about ten pages and at least five places in Capital Vol. 2, and again in at least 11 different places in Capital Vol. 3. So it is an important theoretical concept in Das Kapital. Yet User:Bobrayner wipes that out! Next, I write ""Nowadays the concept is mainly used in Marxian economics, surplus economics as well as sociology and other social sciences”. User:Bobrayner wipes out “surplus economics”, “archaeology”, “sociology” and “other social sciences” so that the  sentence now reads: “Nowadays the concept is mainly used in Marxian economics.[2] political anthropology, cultural anthropology, economic anthropology” (in that case, it should really be “AND economic anthropology”). However, scholars familiar with the concept know quite well that this concept is used exactly in the way that I said, and references can be provided for this (in fact I quote plenty examples in the rest of the article). However, if I provided references, then User:Bobrayner will no doubt wipe them out on the ground that I am offering a “quote farm” or some such thing. User:Bobrayner next wipes out the statement that “For most of the history of civil society, the meaning of the surplus product was fairly obvious and clear. It consisted of (1) that part of what workers produced (products, offspring or services) which they had to hand over to the chief, the landowner, the lord, or the state, as a tax, rent or tribute, and (2) incidental surplus produce, in excess of the producers' own requirements, which was traded for other goods. However, the meaning of surplus product becomes less clear in capitalist society (see below).” There is nothing particularly controversial about this statement, and it could be referenced without any problem; I explain the reasoning in subsequent sections of the article. Next, User:Bobrayner wipes out “the statement that “Since trade always involves two or more parties with their own interests in the matter, the meanings of that trade can be construed in different ways by different stakeholders, and they can evolve across time. If that is the case, the economic meanings of trade are never completely fixed once and for all. Such ambiguities gave rise to many different interpretations of what ""fair trade"" or ""just trade""(and therefore trade of benefit to society) might be considered to be. For a long time, it was very difficult for economic theorists to separate out the moral judgement about different kinds of trade, from a scientific appraisal of the actual objective processes of trade, because commerce was dominated by legal codes and by religion.” For any scholar of the subject, this is quite obvious, but nevertheless User:Bobrayner wipes it out. After wiping out a few more small  clarifying bits, User:Bobrayner modifies the sentence “The existence of a surplus product normally assumes the ability to perform surplus labour” and adds, “In Marxism, the existence of a ""surplus product"" normally assumes the ability to perform surplus labour.” But this doesn’t even distinguish between Marx and all sorts of Marxisms or Marxists or other historians using this concept.  When I write carefully, “With the bourgeois state, taxpayers typically have the possibility of electing their own representatives to state office, which means that they can in principle influence the taxation system and the justice system generally. That possibility has rarely existed in non-capitalist states; there, any public criticism of the state  that the critic  could be fined, imprisoned or killed,” then User:Bobrayner changes that to “With the bourgeois state, taxpayers have the possibility of electing their own representatives to state office, which means that they can in principle influence the taxation system and the justice system generally. That possibility has