# Talk:An Introduction to the Three Volumes of Karl Marx's Capital

This review is transcluded from Talk:An Introduction to the Three Volumes of Karl Marx's Capital/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Bilorv (talk · contribs) 20:57, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

 
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a. (prose, spelling, and grammar): 

b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a. (reference section): 

b. (citations to reliable sources): 

c. (OR): 

d. (copyvio and plagiarism): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a. (major aspects): 

b. (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): 

b. (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/fail: 

This should be a fun one to review. I must confess to not having read Capital cover to cover (not even Volume I!); I have background knowledge but not of NML specifically.
In my view, there are some substantial issues at present: the short length; technicality; and the low weight given to views other than Heinrich's. On the other hand, strengths including the referencing and formatting, accuracy of grammar/wording and use of media.
I've written an FA on a book about Marx for laypeople, Why Marx Was Right. Different topics and authors lead to different styles, but I do think that article is worth consulting. The following are my major review suggestions that need to be implemented or resolved through discussion:

I'd like to know some context to the book – this one depends on whether sources exist. But some of these questions might be answerable: what is Heinrich's specialism and where was he working when he wrote this? Is he known to write for laypeople? What inspired this book—did he see it as timely or Capital as uniquely important to understand (I know the English 2012 preface answers this somewhat)?
Some of the "Summary" assumes a lot of prerequisite knowledge or introduces ideas not made clear through quotes. This could be addressed within the section or in some "Background"/"Context" section. Issues include:
What "worldview Marxism" is. Marxism–Leninism? Interpretations of Marxist economics that build off classical economics? All non-NML viewpoints? Rather than quoting Heinrich, it may be better to paraphrase what things characterise "worldview Marxism" (e.g. "a historical view that society progresses through sequential modes of production").
Explanation of the field/scholars that Marx was critiquing (like Smith, who proposed a labour theory of value).
What is the transformation problem (and is this problem something that can't be answered by Marx or Marxist interpretations like "worldview Marxism")?
What is the tendency of the rate of profit to fall? What is its significance to those who agree with it? Heinrich believes it is "a symptom" of what?
The section covers what is contentious about Heinrich's view, but presumably much of the book is about concepts like means of production, class struggle, surplus value and other ideas universal to interpretations of Marx. (What does Heinrich think, if anything, are fundamental issues with capitalism and does he think communism is a solution?)
The Reception section needs a lot of expansion. There are plenty of references, but more detail is needed. I want to understand what reviewers said on: is Heinrich's interpretation correct? Are his arguments clear and logical? Are there factual errors or omissions? Is the book well-written and accessible to laypeople?
Some smaller comments:

"... aiming to introduce the three volumes of ..." – Repetition of the title can be avoided (except the words "Marx" and "Capital", so they can be linked).
It's not neutral to call Capital Marx's "magnum opus" (not that I disagree).
"draws on the Grundrisse and Theories of Surplus Value" – Some brief explanation of what these are, like "the manuscripts on economics Grundrisse ..." would add context.
"has been praised for its objective treatment of Marx" – "objective" in what sense? Generally opinions like this need attribution in prose ("has been praised by John Doe of Marxism Monthly"), as well as citations.
Thanks for your work on this article so far and I look forward to discussing it further! It's formally  on hold for a week but I can extend the period if active progress is being made. — Bilorv (talk) 20:57, 5 April 2023 (UTC)


### Response
@Bilorv: Damn I wrote a paragraph or two and then my laptop crashed! 🙃 Here's attempt number two:

Context/Background - There's there interviews with Heinrich out there where he discusses the development of the book. I wasn't sure how much I was able to rely on primary sources so I left them out, but the only real way that a "Background" section can be added atm is if I'm allowed to incorporate those sources.
Worldview Marxism -  Done I've elaborated on the description in the article. Again, I'm unsure as to how much I can rely on primary sources (in this case the book itself), to describe the book.
Explanation of Smith/classical economics - Again, I'm wary about potentially stepping across the border into WP:OR or WP:SYNTH, but I'll try to expand in the next few days.
Transformation problem -  Done
TRPF - Not done yet, will expand.
Summary - Repeating what I've stated, but the stuff I've incorporated into the summary section are the parts of the book that have been discussed by secondary sources. If you could issue some guidance on this, it would be very helpful.
Reception - The number of references are the result of the book being only briefly mentioned. Cockshott, Basu, DiLeo, Sica, and Paulson are the five people who've published works where the book is the primary subject of the work. Holloway and Fuchs, on the other hand, only briefly mention the book. I'll try to expand on Cockshott's critique, but there's nothing more to say regarding Fuchs and Holloway.
Smaller comments -  Done I've addressed your concerns regarding repetition and the word "objective". I've removed "mangum opus" for now from the article text, but I'm confused as to why you state that saying so is not "neutral". That Capital is Marx's magnum opus is not the subject of any dispute or debate I'm aware of and seems to be broad consensus among both academic and nonacademic sources.
Thank you for the review and I would really appreciate your guidance regarding how much information I can incorporate from primary sources. :3 F4U (they/it) 19:25, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

@Freedom4U: the book itself is completely fine as a primary source for describing the synopsis, and generally does not need to be cited explicitly. This is common to book synopses, film and TV plots and so forth. It is also not OR/SYNTH to provide standard definitions from the field or uncontested historical facts.It seems to me that there is plenty of material for Reception. Fuchs, for instance, has several key ideas on Heinrich: he criticises that Heinrich "deceives the readers"; he says the issue with a monetary theory of value is that it "assumes that no exploitation takes place if a commodity is not sold"; and he contrasts Fornäs to Heinrich on the TRPF. Other sources have much more detail. If Heinrich's monetary theory of value is given space in the article (and it should be!) then Fuchs' counter-argument should get some space too, for neutrality. What I did on Why Marx Was Right might have been overdoing it, but I think at least a paragraph on each of the four questions I suggested above (or some other recurring themes in reviews) seems easily achievable.On magnum opus: it seems to me like the phrase implies value judgement.(By the way, the ping didn't go through as you didn't add a signature in the same edit as linking to my userpage.) — Bilorv (talk) 16:54, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
@Freedom4U: do you have an estimated timeframe from addressing these comments? If it will not be possible to make major progress in the next few days, it may be wiser to improve the article outside of the GA process and then resubmit. — Bilorv (talk) 11:37, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
I'll be able to get some major work done on Saturday, if that's okay with you. :3 F4U (they/it) 12:01, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Yep, I'll try to take a look on Sunday then. — Bilorv (talk) 12:07, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Okay, I noticed the work being done on Sunday and gave it a bit longer, but at 17 days into the "on hold" period I will be giving a final assessment and passing/failing accordingly. — Bilorv (talk) 18:04, 22 April 2023 (UTC)