Talk:Marxian economics

message: Hello User:Spylab, I took your "unreferenced" tags off sections where references to Capital are given. Some of these are in the supporting quotes; some are in parentheses right in the text. I think putting the references right in the text is better than sticking them in a note at the bottm of the page if the reference can be brief enough not to clutter the text; it makes it more accessible.
I may take the "cleanup" tag off "Labour" soon too, after I add some things to it. If you still think it's messy or unclear, I would appreciate yor comments on where or how to improve it. -- User:Gonji ha, January 2009  —Preceding undated comment was added at 00:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There aren't footnotes, but there are references. So why call it unreferenced? Surely any reasonable format is OK? Next point: what is bolding for? -- User:Gonji ha, February 2009  —Preceding undated comment was added at 02:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Reference tags

message: The title of this article should be "Marxist Political Economy", since political economy is the name of the science, and "economics" is the invented term by bourgeois vulgar economists to deny the scientific nature of political economy.  In this sense "Marxian economics" is very misleading title.北東北国際 (talk) 07:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Created a redirect for this. Marxist political-economic model already points to the topic main. Lycurgus (talk) 21:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marxist Political Economy 

message: This article has suffered a great deal because people have meddled with it who are either sectarians, or Marxist enthusiasts without any relevant qualifications or experience in the field. In China, "Marxist political economy" may be the norm, but in the West, "Marxian economics" is a quite acceptable label for a branch of heterodox economics. The article should be revised by a knowledgeable professional in the field who is not subject to sectarian bias, or the original versions should be restored. It is sad that good contributions to the article in the past have been lost, because somebody thought they would change the content to their own liking. Emotionally this may be satisfying to the writer but it does not help the reader of the article intending to learn more about the topic - this article is now so bad that it would turn anybody that reads it off the topic altogether. User:Jurriaan 20:25 3 May 2010 (UTC)
:Your opinion would not seem to be worth much as there seemed to be a general consensus before and after your last permanent adieu that you were a pushy troll with a superficial understanding of the subject matter in question. Perhaps you can reenter a community dialog at Commodity Fetishism and we can see where things stand now. However judging by above same ole same ole. Also the archives should be moved to the normal namespace (archive_n). Lycurgus (talk) 20:58, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking briefly at your userspace and recalling the matter at the other article see that you present the officious profile of a Mandarin with less than full credentials and perhaps also  of less than stellar level of general intelligence seeking to assert somekina expertise in a blanket fashion, ironically the same complaint that SIRubenstein lodged against you at the other article you now make here. It looks like you've put a lot a time in articles in this space, that you're active again and there's certainly nothing wrong with that, if you can work constructively and objectively with others, but you're not like a priest shaman of Marxism that can impose your subjective judgement on matters, your specially determined reception of everything as in "Marxian economics" vs "Marxian political-economy" above. This body of knowledge above all is open to anyone who is willing to put the effort into reading and understanding the source materials. There are a relatively large number of such persons at this point whether you wish to acknowledge the fact or not, certainly in the many tens if not hundreds of thousands as a minimum, depending on the specified degree of proficiency/understanding, not for that matter counting pro forma sets such as the 70 million members of the Chinese communist party. If there are specific issues these must be addressed specifically addressed. I assume that as a Nederlander you can read Hochdeutsch as can I and the de.wikipedia.org is marked as being in a state with this one can benefit from with appropriate translation. Lycurgus (talk) 04:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: *Wikipedia has a policy of No personal attacks.  I encourage editors to review the policy at this point in time. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:30, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, perhaps WP:APR is more appropriate. I was at some pains to tone it down. Unfortunately there are times when personality issues are the thing that must be dealt with. Obviously I'm not here to do what I complain about, namely impose my personal judgements, so carry on. (adjusted your indentation). Lycurgus (talk) 16:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Sticks and stones, Lycurgus... I was told by a friend who is an IISH staff member that there are some plans among Chinese academic authorities to scan all of Marx's manuscripts and make them available online - IPR permitting. That wouldn't be such as bad idea, since then people could check the interpretations against the originals more easily. If, for example, Marx himself makes it very explicit that his initial discussion of "the commodity" does NOT presuppose a capitalist mode of production, and that commodity production existed long before capitalist production did (Cap. Vol. 1, p. 273-274 in the Penguin edition), then if some wikipedian "authority" argues that this is just an "interpretation" of Marx's text, he or she is plainly mistaken. It is not an interpretation, but what Marx literally says himself, and one can quote chapter and verse to prove that. If one quotes Marx himself in this sense, this does not portend or intend arrogance of pretentiousness - it merely verifies a fact. It does not really advance the discussion about the article a great deal, if the wikipedian then keeps arguing that pointing out such a plain error of fact is itself an interpretation. As for myself, I do not have the pretensions that Lycurgus accuses me of. Since however I have studied these issues across 30 years or more, as scholar, activist and researcher, discussed them with world authorities on these topics, and worked through the relevant scientific literature, I don't regard my understanding as "superficial posturing". Instead I distinguish appropriately between what Marx says about his own views, and what Marxists or others say about them. I have not worked on the "Marxian economics" article much at all, and it is not really my aim to do so anyway, given the level of controversy about it; I have concentrated mainly on some basic concepts of Marxian economic theory, that is all. Many people were glad that I had provided these reference articles. The best evidence that I have, that I am not doing too badly, is that most of the articles are still pretty much as I wrote them, years later, after tens or hundreds of thousands of views. I don't deny the right of anyone to re-edit the articles I wrote, my concern is only with whether the quality of the articles is thereby improved, or whether it makes the articles unreliable, inaccurate or nonsensical. The corresponding German articles are certainly useful, but just because something about Marx is written in the German wikipedia, is of itself no guarantee of accuracy or validity. German wiki's (or for that matter German Marxist articles) are just as much susceptible to error as their English counterparts. If I note that "in China, "Marxist political economy" may be the norm, but in the West, "Marxian economics" is a quite acceptable label for a branch of heterodox economics", I don't think I am saying anything particularly controversial.  User:Jurriaan 16 June 2011 10:25 (UTC)
Rubentomas (talk) 20:38, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Marxian economics

message: Basic.atari (talk) 02:31, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Educational assignment at Symbiosis School of Economics supported by Wikipedia ambassadors 

message: I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
::This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
::#There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
::#It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
::#In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.
Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:43, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  removing POV tag with no active discussion per [[Template:POV]] 

message: where are the other articles in the series on marxian economics?  did the editor mean series on marxism? Darkstar1st (talk) 00:38, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  part of a series? 

message: Add Mount Holyoke College to the list of universities who provide courses on Marxian Theory
138.110.33.62 (talk) 21:01, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 06:03, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 29 April 2015 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Marxian economics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080429202643/http://cepa.newschool.edu/het/schools/neomarx.htm to http://cepa.newschool.edu/het/schools/neomarx.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.iwgvt.org/files/02-mongiovi.doc
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:33, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: Marxist economics should be the title here, since it better captures the relationship of these theories of classical political economy to the movement of "marxism". Marxist economics has relatively little in common with Marx critique of political economy other than names such as Ricardo and Smith.
Pauloroboto (talk) 12:06, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A more apropriate title 

message: I reverted a few big changes (all done on April 12th) by Rvtcbckt. While they may or may not have merit, they were all completely uncited and were written in a difficult to understand style. I suspect they may have been translations, or perhaps the editor is a second language speaker of English.
I also noticed that someone contacted that user on their talkpage about these changes, but to no avail.
I would have simply fixed the language, but they also rubbed off as opinionated and I believe they may have been original research. In any case, because they made the article less legible, I decided to revert them. I would be grateful if someone who has a better understanding of the topic can give his or her opinion. Av = λv (talk) 23:42, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reversion of Recent Changes 

message: — Assignment last updated by Karen.ulloa (talk) 03:40, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Human Resource Economics Fall 2021