Talk:Karl Marx/Archive 3

message: Considering the exact edit to which 198 has committed himself to "reverting until Doomsday" (while refusing to explain his stance), and the clear resmeblance of user name, it seems likely. I urge the admins to curtail such misconduct.El_C
:No it wasn't, however I was telling my friend John about the edit war on Karl Marx so he agreed to help me.--198 22:57, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't approve of what John did.--198 23:55, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the intransigence of 198 calls for administrative intervention. Unfortunately, that will take several months. Please proceed immediately to make a request for mediation at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation. I will support it if allowed to make any comments; apparently a political double standard applies. If 198 refuses to accept mediation, you may—and should—proceed straight to arbitration. Let me know if I can offer any support. Shorne 00:05, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Why are you people doing this to me? Is it because I'm conservative?--198 00:09, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: You're conservative? That isn't obvious, and I doubt could be grounds for doing this. I don't understand this edit war. Why is "so-called Marxist" important/more accurate/better than leaving it out? It's reasonable to know why you persistantly change it, right? Cool Hand Luke 03:15, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Is [[Special:Contributions/891|891]] a [[sockpuppet]] of [[user:198|198]] ?

message: Hello, I disagree with the retension of the "questions" section -- I believe it should at least be rephrased not to be in that form, if not excised. I understand that it is interesting, and provides a nice way to introduce other topics, but there must be some other way that doesn't have that kind of strange tone that I don't think fits in the encyclopedia. --Improv 05:56, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The section is more like signed encylopedia articles with an author's voice.  I have no problem with voice being changed, but they are not rhetorical questions and are informative and should be kept until someone is willing to rearchitect the information.  Perhaps there is even a voice that retains the questions, something like "These questions arose and resulted in divisions...",  or "Differences in how these questions unanswered by Marx, led to..."--Silverback 07:28, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questions section 

message: Every econmist I have met has agreed that Karl Marx was not an Econmist.--198 00:52, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah. Doodlin' around, he accidentally scribed Das Kapital some morons think somehow related to Econmy. Mikkalai 01:29, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: good work I must say that Mikkala! :)--198 01:38, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess you've never met a Cuban economist. Ruy Lopez 07:15, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: "By what is the price of a commodity determined?  By the competition between buyers and sellers, by the relationship of the demand to the supply, of the call to the offer."  Karl Marx Wage-labour and Capital first published in 1849 (quote is from 1933 English translation p. 21; the opening of chapter 3).  Marx understood that this applied to the labor-market (wages) as well: "The relations bewtween supply and demand of labour undergo perpetual changes, and with them the market price of labour.  If the demand overshoots the supply, wages rise; if the supply overshoots the demand, the wages sink ..." from Value, Price and Profit, an address given in 1865 (quote is from the 1933 English translation, p. 25; it is the middle of section 4 of the address).  Now, 198, please tell me why you think that Marx "doesn't even know the basic economic law of supply and demand?"  You say that you have read some of his works, but even here you reveal that you just do not understand Marx.  Anyone can edit a wikipedia article; we don't ask you to be a professor of Marxism or Marxology or whatever, we don't expect you to have a PhD. in history, philosophy, economics, or whatever.  But really, you shouldn't work on an article about something you don't understand.  Surely there are things you really do know well, and understand.  I suggest you write articles about those things. Slrubenstein 02:35, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: That's very interesting. I haven't read that work but I will check it out when I visit the Library this Friday. I read the Communist Manifesto and some of Das Kapital (it was quite a while ago). I still feel the term Poltical Econmist is still better than calling Marx an "Econmist." I understand Marx quite well, dispite that I'm not a Professor of Political Science, I'm a Professor of Marketing.--198 05:47, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: That seems fine. For the record, he was as much an economist as Ricardo or Mill, which is to say he was a student of "political economy", and of what is now called classical economics; Das Kapital was the most systematic analysis of capitalism of the time. Rd232 23:20, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Marx was not an economist

message: I reverted the addition of a section on conflict theory.  Marx never proposed conflict theory; conflict theory is the name given by sociologists who believe themselves to be applying Marxian principles to the study of certain social issues.  As such, this deserves its own article, linked to sociology. Slrubenstein 20:00, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that Marx's concept of class struggle etc belongs here. But it is not appropriate to copy/paste a mini-essay on Marxist conflict theory here (especially so unedited!). We have conflict theory, Social-conflict theory (which incidentally needs merging into the former), critical theory and Critical theory (Frankfurt School), and you could create a new article eg critical theory (Marxist) if you wanted to. See also Wikipedia:WikiProject_Critical_Theory and the appropriate category (). Wherever the text goes, the article can be linked to from here, but Marx's contribution as the "founder" shouldn't be discussed here in terms of the conceptualisation and terminology of a century later - that is appropriate elsewhere. Rd232 08:57, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The text dump by 198 was unsalvageable. This article is not a dumping ground for mini-essays on conflict theory just as the (say) Durkheim article would not be a duping ground for someone's mini-essay on functionalism. 172 18:17, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: Ok, I understand what your talking about....I seen the article Conflict theory.--198 05:05, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  conflict theory 

message: This re-working of the dispute over that Gladstone quote is a botch, and highly point of view. Consider the word "even," which implies that one should naturally have expected Engels' account to put the matter to rest, but some trouble-makers have persisted in raising it anyway. A bit like saying, "Even the fact that Kissinger has vouched for Pinochet's good character has not put to rest questions...." Anyway, I'll see what can be done to put this passage back on an even keel, if not "to rest," when I get a chance. --Christofurio 14:04, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
:Would you mind summing up Marx or Engels' explanation for the discrepancy?  Do we know which version of Gladstone's speech is the original? Slrubenstein 22:17, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Even" Engels' discussion didn't put the matter to rest? 

message: What are the sources on Marx's personality?  I deleted what appeared to be original research.  But I further think that stuff on Marx's personality is so speculative (and accounts are so likely to be strongly POV), I just do not see any point to adding it to the article. Slrubenstein 19:25, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  personality 

message: Gymnasium was 7 years. It was its own kind of secondary education, and  it is ridiculous to compare it with high school as a main explanation, which is not even the same thing for various countries, and even within USA in various states.Mikkalai 17:09, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gymnasium 

message: I'm finding the article to be inconsistent in the way it deals with the Marx's writings. It would be useful to know what ideas came from his major works, either in the bibliography or the main article.David R Alexander 21:40, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explaining Marx's Writings 

message: To call Marx a 'philosopher" is an insult to philosophy, and also an insult to Marx himself. (annon - 61.144.54.42)
:What an odd thing to say. Do you know that Marx has just been voted greatest philosopher of all time by a poll organised by BBC Radio 4's In our Time programme beating David Hume in to second place by a mile. :-). Whether you agree with what he said or not it seems odd not to call him a philosoher. Whats your reasoning? --JK the unwise 09:36, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Reasoning is that Marx held 'philosphy' in contempt due to the absence of praxis. In Our Time's Greatest Philosopher Results. El_C 09:58, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the "philosophers have interpreted ... point is to change it" stuff means that Marx rejected Philosohy full stop, rather he rejected the kind of philosohy that was hegemonic in his time (and is so now) i.e. philosophy without Praxis, arguably Analytic philosophy is far more guilty of this then continental philosophy, though most academic philosophy might well be damed by Karl. Anyhowz I suppose its down to how you define philosophy which is a philosphical question of much debate. --JK the unwise 11:52, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's debatable whether Marx "was a philosopher", but he certainly did philosophy (eg his PhD on two Ancient Greek philosophers, not to mention dialectics etc). But he wanted to go beyond that - "Philosophers have only interpreted the world - the point, however, is to change it." Rd232 11:45, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As Engels put it, "[t]he general nature of dialectics to be developed as the science of interconnections, in contrast to metaphysics." *** I think Marx viewed himself more generally, as a social theorist, for ex., rather than as a "philosopher." El_C 12:14, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

text: I was not refering to philosophically this or that, though, but rather to the designation of him as "a philosopher." I don't believe Marx placed much weight on academic credentials (I happen to think they do not mean a lot), and would have considered such a designation parochial and simplistic. As Rd232 said, he wanted to go beyond that, and I maintain that he did. This just for the sakes of discussion though, I don't intend on challenging the misconceptions and distortions of academia under capitalism here, in the article space, due to attitudinal setiments in the First World viz. editorial composition and the predisposition for bias in this encyclopedia. El_C 21:22, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I understand where you are coming from.  But my point (well, one of them) was that identifying Marx as a philosopher is more subversive (of capitalist-distorted academia as well as the way "philosophy" has been institutionalizedin the past two centuries) thatn saying he was not a philosopher.  As evidence, I point to the sentence that begins this section. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 21:26, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Point taken, SlR; but my point is nonetheless the broader beyond. Yes, by today's terms he's an (political-) economist, philsopher, sociologist, historian, political scientist, antropologist — in so far as his influence over Western (and Eastern) academia(s) has been very significant. Even with those disciplines not yet fully formed, it's fair to say that Marx was very much an "interdisciplinarian", though focusing above all other things, on political-economy. Epistemologically, then, it is important to distinguish between his contempt for philsophy and any actual "philosophical" work he did, and his theory in its entirety. El_C 03:09, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Why should academics controll the word philosopher and its meaning? The common usage of the praze covers everything from mystics, logisitions, moral theorists to poets. The word, "philosopher," literally means "lover of wisdom." --> since Karly would agree that u gota know the world to change it and he wrote big fat books on stuff hes a philosoher..--JK the unwise 21:32, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, by which standard are they to be defined, though? Yes, Marx's theory extended and touched on philosophy, he wrote about "philosophers" and their ideas (the fittingly-titled, The Poverty of Philosophy, etc.), that is self-evident. El_C 03:09, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Marx a philosopher

message: I'd say any issue discussed should have a brief summary. So:
*one would have to be deaf, blind & dumb not to see that Marx's work "Zur Judenfrage" is an anti-Semitic work. It deprecates Jews as, so to speak, a human species. For Marx, Judaism is an enemy of culture, freedom & creativity: the cartoon parasytic, peddling capitalism incarnate. Marx's statements in "Zur Judenfrage", as well as his personal/private objections on the Judaica general are simply- reprehensible. If anyone had made such an array of anti-Jewish slurs, they would certainly have been labeled an anti-Semitic bigot. The reasons for such a "tender" & deferential treatment of Marx falls mainly, I'd say, into two categories: either Communist/Socialist defense of their guru's charisma or Jewish nationalism. The apologets are:
*a) a Communist/marxist doctrinaire in desperate need of whitewashing their prophet of these, eh, little unpleasanties that obscure his aura
*b) Jewish nationalist blinded by the light of Marx's global success & trying to recruit Marx into a national fold ("Come back, Karl, baby, everything is forgiven. Forgiven ? Nay, forgotten. Forgotten ? What ? What we were talking about ?")
*array of pseudoarguments trying to exculpate Marx is laughable. The cumulative effect of his writings, pronouncements & casual remarks contained in his correspondence leaves no doubt: Marx was a pan-Germanic, anti-Semitic & anti-Slavic racist. For those not ideologically self-blinded, attempts to exonerate him are simply ridiculous. 
*a tiny fraction of Marx's statements on Jews & Judaism, put into the mouth of a person lacking the aura of historical importance and not hallowed by leftist ideology (in vogue for the major part of the 20th century in the world of Western leftist quasi-intelligentsia) would suffice to label a person a terminal & incurable anti-Semite. 
*I guess it's enough. Mir Harven 23:49, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm amazed at Slrubenstein's patience here. I'd have told Mir Harven to take a long walk off a short pier long ago, since he doesn't look like trying to actually draft something here on the Talk page that could lead to actual progress with the article, instead of potentially endless debate. (There's a constructive suggestion there somewhere.) Rd232 18:14, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, every once in a while I need to do something that will surprise all those Wikipedians who are convinced I am an arrogant POV warrior ;-) Slrubenstein   |  Talk 18:29, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A brief summary: Marx the racist & anti-Semite 

message: I have reinserted the text into the intro that mentions Marx's writing the Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital. User:Blueskyboris has removed this text or similar text at least twice according the the history. His rationale was as follows "The first sentences already mentions that Marx was a philosopher, and since philosophers write books, there is no need to repeat.. you are being redundant, especially since CM and DK mentioned later."  To address this, first, no, I am not being redundant.  Philosophers do not always write books.  See Socrates.  Anyway, the text does not simply say he wrote books.  It says he wrote two specific books.  Yes, CM and DK are mentioned later, but, the intro section serves as a summary for who Marx was.  Considering these are the two works for which he is best known, they should be mentioned in the header section.--Bkwillwm 15:17, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a bit more complicated than that, though. Does mention of these books help the reader to identify the subject of the article? Surely that would only be the case in the unlikely event that a reader knew enough about Capital or the Manifesto of the Communist Party for the references to be meaningful but didn't already know they are by Karl Marx. We don't need to mention them as a claim-to-fame. Marx is famous as the intellectual progenitor of Marxism... he's not famous for being the author of Capital in the way that J. K. Rowling is famous for being the author of the Harry Potter series, for example. My big concern, though, is that by singling out these two works in the intro in this fashion we imply that they are representative of Marx's work as a whole or that they have been most influential. The Manifesto is fairly unrepresentative, I would say, and tends to be singled out for attention as much for its readability and brevity as for its appropriateness as an introduction to Marx's thought. Whether Capital has been all that influential is definitely a moot point. Mattley 16:20, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether one thinks they should be the most influential or are the most representative, as you admit, the CM is "singled out", and clearly DK has always been thought of by everyone, including Marx, as Marx's magnum opus.  Whether people actually read it is besides the point, it is a very common phenomenon for the somehow most influential, or the most academically respectable and talked about books to be "books that nobody reads."  IMHO, not singling out these works is eccentric; would there have been a Marxism for him to be the intellectual progenitor of without them?John Z 19:49, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course there would. Marx's key ideas have been disseminated in huge variety of ways. Most people have probably come to them second-hand, particularly in the early years when major were not necessarily available in languages other than German. As it stands, the introduction claims that those two works are not only Marx's best-known but that they 'laid the foundations of Marxism'. The MCP was published very early in Marx's career and was written partly as a manifesto for a particular group, not as a fully-worked out statement of Marxism. Capital wasn't published until after Marx's death, and it is a point of historical fact that its influence on the Marxists of the Second Internationl was somewhat less than all-pervasive. Incidentally, whilst a book that nobody reads could concievably be widely talked about, logically it can't actually influence anything can it? It may be that these two books are indeed Marx's best-known, but that is not necessarily the case. Are they the best-known in all parts of the world and in all contexts? Is it not misleading to imply that these works are representative if, in fact, they are not? Things which are 'true' can still be misleading when divorced from context, after all. I repeat my question, what does this duplication of material dealt with elsewhere in the article actually add to the introduction? Mattley 20:34, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The MCP was widely disseminated in Marx's time, and it was very influential.  Das Kapital has been the subject of much study, and was published shortly after Marx's death.  Most of Marx's other works were not even published until much later (well into the 20th century) or they were published journalism that was not widely available.  Anyway, point being, I don't think anybody seriously doubts that these are Marx's best known works.  As for their relevance... the introduction is supposed to be a summary of what is important.  Usually someone's best known works are important.  Yes, these two documents get discussed later on, but that doesn't mean they should be left from the intro.  See Adam Smith, Thomas Hobbes, and John Rawls.  These other political (or economic) philosophers all have their major works mentioned in the intro sections as well.--Bkwillwm 20:47, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro: Manifesto and Das Kapital