From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Lead section[edit]

This page currently opens: Marxism is a socio-economic and political worldview or inquiry based on a materialist interpretation of historical development, a dialectical view of social transformation, an analysis of class-relations and conflict within society. Marxist methodology informs an economic and sociopolitical enquiry applying to the analysis and critique of the development of capitalism and the role of class struggle in systemic economic change.

These sentences are inaccessible. While I see that this has been brought up in the archive, users who raise this concern seem to either be ignored or told that there's no problem.

First, "a socio-economic and political worldview or inquiry" is linguistically vague - what clauses are the "or" connecting? Is our choice between a socio-economic and political worldview or an inquiry? Is it between worldview that is both socio-economic and political or an inquiry? Or is it just a choice between the political worldview or an inquiry?

Furthermore, what does "socio-economic" mean in this context? Is this distinct from the political? Doesn't a list which includes "an analysis of class-relations and conflict within society" imply both of these descriptors anyway?

We then learn that Marxist methodology (methodology relating to what? practice? action? what is a Marxist method? why is methodology being discussed in the second sentence when it isn't mentioned again until the last paragraph of the entire article?) informs an "economic and sociopolitical 'enquiry'". So once the reader has wrapped their head around the "socio-economic and political... inquiry," they are then instructed to comprehend an "economic and sociopolitical" approach. Is this supposed to be significant? I have absolutely no idea.

I believe the opening paragraph should follow in the footsteps of Kantian ethics - describe Marxism as an influential economic and political theory put forth by Karl Marx in the first sentence and provide a very brief summary of major concepts (historical materialism, dialectics, class conflict, critique of capitalism). Thoughts? I don't feel that opening unclear prose and barrage of jargon is something that blue links can successfully satisfy. --Lunar Jesters (talk) 17:17, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. Like many wiki articles, the lead is full of jargon and does not satisfy the conditions set out at wp:lead : "the lead should be written in a clear, accessible style". Too many big words. Poujeaux (talk) 18:24, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

"Libertarian socialists"?![edit]

The section about "communism" contains this funny little oxymoron. I'd like to ask the editors to remove it, as it's factually wrong, and completely meaningless. Libertarianism is an ideology in and of itself, and is in total opposition with any form of communism or socialism. The word the writer must have been seraching for is "anarcho-communist", or, if we're talking about mainstream social democrats, "democratic socialists". There is no such thing as a libertarian socialist. (talk) 18:52, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Are you sure? --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 19:07, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Noam Chomsky would disagree with you.[1] RolandR (talk) 21:20, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
I think most theorists would disagree with him, if not just for his absurd simplification of two hugely complicated concepts--Drowninginlimbo (talk) 21:28, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
The OP doesn't know what libertarian means. Libertarian is a word that also exists outside the U.S. political context... Zozs (talk) 01:16, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

General improvements[edit]

Is there anyone who would be opposed to a complete rewrite of the article? Σσς(Sigma) 07:00, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Considering that it was selected as a high quality article on the Communism portal, you should probably make a specific case for rewriting it. (talk) 20:10, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
This is not a bad article, but it's not good either. My main problems are the "variants" section and the emphasis on social democracy sizing and positioning it in a way that appears to inflate its importance. As we go down the page, the sections on variants get worse and shorter, and have a significant overlap with subjects already covered in the "Political Marxism" section (ML, Maoism, Trotskyism, and left communism show up twice, for example). And then, the article ends with a giant paragraph about Austrians.
A complete rewrite does not necessarily require blowing it up and starting from scratch. What we can do at the moment is copy the current list-like-formatted variants section to Variants of Marxism or something, and reduce the section to a few paragraphs. Sticking to paragraph form as it is now is in no way going to cover every variant.
Σσς(Sigma) 20:52, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Go for it. I'll be happy to be a contributor. Zozs (talk) 12:19, 7 October 2014 (UTC)