Talk:Karl Marx

Anti-Semitism section

I am beginning to think that the section on accused anti-Semitism is given undue weight for two reasons, most importantly, it talks in detail about one of Marx's least important/influential/read works (for Marx who spent most of his life on political economy and philosophy one debate with a second rate academic pales in comparison) and second because it is larger and more detailed than some sections such as "political economy"! There is therefore greater interest in expanding this section over the other, but it doesn't reflect due weight entirely. I would recommend cutting down the section to a few sentences and possibly removing its own section and incorporating it. ValenShephard (talk) 05:25, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Surely you jest. This is an article that paints a glowing picture with quotes from terrorist guerrilla war mongers like "Che" and depends on cockeyed logic such as "Marx thus simply expressed the commonplace thinking of his era, according to Sacks.[90]" to defend a racists. (In and of itself this seems an oddity for a purported visionary.) The thinking that people of color were sub human was commonplace in the early 1800's, however this does not excuse the slave owners from being racists pigs. Perhaps your ideology is showing just a bit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pcoppney (talk • contribs) 01:00, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the section is given undue weight. Even those scholars who claim he was anti-semitic are pretty much limited to discussing "On the Jewish Question," which few Marx scholars consider to be anti-Semitic. Most of this section is already covered in the OJQ article, and it should remain there not here.--Bkwillwm (talk) 22:43, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd support moving this to talk, and leaving in the article at best only a cursory reference, perhaps in the bio section, which I've just expanded to discuss this work. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:59, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

That seems a very sensible proposal. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:03, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Pictures of Marx's Tomb

Is it really necessary, at two points on the page, to feature a shot of Marx's tomb? The pictures are only from slightly different angles, and the photos and their accompanying points are redundant. J1.grammar natz (talk) 00:53, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Probably not. I'd say the 2nd one is the clearer image, and should stay (the monument is quite well known, so probably deserves one photo). It would be nice to replace the first one with something else, rather than just deleting it though, I'd suggest - images help to break up the rather dense text. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:02, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I've removeed one of them, leaving the one that was slightly clearer.(Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:28, 19 February 2011 (UTC))

Marx in film, 18 February 2011

I wonder would it be approriate to compile lists of Marx documentaries and fiction films at this page or a separate one? No attention seems to have been given to this, only to written sources.Rachel0898 (talk) 16:56, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Given the length of the existing article, and the peripheral nature of such a list, I'd suggest that a separate article would be more sensible. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:03, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

A rewrite of the introduction

Hello all! As some of you may have noticed, I've recently been trying to give this page a tidy up, and as a part of this, I heavily edited and replaced parts of the introduction. Andy the Grump (who it appears is one of the primary editors responsible for taking care of this page) undid this, noting that it was a major step to take without discussion and that my replacement was a little scant. In this I totally agree, and applaud him [assuming from the name that Andy is a "he"- apologies if I'm wrong!] for his diligence.

My main issue with the introduction as it currently stands is that it goes into some detail about Marxism, but seems to offer little information about Marx himself, who is the subject of this article. It also seems to be heavily dominated simply by quotes, which is again something that needs rectifying. Instead I suggest maybe a structure of five short paragraphs: the first providing a very basic introduction ("Karl Marx was a…" etc etc etc), with the next two offering up a summary of his life (including publications), the fourth dealing with Marxism, and the fifth discussing his influence. Any thoughts ? (Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:59, 21 February 2011 (UTC))

Hi, Yes, I'm a 'he'. I'd seen the work you were doing, and I'd like to say that other than with this issue, it seems excellent to me - thanks for all that. Regarding the intro, I think there has been a fair bit of debate about this, including questions about whether it needed the lengthy quote. I'm inclined to suggest that it does, along with at least a basic indication of what 'Marxism' is - it is rather long, and probably a bit difficult for someone unfamiliar with the topic, but trying to summarise a complex philosophical analysis in a few words is less-than-practical. The difficulty is compounded by the fact that if you don't explain (at least in general) what Marxism is, the bio becomes little more than a chronology. It seems to me that the introduction to a biography of a political philosopher needs political philosophy for the same reason that one for a bio of a sociologist needs sociology in it (see Max Weber), or one for the bio of a Hollywood star needs movies in it (see Clark Gable). I'm also of the opinion that the best person to explain Marxism is Marx himself - he could write more clearly, and with more sense of involvement, than must of those who have those who have followed him. It might be as well to see what others think, though - I'll take another look at this myself too. (though I'd stress that I've not actually had much input into this article, it is the work of many, and I've only been watching it, and performing the odd tweak, in the last few months - there are probably others who have done much more, and will have more to say) AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:33, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

As long as we have an article on Marxism, this article should try very hard not to be about Marxism. Sure, the reason why we have an encyclopedia on marx is because of the influence of his writings - which include 20th century revolutionary Communist parties, as well as a range of different kinds of "Marxisms," as well as his importance in social theory and academe, including work that authors self-identify as "Marxian" rather than "Marxist," and I think it is reasonable to say this in the introduction. But I think this should be our standard: to say only as much about him as is necessary to explain why he is worthy of an encyclopedia article. And then have a link to Marxism. A list of dates? I do not think that is what we would be left with. Good biographers and historians know how to tell a story about someone that is not anachronistic, i.e. that does not define Marx solely in terms of his 20th century legacy. This would be more of a challenge to write since we would have to read real historians and biographers and rely on them more for the content, rather than the much larger and better-known literature on "Marxism" but I think this would lead to a better article on Marx. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:51, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Slrubenstein, this is a biography, primarily a description of Marx' life and accomplishments during his life and only secondarily about his legacy. Marxism, as any political ideology, has a life of its own that is independent of its origin. Not saying that describing the basics of Marxism is irrelevant here, just that focus should be kept on the biographic narrative and only describe Marx' thoughts as they relate to his lived life and legacy.·Maunus·ƛ· 00:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Irrelevant information on Lenin and peasants

The last and third part of the London section seems to be irrelevant here. Instead of dealing with Marx, it discusses views of Lenin and the situation of Russian peasants. It seems that this discussion is not even Marx's own, it seems like Lenin's (?) polemic with Marx (if it is related to Marx's thought at all). I am not sure where it should be moved to, but I think it's should be removed from this article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, the text should be moved to the article about Lenin. Rangoon11 (talk) 12:38, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it doesn't belong here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:14, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, since we seem to have a consensus, I am moving this text here. I am not sure where to add it; if anybody wants to move it to Lenin, please do so. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:19, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

---

Writing with the advantage of nearly twenty additional years of closer observation of the rural communes in Russia, V. I. Lenin was able to conclude that the rural commune could not be the agent socialist development in Russia, exactly because increasing numbers of Russian peasants within the rural communes were being separated from the means of production within the rural commune. Within the Russian rural commune, land was the "means of production". Ideally, all peasants in the rural commune would own or have access to an equal share of the land operated by the commune. Lenin's close analysis of the communes concludes that not all peasants within the rural commune had equal access to land. Indeed, at the time that Lenin wrote his book (1899), there was already a drastic difference between the amount of land cultivated by some rich kulak peasants as opposed to other poorer peasants within the rural commune. Furthermore, this condition was not static. Rather the "differentiation of the peasantry" within the rural commune was an ongoing process. More and more small peasants within the rural commune were becoming unable to support themselves on the small amount of land they had access to within the rural commune.

Inevitably, many poor peasants within the rural communes across Russia were actually "landless". As the years went by many more of the small peasants within the rural communes were becoming landless as the process of "differentiation of the peasantry" allowed the rich peasants to become richer and the poor peasants became poorer.

Some of the landless peasants were required to seek employment from the richer "kulak" peasants within the rural commune. These landless peasants would be considered a part of the rural proletariat. Other landless peasants would leave the commune altogether and join the urban proletariat. Whichever way the landless peasant went, Lenin points out that this development is totally familiar to us as nothing more or less than the familiar process of the ruin and "proletariatization" of the small peasantry, by the complete separation of that small "landless" peasantry from the means of production.

---

I found more Lenin's cruft, moving it below. Per discussion above, this article is about Marx, not Lenin. This is not the place to discuss how various people were inspired by Marx. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 07:35, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

---

However Lenin, an influential Russian thinker and revolutionary, argued that in the age of imperialism, and due to the "law of uneven development", where Russia had on the one hand, an antiquated agricultural society, but on the other hand, some of the most up-to-date industrial concerns, the "chain" might break at its weakest points, that is, in the so-called "backward" countries, and then ignite revolution in the advanced industrial societies of Europe, where society is ready for socialism, and which could then in turn come to the aid of the workers' state in Russia.

100 Mark der DDR note used in the German Democratic Republic. 100-Mark banknotes with Marx's portrait circulated from 1964 until monetary union with West Germany in July 1990.

Marx and Engels make a very significant comment in the preface to the Russian edition of the Communist Manifesto:

Now the question is: can the Russian obshchina, though greatly undermined, yet a form of primeval common ownership of land, pass directly to the higher form of Communist common ownership? Or, on the contrary, must it first pass through the same process of dissolution such as constitutes the historical evolution of the West? The only answer to that possible today is this: If the Russian Revolution becomes the signal for a proletarian revolution in the West, so that both complement each other, the present Russian common ownership of land may serve as the starting point for a communist development.

— (Marx and Engels, Preface to the Russian edition of the Communist Manifesto)

---

New sections - are they relevant? Are they OR?

In the last few days, two new sections have been added to the article: 'Failed predictions' and 'Marxism as the ideology of totalitarian states'. I think that these need to be discussed further, as I'm not sure (a) that they are necessary, and (b) that they aren't original research, and/or editorialising. It is self-evident that not everything Marx predicted has occurred, but that is probably true of any political/social theorist, and it is perhaps unnecessary to point out his failures. Likewise, the section on 'totalitarian states' is questionable - perhaps more so, given the time that elapsed between his formulation of his theories, and the events in question. To put it bluntly, this looks like propaganda, not a neutral encyclopaedic article.

I may wait a day or two before acting, but I'm inclined to think that these sections should be deleted, as a breach of NPOV. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:30, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I concur that these could be potentially POV, but the content in them is referenced and has been relatively well put together. Further discussion is needed. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:42, 5 March 2011 (UTC))

I also have strong reservations about some of the new text, particularly the new 'Failed predictions' section. These are hugely complex, controversial and important issues and need to be dealt with in as even-handed and consensusal a manner as possible. The new 'Failed predictions' section is in my view not even-handed at present and uses sources to push an 'inequality doesn't matter, capitalism is great and poverty no longer exists in the west and wont in the rest of soon due to the wonders of capitalism' point of view. Yes it is sourced and yes I personally agree with some of it but as we all know with issues like this source selection can be used to make whatever argument the writer wishes to and in this case I think careful discussion is needed. Rangoon11 (talk) 21:44, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I was hesitant about adding them, but I was convinced as those arguments are prominent in an important introduction to Marx I am using, (Craig J. Calhoun (2002). Classical sociological theory. Wiley-Blackwell, see article for Google Book direct access). If some of the sources I used to expand it beyond Calhoun are problematic, please replace them, but I think that the language, tone and message are quite neutral. I already went farther than Calhoun does by adding qualifications such as "While many Marxist concepts are still of importance for modern social science," and "While Marx thought has and is used to empower marginalized and dispossessed people". I have much respect for Marx, but he is not beyond critique, and in fact critique of Marx is very extensive; a proper encyclopedic article should has it, as a due balance to the quite pro-Marx "influence" section. I feel that critique of Marx (following Calhoun) can be roughly encapsulated as 1) critique of his theories and predictions and 2) description of how his theories were abused in politics, primarily by the totalitarian communist states. Regarding predictions, if somebody would like to write a section (for the influence, preferably) on "successful predictions", it would be quite helpful. Interested editors are welcome to expand more on those issues. I will finish by noting that I am surprised nobody is complaining about the "Accusations of antisemitism" criticism, which seems rather marginal. Now that's a section I would like to see reduced to a single sentence or eliminated totally. Among many criticism of Marx I've heard, that one is new to me :> PS. I am glad to see a number of interested editors here, I hope we can work together and pull this article towards a GA status. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:31, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Piotrus, firstly let me make clear my thanks for helping bring this page up to a better standard. We need more editors like yourself around here. I concur that the anti-Semitism section should be cut down, and that criticism of Marx is necessary, but I think it notable that these are more criticisms of Marxism rather than Marx himself, and although I believe they should be mentioned here, they should be dealt with in more depth on the Marxism page (which is also in a shambolic state at the moment). (Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:19, 5 March 2011 (UTC))

The use by totalitarian states is certainly more relevant as criticism of Marxism, not Marx, but per Calhoun, some mention here is warranted. I'd expect this article to be expanded, with other sections growing, and I don't think the "abuse by tot. states." needs more expansion. I hope that by the time we are done bringing this article to a better level, the section's size will be less of an issue. Failed predictions, on the other hand, are, I believe, a criticism of Marx, not Marxisim, and thus this section I would hope to see expanded - but as mentioned earlier, I would also like to see a discussion of successful predictions. And I am open to improving the coverage of Marx influence and importance; I've added a little on the importance of his moral ethics in critique of capitalism, more could be done. And dare I say that we seem to miss any discussion of his communist utopia? PS. Doh, we are even missing a redirect for that, and the subject is notable (8k hits on Google Books). Any idea where to redirect it for now? Or perhaps somebody is in the mood for stubbing it, or DYKing it? I could add it to my "to do" list, but it is a bit long (see my user page :D). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:35, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, all controversial statements need attribution. I see no problem to mention that some scholars (or writers) argued that Marx's doctrine has been used by tyrants etc. However, that has to be presented as the opinion of concrete individuals, not as mainstream views. In addition, some statements are simply not correct: for instance "Marx expected a wave of communist revolutions to overturn capitalism, and that they would start in the rich countries. Instead, they occurred in poorer places, such as in Russia and China." is simply wrong: revolutions in rich European countries (Germany, Hungary) did start, although they were successfully suppressed. In other rich countries, like Italy and France Communists had become a significant political force. Therefore, I would say, this prediction was rather correct, taking into account that it had been made in XIX century: Marx correctly predicted that Communists would become a prominent political force, but he was unable to predict details. In addition, this prediction per se was so significant that it could affect the course of history: the ruling classes were also aware of that and learned due lessons from it to prevent a course of the events that was not desirable for them. --Paul Siebert (talk) 00:03, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Attribution is given (in the footnote format). In text attribution is usually used only for extraordinary claims or to present notable dissenting opinions; I would think that it is very much a mainstream view that Marx(ist) doctrine was abused by tyrants. You make some valid point, feel free to correct the section and/or start on correct predictions (just please use refs). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:29, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I too have problems with the anti-semitism section, which I think relies on one short piece Marx wrote, then taking elements within it out of context. That said, at least it is based specifically one something Marx wrote, and is trying to use it to say something about marx itself. The question of Marx making predictions or supporting totalitarian states is much more complex - for example, the Manifesto (written with Engels, so not just Marx's view) seems to make a prediction. But is that how Marx saw it? Leszek Kolakowski shows the extent to which it is a variant of Hegel's teleological view of spirit (so in context, what makes it significatn is not so much that it makes a predication but that it provides an alternative to one populare reading of Hegel. Or, one can look at it as pure agit-prop; Marx and Engels were trying to foment a revolution and were writing both to startle the powers that be, and to energize communists ... my point is just that this is not compareable to a social scientist's prediction, and should not be presented that way. Also, in this article I think this material is poblematic - we recently had a discussion on Marx versus Marxism and WP HAS two articles, one on each, and we should strive to keep them different. I think anything involving people using Marx's writings to make predicions, or to justify their politics, belongs in the Marxism article not here. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:00, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the spirit, but please note the primary source used clearly relates to Marx, not Marxism. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:40, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Rewriting Marx's thought

I am currently in process of working on that section - your assistance is appreciated. As it stood, a lot of ideas where mixed up in two weird sections - "philosophy" and "political economy". I am trying to organize them into more meaningful sections, and eliminate any redundancy. Help would be most appreciated in referencing unreferenced sentences (this is also needed in the latter biography sections) and in ensuring that all key ideas are covered (I am working with several introductory texts, under the assumption that they cover such ideas; unfortunately, they are often significantly different to make me concerned about how many I need to use before the article is comprehensive...). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I am done using the refs I had or found over the past few days. Tomorrow I'll try to finish referencing the biography. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:42, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Unreferenced and/or irrelevant fragments

Here I will list the mostly unreferenced fragments that I removed, plus the few that struck me as mostly irrelevant. Some or most of those fragments may be true, but I they didn't seem mentioned in the texts I was using, nor could I find reliable sources form them on Google Books. I am listing them here for discussion, and possible rescue. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:11, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

---

Consequently, most followers of Marx espouse not fatalism, but activism: they believe that revolutionaries must organize social change.

---

On Hegel's thought

Hegel believed that human history is characterized by the movement from the fragmentary toward the complete and the real (which was also a movement towards greater and greater rationality). This progressive unfolding of the Absolute involves gradual, evolutionary accretion which culminates in revolutionary leaps and episodal upheavals against the existing status quo. For example, Hegel strongly opposed slavery in the United States during his lifetime, and he envisioned a time when Christian nations would eliminate it from their civilization.

Thus, like Hegel and other philosophers, Marx distinguished between appearances and reality. But he did not believe that the material world hides from us the "real" world of the ideal; on the contrary, he thought that historically and socially specific ideology prevented people from seeing the material conditions of their lives clearly.

---

Feuerbach

Marx's acceptance of this notion of materialist dialectics which rejected Hegel's idealism was greatly influenced by Ludwig Feuerbach. In The Essence of Christianity, Feuerbach argued that God is really a creation of man and that the qualities people attribute to God are really qualities of humanity. Accordingly, Marx argued that it is the material world that is real and that our ideas of it are consequences, not causes, of the world.

---

Engels' article "Outlines of Political Economy" in the Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher also had a great influence in directing him towards the study of the workings of the capitalist economy.

---

On ideology

Thus, while such ideas may be false, they also reveal in coded form some truth about political relations. For example, although the belief that the things people produce are actually more productive than the people who produce them is literally absurd, it does reflect (according to Marx and Engels) that people under capitalism are alienated from their own labor-power.

---

Moreover, he provides an analysis of the ideological functions of religion: to reveal "an inverted consciousness of the world." He continues: "It is the immediate task of philosophy, which is in the service of history, to unmask self-estrangement in its unholy forms, once religion, the holy form of human self-estrangement has been unmasked". For Marx, this unholy self-estrangement, the "loss of man", is complete once the proletariat realizes its potential to unite in revolutionary solidarity. His final conclusion is that for Germany, general human emancipation is only possible as a suspension of private property by the proletariat.

---

Marx argued that this alienation of human work (and resulting commodity fetishism) functions precisely as the defining feature of capitalism. Prior to capitalism, markets existed in Europe where producers and merchants bought and sold commodities. According to Marx, a capitalist mode of production developed in Europe when labor itself became a commodity—when peasants became free to sell their own labor-power, and needed to do so because they no longer possessed their own land. People sell their labor-power when they accept compensation in return for whatever work they do in a given period of time (in other words, they do not sell the product of their labor, but their capacity to work). In return for selling their labor-power they receive money, which allows them to survive. Those who must sell their labor-power are "proletarians". The person who buys the labor power, generally someone who does own the land and technology to produce, is a "capitalist" or "bourgeois". The proletarians inevitably outnumber the capitalists.

Marx distinguished industrial capitalists from merchant capitalists. Merchants buy goods in one market and sell them in another. Since the laws of supply and demand operate within given markets, a difference often exists between the price of a commodity in one market and another. Merchants, then, practise arbitrage, and hope to capture the difference between these two markets.

---

When the rate of profit falls below a certain point, the result would be a recession or depression in which certain sectors of the economy would collapse. Marx thought that during such an economic crisis the price of labour would also fall, and eventually make possible the investment in new technologies and the growth of new sectors of the economy.

---

The American Marx scholar Hal Draper once remarked, "there are few thinkers in modern history whose thought has been so badly misrepresented, by Marxists and anti-Marxists alike."

---

As a scientist and materialist, Marx did not understand classes as purely subjective (in other words, groups of people who consciously identified with one another). He sought to define classes in terms of objective criteria, such as their access to resources—that is, whether or not a group owns the means of production.

Accusations of antisemitism

Per previous discussions, I am removing this from the body. I also note this has not been mentioned at all in either of four or five intro texts on Marx I've read. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:56, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

---

Some authors like Bernard Lewis, Edward H. Flannery and Hyam Maccoby, view Marx's On The Jewish Question as an antisemitic work, and identify what they contend are antisemitic epithets in his published and private writings. According to them, Marx regarded Jews as the embodiment of capitalism and thus the creators of its evils.

The above authors often quote the following excerpt from On The Jewish Question to support their arguments:

What is the secular basis of Judaism? Practical need, selfishness. What is the secular cult of the Jew? Haggling. What is his secular god? Money. Well then, an emancipation from haggling and money, from practical, real Judaism would be the self emancipation of our age... ...The social emancipation of the Jew is the emancipation of society from Judaism.

On the other hand, the political-scientist Professor Iain Hamphsher-Monk wrote in his textbook: "This work [On The Jewish Question] has been cited as evidence for Marx's supposed anti-semitism, but only the most superficial reading of it could sustain such an interpretation." Also, McLellan and Francis Wheen argue readers should interpret On the Jewish Question in the context of Marx's debates with Bruno Bauer, author of The Jewish Question, about Jewish emancipation in Germany. Francis Wheen says: "Those critics, who see this as a foretaste of 'Mein Kampf', overlook one, essential point: in spite of the clumsy phraseology and crude stereotyping, the essay was actually written as a defense of the Jews. It was a retort to Bruno Bauer, who had argued that Jews should not be granted full civic rights and freedoms unless they were baptised as Christians", although Wheen also says that Marx "sprayed anti-Semitic insults at his enemies with savage glee". According to McLellan, Marx used the word Judentum colloquially, as meaning commerce, arguing that Germans suffer, and must be emancipated from, capitalism. McLellan concludes that readers should interpret the essay's second half as an extended pun at Bauer's expense. Jonathan Sacks, Chief Rabbi of the United Kingdom, regards application of the term "antisemitism" to Marx as an anachronism—because when Marx wrote On the Jewish Question, virtually all major philosophers expressed antisemitic tendencies, but the word "antisemitism" had not yet been coined, let alone developed a racial component, and little awareness existed of the depths of European prejudice against Jews. Marx thus simply expressed the commonplace thinking of his era, according to Sacks.

B-class review request

I am done with the main work; all content should be reliably referenced, and all points from the several intro texts I worked with are present. I will be posting B-class review requests to the appropriate projects shortly, and afterward I'd like to nominate this article for a GA. I'd appreciate any comments, as well as language copy editing (I am not a native speaker of English, so...). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

• Drive by: For GA or A class "Failed predictions and disputed theories" needs work. It conflates the proletariat in Marx's writings with the working class in particular the manual blue collar working class. This conflation almost certainly occurs in the sources used, but not in other sources. This needs drawing out by distinguishing the terms while respecting the limits of the critique supplied in the sources used. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:48, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  • The problem is, as you note, that this is what the sources used say. If you had a source that would clarify this issue, please list it here or fix the issue in the article; none of the sources I used seemed to deal with that aspect, unfortunately. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:25, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
    • An article in Transformations 17 a peer reviewed journal, notes this conflation, but doesn't do so in reference to critiques of marx. However, Hugo Radice, The Prospects for Socialism: A Question of Capital and Class. CSGP 11/1 2011 does so at page 7 available here as a PDF. These working papers appear to be differentiated in authority from the other papers published by CSGP—they are more authorative than the other two types. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
      • Thanks, I've added a note. I hope this address your concerns. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:46, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
        • Beautiful. It doesn't detract or distract from the other sources used, but clarifies the issue. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:01, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Its great work that you've been doing here Piotrus, but I don't think that this article is anywhere near GA status as of yet. Much more work is needed, and I'm sure we'll be able to do so. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:23, 10 March 2011 (UTC))

• Could you be more specific? Anyway, for now I am focusing on the B-class rating, then we will see what the GA reviewer will ask us to do. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:00, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Well, mostly with the use of sourcing, i.e. using more actual biographies of Marx to accompany the sources already used, and the section on Marx's life in London probably needs fleshing out and dividing up, which I plan to work at. But by all means, this does deserve B-rating. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:11, 10 March 2011 (UTC))
    • Hmmm, I think that most sources used are reliable... but of course, the article does need more work, I am certain about that. I will be looking forward to your additions! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:53, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
      • I agree that they are probably reliable, but it is always best to use references that are specific to the article topic.(Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:19, 11 March 2011 (UTC))
        • I agree, but as far as I know, this is not required for Featured Articles, even. Anyway, I think the article is at least B-class (although nobody seems willing to make that change...), and as such, I am nominating it for GA to receive the GA review. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:37, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Marx was not a German

Karl Marx was not a German. At best, he only has tenuous claim to being a German, and this claim is not rooted in the two primary components of belonging to a nation. Although raised in Germany, he was not an ethnic German but an Ashkenazi Jew. If you do not know what this means, or if you think I am making a distinction based on religion, please read those two articles - I do not refer to religion, which Marx was not involved with, but ethnicity. Karl Marx was therefore not an ethnic German and cannot claim to be German on that basis. However, we know that citizenship can encompass different ethnic groups, and if he was a German citizen, then, he would have been considered a German. There are two reasons why he should not be. Karl Marx left Germany at a relatively young age and lived in France and the United Kingdom, and possibly held all three citizenships, but, in all likelihood, held none. Hence why we put him into the 'stateless persons' category. He was a committed internationalist, claiming to belong to no nation in particular, but the world, and the cosmopolitan nature of his life - living in three different countries - shows this.

He was therefore not a German in either ethnicity, nationality or citizenship, and all suggestions that he was must be removed from the page. I am giving you time to reply and justify your re-addition of 'German' identity to this page prior to the removal of it once more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolfehenson (talk • contribs) 18:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Have you any evidence that his German citizenship was withdrawn? Unless you can provide this, your suggestion makes little sense. In any case, to state that it is not possible to be both an Ashkenazi Jew and an ethnic German is a rather contentious statement - have you got a source for this? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Your suggestion that a Jew cannot be a German is reminiscent of the worst excesses of 20th century European racism; it is certainly no basis for editing Wikipedia. We base our articles on reliable sources; if you do not know what this means, I suggest you read our policies and guidelines. Your threats are unacceptable, and your apparent insistence on adding "Jewish" to articles without sources or justification is very disturbing. RolandR (talk) 18:54, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Clearly, Roland, you did not even read what I wrote, and your emotive statements and implicit accusations are misdirected. As a Jew myself, I suggest you read that page, so you can understand our people a little better. We are a people with a linguistic, cultural, historical and even genetic basis, a people to which Karl Marx belonged. Germans are also a people with these traits, and Marx did not belong to them - only in terms of citizenship, originally, but then he moved country, foregoing his only connection - legal citizenship - to Germany. Please educate yourself about Jews before commenting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.25.244 (talk) 19:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't care whether you are a Jew or not, your comment was misplaced. I read your comments, and disagree with them. The assertion that one cannot be a Jew and a German led to the mass slaughter of Jews, and I do not accept it. Don't try to patronise me, I am very well informed about Jewish history and culture; and I do not share your interpretation. RolandR (talk) 20:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Marx almost certainly wasn't a German citizen, as he left Germany before Germany was a state. But that doesn't mean he wasn't of German nationality, and neither does the fact that he was Jewish; as a German-speaker born in Germany to German-speaking parents, he was part of the German linguistic and cultural community, that is, he was German. So I'd be opposed to anything specifically saying he wasn't German, but, that being said, I don't know if we need to say that he was German in the opening sentence; to what extent is his German nationality important, given that he did most of his notable work outside of Germany (though in the German language, and he remained connected to German politics)? VoluntarySlave (talk) 20:07, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

VoluntarySlave, you have a more accurate interpretation. I will return to your comments later.

Roland, I have to reject your assertion that you have read my comments thoroughly. If you had, you would understand that we are in agreement, and that I do not deny that one can be simultaneously a German and a Jew. My own family in fact were for generations. Certainly, a Jew can live in Germany and hold German citizenship, being a full and integrated part of German national life. But this is where our connection to host nations begins and ends. As long as Jews hold citizenship and live in the country, they are part of the country - if they do not, then they are not, they are simply Jews. Marx falls into the latter category, given that he lived and worked outside of Germany for most of his life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolfehenson (talk • contribs) 21:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I repeat, I read your comments carefully, and I reject them. We are not in agreement. It may be hard for you to grasp this, but it is perfectly possible to understand what you are saying, and not to agree with you. And please do not suggest that I am lying. RolandR (talk) 23:08, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

That may be your opinion. Unless you can find reliable sources that say the same thing however, this is of no relevance. Again I ask, do you have any evidence that Marx had his citizenship renounced, or that he renounced it himself? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Roland, your main point of contention was with my supposed statement that Jews cannot be Germans. Now that you know that I did not say or mean this, what exactly are you disagreeing with? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolfehenson (talk • contribs) 07:56, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Your statement that "Although raised in Germany, he was not an ethnic German but an Ashkenazi Jew", which posits the two as distinct and mutually exclusive categories. If, as you claim, he was not a German, this was irrespective of whether he was a Jew. It is possible to be either, neither or both.RolandR (talk) 08:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Moreover, his father was a Lutheran, and he maried a non-Jew, so can you provide a reliable source (Marx's biographewr?) saying he was reared as an Ashkenazi Jew, or that heself-identifid as an Ashkenazi Jew? Slrubenstein | Talk 11:24, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, judging by your interests, you should have sufficient knowledge about Jews and Judaism to answer this question yourself. But if not, let me help you out. It is well established that being Jewish is both an ethnic and a religious concept, and is commonly both. The idea of Marx's Jewishness being conditional upon him being 'raised as an Ashkenazi Jew' - if one can even be raised specifically as an Ashkenazi Jew as opposed to a Sephardic Jew - is nonsensical, since Jewish status applies to all those with a Jewish mother, regardless of their level of observance or identification. Marx's father converted to Lutheranism to gain access to the legal profession, and married a Jewish woman. Wolfehenson —Preceding undated comment added 13:24, 15 March 2011 (UTC).

And Roland, although that statement might not reflect popular opinion, it is a scientific and genetic fact. Perhaps it would help to conceptualise it in a different way. Can one be both a African People and an Ethnic German? Clearly not, but that is not equivalent to saying that a Black African person cannot be a German through citizenship. Here is the distinction. Wolfehenson —Preceding undated comment added 13:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC).

Of course one can. For instance, Otto Schimming. RolandR (talk) 14:07, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Your example actually disproves your previous claim. You are now claiming that Otto Schimming is an Ethnic German due to his German ancestry, and yes, that is a valid point - he can claim an ethnic connection to Germany on that basis. Karl Marx however was not of Ethnic German Ancestry but of Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry, so he cannot claim a connection based on ancestry. It really is not hard to understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolfehenson (talk • contribs) 14:47, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Wolfehenson, YOU should know enough about WP policy that we editors cannot do original research. It does not matter what Iknow about Jews, Judaism, or Jewishness - for me to connect that knowledge to what I know about Marx to then conclude that he has a Jew 9and not aa German) would be a clear violation of WP:SYNTH. I am not arguing with you. This is not a question of logic, or putting my POV in the article, or your POV. Wikipedia includes all significant views from reliable sources and all i have asked is that you provide appropriate sources to support your claim. I asked, "can you provide a reliable source (Marx's biographewr?) saying he was reared as an Ashkenazi Jew, or that heself-identifid as an Ashkenazi Jew?" and I am still waiting for an answer to this simple question. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Bloated "see also" section

At the time of writing, Karl_Marx#See_also contains an overwhelming 59 links. Such sections are generally indicative of underdeveloped articles, not those aspiring to GA status – articles relevant to the topic should already have been discussed and linked to in the previous sections, and the irrelevant expunged. Most of the links relate more closely to Marxism than Marx himself, and thus could be incorporated into the (already present) {{Marxism}} template with no loss to the article. Skomorokh 16:07, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Would you be willing to do the pruning? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:19, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I've excised the Marxism links and the two remaining books, and am tempted to do likewise for the links concerning Marxian economic theory. Topics of minor notability like Marx Memorial Library present a bit of a problem but I would recommend taking an approach like that of {{Nietzsche}} and shoving them in nav template. Not much excuse for not incorporating the remaining links into the article (Young Marx is a particularly galling omission).

The External links section is another that will need serious attention at some point, and there is even padding in the Further reading (Rothbard, really?). Best, Skomorokh 17:13, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I think that we need to leave this until a few more contributors have commented - it shouldn't really be down to individual choice, and the smaller it is, the easier it is for future contributors to give undue weight to a POV by adding more. I think we are justified in keeping this fairly large, just to indicate the varied sources available - let readers decide for themselves what is relevant. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:40, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

On the few vs many links issue I understand where you are coming from, and for a topic of such breadth and immense secondary literature I would agree that greater leeway than usual is warranted here. However, once you start stacking links past the half a dozen mark, we are running up against best practices and risk failing in our curatorial mission to guide readers to the most relevant material.

On the procedural issue of wanting greater input I am all for it, but you might want to advertise lest discussion founder without resolution. Best, Skomorokh 18:02, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I will see about incorporating the see also's into the text. Can you start pruning elinks and fur reading? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:48, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I would be happy to, but Andy above seems to favour a maximalist approach and the input of more editors before radical changes. Skomorokh 18:02, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

There seem to be quite a few regular contributors to the article, so it shouldn't be that hard to get more input. I'm not sure whether it is ok to leave (neutral) messages on talk pages of recent regular contributors, or whether posting on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Marxism might be better: an RfC would seem a bit over-the-top.

To expand on my earlier comments: the reason I favour an 'inclusionist' (if not necessarily 'maximalist') approach to 'Further reading' and 'External links' here is that the range (not just the number) of topics is broad, and we need to indicate this. I think it is a little misleading to compare this biography to a 'typical' Wikipedia one, and then compare number of entries etc. This is a large article, and as such might well be justified in expanding such sections. Yes, we need to conform with WP:ELPOINTS, but I think that this policy is mostly intended to restrict overlinking to similar sites, and to discourage spam links. This isn't really the problem here, as I see it. If the occasional link to an obscure Trot sect (or whatever) gets added, it is probably better discussed on a case-by-case basis, rather than citing general policy regarding number of links. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:02, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Marx did influence a lot of different subjects/subfields which now have their own wikipedia articles, so a few extra see-alsos is understandable, but I think the current list is just too much, Some pruning of the lesser ones (or less relevant ones) could be helpful although I don't want to tread on anybody's toes... bobrayner (talk) 16:41, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I've incorporated Young Marx into the text. Somebody should at least stub mature Marx, currently just a redirect... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:35, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

See also should be for articles that are not already linked in the article. This article probably does not need one. external links should be to sites that are not covered in linked articles. Links to his published works, Marx museums and neutral websites would seem fine, but links to non-notable essays should be excluded. TFD (talk) 15:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Karl Marx/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Rcsprinter_{See what I've done}^{Gimme a message} 17:08, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

OK, lets get cracking.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

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

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Yep, this is a great article. Goes to GA right away. I'd recomend it for Featured.

I'm all happy with that. Thank you. Rcsprinter_{See what I've done}^{Gimme a message} 17:17, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Hold on here - is see missing refs all over - dead ones and bare ones (that just the ref problems) - humm think a third party should have a look here. Thank you Rcsprinter for taking the time to do this GA review - however i think there is problams with the article that are lacking in the review.Moxy (talk) 05:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I fixed two dead links. Everything else seems to work, and I see no bare urls. If I missed something, please list it here and be more specific (which link/ref is dead or bare). Thanks, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

"fact" seems to be overused.SBaker43 (talk) 02:41, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

What facts? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't clear, the word "fact". Removed unnecessary "in fact" wording. Left one that was quoted; didn't verify the quote.SBaker43 (talk) 02:59, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

You'd removed a "fact" from another quotation, SBaker43, but I've restored it. [1] No harm done... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:46, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks; should have checked them again.SBaker43 (talk) 04:27, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Is this on hold or something? Rcsprinter^{Gimme a message} 19:07, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Overall

Right well, I'll fail this then. I thought it was good, but you've spotted some mistakes. Some days have gone by and it's still in that state. Rcsprinter^{Gimme a message} 15:50, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

What mistakes? Can somebody clearly say what are the problems with the article? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:16, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

All the above. Rcsprinter^{Gimme a message} 16:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.